Are you talking about lichess?
What am I paying for?
Sort:
I would love an interactive coach that teaches strategy and how to think more than 1 move ahead.
You kind of learn it a little bit by studying different openings but I'm a newb and once I reach the mid-game and things go off the rails, I have no clue.
Puzzles do it a little bit but many of the puzzles are still 1-step puzzles, and even the multiple step puzzles are still focused on checkmate. I would love to see more puzzles that are multi-step and teach how to fork, or how to gain material.
CheckRaven, I understand and agree. Chess.com should offer such a feature to premium members. For now, use self analysis to see why the engine's moves are better than your. Go through a long sequence of moves and see why your moves don't - or do - work.
Doomed_Noob wrote:
I would love an interactive coach that teaches strategy and how to think more than 1 move ahead.
That would require a computer program that understands chess and is able to teach chess.
Anyone who can write such a program would likely get a Nobel Prize for it.
Chess.com's Game review is awful. All other sites' game reviews are also awful. If you want, you can use a chess engine to help you, but you have to do most of the work yourself.
I learn chess strategy by studying backgammon strategy by help of books and yt video and then applying backgammon concept on chess position. It is certainly valid on 2000 30 min rapid rating on my other account. Backgammon concept has lots of similarity with chess concept. Chess is too abstract but backgammon has laid out strategy on books and yt
2 hrs ago
0
#8
magipi wrote:
Doomed_Noob wrote:
I would love an interactive coach that teaches strategy and how to think more than 1 move ahead.
That would require a computer program that understands chess and is able to teach chess.
Anyone who can write such a program would likely get a Nobel Prize for it.
Chess.com's Game review is awful. All other sites' game reviews are also awful. If you want, you can use a chess engine to help you, but you have to do most of the work yourself.
I have given up complaining about this. Liquidating in a won position to a won endgame is often seen as an error. It keeps looking for best moves for dead positions long after the best move is "resigns." Its bias toward trying to maintain equality makes it downplay aggressive moves that might cost some material. It often suggests a different "best move," but then gives no continuation after that. And for 960 games, the suggestions are even worse. No explanation is often given for anything.
2 hrs ago
0
#9
Game Review is using engine output to give classifications and suggestions. As with anything engine related, depth and the search horizon is going to have limitations. Running the highest strength review is going to give the best results, but there are times when the engine needs to go deeper to find a better solution.
In losing positions, game review is going to give advice that may sound bad but when any moves are still losing, it doesn't really differentiate.
@CheckRaven, what hane an move #? Most likely there's a reason why it was a blunder. If the Show option doesn't clarify it, try a position analysis.
Yes
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Game Review is using engine output to give classifications and suggestions. As with anything engine related, depth and the search horizon is going to have limitations.
Anyone who has ever used Game review before knows how extremely inconvenient and user-unfriendly they are.
If you use an engine, you can see the top 3 moves suggested by the engine with their evaluations. Also you can explore any other move as well. If you don't understand something, you can make any move, and see the engine's evaluation, going back and forth as deep as you want.
If you use Game review, all this is missing. All you get instead is a short verbal "explanation" which makes sense half of the time, but is nonsensical gibberish the other half of the time. Figuring out why a move is good or bad is completely impossible, unless you leave Game review and switch to Analysis to look at the engine.
Yeah. Some of the "explanations" fail to describe why a move is incorrect.
1 hr ago
0
#13
magipi wrote:
Anyone who has ever used Game review before knows how extremely inconvenient and user-unfriendly they are.
If you use an engine, you can see the top 3 moves suggested by the engine with their evaluations. Also you can explore any other move as well. If you don't understand something, you can make any move, and see the engine's evaluation, going back and forth as deep as you want.
If you use Game review, all this is missing. All you get instead is a short verbal "explanation" which makes sense half of the time, but is nonsensical gibberish the other half of the time. Figuring out why a move is good or bad is completely impossible, unless you leave Game review and switch to Analysis to look at the engine.
Different people want different things. Game Review gives a decent game overview with key moments. It also allows deeper exploration of other moves and the ability to see the top suggested line referenced from the review process
Analysis allows much deeper looks but can be overwhelming, or just provide a lot more information than some people want or need at the time.
I like reviews for the overview, primarily the score graph and blunder/mistake call-outs. If I need more information, I jump into analysis. Both can be useful but not everyone is going to need the same thing.
I agree, game review is still useful.
Chess.com says I made a blunder. Shows me a better move is to lose a 3 point piece and then stops explaining. What happened to following the moves further than just one more step. What's the name of that free chess site again? This one is getting glitchy anyway on my old laptop.