Computer Analysis is CR*P!!!

@Jagdeep

This was my only analysis of a won game. Since then, it has been my last analysis.

You do not agree with analysing a won game. A) A game is not won at move one. Supposedly a computer could uncover a mistake you make before you win. B) At what point did your opponent err? If you are not sure, are you not entitled to free help? C) What is the cost/penalty of doing so? Is it morally wrong to do so?

Please refute the above three and then I can whole heartedly agree with you. I would love to be able to do so.

Given time, I would prefer to do what you do but in a different order. First, I would use a computer for free unbiased help. Most efficient. Second, I would analyze games myself. Third, I would bother my friends whom I could trust to give me an unbiased opinion, who were clearly better than me, and whom I believed had the time and inclination to help me. Matter of using cheapest resource first, dearest last.

However, with this computer analysis, I see first step as a waste of time.

Shooting the breeze is an altogether different story.

Past few years I have not been inclined to improve my chess, only just once in awhile when I have nothing better to do.

Thanks for letting me know why you analysis the game.  No refutations from me.  I never thought like you did.  Thanks. :)

I like to analyze my own games myself. Computer Analysis is CR*P. But when i am tired or learning a new opening or line of attack i may.... i may use it. I only have use comptuer analysis to see if my opponent had an option out of situations.

Computers only know what the programmer puts into them. Even worse if the proagrammer knows little on the subject or their refernce is poor then ... it is what it is.

We are on the same page here. Back then i felt no computer could beat and none could beat me given i had time to think about my options on the board.

After some time off from serious competition i came here and found players more challenging with variety of styles of play which a computer can not simulate at all. I found Vote Chess gave me a better insight to opponents here and allowed me to improve my analysis better as the opponent was not one single person but a group of individuals vs another group of individuals. A great way to learn if one has found a group that fits their preference.

Thanks for commenting, Royal. One difference, I did not need time to think with that computer. That was why it was so easy. Lock the position with unusual opening moves and it was helpless. Practically beat it over and over at a blitz rate using that method.

Plus, that computer could not learn. It would do the same opening no matter how often it lost. Eventually I got so bored with it that when an offer to buy it for a fraction of its original price presented itself, I sold it with no regrets. It was like a broken toy to me.

evry thing is crap.

Very interesting side note. I went to Andrew Clifton's profile page where he admits to being a chess master named Omar Cayenne. Apparently his mother named him after a fictional character, as in "The Rubaiyat of Omar Cayenne". A witty and humorous fictional character, just like "Andrew Clifton", born Omar Cayenne, attempts to be.

yes... he is a master - both a good player and usually a funny and helpful form poster. You need to be glad you haven't had any run-ins with IM pfren or such because they not only know they're smarter than you, they let you know it, too.

Or, he doesn't want to give out his real name on the internet, because of stalkers like you.

@ Irontiger

No, he just CLAIMS that is his real name. Very different from not giving out your full name to avoid stalkers like you.

I have used the computer analysis several times and from what I see, it determines level of error by the computer rating of the position vs. what it would have been if you had chosen the move leading to the best computer score for you.  If the difference is large enough, then it is a blunder.  It does not matter if you would gain or lose the points.  So if your opponent hangs a piece and you could gain a few points by taking and you don't, it is a blunder even though you are not losing.  In situations like a closed game when you can break through, you will gain points with a successful break through.  The difference between that and a hanging piece is that the break through will be there in a few moves if you reposition yourself.  The idea here is that the computer was able to calculate you would not lose by not repositioning your king and was analyzing tactically rather than relying on a plan that did not have to calculate every variation.  If you take the feedback as "I could have made my break through sooner" but obviously you did not lose this opportunity, then the computer analysis is probably correct.  You just have to understand what the feedback means.

I agree with the opening poster. 

The computer only ever seems to be critical of bad moves!  So if you are reading blunder, you should have made this move, 10 times in a match you have easily won, you get this type of reaction. 

I've never seen the computer suggest you have made a match winning move ever. 

It is also bad for premium members.

I have premium. It is like 1200 for positional play.

LadyMisil, you are 100% right. The computer rated at 2500 knows nothing. I am NOT being sarcastic. It does not know strategy, tactics, openings, middle games or endings. It plays around 1250 USCF. It is very bad at chess.

Hi, Chess2knights. I would have conceded it knows tactics based on brute force analysis, but I wholeheartedly agree on the rest, especially positional chess. Thank you for your agreeing and commenting.

Actually it is not even good at tactics. lol. I joined your team yesterday.

Wow! Sebast, I thank you for your huge and generous compliments. I am quite speechless. This is not what it was like at the beginning of this forum topic at all, and frankly, I never even knew you before this comment.

I am not a master by any means, but my understanding of chess may be at master level. (Or it may not.) I'm just not a good player for someone with my knowledge. But for you to say all this, ... wow!

I stumbled across this article by accident, and have enjoyed reading the comments of what can only be descrided as the senior players. I am fairly new to chess.com, and not sure whether I can add my own comments. Being of, shall we say , advanced years, I not so up to date on all this tecnology.  However I was looking forward to submitting a game I am playing at the moment to computer analysis, but now I'm not so sure. The game in question is my attack on a kings fianchetto defence, (Lasker-Euwe 1923) inspired.  The early moves are 1 P-Q4,Kt-KB3,. 2 Kt-kB3, PKK3,. 3 B-B4,B-KK3,.4 Q-B1., whites plan to prevent O-O, owing to the threat B-R6. I will be interested to see what analysis makes of this rarely used opening..

Sorry about the deleted comment above, as I said I'm new to all this tecnology, and only joined chess.com, because the small club I use to play at has closed due to an ageing membership.

Thankyou for your time

William