I just want to say that computer anaylsis on won games is mistaken in calling out mistakes. Here is an example:
20. Bg4 looks better to me.
22. Rc4+ forces the king onto a light square and you have a light squared bishop, Hmmmmm
24. Rxf2 You already had a pawn in your sights.
27. Rf8+ frees your Bishop Rf5 blocks it.
I give up. Even I can spot this stuff.
20.Bg4 immeaditly gives lead back with Qxe4
22. you are right
24. Rxf2 leads to a boring endgame and the check is a free move anyways computer says you are right though
27. next move is forcing a rook trade and check anyways if he didnt screw up and Rf8+ allows king back to center Rd3+ is the best since it eventually forces a bishop for rook
"i just can't stop screwing up" lol!!
this is me squeezing a fart out
hm i think its better to analyse the games you win, cause people tend to forget bad memories, so its more easy to keep in mind working attacks etc.
But i also wonder, how do you analyse it with a computer ?.Is there some kind of program that says you lead the attack from move x to y and made a mistake there or there ??
it is a chess.com feature after you finish a game you can review it. 0n the right it says give a trophy, add to friends, and computer analysis. you get a message when it is done and it shows mistakes, innacuracies, and blunders. it shows lines and says who has the advantage. the number shows who is winning - for black and + for white
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.