This is another game that I played in the ICC server. My opponent in this game is an International Master from Finland. I rarely answer 1 e4 with 1… e5, but I did in this game because I was expecting the Ruy Lopez. I got the Scotch Gambit instead. On move number 13, I got out of the main line and I tried something that was supposedly better. Houdini 3 X 64 said that the move that I played was stronger than the main line, so I wanted to explore it. If I see this position again in a game then I will play the main line. Although I lost this game, even with the help of three chess engines, I believe that this game and analysis add to the body of chess knowledge.
I used Houdini 3 X 64 to do most of my analysis. When Houdini suggested a move that made no sense to me I then used Deep Fritz 13 and Deep Rybka 4 X6 4 to look at the position some more. When the engines did not agree on a move I usually went with what Houdini recommended because it was supposed to be the strongest of the three engines. However, I think that Deep Fritz 13 is stronger in endgames.
The computer that I used when this game started had a quad core processor and 4 GB of RAM. I still got outplayed! What I realize now is that I have gotten a little lazy and too dependent on chess engines to do the thinking for me. From now on, the engines will be used to blunder check my analysis and I will choose my own moves based upon my 38+ years of playing chess.
In the endgame I was trying to prevent the White King from helping his passed pawn from queening while down a Bishop, but I got careless on one move because I got tired of the chess engines telling me that I was losing and tried a move without checking it first. Chess engines are weak at endgames and closed positions and I now know not to completely trust their evaluations of positions. Even so, they are good for blunder checking my moves.