+1
Some people here think that going over a game with an engine is a replacement for analysing. They are only belying themselves, being either unable or unwilling to use their brains.
Relying on engines will prevent you from gaining an understanding of the game.
You're completely right.
Nothing beats human ideas to convey useful knowledge, even in chess...
Most people quoting Houdini everywhere lack (or are losing) the ability to think by themselves...
I disagree. If ALL you look at is the "next move" then you are correct because none of the programs will tell you why they made that move...but if you look at (and study) the entire line it will help you understand (sometimes...if you are advanced enough) how that move led to a better position.
When I review one of my games with Houdini I look at the top three choices out to about 5 moves to try and understand just what the program (or my opponent) is trying to achieve.
I agree with your "sometimes...if you're advanced enough" caveat.
But in 90% of situations, feedback and analysis with a strong player is more useful.
It's also very difficult to deal with the tactical complexity of the computer's moves, and it can create a lot of confusion...
The "sometimes...if you are advanced enough" is a really good disclaimer. Trying to read into tactical subtleties that weren't played, switching between plans in the space of a few moves, or ridiculous-looking deep prophylaxis just by staring at strings of notation is beyond me. Better to have someone stronger go through the position with explanation.
Alot of them are younger players who are lazy fixiated and too in love with their engines it's not like the past when players would put many,many long hours analyzing games for themselves Tal and Fischer would burn the midnight oil even analyze during meals to find out the truth on the chess board.
Okay, so here is the deal. I am one of those people who doesn't like chess computers, and their opinions of + - =.
While i cannot deny that it's impressive how far chess computers have come, i personally feel as though they have the potential to hurt our human understanding of the game. My point being that there always seems to be somebody on this website who is watching a game and says something like "Houdini says this is slightly better for white (or black). Okay... Houdini says that, but, can you please explain why a givin position is slightly better (granted perfect play)?
Humans are not perfect chess players, and we never will be as perfect as a machine. Computers lack emotion and nerves in a tough game. A computer relies on formulas to make a winning move, while we humans use hard-earned understanding and intuition...Two traits far more abstract and impressive than a machine.
Any opinions?? (Keep in mind, there isn't a computer to tell you you made a bad move in a otb game)