Although this may not be possible for all players depending on circumstances, I would add that in between analysing your own game and checking it with an engine it also helps to ask the opinion of a stronger player. That could be a coach or even just somebody at the same club. A stronger player could add some valuable (verbal) explanations that are hard to get from computer evaluations and even suggest some things to look at based on the specific game.
Well I am just 7 years and play good but lose win match with time
Hi People
Always you should use engine to analyze, they are not humans you know, no more mistakes in your analysis with stockdish
> writing down your thoughts.
Yes.. chess is often having lots of things that the actual move made sequence is not telling the story about. at any level of play. So having those thoughts, whether using engine or not, is really helpful material not to lose in the ether of many game blurs.
and guess what, lichess has just the tool for that... Analysis mode correspondance games.. it can record your thoughts all the way to post-game.. all the variations you might have wrongly dismissed in your inexperience about planning and valuing possibly deeper board postions among them... lots of food for self-learning leading to learning about the board.
Yes.. chess is often having lots of things that the actual move made sequence is not telling the story about. at any level of play. So having those thoughts, whether using engine or not, is really helpful material not to lose in the ether of many game blurs.
and guess what, lichess has just the tool for that... Analysis mode correspondance games.. it can record your thoughts all the way to post-game.. all the variations you might have wrongly dismissed in your inexperience about planning and valuing possibly deeper board postions among them... lots of food for self-learning leading to learning about the board.
I think that analyzing the game yourself is fundamental but if you are a low-level player or in the learning phase you could try to do the analysis yourself and then verify it with stockfish
@Vallejo89 said in #14:
> Always you should use engine to analyze, they are not humans you know, no more mistakes in your analysis with stockdish
or it does mistakes but we will never know as everyone starts playing with engine style..... (kidding?)
> Always you should use engine to analyze, they are not humans you know, no more mistakes in your analysis with stockdish
or it does mistakes but we will never know as everyone starts playing with engine style..... (kidding?)
I agree with Botvinnik: in fowards days to have two tapes of WCC one by machines another for mankind.
It's better for my improvement to review first without the engine. During the game, I often miss something that is within my knowledge but somehow the idea was inaccessible at that moment. If I can discover/rediscover the idea without the engine, then it seems more accessible in the future than things I rediscover because of the engine. Unfortunately, using the computer first seems to require more effort to absorb, internalize, somehow forget to use again, and then finally apply habitually.
So, I think I do get "extra credit" rediscovering those ideas without the engine.
So, I think I do get "extra credit" rediscovering those ideas without the engine.
@Inter-temporal said in #19:
> It's better for my improvement to review first without the engine. During the game, I often miss something that is within my knowledge but somehow the idea was inaccessible at that moment. If I can discover/rediscover the idea without the engine, then it seems more accessible in the future than things I rediscover because of the engine. Unfortunately, using the computer first seems to require more effort to absorb, internalize, somehow forget to use again, and then finally apply habitually.
>
> So, I think I do get "extra credit" rediscovering those ideas without the engine.
We often understand more than we can express.. something to tap into. That transfer of type of knowledge into action, is best done as you propose. I think also. SF last resort. when you need a hammer to tell you the ultimate truth. (kidding), instead of pulling it out of yourself by yourself. I think it makes for a more digested knowledge later, adapted to ones progression speed or status.
Often SF solution would need human guidance for it to be something useful to learn other than verbatim move sequence memory. It needs careful human digestion for its feedback to be helpful. That is an opinion, of course. Anyhow, with SF one has to do the exercise to rationalize in own words or non-verbal thinking why such a solution works, for us humans. What is a perfect move worth, if it can't be imagined from being inscrutable in depth.
> It's better for my improvement to review first without the engine. During the game, I often miss something that is within my knowledge but somehow the idea was inaccessible at that moment. If I can discover/rediscover the idea without the engine, then it seems more accessible in the future than things I rediscover because of the engine. Unfortunately, using the computer first seems to require more effort to absorb, internalize, somehow forget to use again, and then finally apply habitually.
>
> So, I think I do get "extra credit" rediscovering those ideas without the engine.
We often understand more than we can express.. something to tap into. That transfer of type of knowledge into action, is best done as you propose. I think also. SF last resort. when you need a hammer to tell you the ultimate truth. (kidding), instead of pulling it out of yourself by yourself. I think it makes for a more digested knowledge later, adapted to ones progression speed or status.
Often SF solution would need human guidance for it to be something useful to learn other than verbatim move sequence memory. It needs careful human digestion for its feedback to be helpful. That is an opinion, of course. Anyhow, with SF one has to do the exercise to rationalize in own words or non-verbal thinking why such a solution works, for us humans. What is a perfect move worth, if it can't be imagined from being inscrutable in depth.