Doubt On the Use of Computers

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're a troll.

Notice how he insults me every other post. But I have not resorted to insulting him once.

Gotta love that crusade against posers!(I'm not even sure what that means).

Your answer was right here.

Are you goddamn fucking serious? Do you know that some of your posts actually make me mad? Well this is one of them, because you think im a forum troll and you think it gives you liberty to be a jackass towards me, which is basically what you've done since I started posting again. Seriously, go fuck yourself. you derailed my thread and shit all over my posts and goddamn it you are a fucking douchebag for real.

Quoted for truth.

Enjoy.

Dude, you should urgently change your prescription. The one you're currently using will burn your brains completely.

its funny seeing a troll try to defend himslef agaisnt so many other people :D.

OP is just trolling, people.

The time when the strongest human could beat the strongest computer in normal time controls (blitz/rapid/classical) came and went almost a decade ago.

Claiming they sometimes make bad moves is just a human trying to be 'edgy' and clever.

* Of course I am talking about the top engines, not some school project script.

I like to think of it like this:

With GPS, a ship can cross the ocean straight to its destination port in a straight line.

Without a GPS, the human captain has to use navigational skills. He has to watch the stars, stay near to coastlines, observe currents and winds, etc.

Engines can navigate the ocean of moves much farther from shore than humans can. We must stay closer to shore so we know where we are and consequently, how to get where we're going.

It's more like an engine can create a million virtual ships, send them wherever, and choose the one that goes to the port in my thought.

If you are "incredibly strong" then tell me what white's plan is in this position:

I am not goingot spend 20 minutes on each moves in a chess game- your insane

id say Qb3, Bg5, e6, c5, Bc4 ... those are the moves white should try to get in, in some fashion. With a chance to pop open the a2-g8 diagonal, gain a couple tempo, put black on the defense, centralize the rooks, and white is in for a good game.

Black's most's important piece in the bishop on f5. Therefore white needs some plan to displace it. Na5 should work but unfortunately doesn't do the job quite as strong as g4!! which essentially forces either takes or back. On takes you have knight takes bishop and you're on the bishop and if he takes you can take back with the knight, so that wins a piece. If back white suddenly has a good game.

You were actually off to a good start with mentioning black's most important piece but unfortunately 1.g4,Bxg4 isn't forced but your idea wasn't a bad one: 2.Nxd4,Bxe2 (the point of your deflection tactic) 3.Ncxe2 and white's up a piece.  However, 1...Bxc3! the bishop is no longer threatened and 2.bxc3,Bxg4 and white is structurally busted while 2.gxf5,Bxe5 is better for black, but not as decisive as 2.bxc3?? 

The position is an open center, so centralized pieces are quite strong, therefore white wants to neutralize them with 1.Be3! there are tactical complications due to the tensions, so Bxe3, Bxe5, and Bxc3 are all possible.  

I actually agree with you on this.  I much prefer human analysis over engine analysis.  Why? Because i dont play people rated 3300.  I like getting analysis from a person that can explain "why", instead of a chess engine giving me "+ or -"

Those 3000+ ratings are only marketing speak to sell the things.  I'm pretty sure Carlsen would score well against them and he's "only" 2850.  But yeah sometimes engine analysis is simply wrong, especially in openings and some endings.