I have a chess computer program and for a while I used it to train for chess tournaments. I am not sure it was ever helpful in that regard. Today everyone seems to be all Fritzed out and instead of analyzing chess problems for themselves they seem to just put the problem in Fritz and that is the end of thinking. If Fritz says move the bishop here or the queen there, then that is considered like being what God says. No one questions it, that is my point!

I have a chess computer program and for a while I used it to train for chess tournaments. I am not sure it was ever helpful in that regard. Today everyone seems to be all Fritzed out and instead of analyzing chess problems for themselves they seem to just put the problem in Fritz and that is the end of thinking. If Fritz says move the bishop here or the queen there, then that is considered like being what God says. No one questions it, that is my point!

Fritzed out??? LOL, nice chess lingo bro.

I have a chess computer program and for a while I used it to train for chess tournaments. I am not sure it was ever helpful in that regard. Today everyone seems to be all Fritzed out and instead of analyzing chess problems for themselves they seem to just put the problem in Fritz and that is the end of thinking. If Fritz says move the bishop here or the queen there, then that is considered like being what God says. No one questions it, that is my point!

Well I have been using the multi processor version of Rybka tonight while analyzing an antidote to a line that was giving me problems. In several of the positions that arose I am going to have to ask a strong endgame player as to who is better in the positions that arise.

The machines are very effective at finding tactical solutions but can struggle in quiescent positions. I save all my analysis for future use.

There are some good uses for computer programs

1) set up the position where the computer has a lone king and you have a king knight and bishop. You should be able to learn how to do it in a few hours.

2) let the machine have king and rook versus your king rook and pawn. If the computer can find the draw then reverse the situation and see if you can do it.

i find that computer simulations have an AI that can't really replicate human behavior. The difficult ratings are innacurate as to what you would normally find in a human opponent. Although i think the scenario based games recommended above are perfect!

Engines make you lazy.

Some time back I decided to experiment playing “enhanced chess” (a polite term for using an engine) on a site that allows their use. As recommended by players experienced in such matters I used two engines. Positions where the two engines listed several moves all closely evaluated were quite common. In those cases I was on my own…and usually played the wrong move (no surprise!). Top players are able to steer the game into lines where computers do not play well but most players simply select whatever their engine’s first choice is. I did not have the patience to let an engine run overnight and am not good enough to steer the game into positions where engines don’t play well so I was one of those guys who ended up just letting the engine play the game for me. The whole experiment was a flop… boring and uninspiring.

Was it detrimental to my play? I think so because about halfway through the two tournaments I found that in those situations where there was no clear cut choice I was too lazy to give it much thought and just picked a move. It’s my belief most people who use engines in CC play or use them for analysis without putting in any effort will reach a point where they cease to think for themselves and just rely on whatever the engine says.

Unfortunately for some reason that attitude spilled over into my “real” CC games and resulted in my putting little effort into them. I’m not sure why that was so but was hit with the realization I had become mentally lazy even when not using an engine!