Stockfish or other engine to explain WHY a move was inaccurate/mistake/blunder
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
mrbob8717 wrote:
urk wrote:
A lot of us had no computers and no coaches to hold our hands while we were learning.
Had to walk to school, too.
Had to walk to school, too.
Is this where I'm supposed to apologize for trying to improve? If you're gonna troll, do it better.
That's not a very good apology.
Mar 17, 2017
0
#23
Actually, what we're saying is what famous chess coaches say often, especially regarding beginners:
"Too often, beginners turn on the engine, and turn off their brain".
It's actually not too hard to find out "why" a move is bad - simply make moves with the engine and try to justify your move over the board (and the engine will refute your ideas, and show you why you're wrong).
This is how to learn from an engine - checking your own ideas against that of the engine's. The engine can give you a line that happens after your idea, essentially telling you the "reason" why it doesn't work, but such lines are often totally useless, since they are computer variations that are not challenging from a human's point of view (since the computer is objective, and won't try to "challenge" variations that it knows will fail - it will just take the lesser of the evils).
In order to learn from the computer, you have to be thinking yourself always.
Mar 17, 2017
0
#24
And no offense to USCFTigerProwl, but he, armed with Stockfish, couldn't figure out why a move giving up a free pawn was bad compared to a move that didn't give up material.
Learning and helping others learn involves using your own brain.
Mar 17, 2017
0
#25
As JMurakami noted in one of his blog annotated games, the difference between the playing quality of equally skilled players, as well as their future chess development, is very often based on how willing they are to dig into the position to find its secrets. The player who tries to think harder has the qualities to overperform given current knowledge/skill level, and will accelerate future growth.
This is probably one of the fundamental elements of improvement, which Dan Heisman goes over multiple times in his book: A Guide to Chess Improvement.
mrbob8717 wrote:
urk wrote:
A lot of us had no computers and no coaches to hold our hands while we were learning.
Had to walk to school, too.
Had to walk to school, too.
Is this where I'm supposed to apologize for trying to improve? If you're gonna troll, do it better.
You noticed that they closed the account of the abuser. Thanks chess.com for keeping this site clean and useful. It's a shame on other sites the moderator are contributing to the abuse, but thankfully here it's the opposite, a moderator is doing his job as should be and keeping the respect.
mrbob8717 wrote:
So I really love the game of chess, and I really want to improve my game. The problem is that I am finding no explanation for why my bad moves were bad moves. at my level, ~1200, stockfish can tell me that I have blundered without me or my opponent ever noticing. The suggested moves are great and all, but it doesn't say why my move was bad in the first place. Most cases I can sit there and analyse my own games, but going over every discrepancy gets out of hand, is there a way to get feedback as to why my move was bad? like have stockfish include the set of moves that would screw me over for having moved there?
Currently I am not aware of any AI that does this well, except on chess.com the game review explains why a blunder is made. A real blunder is rather easy to see even when you put the continuation in the engine and Stockfish (or any other) would show you how you will get "screwed over" for blundering. The tricky ones are some of the good moves. Those you can't really sometimes tell why the engine plays them. Some are really obvious (like clear tactics, forks, discovered attacks etc) while the more subtle ones: e.g. moving a piece to a place where it is actually doing nothing but a few moves ahead you will realize that it was placed there to protect a pawn that would lose its initial protection in the future. I don't think there is any AI except a human master/GM who could explain that: r4rk1/1pq1npp1/p3p2p/P2p1b2/3P4/2P2Q2/1P1N1PPP/R3RBK1 b - - 2 17 here Q 17 white moved Qf3 why? so that the c3 pawn wouldn't be left without protection for a queen's attach if and when b2b4 happens...
mrbob8717 wrote:
"So I really love the game of chess, and I really want to improve my game. The problem is that I am finding no explanation for why my bad moves were bad moves."
Exactly. I am playing at Lichess, and the analysis tool is quite useful (which is why i stay there AND the voice moves); but the most important problem is exactly what you state: it tells me better moves (BUT NO 'Why', although that is usually not hard to understand); but it gives me no idea at all WHY my move was so bad (although sometimes is is very obvious anyway eg when i accidentally sac a piece.or when i accidentally do NOT see that i could have taken piece (for free) (boy! i see that much too much), but for the non-obvious, it tells me nothing!
Have you discovered how/where to do that?
