Forums

Chess Engines- Good or Bad?

Sort:
chessguy254
chessguy254
Jul 22, 2010
0
#1

Maybe I'm stupid for asking this.  Have chess engines helped the game progress as a whole or have they gotten to the point where they have made the game somewhat limited?  I just want to hear others' thoughts.

Thanks

goldendog
goldendog
Jul 22, 2010
0
#2

The whole computer thing has increased the workload of top level chess, I believe.

As sparring partners and for checking analysis, are damn handy, but as everyone is constantly working on such things as their opening knowledge, keeping abreast with theory and at least even with the competition entails constant work.

I don't think chess is smaller due to engines. Maybe players rely less on creativity than they did pre-strong engine era. They certainly haven't come near an end of knowing chess.

Let's see what real players think though. WGM Pogonina?

PurplePuppy
PurplePuppy
Jul 22, 2010
0
#3

Chess engines have deepened mankind's understanding of the game like nothing else. They are invaluable for analyzing certain deep lines of specific openings, for exhaustive endgame search, for finding the most complicated tactics, and so on.

However, some may think that although chess engines contribute greatly to mankind's understanding of chess, it contributes little to the individual's understanding of chess (except for possibly the strongest chess players).

 

Also, this may be beside the point, but very strong chess engines are also the pinnacle and epitome of optimized computer programming, and is very impressive indeed.

AtahanT
AtahanT
Jul 23, 2010
0
#4
Estragon wrote:

You have to understand the limitations of engines.  For example, if you plan a true pawn sacrifice, engines will always report you are down.  Not only that, but the main lines selected by engines will almost always be those which most quickly regain the pawn.  So they will often overlook, or push down the list of options, the best continuations after a sacrifice.

But for checking for blunders, they are unbeatable.  Engines don't miss any tactical tricks, even pretty deep ones.  For most players, this is their best use - to eliminate the blunders.  When I prepare opening lines for OTB play, I just want to be sure I'm not overlooking some tactic, and engines do that quickly.  If my idea is bad due to some obscure line, I don't mind because I doubt a human opponent will find it, or even look at it.

In opening preparation, engines can also often suggest viable alternatives which haven't been played, so the opponent cannot prepare against them.  To find these you have to set the number of variations displayed to 4 or 5, and if all the top options are reasonably close in evaluation, the ones which haven't been played in the database offer great promise - you get to analyze them and research the resulting positions, but the opponent will not have done so.

Still, I do think the better engines have reasonable evaluation of compensation. Generally the evaluation of a position is not that far off when comparing how I felt in the game and what the computer says. Also, let's face it. If you know how to handle opening gambits your opponent is really just a pawn down like the computer says. Middlegame sacs are harder because you can't prep for it but objectively the computer is right in many cases, you just need to find the right defense.

TheOldReb
NM TheOldReb
Show your flair!
Jul 23, 2010
0
#5

I guess I am more sceptical of the "beasts" than most here. They are very materialistic as we all know though the programmers are working on this... they will tell you that you are clearly winning or at least clearly better in gambit lines where you have an extra pawn BUT then you have to defend against your opponents very active pieces and they are coming for your king !  The beasts are very good at defending such position but humans are NOT , except for a few elite human players, so the result is you go down in flames..... sound familiar ?  Something else makes me sceptical. I often analyse my lost otb games with more than one engine and sometimes one will give white an advantage while the other is giving black an advantage in the same position !  What gives ?! Follow the "best" line for both and 10 moves later they have switched positions completely !!?  WTF ?! The beasts arent yet perfect/infallible but they encourage mere humans to play positions that humans are not good at playing, like defending against a ferocious attack for a mere pawn.......

hiingman
hiingman
Jan 10, 2025
0
#6
TheOldReb寫道：

I guess I am more sceptical of the "beasts" than most here. They are very materialistic as we all know though the programmers are working on this... they will tell you that you are clearly winning or at least clearly better in gambit lines where you have an extra pawn BUT then you have to defend against your opponents very active pieces and they are coming for your king ! The beasts are very good at defending such position but humans are NOT , except for a few elite human players, so the result is you go down in flames..... sound familiar ? Something else makes me sceptical. I often analyse my lost otb games with more than one engine and sometimes one will give white an advantage while the other is giving black an advantage in the same position ! What gives ?! Follow the "best" line for both and 10 moves later they have switched positions completely !!? WTF ?! The beasts arent yet perfect/infallible but they encourage mere humans to play positions that humans are not good at playing, like defending against a ferocious attack for a mere pawn.......

Interesting insight, I used to use engine but don't know why its good other than it can beat grandmasters in slow all the time.