Knowing that middle C on a piano resonates at 261.626 Hertz won't make your music any better.
Just saaaayin'
The theory is interesting, not questioning that, but as far as practical results... 
Warning: Do not use computers to look at your games!
Sort:
Dec 22, 2011
0
#23
Martin_Stahl wrote:...in most cases, is that an engine can be an adequate substitute for a stronger player if you don't have good access to one. If I was unable to see a positional or tactical problem in my game OTB, when I had plenty of time, I am unlikely to see the issue in analysis either. There are some exceptions, especially when the problem was exploited, but for the most part I think that holds, especially at my current level.
Yes - those are my thoughts too. I play v little competitive OTB (a rapidplay in October was my first for 17 years) but if I lose a game here on chess.com - or even win one from a dubious position - I like a second opinion on where I went wrong (or where my opponent went wrong). As you say, Martin, if I didn't see it at the time (the moreso the longer the time control - my default is 6-33) it is going to take me a long time to find it afterwards.
Dec 22, 2011
0
#24
Musikamole wrote:
During a video lesson, I heard IM Daniel Rensch say that beginners should not use computers for game analysis. What do you think?
Musik, you should get an award for starting intriguing threads: the King's Gambit and now this. Thanks.
Dec 22, 2011
0
#25
Using computers well in post-game analysis requires experience. I use them daily, but I also studied chess for many years before they existed.
Just a few minutes ago I was working on tomorrow's blog post for Chess Skills. I ran some computer analysis near the end of the game, which I won with a rare two-pawn checkmate. Rybka prefers a different move than my 41.b7! After some work educating Rybka, it finally conceded that my move led to the quickest checkmate. My opponent hastened things unnecessarily.
While observing this blunderfest, bear in mind that it was a one-minute game.
analyzing your own games with a computer is great no matter how weak or strong you are !!
here is a handy tip for beginers to use while analyzing with an engine.
when u come to a position you want to analize, and you wan to se what white has.
you simply put the computer on infinit analysys and make black do pointless moves like move the pawn on a7 to a6 then to a6 then to a5 . the computer will quickly show you a good attacking idea ( if there is one ) or improve its position. I find this to be a great way to learn rather then just let the com go at it with its self on gm lvl.
I am relatively new and use chess computer not to find me the moves but to see if I missed anything, I step through the game with arrows turned off and if I see top 3 moves are all +/- 0.2 and I made one of them I move on. If I see the top move is suddenly +1, I know there was a particularly strong move I then step to the next move and if I'm +1 I know I found it if I'm not then I step back and look for the move I missed.
Essentially I just use the numbers the computer gives to see if I missed anything then find the moves myself.
Yes you would and should, watch this video and you will know the how's and why's
I would never play 2.f4 again, since according to Houdini at Depth = 19, White gets nothing for the sacrificed pawn (- 0.30).
Well, that's a 0.7 pawn of compensation. It's something. Probably not enough against Houdini or a GM, but might do the trick against a class player.