Playing with a position analyzer

Hey. I don’t know if this idea is already in use, or if it has been discussed, but could it be beneficial to play with a position analyzing computer. So every time you make a bad or good move the computer tells you right away. Both players would know where they went wrong, and what to look at. I think this would encourage looking back over your game, to see why a move was bad etc. And it would also help you develop a sense of good positions and bad positions. If this is new….what do you think? If not, why didn’t I know about this!?…

Edit:

This is not a troll post. I will be clearer. The computer does not give suggestions as to what move you should make. And I’m not talking about using a computer for a post-game analysis. What I’m talking about is having a computer rate the current position you are in. The computer will only change your psychological view of the position. I.E. “Oh no, I’m losing”

@Franken_Berry, What are you even talking about? Give me some proper reason.

Any thoughts?

You do know that's cheating, don't you?  Please tell us you were just trolling in order to get a rise out of everyone.....

Dude.. I’m not trolling. I’m talking about using a computer for learning. Did you understand what I wrote?

Edit:

I must have been unclear in my original post. I’m saying that two people decide to play a game, for learning purposes, that has a computer analyzing the correct position they are in. NOT giving them moves, just telling them weather a previous move was good or bad.

isn't that what chess mentor is for?

No... I’m talking about a computer that gives the rating of the position while it’s happening. Not a computer that gives good moves, or a computer that analyzes the positions after words. I will try to edit my original post so people understand this

Knowing the evaluation of the position is very important.  Especially knowing when it changes can help you find the best moves.  So to have commentary like this during a game (from a computer or otherwise) would be detrimental to the training value of the game.  Better to look at it afterwards with a computer.

Same thing that wafflemaster.

What does it give you to have the analysis after each move instead of reviewing it all after the game ? Apart for some indication that is related to cheating ?

If you are not ready to spend time to review the game afterwards, you have to change that, not ask for a strange analysis tool.

I’m not asking for anything; I’m suggesting a new way of learning. I would like to compare it to using a metronome. You could say “Using a metronome is a bad idea because you need to learn how to count on your own”.   But we all know this is wrong. Having the correct timing drilled into our brains is very helpful. It may feel like a crutch for a little bit but you learn faster.

And as to “knowing how to evaluate the position is important”. This idea of having a cheat sheet is all about the evaluation. When I’m playing a real game of chess there are positions that my low (1400-1600) rating don’t allow me to analyze. Most of them I don’t know where I went wrong, or who was actually winning. If the correct answers are always being thrown at me, it could have very beneficial effects. Training wheels until I can handle the bike on my own.

This is not a replacement to post analysis. Post analysis is all about finding the right move in a very specific context. It is time consuming. And you may not even remember what you learned, (not saying it’s bad obviously.)What I’m suggesting is instead of taking a few random games and seeing where you went wrong. Take every game for a month and see where you went wrong.  Drill it!

This idea is not for higher players in the same way metronomes aren’t. It’s a jump start into position analysis. Has this not been studied?

i have no clue what you mean, but if it works for you, than do it... whatever it is

The problem with chess engines is that they give you lines for the "best" move(s).  They do not generally analyze a position or suggest tactics as such, just combinations.  Unless you can figure out why a move is the "best", then you are not going to get much help from today's chess engine analysis. 

yeah, and they are generally bad at endgames, closed positions, etc.

I don't know I quite like the idea. It is only the same as watching a GM game and following it with the computer evaluation, except with your own games I don't see why this idea is so bizarre. I'm sure he's not talking about doing it all the time just as a training tool. I could see this as useful. For example after 10 or so moves, beginning of the middlegame, if there were 3 or 4 strong candidate moves and they all looked pretty good, it also wouldn't hurt to see what they computer thought of each move. Granted it might not be set in stone or completely accurate but just as a general pointer I don't see how it would hurt.

id rather analyse it alone first, in order for the computer to correct my analysis, AND annotate the game: two for one

Except that using a metronome after playing the tune is out of question, while analysing after the game is useful.

That's a lousy analogy.

I'm still not sure.  If you want the immediate feedback why not play blitz games and review them right after instead.  Honestly I don't see this method improving the learning process when it removes the possibility that you misevaluate the position.  The best way to learn is to make mistakes and be confused and then review the game later.

Yeah, the metronome example isn't quite right.  It's more like saying I'm going to use a device that keeps the notes sounding on time even if I'm pressing them off beat.  My argument is when you remove this chance for error you're actually impeding the learning process.  Being confused and misunderstanding the position is part of the game for everyone (certainly not just class players).

The closest example I can think of this is sometimes at the club we play what I call analysis games.  They're informal games where at any point if you're confused you can chat about it with the opponent (as if it's a post mortem) or even go back a few moves if what you've tried is turning out all wrong.  But for the majority of the moves it's played like a regular game... you're trying your best on each move.

Is this the sort of "be confused / make an error and resolve it immediately" situation you're talking about? 

Another problem with the computer is you don't know where that number is coming from.  You may have blundered into a sharp tactical sequence (but otherwise you're positionally ahead) and sometimes you screw up positionally but the computer wont register it for a long time / at all.  This is to say, it's dangerous reading your own interpretation into the computer's numbers.

Thank you Benedictine. Like a said DaBigOne. This won’t take the place of post analysis. The two could go hand in hand actually.

And Irontiger the analogy works even though its science vs. art. Your stretching it..  My analogy goes as far as metronomes are bad for performance but used in practice. And computers are bad for performance but used in practice. My main idea of the analogy was to dismiss the idea that it could be detrimental. Don’t go so in depth.

I think that the main idea of having a computer onboard 24/7 is that you get used to how good the position is in a practical way. It’s more about drilling the psychological. Kind of like the concept that you can learn language way faster if you’re just thrown into it. Or you can switch a musical clef by just playing it. Or you can learn to spell by reading books. I think one of the best ways to learn in chess is just by playing… this is not my own concept. Some grandmaster said it. And maybe using the computer just amplifies the learning effect of playing a game.

Okay I didn't see that post. Let my write a response.