The engine will never tell you why a move is better, no matter how strong the analysis. If you want to know why a move is better, you ask a coach. All the engine will do is tell you which move is best - and sometimes even super-GMs can't understand what the engine suggests.
If you want engine analysis to replace a coach, you're going to be disappointed no matter how deep your analysis is.
My issue is this:
The analysis has been promoted as GM level before.
We can see it's not the case.
People are looking to the analysis to improve their play.
To improve, you need to know which moves are better and why. You don't get that. You get the wrong information.
It's like having a driver's handbook. You read it. You take the test. You fail. Yet, you provided the exact answers giving by the book you studied.
IMO, it's more harmful than good unless you're aware of the situation.
But, let's let them gloat over their brilliant moves/games because it's good for moral. Never mind all the mistakes that were really made.
If the engine is rated 2500 then it is GM level.
You are exactly correct with the "why" The most important part that the vast majority refuse to learn. So many get caught up in the bells and whistles of CAPS scores, percentage, and labels like "brilliant" "great" "book" Its all an ego stroke.
The engine will never tell you why a move is better, no matter how strong the analysis. If you want to know why a move is better, you ask a coach. All the engine will do is tell you which move is best - and sometimes even super-GMs can't understand what the engine suggests.
If you want engine analysis to replace a coach, you're going to be disappointed no matter how deep your analysis is.
There's much truth to what you said there.
The common thought is the analysis tells you which moves are better/best. If you can make sense of it based on future moves (moves not made), you believe you understand the reasonings.
The engine will never tell you why a move is better, no matter how strong the analysis. If you want to know why a move is better, you ask a coach. All the engine will do is tell you which move is best - and sometimes even super-GMs can't understand what the engine suggests.
If you want engine analysis to replace a coach, you're going to be disappointed no matter how deep your analysis is.
There's much truth to what you said there.
The common thought is the analysis tells you which moves are better/best. If you can make sense of it based on future moves (moves not made), you believe you understand the reasonings.
I know a guy that is a perpetual USCF 1200 player. He will fret and worry over engine analysis like +/-.2 of a pawn, while completely ignoring his blunders and missed tactics.
You're better off playing the -0.2 move that has a plan you understand than a +0.2 move where the plan goes over your head.
My issue is this:
The analysis has been promoted as GM level before.
We can see it's not the case.
People are looking to the analysis to improve their play.
To improve, you need to know which moves are better and why. You don't get that. You get the wrong information.
It's like having a driver's handbook. You read it. You take the test. You fail. Yet, you provided the exact answers giving by the book you studied.
IMO, it's more harmful than good unless you're aware of the situation.
But, let's let them gloat over their brilliant moves/games because it's good for moral. Never mind all the mistakes that were really made.