Studying computer vs. computer games?

Hi all,

Many folks study games of great masters like Kasparov and Fischer, and the benefits of doing so are clear. I'm curious if anyone has had any useful experiences analyzing computer-versus-computer games. I'm curious specifically about whether or not their tactics are too inscrutable to apply to human games.

Thanks,

Duncan

At your level, youre no going to learn a thing from engine games.

Haha, spicy reply! But you've misunderstood my question. I'm not interested in doing it myself. I'm curious whether anyone does.

Depends.

Depends on the skill level of the player.

Depends on what youre trying to improve at.

Depends on IF you understand what =/-.2 means, and understand the "why" behind the engine analysis.

An engine will evaluate this as "winning" for white.  But white can't win this, unless black completely forgets how to play.  So are you going to blindly accept what the engine says, and say "white wins" Or are you going to actually study the position, and understand its a draw?

The average Joe learns nothing worth talking about from computer games.

The opening researchers and GM's are excluded. The former are just trying to evaluate computer generated lines on positions from master praxis, and the latter know enough about chess to judge what from the computer's output is useful, and what is junk.

i'd start by doing more then 4 games