Algorithmic Mimicry Study

Investigating how prolonged reliance on chess engines (Stockfish, NNUE) alters human intuition, pattern recognition, and creative positional play.

1. Current Elo / Rating Bracket

2. Primary Analytical Tool

Which evaluation interface dictates the majority of your post-game study?

Deep Local Engine Analysis (Stockfish 16+, ChessBase) Shallow Browser Analysis (Lichess/Chess.com automated review) Human-first analysis (Books, coaches, self-analysis before engines)

3. Evaluation Dependency

How often do you abandon a move you intuitively feel is practically dangerous for a human opponent, simply because the engine evaluates it as slightly suboptimal (e.g., -0.6)?

4. Memorization vs. Comprehension

When learning a new opening line recommended by an engine, what is your primary learning mechanism?

Rote memorization of the top 3 engine choices up to move 15. Playing through sub-optimal lines to understand *why* the engine prefers the top line. Looking for thematic human plans rather than exact computer move orders.

5. Post-Game Emotional Response

When reviewing a game you won brilliantly, but the engine calls your attack a "blunder" that the opponent missed, how do you categorize the game?

6. The Flattening of Intuition

In your own words, describe how years of engine analysis have either enhanced your tactical vision or stripped away your willingness to take creative risks.