In such a criticism, the focus is too much on the tool, methinks.
It's undoubtedly true that there are people who are unduly critical of the top players based on what they see from their engine (worse, usually based on really shallow analysis from someplace like chessbomb or chess24).
Of course, it's an empirical question how many of these people are the sorts of people who would be internet trolls disrespectful of GMs in the first place, and I suspect that those classes largely overlap.
As has been pointed out, much of this behavior is on internet chats and forums, and the level of poor behavior is just much higher in such contexts in general, so it's a bit hard to say how much of this "disrespect" is specifically from engines and how much would be displayed without them just because it's an internet chat :)
Further, on the question of engines' overall impact on chess, I personally think it's been substantially positive.
First, it enables people who might not have access (geographically, financially, or what have you) to good coaching or a community of strong players to get strong feedback on their moves.
It's not a complete substitute for coaching, of course, since you have to put in the effort to turn the engine's feedback into something human-comprehensible, but at least you have an easily available source of strong feedback.
Second, as IM Stuart Rachels pointed out on this topic in a lecture, computers point out some stunning and very beautifully complex tactical shots that we would likely just miss without them.
Working through these tactics and understanding how they work is a source of great aesthetic enjoyment for many.
As with any tool, of course engines can be abused, and they are, both by cheaters and by people who see a purple move based on analysis to iteration 15 from SF on chessbomb and scream "Oh my god! How stupid is this GM?".
For the latter, as I said above, I honestly don't think engines contribute too much to those people's ranks; such people would likely troll/insult otherwise. I could be wrong, but it's hard to support such a counterfactual :)
Cheaters are the one unambiguous negative of engines on the world of chess, and for me the extent and impact of cheating with engines is so small that it doesn't outweigh the benefits.
On that note, claims that a huge number of people cheat, or a huge number of people over a certain rating cheat are just unsubstantiated.
At any rate, these are my thoughts on the subject :)
It's undoubtedly true that there are people who are unduly critical of the top players based on what they see from their engine (worse, usually based on really shallow analysis from someplace like chessbomb or chess24).
Of course, it's an empirical question how many of these people are the sorts of people who would be internet trolls disrespectful of GMs in the first place, and I suspect that those classes largely overlap.
As has been pointed out, much of this behavior is on internet chats and forums, and the level of poor behavior is just much higher in such contexts in general, so it's a bit hard to say how much of this "disrespect" is specifically from engines and how much would be displayed without them just because it's an internet chat :)
Further, on the question of engines' overall impact on chess, I personally think it's been substantially positive.
First, it enables people who might not have access (geographically, financially, or what have you) to good coaching or a community of strong players to get strong feedback on their moves.
It's not a complete substitute for coaching, of course, since you have to put in the effort to turn the engine's feedback into something human-comprehensible, but at least you have an easily available source of strong feedback.
Second, as IM Stuart Rachels pointed out on this topic in a lecture, computers point out some stunning and very beautifully complex tactical shots that we would likely just miss without them.
Working through these tactics and understanding how they work is a source of great aesthetic enjoyment for many.
As with any tool, of course engines can be abused, and they are, both by cheaters and by people who see a purple move based on analysis to iteration 15 from SF on chessbomb and scream "Oh my god! How stupid is this GM?".
For the latter, as I said above, I honestly don't think engines contribute too much to those people's ranks; such people would likely troll/insult otherwise. I could be wrong, but it's hard to support such a counterfactual :)
Cheaters are the one unambiguous negative of engines on the world of chess, and for me the extent and impact of cheating with engines is so small that it doesn't outweigh the benefits.
On that note, claims that a huge number of people cheat, or a huge number of people over a certain rating cheat are just unsubstantiated.
At any rate, these are my thoughts on the subject :)
