The case against using computer chess engines during games on stream.

I think you can come up with a better example of ad hominem.  Take 2. Go.

I agree the initial use of ad hominem in this thread was incorrect, but so was stigglng.

More directly it goes like this;

Ann: I think computer analysis display is bad.

Bob: that is because you are dumb.

Yes it is an insult.  It attacks the person rather than the substance of the issue at hand.

The FIDE women's titles have a negative cultural impact and that they should be abolished.
(proposition)

FIDE, under Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's leadership, sanctioned these titles and it's well known that Kirsan is not mentally well. He made outrageous claims like he was abducted by aliens. Just as all fair minded people dismissed his claims as the ramblings of a madman, we should similarly dismiss the idea of female specific titles.
(fallacious argumentation)

Oh God, we're copy and pasting dictionary definitions now?

Like I said before, insults are not in themselves illogical. You can make good points in an insulting way.

For example in the definition you copy and pasted, not only does it have to appeal to emotion, it has to do so while at the same time neglecting intellect.

I remember in elementary school when kids were ridiculed for having a source for their knowledge.  The cool kids didn't need sources; they "just knew".  I'll stick with Webster's.  You can just know better than Webster's you genius you.

 If you want to argue with Webster's you should contact them directly.  And I suggest that posting on the internet that you know definitions better than the dictionary can be embarrassing for you in the long run.

People who copy and paste dictionary definitions tend to be unable to handle the context and nuance of the discussion at hand. Instead of making arguments they resort to rigid and often inexact definitions to try and make their opposition seem legitimate.

Fortunately in this case the definition was pretty good, and like I said, it has 2 parts. First it must appeal to e.g. emotion, but second it must do so while not appealing to intellect.

If I say FIDE's women titles have a negative cultural impact because their lower requirements imply women are inferior to men, you fat alcoholic bastard, that's not an ad hominem it's just rude.

I only notice those bars when they are 100% white or black. 

Posting a credible source for your argument is not only good form; it is the only way to be credible.  Therefore I am credible and you are not.  If I said "you already lost, moron", would that be ad hominem?

I used your copy-paste definition against you. Twice.

I can't even tell if you're trolling at this point.

Not a good look.

Alright, ad hominem or not. I concede that my use of the phrase was wrong.

Using insults is unnecessary. Let's not argue over semantics. Be nice is all I ask. Thanks!

1. Yes, if you are irritated, you can look the other way. I feel like the explanations and background help describe, in totality, the issue with engines on stream.

2. It would be nice if there was an optional way to block out the engine evaluation on stream. If video streaming becomes advanced enough, it would be nice if users could block out areas of a video they do not like. I do not know if Twitch will add this function to their videos. I would support it.

3. Nice job bringing political opinions. It's not like an internet forum for discussion has ever gone wrong about those topics. 

You can go to live.chessbase.com, where they usually have tournament games displayed in real time.  You can turn on or off engine analysis display.  Then you can open another browser window, find your favorite video stream, and listen to Rensch, or Shahade, or Svidler, while looking only at the board moves on chessbase.  

It adds significant tension and interest because then the question is whether the evaluation is correct, or whether the commentators are correct. And it can be either one. For example, say you are in a position (as occurred in the World Championship) where the Commentators realize that it leads to an ending with Bishop in the wrong corner. That can often lead to draws. So are they right that it is a draw, or is the engine right that there is an advantage. That leads to tension and interest, just as when the commentators themselves disagree.

As someone who has written my own chess engine in the past, I think I have a fairly good idea of why they can be quite messed up in there evaluation at times. I will take the opinion of a grandmaster over that of an engine in numerous positions. That said, the engines are clearly more accurate than the grandmaster in most positions, and can beat them handily. In otherwords, I simply disagree with your opinion that for all intents and purposes they are God when playing chess when compared to us. And I think I have an informed opinion in that area. In many positions it is true they will wipe the floor with us. But there are plenty of situations where the grandmaster will realize the engine is evaluating a position incorrectly.

As for argument #4, it doesn't at least for me. If you watched the World Championship there were times where the engine was swinging wildly in evaluation between moves. It would kill suspense if the players were always accurate and the engine was always accurate. Neither is true. So the outcome of the game is in doubt regardless of what the engine says.

I do agree it would be nice if the user could turn the engine off. Unfortunately, given the limitations of twitch as a broadcast platform that isn't possible unless they stream it twice, one with and one without the engine.

Dierdre once again shows up to insult someone.  Dierdre, the last thread I saw you in, you also responded to someone by accusing them them of "knowing nothing"  about chess.  It's really pathetic.  Really.  

You can be right without being an ass, is the point. 

What you do is called an ad hominem attack, by the real definition, but maybe not stigglings fake definition LOL!

You can learn from chess engines, or you can't.  Simply state your case.  It has nothing to do with your opinion of someone's knowledge of chess (which is just an insult and not factual), or any other personal characteristic about them, perceived or real. 

You would do better to politely share your vast, vast, vast, knowledge of chess without going on the rampage with personal attacks whenever you read something you disagree with, which you do quite often.  You seem to have anger issues.  

But that guy also knows plenty about chess.  You disagree with what he teaches yet you attack him personally.  

Could you politely state your case of why teaching that way is bad?  I doubt it, but it is possible.  

BTW watch Coffee Chess on youtube.  They also play by the rule that you can win by capturing the king.  It punishes your opponent for making an illegal move rather than letting him take it back.  

The Great Carlini, on that channel, claims to be a 2200 rated player.  

"Chess is a way to punish us for eating the apple."

Quoteable moment. It would make a great T-Shirt.

Good post, some well presented points, the majority with which I agree.