Why does the chess.com analysis always want you to trade pieces?

Sort:
dmw222
iamsimon wrote:

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. 

magipi
dmw222 wrote:
iamsimon wrote:

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.

Spr_chess_intermediate

There is something known as "simplifying the position" (where you trade equal pieces) which is usually done when you gain an advantage...

V_Awful_Chess

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?".

SF2021
V_Awful_Chess wrote:

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.

magipi
Optimissed wrote:

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.

Fischer_Fan85

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

Stockfishdot1

I wish it would show more depth, so we could see why it recommends the exchange, or whatever.

Fischer_Fan85

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

Fischer_Fan85

In most cases anyway

Fischer_Fan85

True any way you can win is still a win. I'm not trying to say my answer is the only answer, just that It is generally sound