Answers.Body: <p>Chess engines use heuristics, i.e. they look at a position several moves ahead, and quantitatively evaluate the position using some criteria (the most straightforward example is to just count the pawns and pieces). The move that leads to the position with the highest score, assuming best play (according to the engine's heuristics) from both sides is the engine's best move.</p>
  
  <p>So the evaluation of the position depends on the choice of heuristics. Different types of positions are best described by different heuristics. Different engines use different heuristics. Therefore, in an opening where several types of positions could arise, different engines may have different opinions on what the best move is. (I haven't tried this myself, but I'd bet the top 5 chess engines won't agree on 1.e4, 1.d4 or 1.c4)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-06-04T04:47:34.480Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-06-04T04:47:34.480Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ken Wei
Answers.Body: <p>If you have no human opponent to study , you have to choose the engines . But 
  Firstly, you have to recognize the engines weakness and strengths .
           Like if you analyse some routine openings , it will be a bad decision. A complicated position or something like that needs the engine.
  Secondly, Some engines also fail to find a clear path in the complex middle game or end games . Like I tried to analyse a game of Dragon variation(Sicilian defense) But engine failed to find immediately a right path(with Houdini 4 and Komodo 6). 
  So, you can study with two engines ( not more than that because that's not going to helpful for your study) , but it sometimes never helpful .</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-04-04T08:30:04.990Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-04-04T08:30:04.990Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Saptarshi Ghosh
Answers.Body: <p>I think that is someone's opinion. A few years ago (maybe more than few) I routinely beat some of the commercial chess engines. They are much better today, but facing a (skilled) human opponent is much more helpful. Although now a days, you're sure to get you butt handed to you if you play a quality engine on the most advanced levels.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-02-15T02:00:36.377Z
Answers.Text: What is an opinion?
Answers.UserDisplayName: ToddM
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-02-15T14:12:07.497Z
Answers.Text: If you want to play that game, quit chess, or look here... http://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion?s=t
Answers.UserDisplayName: htm11h
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-02-14T19:14:30.460Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-02-14T19:14:30.460Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: htm11h
Body: <p>I've been told (but I don't understand) that it's a good idea to use a number of chess engine to analyze a chess opening.  It this true?  Why is this a good idea?)</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-02-12T23:01:11.637Z
Comments.Text: What's your level? Analyzing chess opening to improve the existing theory is for master level and up, I'd say.
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-02-12T23:14:32.733Z
Comments.Text: I'm a master.  I know that memorization of moves is foolish.  I'm only using it to gain a better understanding of openings that are new to me.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ToddM
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-02-13T01:03:22.853Z
Comments.Text: @ToddM: Your questions don't really suggest that you are at that level. See my reply in http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/16615/to-what-move-depth-should-you-analyze-a-chess-position Chess engines have a very specific and limited use for opening preparation and you do need a lot of experience in both chess and in making sense of what the engine is telling you as engine evaluations can be very misleading in some positions.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-02-13T01:06:00.363Z
Comments.Text: Different engines might evaluate a position differently (because they put different weight to various factors). In any case this will be a very subtle effect and in most cases different engines will come to comparable results. Do you have the time to look at the evaluations of all those engines?
Comments.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-02-13T20:58:56.607Z
Comments.Text: If you return 20 years back in time, it will make some little sense.
Comments.UserDisplayName: hoacin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-03-17T02:30:05.623Z
Comments.Text: "I'm only using it to gain a better understanding of openings that are new to me"
  
  This is exactly what engines are NOT useful for. To learn a new opening, you'll want human explanations you can understand. The kind of advanced multi-engine prep you're talking about might be useful if you're a GM trying to get an edge on other GMs.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Nate
Tags: <opening><engines><study><preparation>
Title: Using multiple chess engines for chess preparation
ThreadText: # Using multiple chess engines for chess preparation
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-02-12)
  
  I've been told (but I don't understand) that it's a good idea to use a number of chess engine to analyze a chess opening. It this true? Why is this a good idea?)
  
  **Tags:** opening, engines, study, preparation
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: What's your level? Analyzing chess opening to improve the existing theory is for master level and up, I'd say.  
  > **username_0**: I'm a master.  I know that memorization of moves is foolish.  I'm only using it to gain a better understanding of openings that are new to me.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0: Your questions don't really suggest that you are at that level. See my reply in http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/16615/to-what-move-depth-should-you-analyze-a-chess-position Chess engines have a very specific and limited use for opening preparation and you do need a lot of experience in both chess and in making sense of what the engine is telling you as engine evaluations can be very misleading in some positions.  
  > **username_2**: Different engines might evaluate a position differently (because they put different weight to various factors). In any case this will be a very subtle effect and in most cases different engines will come to comparable results. Do you have the time to look at the evaluations of all those engines?  
  > **username_3**: If you return 20 years back in time, it will make some little sense.  
  > **username_4**: "I'm only using it to gain a better understanding of openings that are new to me"  This is exactly what engines are NOT useful for. To learn a new opening, you'll want human explanations you can understand. The kind of advanced multi-engine prep you're talking about might be useful if you're a GM trying to get an edge on other GMs.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2017-06-04. Score: 1
  
  Chess engines use heuristics, i.e. they look at a position several moves ahead, and quantitatively evaluate the position using some criteria (the most straightforward example is to just count the pawns and pieces). The move that leads to the position with the highest score, assuming best play (according to the engine's heuristics) from both sides is the engine's best move.
  
  So the evaluation of the position depends on the choice of heuristics. Different types of positions are best described by different heuristics. Different engines use different heuristics. Therefore, in an opening where several types of positions could arise, different engines may have different opinions on what the best move is. (I haven't tried this myself, but I'd bet the top 5 chess engines won't agree on 1.e4, 1.d4 or 1.c4)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2017-04-04. Score: 0
  
  If you have no human opponent to study , you have to choose the engines . But
  Firstly, you have to recognize the engines weakness and strengths .
  Like if you analyse some routine openings , it will be a bad decision. A complicated position or something like that needs the engine.
  Secondly, Some engines also fail to find a clear path in the complex middle game or end games . Like I tried to analyse a game of Dragon variation(Sicilian defense) But engine failed to find immediately a right path(with Houdini 4 and Komodo 6).
  So, you can study with two engines ( not more than that because that's not going to helpful for your study) , but it sometimes never helpful .
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2017-02-14. Score: 0
  
  I think that is someone's opinion. A few years ago (maybe more than few) I routinely beat some of the commercial chess engines. They are much better today, but facing a (skilled) human opponent is much more helpful. Although now a days, you're sure to get you butt handed to you if you play a quality engine on the most advanced levels.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: What is an opinion?  
  > **username_7**: If you want to play that game, quit chess, or look here... http://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion?s=t  
  
  ---
  
  