dwv16 (User)
Bishop
Posts: 21
|
| Re:Sciurus vs. dwv16 0-1: A kingside attack gone b 2007/05/17 09:54 |
Karma: 3   |
|
The problem with long computer analysis is not just that I would never find the suggested moves for my side, but that my opponent is also unlikely to make the moves the computer recommends as well. Perhaps if I played at a higher level it would be more of a help, but on the rare occasions when I check one of my games using Fritz it's usually just to see what the computer would recommend at certain critical junctures when I was unsure what to do, though I usually only check a move or two deep due to my comments above. I realize this lack of calculating deeply will limit how well I play but I really don't mind just enjoying the game, both playing at my level, and trying to make small improvements, while admiring the depths (heights?) that others can achieve.
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
dwv16 (User)
Bishop
Posts: 21
|
| Re:Sciurus vs. dwv16 0-1: A kingside attack gone b 2007/05/17 09:54 |
Karma: 3   |
|
The problem with long computer analysis is not just that I would never find the suggested moves for my side, but that my opponent is also unlikely to make the moves the computer recommends as well. Perhaps if I played at a higher level it would be more of a help, but on the rare occasions when I check one of my games using Fritz it's usually just to see what the computer would recommend at certain critical junctures when I was unsure what to do, though I usually only check a move or two deep due to my comments above. I realize this lack of calculating deeply will limit how well I play but I really don't mind just enjoying the game, both playing at my level, and trying to make small improvements, while admiring the depths (heights?) that others can achieve.
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Sciurus (Admin)
Admin
Posts: 88
|
| Re:Sciurus vs. dwv16 0-1: A kingside attack gone b 2007/05/17 11:00 |
Karma: 2   |
|
I agree that computer analysis is of very limited use. There is simply no way for a computer engine to explain its moves in plain english. With respect to game plans I learned the most from looking at master games to see some typical attack plans. Most useful if looking at games with similar openings to the ones I play and in fact I would never been able to come up with the general attack idea for this game myself.
Said that I find that computer engines are really useful to find tactical mistakes. In many cases I simply do not see why I lost a piece and computer analysis helps to point out where I went wrong and looking two moves ahead seems to be enough in most situations (at least on my playing level).
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|