[Off original topic]
@drmrboss You judge a computer assessment by their rating compared to humans. Keep in mind I was referring to near-2800 elo players.
Anyway I'm talking about play between humans.
Computers are surprisingly bad at first moves, as they are proven bad at some crowded positions, and, even if you argue they are still scientifically better than top humans at openings, we are still not talking about playing computers. Human players of all levels want to create the most possibilities. Whereas a position analysis going on for ages on a monster hardware may find very specific lines that justify an opening. But you aren't a monster computer with access to ages of data. You can try playing the computer way, but see how you go. Probably give wide options to your opponent and dig yourself a hole of critical decisions. You can't compute, you can use chess knowledge intuitively.
Most things the computer says are helpful, but some aren't, or at least you still need to truly understand why that works, before trying to apply it.
Finally, who helped bust the king's gambit was Fischer in 1961, it didn't take a computer to find the computer refutation in this case.
@drmrboss You judge a computer assessment by their rating compared to humans. Keep in mind I was referring to near-2800 elo players.
Anyway I'm talking about play between humans.
Computers are surprisingly bad at first moves, as they are proven bad at some crowded positions, and, even if you argue they are still scientifically better than top humans at openings, we are still not talking about playing computers. Human players of all levels want to create the most possibilities. Whereas a position analysis going on for ages on a monster hardware may find very specific lines that justify an opening. But you aren't a monster computer with access to ages of data. You can try playing the computer way, but see how you go. Probably give wide options to your opponent and dig yourself a hole of critical decisions. You can't compute, you can use chess knowledge intuitively.
Most things the computer says are helpful, but some aren't, or at least you still need to truly understand why that works, before trying to apply it.
Finally, who helped bust the king's gambit was Fischer in 1961, it didn't take a computer to find the computer refutation in this case.