Rankings using computers

Hi Folks:

Do you think that players who have access to computers and use computers to train should have lower ratings given the same performance as people who don't?

It seems perhaps that instead of thinking and developing themselves, players are using computers to achieve artificially high scores.

Best,

KP

Ratings are a measure of performance, so you'd need a different system all together.

In any case, computers don't explain anything, so at least in the beginning aren't very useful.

A different system altogether is a great idea, @The_Chinn_of_Quinn. @Pikelemi - there's something to be said for that, isn't there?

No! Rating is about how you perform in a chess tournament game not about how you train to play a chess game. Of course you can't use thing to help your game while playing but having the rating depending on how you are training is bullocks. That said I don't even think you can improve your game much with use of computers, books, videos and coaches are much more "dangerous" weapons in chess improvement. 

@Pikelemi: Are you saying books, videos and coaches are more effective than computers?

People play perhaps artificially well when they use computers as opposed to going through tactics using a board and a book and having to more deeply understand what is going on.

I think a (good) coach would help someone learn better and faster than a computer. 

But it depends what you mean by  'use'. I assume you don't mean cheating. Most of the what I learned about chess I learned from books.

Who doesn't have access to computers?  On a PC, there's the freeware Lucas Chess which is poorly documented but about as good as it gets.  On a Smartphone there's Droidfish.

And if you're going to penalize people who use computers to improve, why not penalize people to use books to improve? Or people with paid online memberships who get videos and articles that are restricted to others?

The biggest thing I get out of computer chess is that I can set Lucas Chess to use various rated engines and can dictate a sequence of opening moves, followed by a random variation of decent moves so that I learn a lot about the openings I play.

I get a lot more from books and coaches than computers.  Right now, computer chess engines tell you what moves you should have made but don't tell you WHY.  A coach will say, "You shouldn't have attacked on the Kingside because you did not have a power advantage there. You should have posted your Knight on the fine outpost at c5 and then launched a Pawn Storm up the middle because your Rook and Queen controlled the files."

Additionally, procedures for sure wins in every endgame book are not always the fastest mates and computers will say you made a blunder or inaccuracy even though you made the right move for a sure win where you didn't have to calculate mate in 9.

Books will give you ideas behind the openings. For example, the Bishop's Opening and Vienna Game are designed to try to get in an early f4.  The Slav and Caro-Kann Defenses are designed to get Black's Bad (Queen's) Bishop outside Black's Pawn Chain before ...e6 is played.

BOOKS tell you that, not computers.

Books also give you strategic insights and rules of thumb, like overprotecting your pieces or like a N on the 4th rank is as good as a B, a N on the 5th rank is better than a B, a N on the 6th rank is usually devastating.

@corum: I am referring to using things like the tactics module in Chess.com and the GM games here as opposed to going through books and setting them up oneself. Also the best moves function - I can learn that way but it seems possible to just mindlessly memorize things as well instead of thinking through things.

@MickinMD: I am thinking of these kids I saw in India who calculate faster on their hands than most people use a calculator. It seems that folks with computers have perhaps an unfair advantage even though they are missing the spirit of the game and not really learning to think as well.

@mickinMD: I am thinking of people like that.

At least at my level I don't get anything from a computer. I can analyze my games with a computer but I don't get any explanation why my move was bad and why the one the computer suggest is better. In some cases you of course understand the computer choice but I think there are a lot of cases where I don't. I read books, solve tactics and watch videos and I feel I get a lot from that. I haven't had a coach but I assume that it will be the ultimate "tool" to improve your game. The only big edge you can get with an computer/engine is to use it while you are playing (or in other words cheating with it)