Play vs the Computer or Play against other people?

Sort:
Oldest
Daybreak57

I spoke with a gentleman in the somewhat recent past and he talked about how he plays chess only against the computer and plays in a way where his main goal is to "take out" his opponents knights and then proceeds to the next step, which is, checkmate the king if he can.  He gets in a lot of king and pawn endgames, and perhaps he wanted me to tell him a thing or two about chess.  But I left it the way it was.  If I had started to say stuff to him it might have been a little misguided because I myself don't know a lot of things about chess, given my rating, though, I am no beginner.  I felt, that whatever I said, would only serve to confuse him.  He gets something out of playing against the computer and using his algorithm for chess.  The reason why he does it that way is that he is trying to avoid a support mate with the queen and the knight.  

If a computer program tells someone that the individual checking their rating is rated 1500, most of the time they believe that is there rating, then they go to chess tournaments and get schooled by 5-year-olds and quits chess altogether.

I told chess.com in these forums a few times that these forums need sticky, (posts put in the front of the line and stay there forever) telling beginners and other people what they need to know, topics like, the rating system, and what is a real rating, how to get it, etc.  But it seems chess.com is working on it's own things.

The theory is we all will get to a rating where we just stay at for life.  Some of us believe it and own it, others keep trying to improve.  I believe my own problem involves me not playing more long games, and mostly playing chess.  I just witnessed a meeting of four women chess players, two from the US, and two from Europe, who I saw could read a position,  that was beyond anything that has ever been seen.  One side saw a tactic and played it very beautifully.  I don't have that skill that they have.  I just play randomly most of the time, because, like many other people, sometimes, I just make moves without a plan, because I simply do not know what to do.  I've said in the past to get better at that was to study annotated master games, and play slow chess (90|30 or 45|45), so you gain the skill that if you cultivate for long enough, you will become a much better player, maybe even 2000 at least.  The problem with me is that when I play slow games I make fast moves, and never use a large fraction of my time.  So, when I play long games, I am usually playing at a disadvantage.  

I've said in the past to only play humans, and not computers, but that is not necessary an accurate position to hold on to.  There is a benefit to play against a computer opponent from time to time.  You do learn things.  Like for example I am learning, by playing the computer, book openings, and gain experience in them, and, I am figuring out why I blunder.

But, the best way to learn is through a coach.  Not everyone can afford one.  Just do what you can afford.  Don't buy a book just because someone else said you need it.  Buy it because you know you need it, and are willing to make a sacrifice for it, time, and money.

I'm not a beginner, so it's more appropriate to play against a computer because I know a lot about chess.  In my personal opinion, you can take it for a grain of salt, if a beginner decides to play against a computer, they should do it sparingly, and play a lot more human opponents.  

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Tactics tactics tactics

How do you study tactics?  Answer that question, and find out the truth for yourself.

Daybreak57
HerNaturalConfidence wrote:
Daybreak57 wrote:

I spoke with a gentleman in the somewhat recent past and he talked about how he plays chess only against the computer and plays in a way where his main goal is to "take out" his opponents knights and then proceeds to the next step, which is, checkmate the king if he can.  He gets in a lot of king and pawn endgames, and perhaps he wanted me to tell him a thing or two about chess.  But I left it the way it was.  If I had started to say stuff to him it might have been a little misguided because I myself don't know a lot of things about chess, given my rating, though, I am no beginner.  I felt, that whatever I said, would only serve to confuse him.  He gets something out of playing against the computer and using his algorithm for chess.  The reason why he does it that way is that he is trying to avoid a support mate with the queen and the knight.  

 

If a computer program tells someone that the individual checking their rating is rated 1500, most of the time they believe that is there rating, then they go to chess tournaments and get schooled by 5-year-olds and quits chess altogether.

I told chess.com in these forums a few times that these forums need sticky, (posts put in the front of the line and stay there forever) telling beginners and other people what they need to know, topics like, the rating system, and what is a real rating, how to get it, etc.  But it seems chess.com is working on it's own things.

The theory is we all will get to a rating where we just stay at for life.  Some of us believe it and own it, others keep trying to improve.  I believe my own problem involves me not playing more long games, and mostly playing chess.  I just witnessed a meeting of four women chess players, two from the US, and two from Europe, who I saw could read a position,  that was beyond anything that has ever been seen.  One side saw a tactic and played it very beautifully.  I don't have that skill that they have.  I just play randomly most of the time, because, like many other people, sometimes, I just make moves without a plan, because I simply do not know what to do.  I've said in the past to get better at that was to study annotated master games, and play slow chess (90|30 or 45|45), so you gain the skill that if you cultivate for long enough, you will become a much better player, maybe even 2000 at least.  The problem with me is that when I play slow games I make fast moves, and never use a large fraction of my time.  So, when I play long games, I am usually playing at a disadvantage.  

I've said in the past to only play humans, and not computers, but that is not necessary an accurate position to hold on to.  There is a benefit to play against a computer opponent from time to time.  You do learn things.  Like for example I am learning, by playing the computer, book openings, and gain experience in them, and, I am figuring out why I blunder.

But, the best way to learn is through a coach.  Not everyone can afford one.  Just do what you can afford.  Don't buy a book just because someone else said you need it.  Buy it because you know you need it, and are willing to make a sacrifice for it, time, and money.

I'm not a beginner, so it's more appropriate to play against a computer because I know a lot about chess.  In my personal opinion, you can take it for a grain of salt, if a beginner decides to play against a computer, they should do it sparingly, and play a lot more human opponents.  

 

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

 

Tactics tactics tactics

How do you study tactics?  Answer that question, and find out the truth for yourself.

I play humans.

 

Yeah, the games played between two humans are much different than what a computer would play against a human.  We will never play like computers.  A WGM told me that.  You can find her on my friend's list.

But, in my personal opinion.  I get something from playing Friz.  I mean why would they make a chess program that costs over 100 dollars and isn't of any use?  That alone could be a loaded questions, however, I believe I am learning more about why I blunder when I play against a computer.  I still play with humans, just now I use Fritz as well.  I paid for it, might as well use it.  I'm not saying you should buy fritz yourself and use it to.  I simply have it.  So I'm using it.  The situation is different for you.  You have to assess for yourself if you want to play against a computer opponent, and it seems you have come to an answer, you play humans.

I'm just sharing my experience after I started playing against a computer.  Beginners I know play against computers, and I can tell you they are getting better, it's just, at a slow pace, but chess is slow to process it's very slow to get better at chess.  Good luck with your chess

 
Daybreak57
WeHaveTacoDooDoo wrote:

I heard that.

 

I didn't bother to watch that.  I just played a game against a human:

You've reduced my argument to a simple 3-word statement, "I heard that."  That is hyperbole.

Daybreak57
HerNaturalConfidence wrote:
Daybreak57 wrote:
HerNaturalConfidence wrote:
Daybreak57 wrote:

I spoke with a gentleman in the somewhat recent past and he talked about how he plays chess only against the computer and plays in a way where his main goal is to "take out" his opponents knights and then proceeds to the next step, which is, checkmate the king if he can.  He gets in a lot of king and pawn endgames, and perhaps he wanted me to tell him a thing or two about chess.  But I left it the way it was.  If I had started to say stuff to him it might have been a little misguided because I myself don't know a lot of things about chess, given my rating, though, I am no beginner.  I felt, that whatever I said, would only serve to confuse him.  He gets something out of playing against the computer and using his algorithm for chess.  The reason why he does it that way is that he is trying to avoid a support mate with the queen and the knight.  

 

If a computer program tells someone that the individual checking their rating is rated 1500, most of the time they believe that is there rating, then they go to chess tournaments and get schooled by 5-year-olds and quits chess altogether.

I told chess.com in these forums a few times that these forums need sticky, (posts put in the front of the line and stay there forever) telling beginners and other people what they need to know, topics like, the rating system, and what is a real rating, how to get it, etc.  But it seems chess.com is working on it's own things.

The theory is we all will get to a rating where we just stay at for life.  Some of us believe it and own it, others keep trying to improve.  I believe my own problem involves me not playing more long games, and mostly playing chess.  I just witnessed a meeting of four women chess players, two from the US, and two from Europe, who I saw could read a position,  that was beyond anything that has ever been seen.  One side saw a tactic and played it very beautifully.  I don't have that skill that they have.  I just play randomly most of the time, because, like many other people, sometimes, I just make moves without a plan, because I simply do not know what to do.  I've said in the past to get better at that was to study annotated master games, and play slow chess (90|30 or 45|45), so you gain the skill that if you cultivate for long enough, you will become a much better player, maybe even 2000 at least.  The problem with me is that when I play slow games I make fast moves, and never use a large fraction of my time.  So, when I play long games, I am usually playing at a disadvantage.  

I've said in the past to only play humans, and not computers, but that is not necessary an accurate position to hold on to.  There is a benefit to play against a computer opponent from time to time.  You do learn things.  Like for example I am learning, by playing the computer, book openings, and gain experience in them, and, I am figuring out why I blunder.

But, the best way to learn is through a coach.  Not everyone can afford one.  Just do what you can afford.  Don't buy a book just because someone else said you need it.  Buy it because you know you need it, and are willing to make a sacrifice for it, time, and money.

I'm not a beginner, so it's more appropriate to play against a computer because I know a lot about chess.  In my personal opinion, you can take it for a grain of salt, if a beginner decides to play against a computer, they should do it sparingly, and play a lot more human opponents.  

 

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

 

Tactics tactics tactics

How do you study tactics?  Answer that question, and find out the truth for yourself.

I play humans.

 

Yeah, the games played between two humans are much different than what a computer would play against a human.  We will never play like computers.  A WGM told me that.  You can find her on my friend's list.

But, in my personal opinion.  I get something from playing Friz.  I mean why would they make a chess program that costs over 100 dollars and isn't of any use?  That alone could be a loaded questions, however, I believe I am learning more about why I blunder when I play against a computer.  I still play with humans, just now I use Fritz as well.  I paid for it, might as well use it.  I'm not saying you should buy fritz yourself and use it to.  I simply have it.  So I'm using it.  The situation is different for you.  You have to assess for yourself if you want to play against a computer opponent, and it seems you have come to an answer, you play humans.

I'm just sharing my experience after I started playing against a computer.  Beginners I know play against computers, and I can tell you they are getting better, it's just, at a slow pace, but chess is slow to process it's very slow to get better at chess.  Good luck with your chess

 

Chess can be learned swiftly for one person but slowly for another.   It has a lot to do with their effort,  method, motivation and a funny combination of merit + health.  

 

I agree

Confused-psyduck

I almost entirely play cpus, it turns out they are pretty Good to practice openings, the fact that I can play at my own speed and that the cpu is very fast makes it also very convenient. Cpus However do not manage certain conditions very well, I found out that even at an estimated 1700+elo they suck at endgames (And that is difficult to do worse than me at that) and do stupid moves in closed positions. Playing only cpus is not enough though in order to achieve a somewhat descent level, watching annotated games, reading books or studying on chessable helps too. 

Daybreak57
HerNaturalConfidence wrote:
Daybreak57 wrote:
HerNaturalConfidence wrote:
Daybreak57 wrote:
HerNaturalConfidence wrote:
Daybreak57 wrote:

I spoke with a gentleman in the somewhat recent past and he talked about how he plays chess only against the computer and plays in a way where his main goal is to "take out" his opponents knights and then proceeds to the next step, which is, checkmate the king if he can.  He gets in a lot of king and pawn endgames, and perhaps he wanted me to tell him a thing or two about chess.  But I left it the way it was.  If I had started to say stuff to him it might have been a little misguided because I myself don't know a lot of things about chess, given my rating, though, I am no beginner.  I felt, that whatever I said, would only serve to confuse him.  He gets something out of playing against the computer and using his algorithm for chess.  The reason why he does it that way is that he is trying to avoid a support mate with the queen and the knight.  

 

If a computer program tells someone that the individual checking their rating is rated 1500, most of the time they believe that is there rating, then they go to chess tournaments and get schooled by 5-year-olds and quits chess altogether.

I told chess.com in these forums a few times that these forums need sticky, (posts put in the front of the line and stay there forever) telling beginners and other people what they need to know, topics like, the rating system, and what is a real rating, how to get it, etc.  But it seems chess.com is working on it's own things.

The theory is we all will get to a rating where we just stay at for life.  Some of us believe it and own it, others keep trying to improve.  I believe my own problem involves me not playing more long games, and mostly playing chess.  I just witnessed a meeting of four women chess players, two from the US, and two from Europe, who I saw could read a position,  that was beyond anything that has ever been seen.  One side saw a tactic and played it very beautifully.  I don't have that skill that they have.  I just play randomly most of the time, because, like many other people, sometimes, I just make moves without a plan, because I simply do not know what to do.  I've said in the past to get better at that was to study annotated master games, and play slow chess (90|30 or 45|45), so you gain the skill that if you cultivate for long enough, you will become a much better player, maybe even 2000 at least.  The problem with me is that when I play slow games I make fast moves, and never use a large fraction of my time.  So, when I play long games, I am usually playing at a disadvantage.  

I've said in the past to only play humans, and not computers, but that is not necessary an accurate position to hold on to.  There is a benefit to play against a computer opponent from time to time.  You do learn things.  Like for example I am learning, by playing the computer, book openings, and gain experience in them, and, I am figuring out why I blunder.

But, the best way to learn is through a coach.  Not everyone can afford one.  Just do what you can afford.  Don't buy a book just because someone else said you need it.  Buy it because you know you need it, and are willing to make a sacrifice for it, time, and money.

I'm not a beginner, so it's more appropriate to play against a computer because I know a lot about chess.  In my personal opinion, you can take it for a grain of salt, if a beginner decides to play against a computer, they should do it sparingly, and play a lot more human opponents.  

 

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

 

Tactics tactics tactics

How do you study tactics?  Answer that question, and find out the truth for yourself.

I play humans.

 

Yeah, the games played between two humans are much different than what a computer would play against a human.  We will never play like computers.  A WGM told me that.  You can find her on my friend's list.

But, in my personal opinion.  I get something from playing Friz.  I mean why would they make a chess program that costs over 100 dollars and isn't of any use?  That alone could be a loaded questions, however, I believe I am learning more about why I blunder when I play against a computer.  I still play with humans, just now I use Fritz as well.  I paid for it, might as well use it.  I'm not saying you should buy fritz yourself and use it to.  I simply have it.  So I'm using it.  The situation is different for you.  You have to assess for yourself if you want to play against a computer opponent, and it seems you have come to an answer, you play humans.

I'm just sharing my experience after I started playing against a computer.  Beginners I know play against computers, and I can tell you they are getting better, it's just, at a slow pace, but chess is slow to process it's very slow to get better at chess.  Good luck with your chess

 

Chess can be learned swiftly for one person but slowly for another.   It has a lot to do with their effort,  method, motivation and a funny combination of merit + health.  

 

I agree

I started chess 7 days ago with the goal of reaching 2000 rating in 100 days.   I am already more than 3/4ths of the way there.   Meanwhile one of my recent opponents said they were playing and studying for multiple hours a day for the last 300 days and barely broke 1400

 

More power to you.

Daybreak57
Confused-psyduck wrote:

I almost entirely play cpus, it turns out they are pretty Good to practice openings, the fact that I can play at my own speed and that the cpu is very fast makes it also very convenient. Cpus However do not manage certain conditions very well, I found out that even at an estimated 1700+elo they suck at endgames (And that is difficult to do worse than me at that) and do stupid moves in closed positions. Playing only cpus is not enough though in order to achieve a somewhat descent level, watching annotated games, reading books or studying on chessable helps too. 

 

Thank you for your thoughts Confused-psyduck

kindaspongey
Daybreak57 wrote:

… Tactics tactics tactics

How do you study tactics?  Answer that question, and find out the truth for yourself.

Here are some reading possibilities that I often mention:
Winning Chess by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld (1948)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093415/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/review919.pdf
Back to Basics: Tactics by Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708233537/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/review585.pdf
https://www.chess.com/article/view/book-review-back-to-basics-tactics
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5895fc0ca5790af7895297e4/1486224396755/btbtactics2excerpt.pdf

kindaspongey

"... While any kind of chess playing can aid your improvement, playing against computer programs does not prepare you quite as well for playing humans as practicing against humans. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2003)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627013711/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman25.pdf

"... One of the last things you should do [with your playing engine], except if you are a masochist, is to play games against your computer. Assuming you are not one of the top few players in the world (and possibly even then), this will only make you depressed. …" - GM John Nunn (2006)

m_connors

I play against both. Humans are much less predictable. Computers at lower levels can make some really stupid moves (it's part of the programming). Computers at higher levels are generally more predictable, as they can usually be counted on to make the best move.

When I have the time, I prefer human opponents.

DerpyShoelace

I prefer humans because sometimes low level computers make really stupid moves that just do not have an idea behind them. You could play against high level ones but I only use them to practice endgames

DerpyShoelace
HerNaturalConfidence wrote:
TheNoobyGM wrote:

I prefer humans because sometimes low level computers make really stupid moves that just do not have an idea behind them. You could play against high level ones but I only use them to practice endgames

Are computers good at endgames?  someone in another thread said they were really bad

The best engines like Stockfish 8 are incredible at endgames. The lower level ones are terrible though.

 

Confused-psyduck
HerNaturalConfidence wrote:
TheNoobyGM wrote:
HerNaturalConfidence wrote:
TheNoobyGM wrote:

I prefer humans because sometimes low level computers make really stupid moves that just do not have an idea behind them. You could play against high level ones but I only use them to practice endgames

Are computers good at endgames?  someone in another thread said they were really bad

The best engines like Stockfish 8 are incredible at endgames. The lower level ones are terrible though.

 

I see .  someone said they were good at openings and open positions but they might have meant the weaker ones then

I believe You are referencing what I said in this thread. Anyway, I play stockfish at strenght 1700-1800elo (I am not Sure wether it is really a Good reflexion of its level though), and it is OK at openings, at least it is pretty consistent During that phase, albeit it likes to quickly Go off tracks. Its weakpoint is clearly endgames, where sometimes it does not even protect its pawns and blunders to its demise. It does not manage to play well without the queen either, exchanging it During the opening can greatly increase one's Winning chances. I also found out that if I am having a bad game, the cpu might do more blunders than usual, which is interesting. However it Remains quite strong, it rarely miss tactics and on a Good day it can be crushing, I am not Sure it's as Good as human with 1700-1800 elo though, might have to substract about 100 points to have a more accurate representation of its strenght.

I guess 2000+ elo stockfish has to be a beast at endgames though, Because it would know tablebase and act accordingly.

Daybreak57
kindaspongey wrote:

"... While any kind of chess playing can aid your improvement, playing against computer programs does not prepare you quite as well for playing humans as practicing against humans. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2003)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627013711/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman25.pdf

"... One of the last things you should do [with your playing engine], except if you are a masochist, is to play games against your computer. Assuming you are not one of the top few players in the world (and possibly even then), this will only make you depressed. …" - GM John Nunn (2006)

 

Those are interesting thoughts from DH.  I know a master (I'm not going to say his name) who said that he "has his own ideas."  I myself like DH, and think if someone just listens to his basic ideas about chess, they can improve dramatically, however, a lot of people disagree with him.  However, he has gain a huge following.  I'm not saying DH is a good or bad chess coach, I'm just saying there are people that disagree with what he says.  

You seem to quote these things as if they are Gospel or something.  They are not.  They are just an opinion.  I personally played against one opponent (who was about 800 points higher than me in rating) for over 15 years.  I developed psychological chess problems because of it, though I recognize those problems, and am facing them head-on.  So what I am saying is that DH could be right.  He probably is right.

However, once again I feel like I am getting something out of playing Fritz.  I'm copying the epic games to a database that I will review later.  That is just my opinion, maybe DH is right, maybe I am going down a rabbit hole that will take me to a dark place, however, I'm willing to take that chance because I feel there is something to gain by playing against a computer, and plus, I bought it, so why not use it?  If I didn't use it it would have been wasted money.  I have to watch my attitude while playing against a computer though, so yeah KS I am listening to what you have to say, however, I disagree and am proceeding with caution.

kindaspongey
Daybreak57 wrote:

… You seem to quote these things as if they are Gospel or something. ...

Let me know if you think that you are aware of a specific quote of me that indicates that.

kindaspongey
Daybreak57 wrote:

… I personally played against one opponent (who was about 800 points higher than me in rating) for over 15 years.  I developed psychological chess problems because of it, though I recognize those problems, and am facing them head-on. ...

"... It is usually better to play opponents who are enough better than you to push you hard, but not so difficult that you have no chance. This generally means playing those about 100-200 Elo points above you. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf

kindaspongey
Daybreak57 wrote:

… maybe DH is right, maybe I am going down a rabbit hole that will take me to a dark place, ...

"... While any kind of chess playing can aid your improvement, playing against computer programs does not prepare you quite as well for playing humans as practicing against humans. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2003) (Emphasis added.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627013711/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman25.pdf

AusWasTaken
I play against real people all the time
JJKramer

So this is an example of what happens in a vs computer game, I could have killed the king multiple ways, but that move would count as "Incorrect". I dont know why. i dont really like it and DEFENITLY not reccomend it.

JJKramer

i was white

 

Forums
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic