Is It Better To Practice Against Computers Or People?

✅ Courses! ✅
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
The Ultimate King's Indian:
chessvibescourses.thinkific.c...
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
1000 - 1500 Strategic Thinking Chess Course:
chessvibescourses.thinkific.c...
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
👕 New Shirts! 👕
Chessvibes.shop
Patreon tournaments with Nelson:
🔶 / chessvibes 🔶
☑️ Play Chess Here:
chess.com?ref_id=5885046
☑️ Join Our Discord Here:
/ discord
☑️ Support Nelson Here:
paypal.me/ChessVibes

[@DM_Curtis]

Nelson: "I'm going to play the London..." Stockfish: "No, you aren't."

[@arrowofkira5658]

Wow Stockfish 8 ate Nelson for breakfast and it all started with a small mistake in the opening. Engines are scary! Talking about playing against bots, i think it really helps people who have anxiety to play against them since even if they do really poorly, you're not embarrassing yourself in front of other people. If you lose against a bot noone will ever know, you can make as many mistakes as you want and learn at your pace. So i think it's a safe environment if you want to get started. You can even modify the strength of the bot over time or just experiment around and see what the AI will play against it. Sometimes they come up with wild stuff.

[@plebiain]

I'm one of these people. And if you want the experience of playing against a human-like player without playing a real one - I recommend challenging the maia5 or maia9 bot on lichess, which are trained to play like human players in a (mostly) convincing way :)

[@amelynreyes8141]

@@plebiain maia?

[@since1876]

Running away from your fear doesn't do anything to help fix it

[@plebiain]

@@amelynreyes8141 yeah that's the name of the bot

[@arrowofkira5658]

@@since1876 it's not running away from fear, if you have anxiety with that kinda stuff you can't just overcome it by forcing through it. Having the opportunity to play against bots let's someone play without needing real people, so saying it doesn't fix the problem to tackle the fear is like saying don't even try to play chess if you can't overcome your personal problems regarding anxiety. Chess is a game after all, let people play it how they want.

[@keelanruffner5440]

I used to practice a lot against engines. From it I learned to be very resourceful. I developed a playstyle of binding my opponent to limit their progress, usually by threats of tactics and counterattacks. It becomes easier to spot pawn or piece sacrifices for a positional advantage or development like Stockfish and AlphaZero. I never thought of myself as bad since I expected to lose most games. However, I played worse against other people. In games I would often make false assumptions that opponents will play nearly perfectly like those engines. This was difficult to overcome because my intuition would yell at me how weakening some moves are. It becamd difficult to play a move when I knew that engines could easily take advantage of it. Almost always I would get into time trouble since I spent too long looking for the absolute best move. I think it is beneficial to do a balance of practicing against computers and real people. It is fun to learn these crazy engine concepts, but I recommend stopping if you think that you are over-analyzing1.

[@viruscauser]

The way Stockfish played is a good example of "When you see a good move, try to find a better move."

[@awang_ir]

I'm glad Nelson points out one of my biggest reason to quit chess at teenager, which was too many loses from computer that discouraged me a lot. Thank you for this great insight

[@JM-gz1cp]

My problem with training with computers is that humans a lot of times even grandmaster won't go into these lines. Which means for a lot of time I can't even use what I learned. But they are great for perfecting openings.

[@hw_yozoraVODS]

The thing i did personally. I started learning the basics, and played online. I got to 850 elo, and couldn't go anywhere. So i just started playing against 1500 computer, non-stop, if i made a blunder i'd restart and played it until i won twice in a row. While this was happening i was studying tactics, and one day i decided to go back to playing online, i very quickly rose from the 850 all the way to 1200. Now i'm stuck here and maybr i'll do it again. I'm rated 1500 on puzzles, and my tactical awareness is decent, but right now i'm losing to lack of Patience, because stockfish moves instantly, waiting for my oponent has become annoying, and i think, that is the takeaway. Pros and cons.

[@Cra3ier]

Yup, don’t you play against me, I can think for a move for 10 mins hahaha!

[@edersonnico]

Lower the amount of time if you want faster games. Maybe playing Blitz instead of Rapid.

[@edersonnico]

One thing I have noted is that when lowering the difficulty, stockfish still plays exactly the same and does the same calculations. It seems the way it try to simulate lower difficulties is by purposedly doing some blunders and mistakes sometimes instead of the calculated best move.

[@hw_yozoraVODS]

@@edersonnico that is not a terrible idea, but its better if i just focus on improving my patience, cause shorter games yield worse results, even Super GMs blunder a lot in shorter games.

[@DM_Curtis]

It's not that computers won't make mistakes, it's that they won't make mistakes like a human. It's actually harder to make a computer play chess like a human than to make a computer that can play a perfect game of chess.

[@Canadian_Ice]

example, instead of a piece moving away from a danger into another danger, the piece will just not move. the most human mistake ive seen was a queen taking a seemingly undefended pawn, i took a piece with check, discovered attack on the queen, free queen

[@gm2407]

Human mistake has an idea or oversite behind it. Bot mistake is play x moves the best the engine can do then 1 play random bad move before playing the best moves available for so many turns. E.g plays the opening perfectly then plays kf7 instead of castling when not forced to and not adventageous.

[@Canadian_Ice]

@@gm2407 the bot will play the queens gambit perfectly, and then proceed to blunder 3 pieces in a row even though its rated 850

[@gm2407]

@@Canadian_Ice I have beaten a bot rated 2000 because of its not chosing the strongest moves. An 1800 bot always destroys me because it doesnt give any blunders until your position is destroyed and it plays the firsr 10-15 moves as the best moves like it is LC0 punishing stockfish for not developing (By restricting everything)

[@juleslondon3088]

I’ve definitely experienced this and it’s part of the problem with playing bots - an 1800 bot might play 10 moves of opening theory then blunder while piece straight up and repeat the same trick in the next game. I think I wanted to practice the Halloween gambit one time, so “From Position”, and the 2000ish engine made a losing blunder almost immediately every time!

[@roblodocus2539]

When I got into chess a year ago I mostly played against the bots. My main issue with playing the computer though is that I couldn’t care enough to consider my moves. Then I switched to playing people and my strategy more recently has been to play a lot of daily so that I can think more deeply about a position and play more complex and solid moves. My hope is that those thought processes speed up and benefit faster time control modes when I go back to them. Playing the bots I couldn’t force myself to think as deeply. I still like to have phases against bots though as a benchmark for progress. I guess everything has its own benefit. And I definitely agree that bots can be discouraging.

[@mgtowabbott6924]

I agree. I play the Bots when I'm learning a new opening. But, playing the Bots too often makes me lazy; I rush without pondering the computer's next move....because I already know its next move.

[@ChessVibesOfficial]

Ah so that's why you're smashing me in our daily game?

[@roblodocus2539]

@@ChessVibesOfficial I think I’d put it more like that I’ve had to spend 50x as much time thinking on it, just to keep up 😂 I have our game set up on my board and sometimes study it on there too.

[@cwp24]

@@roblodocus2539 that’s what I did too because your not having to stare at the screen all the time.

[@penismightier4303]

I had the exact same experience with a friend's chess computer with the push-and-move pieces, andl later also with Colossus Chess on my Commodore 64 which I think was even stronger. After losing contact with my few chess-playing friends after highschool, being only able to play and lose against the indomitable 8 bit computers caused me to lose all interest in chess for about 20 years. It was only due to meeting new chess-playing friends at this point that rekindled my interest, and more recently finding some youtube channels like this one and some good chess puzzle and training apps that kept my interest alive and improved my game even though I haven't played much lately. But I bet I still wouldn't be able to beat that crappy chess computer from the 1980's or Colossus Chess on a C64.

[@yyyyyk]

Thank you so much for answering my question, NM Nelson! This was instructive on several philosophical levels. It's important to note that you played against Stockfish at 3000 elo, so it calculated so many moves ahead in each turn. I usually set it to around my elo (either 1300 if I want to win, or 1500 if I want to push myself) so it isn't as scary.😅 As others here pointed out, playing againt a computer that punishes us for our mistakes can help us improve our openings, and make us play more positionally in the opening. And as you mentioned, it does show us very creative moves (this whole game was probably original) so it gives us new ideas. And lastly seeing how it punishes our mistakes teaches us how to crush an opponent that does what we did. 😄 Thank you again, I think you helped many of us feel better by showing us that we ALL feel the same after playing against a perfect computer (even at your level), so we should NOT feel discouraged. 💪😊

[@Verbalaesthet]

As a kid I used to play against Battle Chess and the easiest level destroyed me. It would make no obvious mistakes but only strategic mistakes that you need to realize to punish it. I thought I sucked so much never winning against it. Nowadays I can beat it though :D It definitely made me better.

[@BenLaSoul908]

That's what got me into chess back in the day lol taught myself by getting destroyed and having fun watching the animations

[@petepalmere210]

A couple of quick notes, Nelson: As a subscriber, I enjoy your videos as you present your concepts and ideas very clearly and they are a good learning tool. As far as your point of playing against computers, please note that certain programs other than Stockfish have the ability to adjust playing levels. I've used Arasan for some time now and it has presented me with much enjoyment and challenge where I was able to compete against it at around 65-75% strength. I've just downloaded version 23.3 and they must have improved it plays a lot stronger and destroys me at those previous levels. So, I just adjust it lower to meet my playing strength but still give me a challenge.

[@kenstephens7747]

I rely heavily on the bots, although I have never even considered playing against one this much better than I. I do this a lot from the other side though, where I'm the top level engine and it shows me how to kick the butt of bots of a similar level as mine, the kind of opponents I'll be playing against, both human and bot. I use a lot of methods to train but I would say that this one thing has helped me the most, much like the experience you get watching Nelson kick weaker players but with Nelson's much better opponent in this game doing the kicking. It's far better psychologically of course to be the kicker and not the kicked :) One of the things I love about Stockfish versus the top level human games that are used to teach is that Stockfish is both higher rated than the humans and plays a more transparent game. It relies much more on positional advantages than wild tactics that are far more beautiful but also harder to see, you marvel and then think I'd never be able to find that combo. This game is a perfect example, we can at least understand what the bot is doing even though it may challenge us to think a little, but it is at least in our wheelhouse and provide lessons we can more easily replicate without having to rely on advanced calculation skills we may not have nor ever have.

[@GeorgeSmyth]

I prefer playing bots because I do not enjoy playing fast games. It is very difficult to find people online who are willing to play the slower time controls but the bots don't seem to mind at all. Also, there are times when I will be well into a game and will need to do something. The bot patiently waits for me to finish what I am doing and then continues the game when I return. Of course, I do not play at the bot's maximum level, I tone it down to give myself some chance of winning. The only complaint I might have is that when the bot makes a mistake, I can usually tell that that was not a human mistake. It is then up to me to figure out how to punish the bot's mistake, which is a learning experience in itself. At least I am not worrying about ratings points or tilting, or anything else of that nature. Win or lose, I then analyze the game, figure out how I could have played better, and move on.

[@schrodingerskatze4308]

That's how I started learning to play better and I think I learned a lot through that. But now I also like playing against humans as well because now that I know more about chess the lower time controls aren't that scary anymore for me.

[@warmike]

Lichess has classical tournaments, 25 minutes per game. To join them you need to play a few classical games in the normal matchmaking, but I think you can do that in a reasonable amount of time.

[@cwp24]

I used to play against the computer primarily as I didn’t really have or know a way to play chess online back when I was in middle school 2006-09. Only time I would play someone else it was my dad, we were both not good at the game, but I was worse as I didn’t understand openings back then besides e4 and I would just play moves without really even thinking about it and dad would beat me every single time which got frustrating. But I got back into chess this year in 2022 and started playing regularly. I’m still not that good but I’m a significantly better player than I was back then. In fact with all the knowledge and understanding I have of chess, I decided to convince dad just to play one game with me to see how I would do against him now. Of course he hasn’t played chess within the same amount of time so he wasn’t great. But I just wanted to see how I would do now out of curiosity. He played some very odd moves and I ended up checkmating him with the fried liver attack. It’s safe to say that I’m the better player by several miles compared to my dad which was a good sign. Now to answer the question, is it better to practice against computers or humans? In my opinion it’s a mix of playing against computers, humans and watching other players play such as GothamChess and Hikaru. As well as watching how to lose at chess by GothamChess to see what not to do so that I don’t repeat those same ridiculous mistakes. I’ve learned a lot but still have much more to learn. I’ve got a long way to go until I become semi-decent. But I’m happy.

[@williamprice1844]

I used to be in karate, and by the time I was a green belt I was only practicing against brown and black belts. I was getting my butt kicked almost every time. Until I went to tournaments and I won most of the time. So the practice was good for me in the end.

[@PrometheanConsulting]

In any field of endeavor, you have to establish a pattern of success as part of your regimen. In part, this is why I'm not as averse to being cheated against as others are... it's potentially another learning tool; albeit an unethical one. Addressing the morals issue is an entirely different matter but there's no denying that the opportunity to learn the technical aspects is there. Ask the child (adults cheating is just sad), "why did you do that?" and "I'll bet the engine agrees with you" and walk back the move(s) under the pretense that YOU want to learn. And voila, you've created a teaching moment with computer-assisted learning and opportunities to subtly wean them off cheating into overt use of a tool for analysis. Off my soapbox... I'm sure there are qualified educators that can do better. I played a lot of computer chess as a kid... back when they had to fit in in 1 kilobyte of memory and had "horizon" problems with their depth searches. You could beat them by seeing further or by knowing book lines they didn't... just like human opponents. It was better than playing against myself but there was certainly value to that, too. - You can always dial back the engine level - Or you can create ground rules to level the playing field like take-backs. Not so you can win, so much, as learn how to prevent what just happened to you. And going forward, you'll learn to identify traps and other dangerous patterns. - Or maybe you can use a kibitzer or an engine as a kibitzer (I'd use a weaker engine just to avoid blunders and wean them off) Play a human, play against a computer with help/ground rules, then play it mono-a-mono. Repeat. You'll have some success, you'll have some scrimmages w/tutoring or analysis, and you'll have some crushing defeats. You WILL get better and probably enjoy your regimen more than any one method. Oh... and do some puzzles, too.

[@skycaptain95]

Wow, Stockfish just pushed your face into the dirt with no mercy! Engines are absurd.

[@aikidograndmaster1781]

Very instructive and nice video , today's programs are so past the 3000 Elo mark , that even understanding the recommended moves are next to impossible let alone playing against them ...The old press sensory computers were pretty tough also , although nothing comparable to what we have today....

[@lancemcque1459]

"Is my queen trapped?!" Yup! That's me!!!

[@SalHardy]

very good explanation. well thought out.

[@ferrisca1954]

When I was learning 50 years ago, and computer were just starting, I turned the computer to a lever just above where I could beat it. Also, I looked at not if I lost, but if I lasted longer. This helped me go from 1100 USCF to 1650 USCF in just a few years. This technique is still valid today.

[@1a1u0g9t4s2u]

Agree, a person can get discouraged playing against a computer. I play against the computer game that came with my MacBook. At the moment I start each game the same but remember how the computer played the last time. I try to see how many moves I can survive. Currently I am trying to get better at recognizing if the computer is on the offense or retreating a piece. Most of the time the computer is doing both.

[@downhillphilm.6682]

I almost went to see a psychologist about CRD (chess related depression) ....this really helped me see that I am not alone against computers....even highly rated players have a tough time. Lol.

[@DeElSendero]

Nelson I appreciate you bringing up this topic because I don't see it discussed all that much at chess sites that I frequent. "I just feel when I play computers that I'm not very good at chess". That's funny but its on the mark and easy to relate to. But hey your 2330, Stockfish 8 at 3000 is a very strong grandmaster true? True what you say about playing extremely precisely against computers and they lack of nerves, etc. Let me ask you, I am trying to ascertain a calibration of Stockfish strength I take it your 2330 rating is for classical games is that correct? I was curious to what level would you have to bring Stockfish 8 so that you could play 50-50 against it draws included can you say? Also 365Chess has Stockfish 11 I believe it is. Also if you have the opportunity, do you think you could you play a couple of games against it at level 6 which is 2100 to ascertain if its 2100 level is accurate? Any information you could provide on that would be much appreciated!

[@edersonnico]

One thing I have noted is that when lowering the difficulty, stockfish still plays exactly the same and does the same calculations. It seems the way it tries to simulate lower difficulties is by purposedly doing some blunders and mistakes sometimes instead of the calculated best move. It is kinda weird playing vs a bot.

[@jaysant6958]

4:34 He had two chances to save his knight. I’m not sure why he still didn’t.

[@ajarnray4115]

The biggest problem with engines is that they don't play wild bad moves and play openings correctly. Then when you switch to a human opponent suddenly you get wild moves that are hard to play against. Besides that engines don't miss a tactic and are only making artificial errors that don't make any sense. It's better to play against real humans online and now a days you get games quickly on Lichess even with classic games.

[@WorldOfDeepThought]

Seems really helpful to get familiar with an opening.

[@dwm53w1k6]

It sems the best program would be an adaptive program that you log in on a profile and then the program plays relative to that profile's strengths and weaknesses. Of course programs have levels but a profile could be fined tuned and maybe even make intentional oversights to train one to spot them and take advantage.

[@peterintoronto6472]

An important question is whether you should play against computers like Stockfish but not at level 8, but at level 4 or such, so that you have a chance to win from time to time, and not die from frustration. The computer will make wrong moves at levels like that because (like the rest of us) it doesn't see 20 moves ahead.

[@strannostrannovasrr]

Why do you play against the highest level?

[@gm2407]

Stockfish attacking the Knight twice and the bishop once. Nelson defending the Knight once and Bishop once whilst attacking two pawns defended by pieces. @8:17 Scarey how little Stockfish needs to get an advantage.

[@davidcovington901]

I do that too. I count putting the bot into check, if I don't have to do a sac for it, as a victory.

[@Alkis05]

One advantage of playing against computers is that it is hard to find people that want to play long games. My question would be: if you don't have good opponents to play against in long games, how else are you going to develop the skill to decide when to calculate, when to look for combinations. And long calculations. Sometimes you have to stop and make long calculations that you can't do in a 15min game. Of course, doing puzzles help, but that is different from actually doing it in a game.

[@rajeshpandey2198]

During the start of my chess journey i played exclusively against stockfish I would lose pretty much instantly but i slowly understood the tactics of the computer and was able to overcome it i could defeat about stockfish rated at 2000(lichess) but then i started playing against humans and *i just lost* like i hadn't played one game of chess I considered myself 2000 i was more like a 500 and there lies the problem of playing with computers They play the exact same things and with barely any variations and worst of all you are NEVER going to encounter a tactic against a computer it deprives your ability to play tactically and more in a memorising play

[@stabbedryan4613]

2000??? Either ure unlucky with ur opponents or 2000 stockfish is just not that strong

[@rajeshpandey2198]

@@stabbedryan4613 i explained why i lost below

[@gm2407]

Yeah the bot plays particular lines then makes pre ordained blunders which will never be like a human blunder. Hard to learn how to play the game correctly. You play it at full strength and never win ever. You play it hampered and dont know if you won by good play or because the selected blunder was so horrific it couldnt recover with perfect play.

[@stabbedryan4613]

Yea the blunders when i used to play with a 1100 bot it keeps blundering the queen for no reason so i just reset the game knowing im gonna win

[@leeonpiano]

I thought I was going crazy. I’m a beginner and I feel hopeless playing against the computer. Thank you for this 💪🏼💪🏼

[@mikejay9838]

When I play against Stockfish (like in the last 30 minutes and I won), I simply set the ELO to the lowest level that can still be considered a challenge.

[@peterpuleo2904]

I am not rated as a player, but you are absolutely correct. My computer opponent NEVER makes an erroneous move, and really never makes a weak move. It always makes a good move, and NEVER misses an opportunity to take advantage of any weak move I make. It is a tough opponent and NEVER has a bad day . OTOH, it is always available for a game at my convenience so I don't have to seek opponents of flesh & blood. Very interesting video here, and consoles me that losing to artificial intelligence is to be expected, especially for a occasional player such as myself.

[@xpedro2960]

Since we are talking about chess computers, I made a fun chart estimating the rating of each different strength level of chess computers in four different websites (there may be some ratings I might have to change because of the fluctuations of computer performance; sorry if you are noticing that there is not much variety with ratings lower than 1700): -www.chess.com/play/computer, engine level 1-13 (250,400,550,700,850,1000,1100,1200,1300,1400,1500,1600,1700) -www.coolmathgames.com/0-chess, computer level 5 (1775) ["provisional"] -Lichess.org, computer level 5 (1786.2) -Chess.com, engine level 14-15 (1800,1900) -www.mathsisfun.com/games/chess.html, Garbo, hard difficulty (1920) ["provisional"] -Chess.com, engine level 16 (2000) -Chess.com, engine level 17 (2100) -Lichess.org, computer level 6 (2200) ["provisional"]; coolmathgames.com, computer level 6 (2200) ["provisional"]; Chess.com, engine level 18 (2200) -Mathisfun.com, Garbo, ruthless difficulty (2290) ["provisional"] -Chess.com, engine level 19-21 (2300,2400,2500) -Chess.com, engine level 22-23 (2600,2700) -Coolmathgame.com, computer level 7 (2712) ["provisional"] -Chess.com, engine level 24 (2900) -Lichess.org, computer level 7 (2938) ["provisional"] -Chess.com, engine level 25 (3200) -Coolmathgames, computer level 8 (3250) ["provisional"] -Lichess.org, computer level 8 (3300) ["provisional"]

[@JuanGabrielOyolaCardona]

Awesome, thanks for sharing 😃🙏🥰🤩

[@ssbhide123]

What about playing against similar level? If you are 2300 and play against 2800 human player then also you are going to lose almost always and it will also discourage you (considering classical format) .. I think the original question was referring to the human Vs bot (of similar level)

[@ems3832]

The lesson to be taken from the game is one of move order! The variation 1. d4, d5; 2.Nf3, c5; 3.Bf4?!, cxd4 4.Nxd4, Nf6 5.Nc3, Nd7 with e5 coming is already better for Black. Bf4 has to be played on move 2, really, to avoid all of this.

[@hooyosahra]

Dear master Nelson...give us some tips of deep thinking in middlegame

[@attorneylibagin763]

I playing against computer to enhance the chess piece position awareness. they are so good in creating attack strategies or traps, specially the double traps.

[@gregmartin3425]

I've played many satisfying games against dedicated tabletop chess machines, from Radio Shack to Excalibur to Saitek/Mephisto to Novag. It's enjoyable because you are looking at real pieces, which encourages you to think more deeply and move slower, and my games, win or lose, were more like actual tournament games with humans. These old programs are not as strong as modern software, and so they make mistakes and you can sense them struggling to survive, just like a real human. I'm 1850 USCF.

[@ace942]

What if you play the computer where it is a lower setting and thus you have some chance of winning. One advantage that computers provide is that they are available to play against while your friend may not want to play or you have an internet outage and dont have a well to play on a chess server.

[@serenalaurence1492]

Stockfish moved the Queen at 4:44 because your knight was attacking it Nelson 😂 I was confused too but then I suddenly realised lol

[@Stan0070]

I like your coverage of chess very educational 👍. Even though your Queen was trapped you should have still finished the game, it will still end in a lose but we would learn more.

[@danielbillings1876]

“Let’s move this knight…I don’t know why.” Hahahah

[@dyontaydial8727]

Thank you for making this video because I've been getting killed by the advanced computer and it's very discouraging! Played against a system that doesn't make mistakes

[@FinCrow84]

The most annoying thing about StockFish moves are that most of the time, after it does the move, you can see it right away. And you can have these "ahaa" moments move after move. Like in 5 seconds you are updated to the position after every move. But during the game, before the moves, you are worse than a 98 years old blind and dementic granny who has lost in the desert and tries to find a way out of the jungle.

[@dlucey123]

I like playing against humans because it’s more satisfying beating somebody else than a bot. You do learn tactics from bots and sometimes I like to play them so there no time pressure. When you analyse a game, don’t beat yourself up about every mistake, I look at the blunders and mistakes. Stick fish considers a lot of good moves to be inaccuracies simply because there’s often an even stronger move. Just my opinion.

[@prakasavigraha6104]

I don't know why the discussion seems to be revolving around playing the computer at the highest level. A person can just play at a level which matches their own.

[@tedlis517]

Trying to improve clock management while playing against the computer is futile.

[@edl5731]

Both. Play against the computer sometimes. Play people sometimes.

[@azzac96]

This is a great video, but I kind of dislike that it misses quite a simple fact the computer rating can be dialled down… play an easier computer till you find your level. Of course playing against ppl is good fun if you’re not precious about your rating (I’ve been learning the hard way), but playing 3000 rated computers is a fools errand unless as you said you want it for purely educational purposes. It’d be cool for you to play more games but keep turning the elo down till you beat it. Could be an interesting exercise!

[@mikestaff3042]

Hey at least you got that check in 🤣👍

[@HerbMartin52]

As long as you have the right mind set (growth not fixed), the maturity to manage you emotional response to losing a game against an overwhelmingly superior opponent you chose to force your "best play", and you know how to adjust for your own skill level to obtain the level of play you need to best benefit in THIS game, the computer would be the better choice IF you could only choose one. The real answer is BOTH. The argument that computers make a different class of mistakes is largely spurious - humans will make any type of mistake at all. A 1500 (or 2000) will play quite inconsistently, typically 300 points plus or minus the rating. There are various algorithm choices to make a computer weaker and understanding which is used by your engine is important as well as analyzing the COMPUTER'S move when it makes mistakes. Why computers if only one choice? The argument of "Play anytime" is dead with modern online play, and the counter arguments of "play is too strong (or weak)" or "play is not like a human" are dead too. The real reason is to be able to CHOOSE the strength, choose the engine, choose the STARTING position and being able to force the computer to play a certain line you wish to practice -- repeatedly if you wish. You can also CHEAT (in an intelligent and effective way) and not violate any ethics -- using another analysis engine to suggest the top 3-5 candidate moves WITHOUT viewing the evaluation is a possibility almost no one considers or at least they don't discuss it. One reason for me is that I can put the game in correspondence mode so that I can play carefully but use a reasonably fast move time or go help my wife with dinner etc, and not have to wait for another human who may have left for work or gone to bed. It doesn't hurt my ego to LOSE to anyone or the computer if I play well (in comparison to my typical play and my current study plan.) Could it be better? Yes. If the computers were truly rated (and adjustable) to play like tournament players OTB or even a different setting to play like real bullet players with think time (they don't necessarily really use) etc. One nice feature,, I don't see, would be a TIMED game, even longer 30-60-90 minutes, with a PAUSE feature. Keep a time count but sometimes life intervenes and we must attend to family business etc. not necessarily to get more think time. Learn to use your tools -- use what works best, not just in the moment but for each situation.

[@peterpuleo2904]

LOL !! I know exactly how you feel ! How the hell did your Q get cornered? Only a computer or a grandmaster (on a good day) can play like that. I have also said--I WILL SWITCH TO CHECKERS !

[@arinaina4262]

Play with computer you only get frustrated, but play with people you have a chance to get him frustrated.

[@scottdobson1276]

Computers are useful, but when they are set to a lower level of play, they do not play remotely like players at that level. They tend to play perfectly for most moves, and play random clearly horrid moves no 600 would miss.

[@kellamyoshikage286]

My main issue with playing against bots for practice is just how different they are compared to playing against humans. Humans look at certain ideas, certain parts of the board, certain patterns. Computers look at certain moves, evaluating functions, and optimized searching. Yes, this evaluation function can be a close match to how humans play in theory, but an engine literally cannot only see a part of the board, it can't just not see a bishop from across the board. It can't just forget that a tactic is lurking in the position, and it can't selectively see some tactics but miss others. When you play a chess game, you only see a tiny portion of the possibilities of the game, in the game itself. As a player, you see some amount of these possibilities in your calculations and your thoughts. The computer sees all the possibilities to some degree and, if it's a lower-difficulty computer, just chooses to handicap itself at random. When I'm looking at chess as a set of rules, or looking at a game from someone else, then computers are neat. But if I'm playing the game as a game, I want to play it against humans with their human thoughts and flaws.

[@user-vz8cc7yh6k]

Im not that good at chess but when I play against bots the it says I was playing with 900 Elo minimum but when I go against people it’s always 300 elo

[@fubaralakbar6800]

Beating any computerized system at chess is nearly impossible. It's like trying to compete in math against a calculator--in fact, that's pretty much exactly what it is. To be fair, beating a very strong computer at chess can be done, but only by the strongest tournament players and up.

[@VladimirPutin-wt5yh]

Everyone who says that stockfish makes inhuman moves should think about memorizing them. That's the whole point of playing against computer. They have very strange, but tricky ideas. My learning routine vs stockfish is playing some popular lines and hunting for some new ideas that I can use in the tournament just to see my opponent's eyes getting wider and bigger

[@BruceWayne-jh4wh]

Yo putin wassup. How'd the surgery go?

[@VladimirPutin-wt5yh]

@@BruceWayne-jh4wh you mean SPECIAL surgery, right? It's going F A N T A Z T I C

[@megamelvin25969]

My respects to this guy not easy to upload a video showing u got ur ass kicked, i mean that w respect

[@kevinmorford5032]

What you failed to recognize in this video, is that you can set the difficulty level when you play a computer. When I play the computer on Lichess, I usually set the difficulty level at a 5, which I can occasionally win, but not always. This helps to avoid the discouragement factor.

[@ajtatosmano2]

weaker bots simply make silly mistakes which re not helpful for strong players

[@kevinmorford5032]

@Mark Marton, are you suggesting that playing chess engines at lower difficulty settings results in more "silly mistakes" than you would get from playing a human player? That does not match up with my experiences.

[@ajtatosmano2]

@@kevinmorford5032 Yes. Lower difficulty engines (like stockfish lvl5 on lichess) play excellent chess until they suddenly hang a piece or make a similar stupid mistake. I don't have to do anything just play solid and endure 'till the bot throws the game. As you go higher the blunders get more scarce and less decisive.

[@kevinmorford5032]

@Mark Marton, I agree with your comments about how the chess engines do make mistakes at lower levels. But the point of the video was to compare playing against computers and playing against people. Don't people also make blunders? So what is the relative difference between the people and the engines? Seems to me that it depends on the level of the engine and the level of the person you are playing. Since you can choose the level of your opponent in either case, I do not see the frustration level from never winning as favoring either form of playing.

[@endthisnonsense7202]

I'm not a chess player but a bridge player. I am convince the best way to advance skills is NOT practice, it is to study books. I'm sure the same applies to chess.

[@lancemcque1459]

I was so early this video has NO views!!

[@bubbleberry6762]

For the position in 7:04 you could have played the rook to 1g ?

[@seventy-what3670]

i don't get discouraged at loosing against a computer. i'm loosing a minimum of 20games vs a computer per day

[@kurtstrains]

Makes me feel better about my daily beat downs from the computer....

[@gregmartin3425]

I think it is insane to try and play modern chess software, unless you are a masochist or very stoical about losing, because they will crush you easily. And when you do handicap them, they do not play like weak human players, but they will hang a piece, and then play like a grandmaster right afterwards. It's either better to play humans, or old dedicated tabletop chess computers, in my opinion. You feel like you have much more of a chance, and you do!

[@gm2407]

I hate playing the higher level bots when the moves are so instant you barely finished moving the piece. It feels like a psychological slap in the face. Not only is it so effortlessly fast it is better than you at the game in every way. Feels like you get a savage beat down for daring to try every time. Hard to learn when you get frustrated or feel helpless.

[@BeanWagon90]

This comment made me laugh out loud! That's one of those relatable things that I didn't even realize was relatable until I read this.

[@gm2407]

@@BeanWagon90 Haha yeah it doesn't help that the reply begins moving before the piece even lands on the square you sent it to. Even happens in the puzzles. It would be a DQ if Magnus started moving his piece before his oponent even let go of the last piece they moved.

[@jaysant6958]

I’m surprised to not see a setting yet to make the computer “think” a little bit longer, for psychological reasons as you pointed out.

[@gregmartin3425]

"Let me just play c3 and see what the idea is"...(Stockfish moves pawn to attack knight)..." Ahh.. interesting"

[@Eidenhoek]

I would assume that the answer is to *play more chess*, period. At some point maybe this question is relevant, but I think the people for whom it *would* be already know the answer.

[@andrewptraining]

I’m not playing against a 3k rated bot but I upped the difficulty on my game by three levels and want to thank you for hitting me with this message as I definitely started getting discouraged..

[@happyhappyjoyjoy6563]

wow, this video couldnt have come at a better time for me, recently been playing against my phone and just been getting destroyed, thinking the same thing, jeez i suck, why do i even bother playing. the moves it make i cant even figure out what the idea is behind some of them, then 2 moves later all my pieces are trapped and i dont even know what to do.. haha, i guess i should just be playing a person!

[@laxmils5101]

Playing with stockfish at its highest level will improve your game 100 fold than playing with a novice. It is not winning or losing but learning extreme chess that counts.

[@Bushchannel]

If you’re not someone who’s easily discouraged, playing the computer is very useful.

[@Mikhail-tal-the-GOAT]

Most of my games last for 10 moves with stockfish

[@purplesun3792]

I like to play bots that just at the edge of my own ability or better. That way I can think for as long as I want and am rewarded for making thoughtful moves. Sometimes I'll max out a bot knowing I'm going to lose lol

[@kugelblitzingularity304]

Stockfish did get you out of theory immediately with c5. Perhaps it would've lasted like 10 more moves if you knew theory.

[@born2270]

it said fairy stokfish 14 not stokfish 8

[@d-_-b5295]

For some reason I can beat the computer at lvl 1500 but I will lose to real players at lvl 800. I think beating the computer gives me false confidence. Sometimes I just want to give up because of how bad I suck.

[@michaels4255]

Keep track of the 10 game moving average with each color of the number of moves that Stockfish needs to beat you. If the average is rising, then you are getting better.

[@meanderingmarley3910]

I'm curious, how many moves ahead do you think Stockfish was looking at that setting? I'm sure it's a scary number! 🤔

[@Smallgot83]

Humans will play out a lost position with confusing chaotic threats that sometimes win. If a computer is losing, it won’t try, it won’t bluff. You will suddenly know you are completely winning by how the computer stops fighting. That’s a big drawback for me.

[@ednelson2501]

My father was my first opponent. Some buddies came next. A chess computer came after that. UTUBE coaching came after that. Each option helps. I may never become world champion. But each step is a little bit closer. I would say that each option should be explored. If you wake in the middle of the night. And need a chess game, bots are up for a game. Sometimes your friends aren't.

[@cryptosanity361]

Check b4 U check

[@user-eq3qf6ty6u]

He literally "chokes" you right from the beginning. Every move "entangles" your pieces, taking away important squares and preventing your pawns from advancing. Very Discouraging

[@nelliusbrown2014]

Playing Bots sharpen your skills more in my opinion. Me & Wally be having some ruthless matches. Bots rated 1700+ are pure pressure. 1 wrong move & they’ll mop the floor with your face.

[@peterpuleo2904]

I really got a kick out of you in this presentation because I have had the exact same experience against my computer. Sometimes it has to work long and hard to beat me, but at other times I say WTF happened here, I played like an orangutang!

[@JOBAVALONDONONLY420]

The mistakes lower level bots make don't compare to human mistakes, they make really random and unnatural moves

[@coololplay3196]

For me it's not as frustrating to play against computers because they are 3000 rated what's more frustrating is when you are confident beating a 2200 bot you play against a 1300 random dude sitting on his toilet that beats you like you were a 900 that's when it gets frustrating

[@gm2407]

They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. By that I mean toilet tactician with no opening or endgame theory gets you out of your book knowledge and you blunder into unfamiliar positions where you cant untangle.

[@davidl8094]

Chess😊

[@konglives4453]

IMHO playing against actual people is better, since bots make moves that I NEVER see a real human ever make at my level, 1300 Rapid.

[@drone231]

exactly

[@slylataupe1697]

Maybe 3000 is a bit too cocky, perhaps if you set it on 2300 you would feel better, still hard cause computer even at 2300 does not blunder but out of theory it drops some inaccuracies from time to time ;)

[@farooqmohammed316]

You can use bots if you haven't played chess in a month's time and play against your rating range bots for practice.

[@javelinzamot9907]

it's funny that you're playing the same chess website: and playing at the same level I really have no experience in chess just a 12 year old and stopped after 8 months. and have not played tell now in my sixty for 8 days .I would say playing against the computers a very good thing to learn a lot and your brain starts working better..it forces you to try new things . today I was thinking why can't you use a computer to play against the computer so you can learn how to see more of what the computer strategy it trying to develop against you. and would you end up in a draw 9 out of 10. have you ever tried using a computer against itself ???! T would like to know..