user4068: To give some context, I just started playing OTB and am only 1225 USCF.  My online chess rating isn't much stronger though, it's about 1650 with standard time controls.
Chess engines are a great tool, but can they be detrimental to the growth of lower-rated players?  Sure, it's true that lower-rated players can use engines to spot an overlooked tactic, or to find a not-so-obvious blunder, but what about the subtle moves that chess engines suggest in positional games?  
After using Stockfish to analyze a few of my games, I noticed that from time-to-time the engine would suggest moves that didn't make much sense to me.  It's hard to give a concrete example from off the top of my head, but I think a lot of lower-rated players can relate.  Engines are obviously very strong and it's easy for any player to follow along with an engine's analysis, observe it's suggestions, and think, "oh yeah, I can implement that in my own games."  But then when it comes down to crunch time, the player didn't really learn anything at all, and just deceived themselves into thinking they learned something from the engine.  
What do you think?  Are engines great learning tools for lower-rated players, or does it require a higher level of chess knowledge to truly take advantage of an engine's power?

user12523: One use that hasn't been mentioned yet and which I happen to find very helpful is to use the engine for endgame drills. You can set up whatever endgame position strikes your fancy and play it out to see if you can really win those theoretical wins and draw those theoretical draws. If you make a mistake, you can be pretty sure that the engine will notice!
One caveat though is that when the engine can't win, it sometimes makes weird and "inhuman" moves. For example, when I defend a theoretical draw, I've seen the engine blithely give up its pawn or piece leading to an immediate draw by insufficient material. A human might want to keep trying, hoping for an error (depending on the complexity of the ending and the opponent's level), whereas the engine seems to think "all moves evaluate as zero; fuggedaboutit!". Or, in a lost position, the engine might take its king for a run without even trying to defend. Maybe it calculates that it then faces a mate in 12 instead of a mate in 10...

user19861: I disagree with anyone saying engines can't help. Not only can they give you the right answer in any situation but they can show you why your answer was wrong. It's like having the world's strongest player sitting right next to you.
I learned chess by playing against Chessmaster. Because of the way it plays I feel I'm better in the endgame than virtually anyone I play and I feel I'm pretty accurate tactically because engines hold you to that standard. Playing against people makes a person sloppy and prone to play for traps. Playing against both people and engines helps you to improve at the fastest rate. 

user7827: As a mid-1500's rated player, I find tactics trainers (chess problems) more rewarding that playing against engines.  I've played at a variety of time controls -- usually with a time bonus for the human -- but every game seems to be a war of attrition: tight positional play fighting for tiny advantages.  Then I play other humans who overlook a tactic, or try something risky that doesn't pan out, or any number of "human errors".  It's a different kind of game, and one that I find a lot more fun.  
I try to play slow games (G/30 or longer) against people, then use engines to analyze them. When a better move is uncovered, it becomes a game of introspection: "Why didn't I choose THAT move? Did I see it? Did I calculate it properly? Was I so set on another plan that I wasn't willing to change?"
A major hurdle I faced was a natural aversion to playing on-line: there are thousands of players on-line at any given time, and the mainstream servers (ICCS, FICS, PlayChess, etc.) are very good at matching skill levels.  It may not be as personal as OTB, but (hopefully) you're still playing another human.  I still don't play rated games on-line, but for practice purposes its hard to beat.

user70: I don't think they are detrimental if they are used properly.

There is nothing you're going to learn from Stockfish that's going to make an immediate difference. By studying the analysis you'll start to learn, however.
Stockfish plays at GM strength. It's going to suggest moves you'll never find until you're a 2200+ player.  Unfortunately I am unaware of a chess engine that plays like a sensible USCF 1650, which is what you need.
Stockfish will show you where you could have made better moves. Something that is important to note is that winning moves are there, if you are clever enough to find them.  Until the game is hopeless, Stockfish can beat a USCF 1250 regardless of which side of the board it is playing.  The moves are there.

Now, while I am a fan of engines, if you want to improve, get an instructor. You don't need a GM - an "A" or "B" player will do. Also, after playing with "A" and "B" players, ask them to help you analyze the game. This gives you reasons, not just answers. And further it will help you learn how to analyze.  This is what you'll miss if you rely upon the engine too much - it will give you the answers without helping you understand the answers.

4068: <p>To give some context, I just started playing OTB and am only 1225 USCF.  My online chess rating isn't much stronger though, it's about 1650 with standard time controls.</p>

<p>Chess engines are a great tool, but can they be detrimental to the growth of lower-rated players?  Sure, it's true that lower-rated players can use engines to spot an overlooked tactic, or to find a not-so-obvious blunder, but what about the subtle moves that chess engines suggest in positional games?  </p>

<p>After using Stockfish to analyze a few of my games, I noticed that from time-to-time the engine would suggest moves that didn't make much sense to me.  It's hard to give a concrete example from off the top of my head, but I think a lot of lower-rated players can relate.  Engines are obviously very strong and it's easy for any player to follow along with an engine's analysis, observe it's suggestions, and think, "oh yeah, I can implement that in my own games."  But then when it comes down to crunch time, the player didn't really learn anything at all, and just deceived themselves into thinking they learned something from the engine.  </p>

<p>What do you think?  Are engines great learning tools for lower-rated players, or does it require a higher level of chess knowledge to truly take advantage of an engine's power?</p>
 12523: <p>One use that hasn't been mentioned yet and which I happen to find very helpful is to use the engine for endgame drills. You can set up whatever endgame position strikes your fancy and play it out to see if you can really win those theoretical wins and draw those theoretical draws. If you make a mistake, you can be pretty sure that the engine will notice!</p>

<p>One caveat though is that when the engine can't win, it sometimes makes weird and "inhuman" moves. For example, when I defend a theoretical draw, I've seen the engine blithely give up its pawn or piece leading to an immediate draw by insufficient material. A human might want to keep trying, hoping for an error (depending on the complexity of the ending and the opponent's level), whereas the engine seems to think "all moves evaluate as zero; fuggedaboutit!". Or, in a lost position, the engine might take its king for a run without even trying to defend. Maybe it calculates that it then faces a mate in 12 instead of a mate in 10...</p>
 19861: <p>I disagree with anyone saying engines can't help. Not only can they give you the right answer in any situation but they can show you why your answer was wrong. It's like having the world's strongest player sitting right next to you.</p>

<p>I learned chess by playing against Chessmaster. Because of the way it plays I feel I'm better in the endgame than virtually anyone I play and I feel I'm pretty accurate tactically because engines hold you to that standard. Playing against people makes a person sloppy and prone to play for traps. Playing against both people and engines helps you to improve at the fastest rate. </p>
 7827: <p>As a mid-1500's rated player, I find tactics trainers (chess problems) more rewarding that playing against engines.  I've played at a variety of time controls -- usually with a time bonus for the human -- but every game seems to be a war of attrition: tight positional play fighting for tiny advantages.  Then I play other humans who overlook a tactic, or try something risky that doesn't pan out, or any number of "human errors".  It's a different kind of game, and one that I find a lot more fun.  </p>

<p>I try to play slow games (G/30 or longer) against people, then use engines to analyze them. When a better move is uncovered, it becomes a game of introspection: "Why didn't I choose THAT move? Did I see it? Did I calculate it properly? Was I so set on another plan that I wasn't willing to change?"</p>

<p>A major hurdle I faced was a natural aversion to playing on-line: there are thousands of players on-line at any given time, and the mainstream servers (ICCS, FICS, PlayChess, etc.) are very good at matching skill levels.  It may not be as personal as OTB, but (hopefully) you're still playing another human.  I still don't play rated games on-line, but for practice purposes its hard to beat.</p>
 70: <p>I don't think they are detrimental if they are used properly.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>There is nothing you're going to learn from Stockfish that's going to make an immediate difference. By studying the analysis you'll start to learn, however.</p></li>
<li><p>Stockfish plays at GM strength. It's going to suggest moves you'll never find until you're a 2200+ player.  Unfortunately I am unaware of a chess engine that plays like a sensible USCF 1650, which is what you need.</p></li>
<li><p>Stockfish will show you where you could have made better moves. Something that is important to note is that winning moves are there, if you are clever enough to find them.  Until the game is hopeless, Stockfish can beat a USCF 1250 regardless of which side of the board it is playing.  The moves are there.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Now, while I am a fan of engines, if you want to improve, get an instructor. You don't need a GM - an "A" or "B" player will do. Also, after playing with "A" and "B" players, ask them to help you analyze the game. This gives you reasons, not just answers. And further it will help you learn how to analyze.  This is what you'll miss if you rely upon the engine too much - it will give you the answers without helping you understand the answers.</p>
