This is more of a rant than part of any coherent train of thought, and to be honest it might be pure ignorance on my part. But I’m tired of databases and I’m tired of computer’s analyzing our games. Now I know there are some of you out there that swear by using databases to learn an opening and analyze your favorite line, but is this really learning?
First off looking at the first 20 moves of a game between grandmasters doestn’t do it for me. The bottom line is I can read the descriptions and the annotations but the likelihood of me getting into these positions is pretty slim overall. At my level opponents deviate from “book” fairly early. I know that I should understand why the deviation is wrong, but even when I understand why it doesn’t lead to a clear win. It leads to a +/= position which with equal material early on in a game means I have alot of opportunity to blow it. Basically I feel that doing it this way you’re simply nodding when you play over the GM games. You’re saying, “Of course! It’s so easy!” Yeah well it isn’t, and it isn’t because you really didn’t learn anything. It looks easy when you look at someone else do it, but the same can be said of alot of other things as well. Skiing doesn’t look particularly hard, but I’ve never done it, so what the hell do I know.
The same holds true for letting fritz or any other program annotate my games. At first I thought it was a swell idea, I mean the computer is way stronger than I am, so it should prove useful. Until I got positions that were technically better for me but required me to play another 20 moves of brilliant tactical chess to get the win. One problem with that; I gauge my tacitcal skill at about 1600 level which means once again I have more than ample room to go wrong with the game.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not some unibomber type that thinks that machines will be the death of us, but I think they rob us of our creativity in chess. They keep us from being ourselves. This is not to say I don’t use programs, there are certain things I use them for.
Things I use Fritz for:
Storing my games, annotations are all done by me 
Checking endgame play, once I get into a position where I know the tablebases can pick up from I let the computer show me the way. This is due to the fact that there is a no shit best way to continue in endgames.
Storing my opening repertoire, I only do this for quick reference. I plug the games in from the books I have, but I don’t learn the opening this way. More on how I learn my repertoire later kids.
Things I don’t use Fritz for:
Analyzing my games. After I annotate one of my games I have fritz blundercheck the whole game with my annotations. This just ensures that I didn’t do anything truly stupid. Unless Fritz finds something that drops a pawn it will not give any suggestions. By the way he/it hasn’t found a one pawn blunder in about 6 months now, which means that my blunders are still losing games, but I’m not dropping pawns and pieces anymore, so that’s good.
Learning my openings or anything for that matter. As I already stated, I don’t care for this method, It doesn’t work for me. I also don’t get much from pushing the button on the screen to advance the moves. I find good old fashioned wood pushing to be far better for my learning.
I usually go over my games with two boards an analysis set and a regulation tournament sized set. The analysis set usually has a critical position of the game while I work through the problem on the regulation sized set. I make my notes and only when I’m done do I start entering the moves into a database. Yes this is an extra step, but I just seem to catch more when I’m at a physical board.
So what’s the deal with all of this? Well the whole point is to be the next you. Grandmasters have to play certain lines and memorize openings because they are playing other GM’s. Annand has to know the Botvinnik variation of the Semi-Slav down cold for his upcoming match with Kramnik, because he’s playing Kramnik! These guys don’t have a choice, but the rest of us do. I have improved over 400 points in my first year of competetive chess, without memorizing openings, without becoming some type of shut-in who does nothing but tactical puzzles all day.
Most of this has happened while analyzing my own games and learning the game, all aspects of it and not just a narrow portion. Oh and by the way it’s been done while having fun and learning about myself, my approach to chess, and in a way my approach to life.
Analyzing your games is of the utmost importance. I know it can be painful, I have had to dissect my stinkers, I mean really dissect my stinkers in excrutiating detail. This is painful, it hurts but it reaveals alot about my game. Even my wins have been helpful. For instance I have become almost a complete pussy when I have a won game. I will pick sub par moves to preserve the win. As long as you win I guess it doesn’t matter but because of this I’ve let some games become alot more exciting than they should have become. Ironic huh, play like a puss so you can snatch the easy win then end up playing alot harder because you were scared.
Although it’s painful it must happen if you are going to get better. I have found that I had certain notions about my game, before I started analyzing them. Alot of preconceived notions about my game were wrong, but I would never have realized it wre it not for the game analysis.
That’s pretty much it, I have nothing witty to send you off with. I can say this however, “Step away from your computer!”. Be yourself, and don’t worry about -/= or +/= positions, play the chess you were meant to play, not something that someone else says should be played. This goes primarily for the opening, but it goes for your game analysis as well, if you don’t start trying to find the best move for yourself, how are you making progress? Having Fritz spoon feed you isn’t going to help much.
Well Chapter 4 will be out next week and then I’ll be starting on Part 2. The last chapter is all about with what I’ve learned and my experiences in my first year of competetive chess. I hope you will find it informative and helpful in dealing with your own addiction.
Later kids.
Filed under: General
Hello wang,
Very interesting thots.
I myself use Fritz to annotate the games. I only pay particular attention when I have deviations from positions resulting in differences of +/- 0.5 evals or greater. This usually means that I’ve created some form of weakness for which my opponent can exploit or had fallen into a tactical/positional trick which I missed. Like you, I still use blundercheck a lot.
For openings, I normally check opening lines as well when they deviate from book and how I should have played. This allows me to squeeze the tiniest advantage out of the position. However, I do take caution when the opening lines do not deviate much and I stick to my overall strategy/plan that is coherent with the opening.
I’ve played many stinkers myself. Like walking into mate, pins, forks, you name it, I played it. I agree with u about going through your own games (wins and losses). Usually when a game leads to a winning position, you tend to lax or lighten up and not thinking critically. This tends to be the most dangerous times because oft, you tend to miss better moves or blunder because of assumption of the “move plays itself” factor.
IMHO computer analysis has its good and bad. The bad being when people become too preoccupied with things like squeezing +0.01 out of the advantage which is surely no way to play chess.
cheers.
I just realised how my 2nd para above seems to contradict my last para. I meant to say that following book play allows me to increase/maintain any advantage without conceding a change in deviations of +/- 0.5 evals (“squeezing the tiniest advantage”). I find that good players play good moves because the moves are good or they have some inherent strategy which makes playing a lot easier.
At my level, I’m not overtly concerned with opening book (more like a glance of “ohhh, so that’s how i should play”), just that I need to be aware of playing properly without ceding any advantage to my opponent.
hope i’m making sense…..
I’m linking this outstanding essay.
It is not often that you see someone who is so spot on when selfimprovement in chess is the subject. Although I think that there are other possibilties to use the chess engine for training, I agree 100% on the methods you reject here. Excelent post.
Dude, this rocks! As I get more “mature” in my chess, I get more and more annoyed by people Kibitzing during games “Fritz says XYZ.” For me, when I was in my period of Fritz dependence, it was largely a matter of not trusting myself one whit to analyze my own games because I sucked so bad. But then I came to realize, yes, I do suck that bad, but I still need to go over my own games (and then follow up with a quick blundercheck), including wins.
This post deserves its own special place in the chess interwebs.
Holy shit guys! Thanks so much. I’m actually blushing and have a huge grin on my face from your reactions.
tanc:
I understood what you were saying. I don’t think that Fritz is the devil’s handywork, but I get a little fed up with people worshipping at the altar of Fritz.
Warheit:
Once again, thanks for the link and the love.
Phaedrus:
Thanks for your kind words. I went to your blog and saw that you know your stuff. Being so much higher rated than I am, I brings me much satisfaction to hear that I am on the right track with my improvement plan.
BDK:
A remark from you is cool enough, but claiming it deserves it’s own spot on the internets, or interwebs, or, you know the thing with the tubes…is very flattering.
Just wanted to drop a line to let you know I’m really enjoying these essays. Keep ‘em coming!
Allow me to retort….
so much good sense. thank you. i am adding you to my blogroll and glad that i found you. i cannot say that i agree 100% or not, just much appreciation for what you say, and how you say it. best regards, dk seattle