It is not uncommon to place a position that the author assigns as superior in an engine and it shows that it is not as simple as the author wanted to show.
Many times, without the help of the engine, we feel happy and able, in the next time, to make the plans indicated by the author and win!
However, against an engine, what the author taught simply doesn't work! Even if the position is in our favor, the plans are not those indicated by the author, the key squares and ideas are not the ones the author taught. The strategic motiffs or themes never appear, the engine just won't allow them! And all that we think we have understood of the position, with the help of the plans and key squares. key manouvers, indicated by the author, falls apart!
It is like Lasker says: "Tactics is used to refute false values and strategy is used to confirm true values".
In this sense, what we are led to believe is that these values, transmitted by the author, are false, since the engines, through very strong counterattacks, completely prevent them from appearing concretely in position.
With that in mind I question:
We should turn off the engines and try these false values until a human being refutes them (this may never happen, since some of these values not even very high-profile players like Fischer, Keres, Botvinnik and even Kasparov were able to refute) or we must start the engines and learn the true values? (if there are true values... maybe everything are tactical\concrete !?).
I don't feel good playing something that I know against an engine won't work. It would seem more appropriate, apparently, to play with this ignorance, relying on the authors' words and, why not, on practical results!
WHat do you thinking about that?
You can't post in the forums yet. Play some games!