Sorry, I thought you were talking about correspondence games.Uly wrote:How do you know that my opponents use their computer less for their analysis of postmortem games?Jeremy Bernstein wrote:You're only winning because your opponents are using their computers less than you are. How can you be proud of that win?
No argument here.No, I don't think you understand. Even, I'm not sure we're talking about the same things.Jeremy Bernstein wrote: I understand your point of view, I just disagree -- it insults the intelligence of your opponents. In your case, it also underestimates their ability to use a computer.
This is what I'm talking about:
A human plays a human, unassisted. There's some game result.
The first person takes the game and checks it with a computer at home, sees what ways it could have played better, or in what kind of patterns he was missing a beneficial theme, and improves. Maybe he even decides to ditch the opening played and go for something else.
The next day, the humans play again, and chess is so complex that it's very unlikely the patterns appear again and the player can take advantage of what he learned with the engine, but he'll possibly play better, and at some future game, the motif will appear and the player will get better results than if he just played but never analyzed his games.
Again, I thought you were talking about corr chess, sorry about that. I still think that it's bad to rely on tricks (chances are that, if you can see it or memorize the book, your opponent can, too), but I see that we're on the same page wrt engine choices.My claim is that weak engines can be better than top engines for this process if they have a style that fits the human. Furthermore, if the user sticks with Komodo, whatever style Komodo has, it's going to disrupt the style of the human. Say for example, that Komodo likes to push c4 in some kind of positions before playing Nc3, even though Nc3 is a perfectly valid move and the one the human liked, but eventually the user sees it so much that he starts playing c4 instead of Nc3 in his games. That's style disruption, and it happened to me with Pro Deo, that would make moves that would stop the opponent from pinning my knight, and would play knight to the border of the board to attack bishops. I thought they were the best moves, only later on I learned they weren't necessary, that I could play different moves, but my playing style was already disrupted, that's why I think it's best to look for the engine that agrees with your moves, and suggests improvement along the same lines, regardless of ELO, instead of a top one that will suggest totally different lines from what you play.
You make it sounds as if computers could be used while the game was going on, or something in where using more computers is going to give the human more wins. At some point this became the conversation of the deaf.
jb
