Me too. I prefer them analyzing without engines. We need to cut them some slack though as they need to talk about the position and make humorous comments on video which is very hard to do and focus on serious chess as well. Their analysis is far worse than if the same time was allotted to them in a tournament game.stevenaaus wrote:I agree with Ignacio. We can all run our own computer analysis, but the point of view of other GMs is priceless in better understanding the game - which has nothing to do with computers.IGarcia wrote: After 17.Qf2 there is no need of engine to spot the 14...Qf6 error.
with engine: commentators spot the blunder immediately. (example chesbomb ones)
without engine: commentators also blunder (example Leko and Nepo, yesterday)
Its there not big problem with this, besides the ones with engine help show themselves as strong GM, much stronger than the one just blundered.
Personalty I do not like people pretending they are more what they really are. And sadly is what I observe in some game analysis. That is funny.
The point is: its very good we have the opportunity to hear only human ideas at live. They show not only the ideas on the game, also how tricky can be playing a super GM like Anand (or Gelfand)
However, that being said, I certainly want to understand GM intuition even if its via substandard commentary. I want to improve at tournament chess myself and try not to worry about engines.
And it doesn't harm the game, as we still have our own engines at home (or Houdini in the dedicated page on the website).
