I think it is important to understand what computers do well and what they don't. An engine, of course, never overlooks a simple effective tactic. And in super complicated tactical melees nobody can play as well as an engine. But computers don't always do so well in positions that require slow strategic maneuvering. Also one should take small differences in numerical evaluation with a grain of salt. For example if a computer rates my preferred move as .672 and rates a different move as .821 I don't assume the computer is right unless it has a convincing line to show me. Also computers don't understand certain endgames. I worry that kids learning chess today may have an exaggerated trust in the judgement of their engines. Computers can be a wonderful aid in your chess studies, but you don't have to be a super GM to validly disagree with the computer in a certain type of position.
PLAVIN79 wrote:
If you need a analsis of your game= the computer is much more inteligent than a human person
If you need a analsis of your game= the computer is much more inteligent than a human person