A sign of these times

Surely it has happened to some of you. After explaining some alternatives in a certain position to a student or group of students, the comment is "the engine says equality so there is no reason to follow that line." For me this is sad because these students lose the opportunity to delve into the analysis of certain situations, such as those in which there is material imbalance. What do you think about it?

In olden times people used to say the same thing about opening evaluations (thus confusing "equality" with "draw"). And now (unsurprisingly) book-monkeys have been transformed into engine-monkeys. :)

Tell your audience: "it's only equal if you, behind the board, without engine assistence, can prove it's equal. Stockfish saying it's equal really doesn't count. Why? BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT STOCKFISH."

@MrPushwood Books establish valuation of only some positions. Today engine can give us its judgment about any position.

@Molurus Believe me, I have several arguments to respond to these comments.

I think for players under 1600 when options are nearly numerically equal they should see what each option looks like after 3 or 4 moves. Which might not matter bc players under 1600 especially under 900 respond in 10 different ways each move.

However, I think they should play the line that makes sense to them and they like the position. 2 nearly equal moves could branch out into 2 different games. One positional one dynamic and nuts.

Pick a line that should play out how they are comfortable but always be aware of alternatives from opponent and which weaknesses they can create or exploit. After all, it's still the mistakes that decide games not picking a separate move with .2 better eval.

@drSabrotna said in #6:

After all, it's still the mistakes that decide games, not picking a separate move with 0.2 better eval.

I completely agree with this part of your comment. On the other hand, I have seen, during some live broadcasts, that the audience harshly criticizes the moves of the GMs who are playing at that moment and, at the same time, propose improvements. Do these improvements come from the audience or the engine?

@RG2007 said in #8:

I completely agree with this part of your comment. On the other hand, I have seen, during some live broadcasts, that the audience harshly criticizes the moves of the GMs who are playing at that moment and, at the same time, propose improvements. Do these improvements come from the audience or the engine?

Lol audience. The average elo of audience likely 950 telling GMs how to play lol. Be like me telling Picasso how to paint lol

@MrPushwood said in #2:

...book-monkeys have been transformed into engine-monkeys

It went from bad to worse.