@NoelStuder said in #1:
> Comments on lichess.org/@/noelstuder/blog/how-to-use-chess-engines/lfoXO0He
"White was still fully in his prep"
How do you know? None of my opponents is willing to share such info after a game even if I ask. Such info is too sensitive.
> Comments on lichess.org/@/noelstuder/blog/how-to-use-chess-engines/lfoXO0He
"White was still fully in his prep"
How do you know? None of my opponents is willing to share such info after a game even if I ask. Such info is too sensitive.
Engines are actually made to analyze your games and know your mistakes on your own so that you improve, but people use it in a wrong way
not bad read it!!
<Comment deleted by user>
@peppie23 said in #12:
> "White was still fully in his prep"
>
> How do you know? None of my opponents is willing to share such info after a game even if I ask. Such info is too sensitive.
When your opponent plays every single move a tempo for many moves in the opening, it's probably a prep. If it's not, it's just a player who plays too fast.
> "White was still fully in his prep"
>
> How do you know? None of my opponents is willing to share such info after a game even if I ask. Such info is too sensitive.
When your opponent plays every single move a tempo for many moves in the opening, it's probably a prep. If it's not, it's just a player who plays too fast.
If the opponent would just play the way the computer said.
So one doesn't know for sure if it prep or not. It is therefore pure speculation to criticize the opponent of using wrongly the engine.
Besides it is well possible that the line was looked at in detail long ago and a player could only remember some pieces of the analysis. That is what happens with me all the time. I know that I studied a line e.g. a year ago but despite thinking very long I can't dig up the analysis. Those analysis consist often of hundreds of lines and if it is a rather rare opening then it is not something I refresh regularly. You only look at it when you expect the line.
Anyway the Swiss grandmaster makes a good point that one should analyze a position not only in the depth but probably even more also in the width. I just think he could've used a more neutral example instead.
Besides it is well possible that the line was looked at in detail long ago and a player could only remember some pieces of the analysis. That is what happens with me all the time. I know that I studied a line e.g. a year ago but despite thinking very long I can't dig up the analysis. Those analysis consist often of hundreds of lines and if it is a rather rare opening then it is not something I refresh regularly. You only look at it when you expect the line.
Anyway the Swiss grandmaster makes a good point that one should analyze a position not only in the depth but probably even more also in the width. I just think he could've used a more neutral example instead.
Stockfish 15
So very good