I disagree with many scoring decisions. Call me an Einstein to question it.

Sort:
24Oysters

I am not as smart as Einstein, but neither did I have the training he had. However, he questioned theory a lot. I may be new here, but when I review my games, the engine tells me a better move let's say. Why move a bishop to where you will lose tempo from a mere pawn, especially if the pawn doesn't matter where it is at the moment?

Engines must think out the entire game, then tell you bad move, or it could have been better if you moved here. Maybe it's telling me I'm not playing the engine's game. Fine. I like to play my own games.

I do admit it could be considered correct at least half the time. I'll admit to missing a better move if it was better. I make mistakes and bad moves, too. AI has gone too far to tell me how to play my game. Too many times I must just respectfully disagree. Anyone else notice this?

justbefair
24Oysters wrote:

I am not as smart as Einstein, but neither did I have the training he had. However, he questioned theory a lot. I may be new here, but when I review my games, the engine tells me a better move let's say. Why move a bishop to where you will lose tempo from a mere pawn, especially if the pawn doesn't matter where it is at the moment?

Engines must think out the entire game, then tell you bad move, or it could have been better if you moved here. Maybe it's telling me I'm not playing the engine's game. Fine. I like to play my own games.

I do admit it could be considered correct at least half the time. I'll admit to missing a better move if it was better. I make mistakes and bad moves, too. AI has gone too far to tell me how to play my game. Too many times I must just respectfully disagree. Anyone else notice this?

It's a little hard to discuss in the abstract. Perhaps you could post several positions where you disagree with the engine.

blueemu

If you are talking about the Morphy Defense to the Ruy Lopez...

The situation is not nearly so clear-cut as you imply.
 
First, your claim that the White Bishop "loses a tempo to a Pawn". Let's take a closer look. After 3. Bb5 it is Black's move. Then comes 3. ... a6 and 4. Ba4 and it is again Black's move.
 
If a tempo has been lost, then it must already be present on the board, because the side-to-play hasn't changed. It is still "Black to move" in both cases. So what changes took place on the board as a result of the inclusion of those two moves? 
 
Well, Black's Pawn advanced from a7 to a6. Not what I would call a genuine game-changer. Did Black get to play this move for free? No. He "paid" for it by shifting the White Bishop (for free!) from b5 to the better square a4, from which spot it is now ready to play Bb3 (with all the same threats that White gets with the Italian 3. Bc4 move, except that now White's Bishop is GUARDED on b3, but not guarded on c4), or after White's c2-c3 (preparing d2-d4) ready to play Bc2 guarding the e4 Pawn against any Black Rook on e8.
 
One could argue instead that it is WHITE, not Black, who has gained a tempo... since he was able to play the useful move Ba4 while Black only got to play the rather useless a6 move.
 
Regarding the comparison with Einstein:
 
Einstein was able to revolutionize Classical physics because he had studied both Classical physics and higher mathematics extensively for years... mastering both both differential and integral calculus by the time he was 14 years old, for example.
 
Galileo was able to revolutionize Aristotlean physics because he was a thorough student of Aristotlean physics. Isaac Newton overthrew our previous understanding of gravity, light and motion because he was an expert in the then-current theories (mostly Aristotlean) of gravity, light and motion. Vesalius revolutionized our understanfing of Human anatomy because he had studied Galen's anatomical writings all his adult life. 
 
It is a historical fact that scientific revolutions come from within... not from some random guy in a basement.
 
In other words... your ideas might have value, but learn chess first, then put them forward.
24Oysters

Thank you for your responses. Let's say I move a pawn to circumvent where the opponent's knight most likely is going. When I study the moves it will say, "it was better for you to move your queen". Thus I am graded to have not used the "best" move. The move I made was intentional and no mistake. To have moved the queen would have only "put it into play", even though it wasn't best. My next move says the same thing about should have moved the queen.

Sorry I don't talk chess like others. I'm in my seventies and just trying to keep my mind thinking.

Learning chess? I'll go back through my games and find an example. Guess I need to learn talking chess.

24Oysters

Guess my small dislike was with AI.