1

I refer here to tactics positions, where there is a clear winning (like a mate in n moves), not the ones about planning or strategy.

The thing is I see people answering questions about tactical positions with their own analysis, when 99% using an engine would just give the perfect solution.

So I just wonder whether there exists a (unwritten?) rule about not using chess engines to answer "what's the best move in this position" questions?

3

So I just wonder whether there exists a (unwritten?) rule about not using chess engines to answer "what's the best move in this position" questions?

There is no such rule, unwritten or otherwise, in the forum.

However, one of the things that blocks improvement for many players is the impulse to switch off their brains and switch on the engine. People who respond to such questions with their own, rather than engine analysis, are merely trying to maintain their own chess ability rather than let it atrophy.

1

If you are not using chess engines, then the answer better be something that would not be rejected by a master. There is no value in having novices asking "best move" questions to solicit "best move" answers from other novices. Blind leading the blind

And the funny thing is, you will never find such questions from stronger players (who actually do their homework)..

I refer here to tactics positions, where there is a clear winning (like a mate in n moves), not the ones about planning or strategy.

Such positions can be solved with effort by anyone, hence only serve to attract help vampires.

3
  • Strongly disagree! I think it's perfectly fine to give a try to evaluate a position presented by someone else. If it's wrong, you'll enlighten the debate by having people proving you wrong Otherwise what's the point of this site? Providing the same answers you can get from an engine? Pretty useless site then... – David Sep 30 '19 at 15:48
  • @David proving you wrong on some puzzle or trivia by running engine checks for you? isn't that more pointless? – prusswan Oct 1 '19 at 1:30
  • I mean proving me wrong via more human analysis – David Oct 1 '19 at 8:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .