Which is better for studying chess?

[shiv]

I remember the advice a GM gave. He mentioned that Fritz (Rybka/Hiarcs etc) is great for checking variations but not good for chess improvement. Something that could be verified by computers in 20 seconds often takes GMs' 5 minutes. However, his point was that those 5+ minutes are very well spent because those minutes help improve your calculation ability. In other words, our minds need to toil in order to improve!

Using just computer analysis to improve at chess is much like preparing for a marathon by extensively using cars. Chess databases are on the other hand provide more useful information.

Chess is a lot about learning the tools/techniques/processes to generate good moves in an arbitrary position. Hence using engines will not help as much. It is better to train the mind directly. Even if the engine comes up with a good move in the opening, what is the probability of actually reaching the position and in addition does one possess the technique needed to realize the advantage after achieving a great position?

Other benefits to analyzing on the chessboard over the computer screen are:
1. Tournament play is conducted on a board (not a screen).
2. We are not tempted to skip forward in the game.
3. We are not tempted to request engine suggestions.

I do admit that it is easier to just look at a screen and follow engine suggestions Sadly, chess is indeed 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.

[gerold]

I write down all my moves at the club and when home check with
computer to see best move. I like to study traps,not to use them
but to take advantage of the person who trys to gain advantage
by using them.

Gerold.

[Ovyron]

I like to study traps,not to use them

Why don't you use traps? I've been using them with great success. When analyzing the games with engines, sometimes the best move is easily answerable by the opponent, while a tricky move (trap) is not as good, but the opponent needs exact precision to get out of it (Sometimes, he actually should had to study the same position to know exactly what to do), so I chose to play the second move, and most of the time, it causes my opponent to enter into positions that are much better for me.

And I've been able to beat opponents that were +200 rating points higher than me this way, just because I did my homework. Opening traps are part of chess, otherwise I'd be playing Chess960.

[nczempin]

I like to study traps,not to use them

Why don't you use traps? I've been using them with great success. When analyzing the games with engines, sometimes the best move is easily answerable by the opponent, while a tricky move (trap) is not as good, but the opponent needs exact precision to get out of it (Sometimes, he actually should had to study the same position to know exactly what to do), so I chose to play the second move, and most of the time, it causes my opponent to enter into positions that are much better for me.

And I've been able to beat opponents that were +200 rating points higher than me this way, just because I did my homework. Opening traps are part of chess, otherwise I'd be playing Chess960.

Now, what I'd like to know is how we could get an engine to play like that (Lasker-style, not Tarrasch).

[AdminX]

I write down all my moves at the club and when home check with
computer to see best move. I like to study traps,not to use them
but to take advantage of the person who trys to gain advantage
by using them.

Gerold.

I am with you on this one Gerold. To learn about Traps is not a bad thing. Most of the time to play for a Trap is just a bad move (aka: Waste of Time /Tempo). Unless you are in time trouble with a losing position anyway.

[S.Taylor]

My dear Ted:
Perhaps the better thing to do is NOT to study chess. In the same time you could learn some other lot more interesting, vital, important things.
I have tried to do so, but every time this idea of asigning resources to just a game destroy them at once.

My best
Fernando

That's excellent "chess thinking", but I don't know if that can be called "talkchess".(which is where we are at the momment)

[S.Taylor]

I would say that the interactive something is (that invites your participation) the better. Of course, if you have absolutely no difficulty in concentration at all, ever, and all you want is a bit more knowledge and you can always, easily follow long lines of analisys unaided, then I suppose you don't need ANY interaction, only human interraction duuring tournaments.
Or maybe you get plenty of human interaction (which I don't) so you need nothing from computers or books.

[eriq]

though off topic, ted assuming you still play in chess events, did you ever consider going to the Augusta Championship this weekend, it could improve your rating.

http://csrachess.net/augchamp.html

ps. shameless, I know but whats an organizer to do