The user using the stronger engine would win, that's why Nakamura + Rybka lost to Stockfish
#11 arz920 - Using assistance from your own computer would still be considered cheating. Both would have to rely on the exact same resources provided by Lichess. That would make it fair.
I don't like to use an engine for win, the victory is of the engine
There is no human effort
Even using only 1 computer move, the victory is not yours at 100%
jungando90,
I agree that just having an engine calculating the best moves and giving them a score isn't so interesting from a learning point of view. So I was thinking more about having just visual stuff added over the board. Lost of arrows that only show up as the mouse goes over the squares, or the mouse goes over "big buttons" outside of the board. Then it's still up to you to calculate, but you can see through the arrows all critical things going on, all threats, opportunities, indirect attacks, weak squares, who dominates each square, etc.
I agree that just having an engine calculating the best moves and giving them a score isn't so interesting from a learning point of view. So I was thinking more about having just visual stuff added over the board. Lost of arrows that only show up as the mouse goes over the squares, or the mouse goes over "big buttons" outside of the board. Then it's still up to you to calculate, but you can see through the arrows all critical things going on, all threats, opportunities, indirect attacks, weak squares, who dominates each square, etc.
#everyone
I think what Evil is trying to communicate across is that some kind of "trainer" from lichess would allow users to play said training games. The ultimate point being that users might or might not improve with the feature (some users will take the feature seriously and improve with it) Letting the engine do ALL the work will not make you learn unless you put forth the effort to learn while the engine is doing the work. You have to understand chess to improve and understand why certain moves are played. If said users take the time to understand why the engine "recommends" a move then learning is actually taking place. It is TOTALLY fair to all users if a designated area is set up for this. At my local library me and another player rated roughly 1600 uscf go over games and put them in the computer while we analyse them OTB. There is a limit to our ability just using the engine but if such feature could be added to repeatedly teach you how to play then it is worth it.
Those that use it properly will get positions/tactics drilled in by repetition at the minimum. Some and those that just use for engine alone will not improve but it is okay since the area is still crafted for anyone. I think it would be dumb to disallow home engines since the engine here is still limited. For a lot of users I do not see it going in the direction of who has the better/stronger engine but who puts more effort into the game and who has the better engine. Its a combination. Got to trust it.
I think what Evil is trying to communicate across is that some kind of "trainer" from lichess would allow users to play said training games. The ultimate point being that users might or might not improve with the feature (some users will take the feature seriously and improve with it) Letting the engine do ALL the work will not make you learn unless you put forth the effort to learn while the engine is doing the work. You have to understand chess to improve and understand why certain moves are played. If said users take the time to understand why the engine "recommends" a move then learning is actually taking place. It is TOTALLY fair to all users if a designated area is set up for this. At my local library me and another player rated roughly 1600 uscf go over games and put them in the computer while we analyse them OTB. There is a limit to our ability just using the engine but if such feature could be added to repeatedly teach you how to play then it is worth it.
Those that use it properly will get positions/tactics drilled in by repetition at the minimum. Some and those that just use for engine alone will not improve but it is okay since the area is still crafted for anyone. I think it would be dumb to disallow home engines since the engine here is still limited. For a lot of users I do not see it going in the direction of who has the better/stronger engine but who puts more effort into the game and who has the better engine. Its a combination. Got to trust it.
umm i don't see where he is getting at. the standard definition of advanced chess is "anything goes" (as far as the source of the moves is concerned) so like, if God came down and told you what to move, that would be okay
@Lightsss Maybe. If there was an anything goes section (with ratings) the cheaters would play there. Though not all cheaters would play there I suppose a few would go there instead of playing in regular sections. And if it cuts down on cheaters it should be a good thing.
Lightsss, indeed, in such case using the term "advanced chess" is probably inadequate for what I'm proposing.
noob2chess, you said "engine here is still limited", but we use Stockfish 7, the 2nd best engine in the world (with Komodo scoring slightly better in computer chess tournaments). The computer analysis here is limited by choice, for 18 ply depth. This limit is to avoid CPU or memory issues in users machine.
However, I don't think very deep analysis is needed to develop this feature. Actually, the feature might be developed without even using any of those chess engines that play chess. Maybe just a fast running algorithm meant to map critical stuff for each position.
For instance, each square in the board may have a number of black and white pieces attacking it. This may be balanced or one side might have a numeric dominance over that square. We don't need a chess playing engine to map and we can show it with a small number on the corner of each square. Obviously most people won't wish to see 64 small numbers all over the board through the entire game, so this is one feature that by default would only show up when the mouse goes over a rectangular button out of the board saying something like "Square Balance".
noob2chess, you said "engine here is still limited", but we use Stockfish 7, the 2nd best engine in the world (with Komodo scoring slightly better in computer chess tournaments). The computer analysis here is limited by choice, for 18 ply depth. This limit is to avoid CPU or memory issues in users machine.
However, I don't think very deep analysis is needed to develop this feature. Actually, the feature might be developed without even using any of those chess engines that play chess. Maybe just a fast running algorithm meant to map critical stuff for each position.
For instance, each square in the board may have a number of black and white pieces attacking it. This may be balanced or one side might have a numeric dominance over that square. We don't need a chess playing engine to map and we can show it with a small number on the corner of each square. Obviously most people won't wish to see 64 small numbers all over the board through the entire game, so this is one feature that by default would only show up when the mouse goes over a rectangular button out of the board saying something like "Square Balance".
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.