Pro game databases and strong programs can give us some idea of how a "good player" would play in a given position. I think strong computer programs can provide educational analysis features, and it will be a nice supplement to study materials we already have (e.g. Human players can explain meaning behind moves and give insight into strategy. This is where the role of commentators come in. But without understanding why a pro played a certain way, or the subtleties of their strategy, just copying the moves is not very good.
Using software like Kombilo you can analyze a database of go games and try to find patterns. You can review a pro game without commentary, and you have several examples of good moves. The same phenomenon already existed before computers were good at go: pro games. To summarize my opinion: a suboptimal move played with an understanding of its meaning is superior to an optimal move that you don't understand. Joseki is cool, but if you don't get the reasons behind the moves, you can get into trouble pretty quickly. In some ways, it's similar to playing out a joseki that you don't understand.
#Stockfish game analysis how to#
And in fact, the move may only be subtly good, and bad in many cases if you don't know how to follow it up or respond to various responses by the opponent. In other words, a move is "good" for a computer because the computer is able to use that move effectively.Ī human looking at the move may see that the computer recommends it, but has no idea of the strategy behind that move. But on the other hand, a move is considered "good" by a computer because of its own mechanisms of evaluating positions. There is the argument that a "good move" is a good move no matter what. Regarding the value of human commentators, I think that humans still play a significant role, even in chess.Ī good move for a computer program is not necessarily a good move for a human player.
0 kommentar(er)
