Recently I just played a 3+2 where it was a rather short game. We ended up playing 18 moves in total, a game which was rather similiar to me (position wise). If you can take a look at the game and then the analysis, it tells me that I have two mistakes. Fair enough, but upon seeing those mistakes I simply don't get them?
Don't get me wrong, I don't act like I'm not supposed to receive any mistakes, but why does the system/engine suppose that Qf6 is bad and suggests Qf7+ instead? I had an attack in mind and could not initiate my attack with Qf7+ (which, by the way turned out to be succesful) yet only with Qf6.
Did I really just play bad? It might be... I'd appericiate some thoughts though.
da.lichess.org/GRWUG1um/black#0Sometimes engines see really solid defenses that are not easy for a human to see. After looking your game over for a few minutes, with the engine running It's not very clear to me either why your mistakes were inherently bad.
The computers hated a lot of Tal's moves, but that does not mean many humans could refute them, and he was one of the greatest attackers.
It doesn't matter if it is sound or not. It matters if your opponent can refute it or not.
Nice game
Your attack was significantly aggressive and very scary for your opponent, but as the guy above said, computer would easily defend against you and your attack, which is the main key advantage of the computer per se. THIS IS why in ultra sharp positions, in a 180+25 games super grandmasters fail. You can't beat computer in calculation warfield
And computer considered your moves as a amistakes, because your opponent allegedly could defend the position. Instead he proposed how to 100% exploit gained advatantage in case of opponent's further perfect play.
It is only a mistake if your mistake is the last one :) - what is the saying, the winner in chess is the person who makes the second to last mistake :)
The analysis shows that with best play, the move you played would have resulted in a less favorable position for you compared to the "best line" that the engine found.
Use the analysis tool to help you improve, but do not get too hung up on the analysis for minor subtle items - use it to find the big things you miss. It tells me I blunder when I miss a mate, even though I still remain two pieces up :)
OK I look at the mate, because next time I might need to find it in the time ... but at the quick pace, I am just playing to sharpen up my skills and trying to build up my pattern recognition :)
#2
That makes a lot of sense. I guess that's why it is so much more enjoyable to play against humans then it is against engines; for me at least.
Tal is incredible, I've studied his games heavily and find them fascinating every time/game.
Thanks for the response and kind words!
#3
Ultimately, it does come down to that engines indeed have come to a point where it is no longer possible for a human to beat them, at least in the calculation warfield with longer time controls.
That's why, as I said earlier, it is more much enjoyable to initiate creative attacks against human opponents, as the element of suprise and doubt still exists in those kinds of opponents :)
#4
Sure the engine suggest the 'best' line for that specific move - but has the engine taken into account the opponent I am playing against, his rating, his playing style and so on - do you get what I am saying?
The engine simply calculates the 'best' line based that you're playing against the best player to ever exist. That's why, as a human, you can sometimes initiate attacks in a different way with different opponents - as you can use your human 'intellect' to 'calculate' these things which the engine cannot; the engine is locked to chess and chess only.
Also, it does make sense that "you want to play your best no matter your opponent" but that usually turns out to be boring, passive games - in my own opinion at least. I like to have the freedom of choice in my chess games, alternating between being defensive, passive or aggresive. :)