Back in the 1970s, I was very interested in chess. When I should have been doing my topology homework, I'd instead waste time pouring over MCO (Modern Chess Openings) studying the hundreds of variations that worked or didn't worked based on historical games. It was really no fun trying to memorize these variations. It took so long setting up boards, following lines, and trying to figure out how the game strategy would change depending on an opponents moves.

For a mediocre player like myself, the advent of chess software that understands the game at a deep GM level has made studying chess fun. I can play computer opponents over and over, rapidly trying out the variations and seeing the outcome. I can ask for help, I can see what I'm doing wrong. I can easily spend an hour solving chess puzzles that improve my tactics.

To me, really not a good player, I enjoy chess more than ever; the article seems not to understand how chess software impacts the game.