Computer Analysis
Sort:
Most Recent
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic
Apparently not.
Can you show an example like what you've mentioned?
Sure, I did a quick analysis of your last rapid game. If you go to the game and click computer analysis it should come up. You lost that game, but on move 22 you had a winning advantage of -8 as black if you played Qxf3+. But you played a defensive move and gave white a better position. Later on, you fought back from a bad deficit but gave white a +7 advantage when you failed to take a free knight with your pawn on move 28.
Useful information if you are trying to get better, wouldn't you agree?
I don't see anything like what you've said. I see "Blunder...best move was..." I can interpret the analysis like you said. It's not always so straight forward for someone just learning. My blunders made it easy for your point of them being useful, and they are. You said though, that they give a verbal explanation by identifying tactical motifs and such. They do no such thing that I've seen so far.
The best moves are shown, possible lines can be explored, with the relative strength of each option readily visible. Aren't you making a bit much about how the computer does not talk to you? My comments were examples of what your brain can easily see, translated into language.
You keep coming back to "beginners can't understand..." but I disagree. Beginners make the most obvious mistakes, and it is easy to see why their most obvious blunders are blunders. If a person knows enough to play chess in the first place, they can understand at least the most obvious points of the analysis, and that is a learning opportunity.
Besides, the general advice of "never use an engine" was not addressed to rank beginners, it was made as a general warning that it is bad practice. I simply made the point that it is useful, and I think I have illustrated that point.