Bibs wrote on 01/26/15 at 13:09:12:
Coach = good. Coach + software = good, and checking for wacky tactics.
I play very rarely, but a clear example is from the last OTB game I played, a draw, versus a young IM. I missed a win at the end, we both missed in the postmortem, I found on my iPhone on the train home. Ah, oops!
Seems just bizarre to state that software should not be used by coaches.
Dunno, ask some super GMs, over 2750, see what they say....
Well, I guess when you coach a 2750 you need an engine to follow his train of thought in the first place
But okay, my point isn't that you shouldn't use engines in your analysis (like you did on your way home), but rather that a coach has IMO a better value by sharing his own thought process and even human calculations.
Provided the coach is strong enough (like your elo+300 and at least 2000), his tactics are good enough to provide new
common patterns for you. At the same time, it's interesting to see how he analyzes : which line he goes for first, when he stops, how he assesses positions. Even if at the end of the day he misses a couple of ideas, or even if his evaluation isn't completely right, I believe it's worthwhile to see
how the guy at the next level thinks about the game.
If he just goes : "oh Bxh7+ works here because there's this pawn on e5 and if blah blah blah blah blah (engine output)", then where's the added value compared to analyzing yourself with an engine ?
I believe human ideas that won't work in a specific position still have a lot of practical value for improvement, both because they are probably applicable in more positions than weird engine tactics, and because that's how your next opponent may think too.
I'm only a 2000 elo player, so maybe this way of thinking doesn't apply at higher pro levels (where it's more and more about accuracy and exceptions), but I firmly believe being exposed to a human thought process during the first stages of analysis is more beneficial for an amateur player