Looking at the ratings of the players who have commented in this thread it appears that the chess engines does say the lower rated players, like, below about 1500 should trade, but you players that say the computer does not tell you that you should have traded, from the ones I checked, all have higher ratings, at least 1500 and some of you are well over 2000. Is this the reason some, including me, get the message that we missed an opportunity to trade pieces? My rating is about 500 for bullet and blitz, 750 for rapid just under 1,000 for daily. Perhaps there IS some benefit for my skill level to trade pieces; as I heard a GM say once, "with less pieces on the board it simplifies the game," and maybe the chess engines are programed to take this into consideration, suggesting we would do better with a simpler game. On the other hand it would be rather presumptions to tell a 2000+ rated player that he/she "missed" an opportunity to trade pieces! That player, I think, is already working things out way beyond just the next move and a simple trade of pieces.
Why does the chess.com analysis always want you to trade pieces?
--Looking at the ratings of the players who have commented in this thread.--
Well they may be close enough to true, or wildly off. The reason being that what one sees is the person's current rating, not what it was at the time written. This post is a year old, so going by current ratings could be misleading. As far as the rest of it, Both game review and analysis are both stockfish, it is just that game review by large is set at weaker settings for I presume speed. Coach also has nothing to do with ones rating. However it works, it simply assigns what it thinks an appropriate statement (from stock choices) according to what took place no matter what the persons rating is.
-- GM say once, "with less pieces on the board it simplifies the game," and maybe the chess engines are programed to take this into consideration,--
Yes with less pieces on the board, there are less potential moves/threats/combinations to be seen, so it is simpler. While it makes it simpler, I am not convinced that would be the best choice to make, except perhaps those extremely new to chess??? As far a engines, from what I have seen, no. Engines again simply analyse best play, no matter what the players rating is. Best play by an engines standards will not take into consideration, let's make equal trades with no gain, to make a low level players life easier, in my opinion.
Stating the obvious, if you have a significant material advantage, simplifying is probably a good idea. If the opposite, not a good idea. I have often seen the computer say I should have traded when neither was the case, though, and I have no idea why that is.
Looking at the ratings of the players who have commented in this thread it appears that the chess engines does say the lower rated players, like, below about 1500 should trade, but you players that say the computer does not tell you that you should have traded, from the ones I checked, all have higher ratings, at least 1500 and some of you are well over 2000. Is this the reason some, including me, get the message that we missed an opportunity to trade pieces? My rating is about 500 for bullet and blitz, 750 for rapid just under 1,000 for daily. Perhaps there IS some benefit for my skill level to trade pieces; as I heard a GM say once, "with less pieces on the board it simplifies the game," and maybe the chess engines are programed to take this into consideration, suggesting we would do better with a simpler game. On the other hand it would be rather presumptions to tell a 2000+ rated player that he/she "missed" an opportunity to trade pieces! That player, I think, is already working things out way beyond just the next move and a simple trade of pieces.
I don't think it has anything to do with ratings.
It's dependent on the chess computer you are using-use lichess' tools for maximum depth.
Looking at the ratings of the players who have commented in this thread it appears that the chess engines does say the lower rated players, like, below about 1500 should trade, but you players that say the computer does not tell you that you should have traded, from the ones I checked, all have higher ratings, at least 1500 and some of you are well over 2000. Is this the reason some, including me, get the message that we missed an opportunity to trade pieces? My rating is about 500 for bullet and blitz, 750 for rapid just under 1,000 for daily. Perhaps there IS some benefit for my skill level to trade pieces; as I heard a GM say once, "with less pieces on the board it simplifies the game," and maybe the chess engines are programed to take this into consideration, suggesting we would do better with a simpler game. On the other hand it would be rather presumptions to tell a 2000+ rated player that he/she "missed" an opportunity to trade pieces! That player, I think, is already working things out way beyond just the next move and a simple trade of pieces.
Chess programs use ratings when the game is over. Chess ENGINES don't use ratings at all.
To be fair, the guy is not talking about a chess engine at all. Sure, he uses the word "engine" but he uses it in a sense that it probably refers to chess.com Game review. "Missed the opportunity to trade equal material" is Game review's nonsense, it has nothing to do with the engine.
Yes that's true. Bad programming in the sense of banal and ridiculous hints on how to play chess.
There is something known as "simplifying the position" (where you trade equal pieces) which is usually done when you gain an advantage...
Looking at the ratings of the players who have commented in this thread it appears that the chess engines does say the lower rated players, like, below about 1500 should trade, but you players that say the computer does not tell you that you should have traded, from the ones I checked, all have higher ratings, at least 1500 and some of you are well over 2000. Is this the reason some, including me, get the message that we missed an opportunity to trade pieces? My rating is about 500 for bullet and blitz, 750 for rapid just under 1,000 for daily. Perhaps there IS some benefit for my skill level to trade pieces; as I heard a GM say once, "with less pieces on the board it simplifies the game," and maybe the chess engines are programed to take this into consideration, suggesting we would do better with a simpler game. On the other hand it would be rather presumptions to tell a 2000+ rated player that he/she "missed" an opportunity to trade pieces! That player, I think, is already working things out way beyond just the next move and a simple trade of pieces.
Chess programs use ratings when the game is over. Chess ENGINES don't use ratings at all.
Telling you that you missed an opportunity to trade is just nonsense. Trading pieces to get an improvement in your position or a deterioration in your opponent's is good. The other way round is bad. If it stays about level after the trade it's down to your personality and playing style you're best at. Complex or simple. Intuitive or logical. Occasionally trading pieces can make a position more complex and difficult rather than less but it still might be the best move "in theory but possibly not in practice".
I find the comments in game review useful but mostly as a kind-of hint at what the best move would be (so I can work it out during game review).
"You missed a chance to exchange material" = "the best move in this postion exchanges material, can you find it?".
I find the comments in game review useful but mostly as a kind-of hint at what the best move would be (so I can work it out during game review).
"You missed a chance to exchange material" = "the best move in this postion exchanges material, can you find it?".
High rated players aren't going to have much use for 'coach explanations', but that's to be expected. I'd say they need to be taken with a grain of salt but are sometimes helpful.
Because it's bad. It certainly doesn't mean that the best move in the position exchanged material. It actually means "By your rating, I suspect you're a weak player who might be able to calculate more accurately if you had taken the chance you had to exchange material". People who expect to improve by reading what the "coach" has to say would improve more if they took a coach to the seaside instead.
Because it's bad. It certainly doesn't mean that the best move in the position exchanged material. It actually means "By your rating, I suspect you're a weak player who might be able to calculate more accurately if you had taken the chance you had to exchange material".
Game review is bad, but I'm certain the reason is nothing like that. Those comments are based on the engine's evaluation, not on player rating.
Not sure. Analysis should be subjective, don't worry about the engine as it can't play for you. Analyze yourself and with real people. In general only trade when it benefits you, for example when either 2 pawns or a piece ahead you should try to force trades down into a winning endgame
I wish it would show more depth, so we could see why it recommends the exchange, or whatever.
Because it's bad. It certainly doesn't mean that the best move in the position exchanged material. It actually means "By your rating, I suspect you're a weak player who might be able to calculate more accurately if you had taken the chance you had to exchange material".
Game review is bad, but I'm certain the reason is nothing like that. Those comments are based on the engine's evaluation, not on player rating.
I don't think so. After all, it was obvious that the award of brilliant and great moves was far more likely if a player had a low rating and more likely again if the player had already blundered in the game. Chess.com admitted the former bit ... at least, Martin Stahl did. Also my own rating is going like a yo-yo at the moment. I keep playing tired or with a cold.
I'm getting a definite feeling that they're ratings based. After all, they aren't going to tell a 2000+ player that "you missed an opportunity to exchange pieces, which would be ludicrous and also offensive.
Not sure. Analysis should be subjective, don't worry about the engine as it can't play for you. Analyze yourself and with real people. In general only trade when it benefits you, for example when either 2 pawns or a piece ahead you should try to force trades down into a winning endgame
That's a good comment but I would only trade down when winning, if the road to the win was clear to me. Otherwise I'd use my extra piece to attack more strongly, or one of my extra pawns to bust the position open if possible.
Objectively a piece ahead is more than enough reason to trade down as long as your pawn structure is solid enough to help with the win
Well Its a computer, it's going to tell you to do something that a lot of players won't understand. If you click on "show moves" the computer is like, "Look, look!! But if you look 20 turns from now, your pawn isn't on the best square for the end game!! e.e."
That "20 turns" is actually 2 in this case. After Bf3 black can play Nd2+ then Nxf3, and that position is just equal. The engine thinks white is better in the original position (because of the bishop pair if nothing else).
The explanation of "the Coach" is nonsense. As always.