Whether we like it or not, chess engines are almost synonymous with the modern chess experience.
As a rather young person myself, I cannot imagine living in a world without them. And chances are, you may also feel the same way.
Today, I am not here to say that you should never use engines, or that you should only ever analyze your games with an engine after weeks of deep solo analysis and introspection.
That would be hugely hypocritical, since I do my fair share of using the silicon machine.
Rather, I want to cover 3 of the most common ways that players get “tricked” by the engine.
#1: Good Move, Bad Follow-up
Very often, players will get all up on their high horses from a “good” (at least according to the engine) move, but then will detach their poor follow-up from the initial move — especially in positions which are forcing.
I believe this to be a mistake which prevents players from looking at their own games more objectively.
As an example, here is a game I had from 2017, where I had just played the sharp 24.f4, which is a good move according to the engine.
The main idea was that if 24…Nxe3 25.Rxe3 Ng4, White has 26.Re7!
Unfortunately, my opponent sprung a surprise on me with the counterblow 24…Qd2!?
I immediately crumbled and played 25.fxe5?, when …Nxe3 is just much better for Black.
Best (and only move) was the ‘invisible’, 25.Nf1! — which I had completely overlooked. White will win a piece, but the story is not over yet.
You need to look even further and see that 25…Qxe2 26.fxe5 Qf2+ 27.Kh1 h4 is not actually just losing for White.
Which, it is not, thanks to the smooth 28.Rxc6! — when White is actually the one who is winning. Apart from attacking the rook on h6, we also have Rc8 mating threats.
As you can see here, there was a lot of work actually required to make this 24.f4 move work — which I had not done.
So, while I could convince myself that it was the best decision objectively (because the engine said so), practically it likely was not since I had gone in completely blind to all the ensuing concrete variations after the critical 24…Qd2!?.
#2: Context
To an engine, the only thing that it cares about is the current position on the board.
What happened 10 moves ago does not matter.
To us (emotional) humans however, this is not necessarily the case.
Even the most stoic player will likely feel some level of frustration if they had gone from a winning position, to one where they are “just” better.
On the other hand, if you gave that player the exact same position, but having slowly built it up from outplaying the opponent, they would likely feel some positive momentum.
Same position, completely different perspective.
And the nasty thing is that once the momentum slips away a bit, it often starts to slip a lot.
The engine doesn’t understand this, and will just shout at you for being an idiot.
Also, I want to be clear — this is not an excuse for losing games. But, also understand that it isn’t always as easy as the engine makes it out to be.
#3 Zero Practical Considerations
During my junior years, I took the three digits the engine spit out as some sort of gospel.
It was only after many years of recurred beatings at the board, that I could come around to the possibility that there are many scenarios in which the engine’s evaluation actually means very little in a practical setting.
I often dismissed entire opening variations just because they were worse according to the computer, without really trying to understand their practical upsides.
One such opening in my junior years was the Modern Benoni. The first time I faced it in a serious game, saying I got crushed would be putting it lightly.
Once the opening ended, I was burning tons of time trying to figure out what my plan was. Before I knew it, I found myself getting murdered in a rather typical fashion for a Benoni.
Sure, maybe I was +1 or so on move 13 or 14, but I wasn’t properly equipped to actually handle that advantage.
I was just stupid enough to believe I was.
I like the complexity of the first game. Did you see the move 24.... Qd2 during the game?