I don't think that we have a lot of "engine warriors," I personally meant more that since people have engines at their disposal at home, they're less inclined to start a thread when they can 1) switch on their own engines, and 2) think that many other people are just going to switch on their own engines when they respond to a thread.  I don't think that we need "engine warriors" for strong engines to have discouraged discussion.

I'm calling bull. This thread for instance

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1497181073/0

doesn't contain any analysis. No engine warrior in sight.
And there are many more threads like that one.

barnaby wrote on 07/18/17 at 18:22:37:


And, if you don't eat right you could suffer indigestion... 

All I'm saying is that a possible cure for the engine variation dumpers would be to request *some* verbal explanations. Of course, excessive explanations with no concrete analysis is not desirable at all.

A good chess book is one that explains some the thinking and plans behind the moves. I don't mean explanations expressed in an annoying, cloyingly basic way, but on a higher level. Chess engines can't really do that.

A few years ago, a friend of mine (a class player) had trouble facing the Exchange French while playing Black and I offered to help, even though I'm not a big time French player. With the help of the database, I suggested a plan based on Bd6 and Ne7, aiming for imbalances and more ambitious play instead of playing the standard symmetric Nf6 lines. I put together a basic repertoire for him, with some minimal wordage and mostly lines, but also warning against some traps involving Bxh7 after Black's Bg4.

My stuff was adequate, but then after a little while I got a hold of Uhlmann's book on the French and what a delight it was reading it. A great balance between variations and spelled-out plans, but I was most pleasantly surprised to see Uhlmann playing the line with Bd6/Ne7.

Today's chess computers are stronger than Uhlmann but can't  do a good job of distilling info, let alone explain plans well and  reveal the deeper ideas behind the moves, and can't even do that at my level, much less a GM's.

We need a balanced approach and we're poorer for it if we don't stop to try to explain at least to ourselves what we're trying to accomplish when playing chess moves.

ErictheRed wrote on 07/18/17 at 03:17:18:


I'm only suggesting that a way to deter dumping of dry computer analysis by some posters would be to ask them to provide some ideas as well. When that's not forthcoming, the embarrassment could keep them from continuing the practice.

(Not sure how much of a problem this has been lately.)

Nickajack wrote on 07/18/17 at 00:59:51:

But there's no universal view of how much explanation is wanted or needed. What seems blindingly obvious to you might need lots of explanation to me, and vice versa. Overexplained analysis can be just as annoying to read as underexplained analysis...

I honestly think the balance between variations and explanation in the forum is fine. If anything, more concrete analysis (using both engines and human brains!) would be great, since general considerations and the best laid plans can be ruined by one strong tactical move. But I can't really demand more analysis from others; I should start by contributing more of it myself first.

Göran wrote on 07/07/17 at 22:27:44:

I agree, but I am interested in others' opinions. Maybe I should just return to the previous order?

ErictheRed wrote on 07/15/17 at 05:51:20:



If it was scientifically possible to agree more than 100% I would.

There have been many instances in the past in which I have posted pragmatic lines in various openings only to have the thread grind to a halt once best play from the engine was introduced.

One thing I learned is that this site seem (?) to cater (?) to a lot of correspondence players of which use an engine during actual play) and these types of players are not going to eschew their engine-assisted analysis or slum in a pragmatic otb line that offers chances due to complications that are difficult for a human to navigate.


So, while I agree both philosophically and empirically with your statement I am more persuaded by the idea that the engine genie is not going back into the bottle and as such have pretty much stopped posting any theory related threads (here or elsewhere) because of such experiences of having the engine brigade take over the process.

I miss the local five & dime, landlines, the neighborhood bowling alley and coffee that costs 25 cents a cup and none of them are coming back.

The internets and engines have changed chess in ways that are not so easy to dial back, and they have even more changed how we talk about it, both here online and in real world situations.

ErictheRed wrote on 07/15/17 at 05:51:20:


+2.00