> "One big mistake is to rely heavily on computers for chess analysis. Computer analysis should be done only after you analyze the game on your own."
This isn't correct information anymore, in my opinion. Chess engines have improved tenfold over the last four years (when the author says he stopped playing). The increase in the strength of chess engines has subsequently caused an increase in the "humanity" of chess engines, meaning that, instead of playing bizarre moves that are strong yet incomprehensible to humans, they play principled, sound moves that are strong tactically and strategically.
The main thing that you will miss as a sub-2000 player (or ever, really) is tactics, which is exactly where computers excel. A computer will be able to tell you tactics you missed and will allow you to experiment to see how different moves would have improved your game.
I agree that you should analyze games with your opponent after the game (and also with stronger players), but keep in mind that, if you're both sub-2000, you'll both miss obvious tactics even as you review the game, which doesn't really improve your chess thought.
One last thing: the 400 points in 400 days training comes from the book Rapid Chess Improvement, which I do not recommend for the beginning player (the knight exercise is good, though). In it, Michael De La Maza wastes time blasting Jeremy Silman and the strategic approach to chess games. Some people like the book for the mild drama it started, but the tl;dr is "tactics, tactics, tactics," which pretty much everyone will tell you.
> I agree that you should analyze games with your opponent after the game (and also with stronger players), but keep in mind that, if you're both sub-2000, you'll both miss obvious tactics even as you review the game, which doesn't really improve your chess thought.
This is very true, although there might be an additional benefit to that. If you miss something during a game, you can always write it off as "time pressure / momentary lapse", but if you miss it again during a subsequent analysis, there may be something deeper going on (i.e. you are probably not considering certain types of combinations, etc). Knowing this allows you to ask "why did I miss that twice, even without pressure?", which may lead to good insight into your thinking process and an increase in playing strength. Of course, this may not necessarily mean that it's the best way to spend your time, it's just an additional thought.
Ah yes, you should give yourself another shot to figure out different possibilities. It gives u better insight into whether or not you are getting better at identifying tactics
> "This isn't correct information anymore, in my opinion"
It looks like you hastily condemned the writer as a means to justify a parallel insight. The writer is clearly not against computer analysis, even in the quote that you have extracted. It does make sense to analyse without the aide of a computer then afterwards using one. Your insight still stands.
Would you mind naming some good chess engines for Mac, Windows and Linux? (I know this can be googled, but I value the recommendation from a credible source).
The Stockfish team has made tremendous progress recently, thanks to 1) putting the code on Github and accepting patches, and 2) building an open, distributed testing framework that tests every patch by playing thousands of games.
A cool feature people may not know about - many of these GUIs allow you to play two engines against each other. It's fun to watch two strong programs slug it out. :)
Stockfish is amazingly strong. It's the world's second strongest engine (after Houdini) and completely free and open source. On average modern hardware (say core i7 CPU) it's rated around 3250 ELO.
I also have HIARCS chess (rated 3190 ELO on my hardware) which is notable for its human like play, but Stockfish kills it almost every single time.
The point is that having the missed tactics pointed out to you by the computer doesn't do much to improve your chess. It won't help you find a tactic the next time an opportunity comes up. Whereas analyzing seriously and finding tactics yourself (albeit fewer than the computer will point out), _will_ improve your ability to find them over the board.
I differ from you in that regard. I learn tactics by seeing them played out. Once I see the pattern, it gets burned into my memory a bit, especially if I missed a tactic that led to my defeat.
The idea that "computer analysis should be done only after you analyze the game on your own" does not come from the notion that computer analysis is not accurate enough (which is obviously wrong, as you pointed out), but that you develop your skills way better if you put effort into working the solution out on your own rather than having it served on a plate by the chess engine.
This isn't correct information anymore, in my opinion. Chess engines have improved tenfold over the last four years (when the author says he stopped playing). The increase in the strength of chess engines has subsequently caused an increase in the "humanity" of chess engines, meaning that, instead of playing bizarre moves that are strong yet incomprehensible to humans, they play principled, sound moves that are strong tactically and strategically.
The main thing that you will miss as a sub-2000 player (or ever, really) is tactics, which is exactly where computers excel. A computer will be able to tell you tactics you missed and will allow you to experiment to see how different moves would have improved your game.
I agree that you should analyze games with your opponent after the game (and also with stronger players), but keep in mind that, if you're both sub-2000, you'll both miss obvious tactics even as you review the game, which doesn't really improve your chess thought.
One last thing: the 400 points in 400 days training comes from the book Rapid Chess Improvement, which I do not recommend for the beginning player (the knight exercise is good, though). In it, Michael De La Maza wastes time blasting Jeremy Silman and the strategic approach to chess games. Some people like the book for the mild drama it started, but the tl;dr is "tactics, tactics, tactics," which pretty much everyone will tell you.