The rise of the #robots:good and bad

I started playing again chess online, every now and then, two games top per day, just to try to think strategically more and have some fun.

I limit my options, focus on a couple of openings that I got good results with, knowing that I will not go back to my ELO score when I was studying a couple of hours a day and practicing for at least an hour at the chessboard.

I did well, but recently my score and game improved, chess.com released a new feature, an automated buddy, that will comment on your moves AFTER the game completed and share the analysis, it is not like a kibitzer doing it while the match is ongoing.

For an additional couple of minutes or more spent I can review alternative options and get past my confirmation bias to figure alternative motions that I might have ignored because of a personal blind spot and improve thanks to a level of processing effect.

Unfortunately, the basic feature sometimes is having an odd rating and ranking your move way worse than they should be hence for a weird point system you might have a lower score then your opponent even if you win the game.

Artificial intelligence should be like this, an augmentation of your natural work progress, a good reviewer of potential alternative options, I get better by making use of such an advanced feature.

Why it keeps having people concerned? For the same reason, there are now chess simulators that are extremely effective thanks to the power of modern processors and suddenly behind a remote screen you find yourself fighting not against a human counterpart, but because of a cheating opponent, the body becomes a robot extension with moves dictated by an Artificial Intelligence.

Victory has 1000 fathers; defeat has 1000 kibitzer- Jeff Greenfield

It is the reason why several players gave up long games online and preferred to go for blitz games, I find myself refusing to get an edge during the game, but love to learn after the facts what I could have done better.

This scenario is quite confusing for me, how can I blame someone representing himself better than he/she is and at the same time using the same means to get an edge next time I would play with somebody else? Kind of a paradox to me. Opinions?