Hm, the GM with whom we train sometimes also uses an engine to evaluate variations, but it is clear that it is just a helper, "an assistant", since the main evaluation comes from himself.
I think using an engine during analysis is not bad as such, but exclusively relying on the engine is a mistake, since we need our own evaluation abilities during our practical games.
Btw how can i get rid of the "italics" style?!
O.
I use the computer extensively when analysing my games. And if the computer says: "Well, my move is sligthly better than yours" then I try to prove it wrong. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't. I only use it for analysis and preparation, and when I see an interesting position.
By using logic, I believe that playing a game, and then let the computer analyse it, and use the: "okay, this computer move is probably better, I will play it next time"-mindframe is not helpful. Some people (like me) might have this mindframe sometimes, and then I turn off the computer, and analyse the old way.
I found analysing with a friend both more useful and fun, but I can't always do it.
Hm, the GM with whom we train sometimes also uses an engine to evaluate variations, but it is clear that it is just a helper, "an assistant", since the main evaluation comes from himself.
I think using an engine during analysis is not bad as such, but exclusively relying on the engine is a mistake, since we need our own evaluation abilities during our practical games.
Btw how can i get rid of the "italics" style?!
O.
In your text window is an italic i, uncheck that button or press ctrl+i.
Going from 1900 to 2200, that is a question I don't know how to answer, but good luck with that.
@Jenot
That seems more reasonable to me than "never look at it until you're rated 2400"
But I wonder what (if any) the pitfalls of using it as an assistant are for a lower rated player trying to improve.
As for italics, if the italic button wont turn it off maybe try deleting all the text and start typing again. If that didn't work I'd refresh the page.
@ ViktorHNielsen
This is very similar to what I do, and I agree. Also about analyzing with a friend.
I went from 1900 to 2200 in 3 months, back in 1981. I had been low 2000's before falling back to 1900 after a year inactivity. We didn't have chess engines back then, and I still disuade folks from using them to evaluate their games. When you lose something, why do you always find it in the last place you look? answer, because once you find it, you stop looking. when a chess engine shows you the correct move, you stop looking. thus you are stunting your ability to grow your analysis skills. My free video lessons program on youTube spells out in video lesson 001 in 37 minutes, how to become a chess master, duplicating my methods. It has well over 10,000 views, my video lessons group is the third largest on chess.com, and I am the top selling coach on chess.com So, maybe you might find some credibility in what I have to say.
My YouTube channel and playlists: https://www.youtube.com/user/BobbyJFischer1943/playlists
My video lessons group, come join the fun! http://www.chess.com/groups/home/nm-aww-rats-free-video-lessons
Thanks for your time.
That is also very reasonable sounding aww-rats.
I recently formatted my computer, and I haven't reinstalled my UCI yet. But I keep wondering if that's not extreme. Maybe ideally there's a happy balance between individual analysis and using an engine.
Of course there are many masters who did not have the option of using an engine at all! They always seem to mention that individual analysis is a very important skill, so I think there must be truth to that.
A while ago I watched one of your earlier videos. You had the viewer pause it and find the move. At least in that one video I came up with the same line and reasoning you suggested! :D
Videos are fun for me, but I think the heavy lifting of improvement is playing and analyzing. I like that you engage your audience, but I'm not planning on any video series at the moment.
I went from 1900 to 2200 in 3 months, back in 1981. I had been low 2000's before falling back to 1900 after a year inactivity. We didn't have chess engines back then, and I still disuade folks from using them to evaluate their games. When you lose something, why do you always find it in the last place you look? answer, because once you find it, you stop looking. when a chess engine shows you the correct move, you stop looking. thus you are stunting your ability to grow your analysis skills.
This idea gets brought out a lot and I completely understand that putting in the work certainly can't hurt a player's ability to analyze. That said, when I'm playing a game, I can't always tell where the most critical moments are and when analyzing after the critical points aren't always obvious either.
Sure, losing material or getting checkmated quickly after a certain move (or couple of moves later) might help point to those positions but finding those critical moments isn't clear cut. Some times, the places you think lost you the game, really weren't that bad and something else was the problem.
If a player lacks a much stronger person to bounce ideas off of, I can't see how using an engine to help in analysis doesn't help. I have the engine score the game for me (sometimes after I add variations I had looked at during the game) but I don't have it give variations and try to figure that out on my own.
When time is short there isn't much worse than analyzing a game and finding out you spent too much time in positions where it didn't really matter. (in my opinion)
It's my biggest teacher personally. It finds all the tactics, and will usually find good plans. It might not play those plans for the same reasons that humans do, but chances are, if a computer line leads to a good position, you'll find some general characteristics in those positions to take note of.
It's all about using it right. Don't just accept the line the computer gives you. Play out that line, and if you don't get the evaluation, start suggesting to it some moves. "Oh this position says black is better, but what's stopping black from just playing ...Nd5? Seems like a perfectly good plan." Well, see how the computer reacts to your ...Nd5. If it ends up giving white the initiative, maybe you'll see ...Nd5 was too slow.
Other times the computer might change its mind. Maybe if you put in ...Nd5, it'll start rethinking the position because it underestimated it. This happens sometimes because the computer thinks differently and might miss things that are intuitive to a human (although more often than not, the computer is right, and it's really the human's ego that makes them dismiss the computer suggestion). But anyway: recognize the computer's weaknesses. Be sceptical. But computers are good for a reason. Their moves contain virtues. Learn what those virtues are. Oftentimes you'll end up learning the same sorts of things you read in books, outposts are good, weak dark squares are bad, etc.
Computers have made me learn many things about chess I wouldn't have learned. You just have to work with it properly.
@ Elubas
Thanks for the input, that's my (or it has been my) POV on it too. As long as you work with it, you'll be able to get something out of it. And most strong moves have virtues.
I also feel like I've learned things by working with an engine.
A chess engine saves you time. Lucas chess is great as is chessbase. A chess data base is required!
Learn to analyze the old fashioned way with a board and pieces! Main difference between a 1900 to 2100 and 2200 is the ability to correctly evaluate positions and also to correctly evaluate exchanges of all types - who benefits from what exchange, not only pieces, but weak pawn for initiative, etc... Study the classics, escpecially M. Botvinik and A. Alekhine. Russian coaches of the past claimed that studying the games of those two would take any averag expert to a master level easily. If you must use a comp, turn the engine off and analyze for yourself at least at first. Learn to think for yourself. Two loose quotes if you allow me. " Chess is a game of the double attack." V. Smyslov and " Chess is a game of exchanges." M.Botvinik.
Good Luck.
Please be relevant, helpful & nice!
Haha, it is interesting how the strongest players can use their knowledge to summarize the game simply. There's a lot of truth to those quotes. Double attacks are what make your ideas good -- if you just do a single attack, your opponent will probably be able to defend it, but if you give them too many problems to work with, then a breakthrough is much more likely. And exchanges really are a huge part of positional play. Usually before you can get an attack, you need to set yourself with the right pieces, and try to get better pieces than your opponent, and part of that is, for example, exchanging your bad pieces for your opponent's good pieces.
About your claim on what separates a 1900 player from a 2200 player though: it seems a little presumptuous. I mean, it could be true, but I don't see why tactics and endgames can't be a part of this too. There are many different ways in which a person can be better at chess. I will add, though, that maybe a common skill that strong players have in particular is being able to coordinate strategy and tactics, make each serve the other. All of the tactics you try, for example, should help your overall strategy -- e.g., you threaten x tactic to force your opponent to weaken his position or give you time to put your pawn/piece here; or use tactics to prevent your opponent from executing an important pawn break, etc. (Unless of course your opponent blundered; then you just take the free piece, but blunders don't normally come out of thin air)
To the post above. Tactics and endgame study is a MUST and has already been mentioned a few times. In fact that is the standard reply to all "improvement" questions... I gave my opinion to the original question in the hope that it may provide a different perspective. Also if you wondered - I am a master player and have coached a few experts and some rank players with good results. Good Luck.
I think that using the engine to find candidates can be useful: I used to do the same thing as you, before the housemaid threw Houdini 4 in the bin thinking it was trash...
Nevertheless I think that finding moves is a main part of playing better chess. Aagard writes in his book Excelling at chess calculation that "[seeing all valid possibilities] is probably the most important technique a tournament player can acquire and master" He then goes on to say that one of the ways to exercise this skill is by solving endgame studies, which often requires finding counterintuitive moves.
I hope I have been of help,
Carlo aka KIDaddict
Recently I've seen some good commentary from master (and near master level) people on the forum, so I thought I'd throw this question out there.
I'm unsure about the role of a chess engine in getting better. Some say don't use it at all. But I always wondered if those are the same type of people who say "I realized tactics / master games / fill in the blank weren't important after I'd spent 2 years studying the #$%^ out of them"
And I'm thinking, sorry, I can't take your word for it. Even if you didn't improve much during that time, the work you did definitely contributed to your ability today.
Feel free to tell me whatever you think, I'll listen. I guess I'm saying I'm more interested in what you actually did, not what you imagine to be best.
As for me, when I use an engine, it takes a lot of work, but I can usually squeeze a good idea out of it. I set it to show its top 3, and after analyzing myself I'll only pick one of those 3 that I like (not the on that's evaluated as highest)... this is why it can take so much time. If the only good move is the #1 choice, I have to take time to dislike all the other tries. I feel like this process gives me insight into a position I can't get on my own.
By the way when there is a choice, I value less-than-best moves higher than the #1 computer choice when the lesser moves follow a clear idea and the computer #1 I consider impractical. This of course helps OTB when I play a move that's "just equal" but I understand the ideas and my opponent isn't as sure.