Don’t jump to the engine immediately. Write down your own analysis first, then use the engine to check and refine. This prevents dependency.
Engines calculate perfectly, but humans need ideas. Always look for the strategic reason behind the move suggested.
Enable multiple principal variations. Seeing two or three candidate lines reveals broader ideas instead of a single “best” computer move.
You don’t need 40+ depth every time. Often, a depth of 20–25 is more than enough for human learning purposes.
Focus on big evaluation swings rather than every tiny inaccuracy. These critical points reveal the most important lessons.
Engines are best for spotting tactical oversights. Don’t rely on them to dictate every move of your game.
If the engine suggests a move rarely seen in master play, ask whether it’s practical for humans. Sometimes “second best” is easier and just as effective.
Keep engine sessions focused and time-limited. Endless analysis drains energy and rarely improves long-term retention.
Instead of memorising engine lines, look for recurring ideas—pawn breaks, piece maneuvers, and typical sacrifices that you can actually use in your games.
Engines should confirm your ideas and show missed resources, not replace your own thinking. Treat them as partners in learning, not dictators.