Do you like the way computers have changed chess?

A lot of people love chess. A lot of people love computers. But do you honestly like what they've become together? This is a good topic for brainstorming a pros/cons list.

 

[COMMENT DELETED]

I deleted this comment so you guys can go first! And I intend to keep my post short instead of so verbose.

Personally, when I began learning to play chess I had no opponents. I was in high school and stayed up all night playing online. Once I founds some friends that played it was refreshing.

After not playing regularly for quite some time, I love that I can have many games going at once. I usually have 10-12 daily games going and besides playing regularly, reassessing each position quickly and analyzing the board really helps me see things better.

I think computers enable amateurs to improve more quickly and make more mistakes therefore learning faster and having the ability to practice in a world that I would say very few of us have access to live games as often as we'd like.

As a class player, it hasnt changed the game much for me.  I have never found any enjoyment playing a chess engine. But they are nice to have to run blunder check on, and find out what tactics you need to work on. 

In my opinion the recent power of engines has shown just how much is possible on a chessboard and enriched the game greatly.

I hate engines. Always have and always will.

computers should have been banned from chess years ago.

They have certainly showed us how poor the players of 100+ years ago were. They had massive blunders in most games, despite even being the world champ at the time. I enjoy using engines for analysis myself.

Sometimes centaur games can be fun for a change of scenery too.

They are also handy in training games. The student falls behind in a game and the teacher turns the board around and lets the game continue.

On the plus side:

• anyone can now play against a strong (engine) opponent whenever they like. 
• When I was young and playing through games in a book, I often had no idea why a variation was supposed to be better for one side or the other -- no idea why the variation had to go that way rather than another. With engines, you could put the position in, try out your alternative moves, and discover why they are inferior (though there are limits to what an engine can tell you!)
• Similarly, they're great for analysing your own games afterwards;

On the minus side

• There's the risk of blindly accepting engine's analysis without really understanding the moves they suggest
• It used to be interesting to see Grandmasters `discuss' an opening novelty over a period of months, nobody quite sure what the other had up his sleeve; now, with engines, novelties are `solved' pretty much after their first appearance;
• It's a little sad to see the engines surpass the best humans in an intellectual endeavour -- but, on this front, things are only going to get worse....

The time has already come with Centaur Chess at the highest level where more than 90% [maybe more than 95%] of the games are drawn.

So this could eventually mean the end of that kind of correspondence chess.

However chess for 99% of humans will be around for a long time.

It does not matter if i like the way computers have changed chess?--the prusuit of knowledge can hardly be stopped.

I do not wish to see the end of serious correspondence chess but on the other hand--i like to see the knowledge gained through the use of computers.