But why do you want to play them when there are thousands of players on your level? Why dont you beat them all then automatically secure a title for yourself instead? Then maybe you will answer this question yourself.
Yes, by all means do take advantage of FIDE's new Automatic Title program!
#15 Computers scare me!
I have not played a single game against computers and I dont see what I can learn from non-human moves.
I know that I will never be able to play like them, they dont miss tactics when I try to outcheap them, they dont blunder pieces, they crush me before we get into an (equal) endgame - so all they do is frustrate me and rob the remaining confidence. :<
Well, I agree with you, dear @MrPushwood - maybe there is no point, except of gaining like one rating point outta 3 games :-0
Its probably because I am just used to play rated: on another server where I played before only rated games were noted in the amount of games played and in the stats. There were a lot of "ratesitters" around who played casual when their ratings were high and we were laughing at them.
But I will adapt: here on lichess casual games count and I have discovered the pleasure of them recently especially when our computer is taken and I am here from laptop using touchpad.
Cheers :-)
I just played 2 games against Funkmaus. Just challenge her. You are in for a good and fair fight.
I think so
I don't agree with playing against computer at max calculation power is really a good way to learn or improve. As, being non-experienced, there is no way for the human player to make the difference between a humanly decidable choice of move that could be plausible thing to learn, and a machine utlrasharp, don't breathe until so many moves to do the quiet move accounting over so many moves.
the monster wiggle machine isolated solution. only see-able if you are a machine, as otherwise, all your learnable chess theory or personal experience shows a diversity of human good moves in your favor. but no, you lose. i don't want to learn long winded sequences, i can't hold my breath for so long.
so, without any progression or guiding measure, losing against such a nitpicking player, that will always find the needle in the haystack, may not be informative. but if the differential, as in human difference has been argued here, is adapted to one's levels, so that even the machine moves, can be understood post game, then i would agree with you.
maybe, if the engine computations and width of explored variations (not just displayed) were controllable, so as to have some measure of that "find the needle" behavior, when being beaten. or some profile of evaluation, along a slice of variations, without pruning (fixed criterion to be able from one position to another, to see if the landscape is favorable within human size planning, and if the loss is a machine fluke. or any degree between those.
sorry for the verbosity, the terminology to describe this different type of chess ability or behavior, is not easy to pin down. so trying more sentences might improve my getting my point across.
" don't agree with playing against computer at max calculation power is really a good way to learn or improve. "
Believe it or not, but it does.
It makes you humble and alert and you learn tactics from it, but losing game after game is hard.
@Funkmaus
"I have not played a single game against computers and I dont see what I can learn from non-human moves.
I know that I will never be able to play like them, they dont miss tactics when I try to outcheap them, they dont blunder pieces, they crush me before we get into an (equal) endgame - so all they do is frustrate me and rob the remaining confidence. :<"
That's a very confusing paragraph.
In the same paragraph, it sounds like you are saying that you have never played a computer - but then you list all the horrible things that have happened in your experience when you play computers.
I don't get it.
@ambrooks Please forgive me the confusing expression, I am obviously not native english speaker.
No, I have never played computers myself - neither on lichess nor on another chess-sites where I was playing before.
But I have a lot of friends who play computers - and I see how they are getting beaten all over again.
Especially against that ultra-bullet beast engine which uses no time :0
And all those "horrible" things I was talking about happen to me when I turn on the analysis after the games I have played.
So yea, they frustrate me, they show the simple things I miss and knowing that I was not able to convert a say +11 advantage robs the confidence...
Hope that explains :-)
@Funkmaus OK, thanks - I see what you are saying now. Yes, I have had similar experiences in analyzing after a game.
Many times I offer a draw and it is accepted and I analyze afterwards - I see that the engine thinks I am way ahead, so why was I such an idiot to take the draw ?
In reality, I am thinking hard and there is no obvious plan that I can see to make progress. However, if you can see ten ply ahead - which might involve thousands of possibilities, maybe the engine found the one winning plan out of thousands of drawn paths to take.
I cannot get annoyed because of that.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.