No, it isn't.
Remember Kasparov's words: "Computers are stupid!"
Is the Sicilian an innacuracy?
out of everything, the scandinavian? the analyzer must be getting old and crazy...
just a few days ago its alternative to the "inaccurate" sicilian was the french :<
out of everything, the scandinavian? the analyzer must be getting old and crazy...
just a few days ago its alternative to the "inaccurate" sicilian was the french :<
So it happened to you too? The fact that it keeps changing the "best" second move makes it even weirder.
Even Houdini gives 4. Ba4 as an inaccuracy.
Computers can't evaluate openings well, it's why they are given opening books.
Even Houdini gives 4. Ba4 as an inaccuracy.
Computers can't evaluate openings well, it's why they are given opening books.
P.S: He's talking about Ruy Lopez
Well, so it is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 and than Houdini sugests the only good move is the trade, right? Incredible!
I agree with MSC157, computers are kind of stupid with openings. We shouldn't let them trying to figure out the best first move, as they would calculate endless possible lines and find no solution.
So, the real question is: Why did chess.com enable the computer to make comments on book openings? It makes no sense.
I remember I used this device more often before, and it didn't analysed until it got out of the book
Computers are not stupid, and cannot be stupid, any more than a toaster or a screwdriver could be called stupid. People that program computers can be, however.
Just do not tell a sicilian or he will stab you. And do not look at his daughter.
The Godfather?
The computer analysis of chess.com surprised me by calling 1...c5 an innacuracy in one of my games and recomending the Scandianvian (1...d5) as the best response to 1.e4.
Go figure!