Is computer analysis useful?
Is this a trick question?
Is computer analysis useful?
Sort:
chess.com has just introduced its new interface with easy computer analysis of your games. Some people on the internet have complained that it is "useless" because it is about 2500 strength and some free on-line engines are rated 3000+.
Really? Well it is interesting that most of the people with with that opinion are rated around 1200, or even much less. How can they even tell the difference between 2500 and 3000? Against a genuine 2000 rated player they'd lose with a bad blunder or be strategically outplayed and not really know how it happened. For almost all players of less than master strength a 2500 player is plenty strong enough to point out the mistakes in our games.
Also it is so convenient. Free engines have to be downloaded and installed, they might be Windows only or Mac only or run only on the most recent versions of OSs when you have good reasons for staying on an older version. Sometimes you have to mess around compiling them, installing extra libraries. And then you have to load your game or game position. Even if all you have to do is download a game and load it into the engine it is still extra messing about that is unnecessary.
My vote is for staying in chess.com and just selecting computer analysis. This is the first feature that is valuable enough to persuade me to subscribe, rather than just playing on-line for free.
My OTB rating peaked at around 2150 many years ago and currently oscillates in the 1900-2000 range. I play only 10-minute Blitz on chess.com and at that speed am currently rated around 1850.
I thought my chess was fairly sound, but the computer analysis has been a revelation. I make lots of mistakes, far more than I ever found by studying my games without assistance. I frequently overlook my opponent's threats, I blunder and create chances for my opponents and I miss lots of opportunities to play stronger moves that get a result more quickly or with greater certainty. Sometimes I even overlook simple forced mates or big grabs of material. These are not subtle mistakes that a 2500 player might miss. Many of them would be embarrassing to a novice. So I don't need the computer to show me subtle aspects of my game that are going awry. The mistakes that explain why I am such a long way from master strength (both OTB and on-line) are quite crude.
I have only been using this system for two days, but I have confidence that it is going to help me improve my game out of all recognition.
Jul 24, 2016
0
#24
I will have to check out the CDC engine. The old engine consistently gave me bad results -- as in it would claim a mistake on a move that my PC engine recommended as best. The old CDC engine took a day or more to give worse results than my local machine could do in less than half an hour.
So likely the complaints you are seeing are legit but out of date, applied to the old buggy engine. Hopefully the current one is, if not the strongest, solid.
You make installing a chess engine sound hard, which is a little strained. Maybe if the person has never turned a PC on before, it might be a little challenging. But you can download a ready to go ui/engine package that installs and runs with no fuss at all on windows (just like every other freeware utility out there), which the vast majority of people can do. It isnt that much of an ordeal. Its 2 clicks... copy position from CDC, paste, done.
I am a Muslim. .İslam is perfect.. But I am . not..lf ..I make a mistake Do not blame Islam. .But blame me..
I am a Muslim. .İslam is perfect.. But I am . not..lf ..I make a mistake Do not blame Islam. .But blame me..
I used chess.com ~2000(claim) rating chess analysis on one of my correspondence games, one variation presented missed a mate in ~4-5 ...now I find computer analysis on this site completely useless since I cant trust it when it says that I made a mistake or an inaccuracy.