user3812: What strategy should I use to win a chess game against a chess computer?
The engine is able to make decisions on an about 3 moves deep search graph.
Please do not say check every move in the next 4 moves...

user3405: Computers' main strength are tactical positions. So steer into quite positions. 
Another good thing to do is to learn your openings well. Why? Computers usually will play the same thing in depth 3 over and over. So you will be able to learn what the computer plays, like studying an opponent's previous games. 
Another tip is go to the endgame. The weak calculation power helps you a lot. Try to transpose into King and Pawn endgames, and learn them well.
The last thing to keep in mins is that computers do not blunder. They will play what they think is the best, while humans might not even notice an hanging piece. Try to be attentive, and check ahead.
Remember to practice!

user3890: There are several important points to know when playing a computer:

They will certainly outplay you in sharp positions, and they make nonsense moves in closed positions that involve positional play.
They have an horizon, that is, a moment where they cannot see any further.
They are very, very greedy. A pawn is a pawn they say, and the computer certainly likes material.

Knowing these, a human can try to capitalize by closing the position, simplifying and drying it until the computer has almost no tactical base, and simply makes useless moves. If the human manages to make the computer blunder (because of its horizon it cannot calculate further, but the human clearly sees that his positional advantage will grant him the win) or develops a (positional) plan that simply destroys the computer's position strategically, he most certainly will own the game.
Some famous examples are provided by the top GM Hikaru Nakamura. Here against Rybka you can see how he benefits from the fact that Rybka's programming does not allow it to give a draw when it's up in material (it was two exchanges up and about to arrive to the 50 move rule), and thus blunders several pawns trying to push the game and loses. Here you may look for more information on the match Nakamura (2770 ish) - Stockfish (3300 ish), where the GM had many great closed positions that seemed to end inevitably in a draw, but pushed too hard for the win and ended up losing.

3812: <p>What strategy should I use to win a chess game against a chess computer?</p>

<p>The engine is able to make decisions on an about 3 moves deep search graph.</p>

<p>Please do not say check every move in the next 4 moves...</p>
 3405: <p>Computers' main strength are tactical positions. So steer into quite positions. </p>

<p>Another good thing to do is to learn your openings well. Why? Computers usually will play the same thing in depth 3 over and over. So you will be able to learn what the computer plays, like studying an opponent's previous games. </p>

<p>Another tip is go to the endgame. The weak calculation power helps you a lot. Try to transpose into King and Pawn endgames, and learn them well.</p>

<p>The last thing to keep in mins is that computers do not blunder. They will play what they think is the best, while humans might not even notice an hanging piece. Try to be attentive, and check ahead.</p>

<p>Remember to practice!</p>
 3890: <p>There are several important points to know when playing a computer:</p>

<ol>
<li>They will certainly outplay you in sharp positions, and they make nonsense moves in closed positions that involve positional play.</li>
<li>They have an horizon, that is, a moment where they cannot see any further.</li>
<li>They are very, very greedy. A pawn is a pawn they say, and the computer certainly likes material.</li>
</ol>

<p>Knowing these, a human can try to capitalize by closing the position, simplifying and drying it until the computer has almost no tactical base, and simply makes useless moves. If the human manages to make the computer blunder (because of its horizon it cannot calculate further, but the human clearly sees that his positional advantage will grant him the win) or develops a (<em>positional</em>) plan that simply destroys the computer's position strategically, he most certainly will own the game.</p>

<p>Some famous examples are provided by the top GM Hikaru Nakamura. <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497429" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> against Rybka you can see how he benefits from the fact that Rybka's programming does not allow it to give a draw when it's up in material (it was two exchanges up and about to arrive to the 50 move rule), and thus blunders several pawns trying to push the game and loses. <a href="http://www.chess.com/news/gm-nakamura-tries-to-prove-he-is-no-stockfish-7982" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> you may look for more information on the match Nakamura (2770 ish) - Stockfish (3300 ish), where the GM had many great closed positions that seemed to end inevitably in a draw, but pushed too hard for the win and ended up losing.</p>
