My first perfect game!

After completing a game on chess dot com, I usually submit the game for computer analysis. After a good win, the analysis always comes back showing that half my moves were blunders, mistakes, or inaccuracies. It can be very unpleasant to discover how poorly I played even my best games. 

However, today I was pleasantly surprised to find that I finally played a clean game free from any blunders, mistakes, or even inaccuracies! My first and only perfect game. And it included a couple of nice tactics like pins and forks. It was even against an opponent who had my number in the past. 

Llawdogg. 

Usually one would post the game in question now, so the good players can point out the chess.com computer is bogus and really you should have lost.

I was thinking more of baseball rather than bowling. 

i recently won a game in 14 moves, and just for giggles had it analyzed by the computer.  apparently, in my 14 moves 2 were either mistakes or blunders (don't recall which).  i just laughed. 

I recently had a game analysed which claimed a move was a blunder which, when I went through the line it offered, led to a decisive advantage.  It also claimed a move where my opponent walked into a mate-in-one, rather than accept a trade-down into a rook-and-bishop vs rook ending, was a "mistake".

The chess.com computer when I used it once awhile back, recommended some line and at the end it added some BS like "with approximately an equal position"... but it was a forced mate for my opponent in that line! How stupid, I said, and haven't used the computer analysis feature since.

just a scary thought.  is this the same chess.com computer that can kick my butt on level 2?

Maybe -- it's just that they don't have it set up properly for analysis.  In the games you play against it, all it has to do is find a good move 1 ply ahead... it doesn't matter if it it thinks a position 20 moves from then is "winning" when in fact it's "losing" and the mistake was on move 14 in analysis.

Which is more specifically what's wrong -- they don't deal with it's move horizon.  I've seen analysis that gives "approx equal" when there's a mate in 1.  Unfortunately that was it's horizon, and by definition it considered absolutely no moves beyond that point.

good point about the plys.  of course, it also comes down to the "best move" crap.  it doesn't matter how many moves ahead you think, it only takes the opponent not doing the right one once to mess up the entire thing.  for the game mentioned above, my move 13 was a mistake...but move 14 was mate.  needless to say, the computer did not expect my opponent to make the move that was made. 

when i look at a computer analysis i see the first move they suggest, and maybe one or two more, then skip ahead.  at my level no one is going to make the computer moves further down than that, so what difference does it make. 

also, since i just play this game for fun, i will sometimes purposely play moves that i see a line which will help my opponent if i am fairly confident that the opponent wont make the obscure play that will hurt me.  i know that this is technically wrong, but it has worked more often than not.  usually i lose because of a move i didn't anticipate rather than a risky move. 

Are you guys - including two national masters - suggesting that the chess dot com computer analysis is not all it's cracked up to be? I thought they used Fritz or Rybka. They say it's 2500 level. Isn't that grandmaster level analysis? I want my money's worth. 

I was looking into this thing called the Brooklyn Bridge. This guy I know can get me a really good deal. 

Hey tonydal, my goal is to become a chess master like you. But does that mean I'll become a cheeky monkey, too? ;) 

For the uninitiated, who is that guy? A well-known Star Wars or Star Trek character? 

Wasn't Spock half human or something?  Or do I have that completely wrong?

So wouldn't that make Sarek "Vulcan in and out"?

Spock's mother was human.

EDIT: Not sure about "was", the series is set in the future, maybe "is" would be better.

perhaps it should be "will be", then. 

I want to see the game now.  :D

Yeah, considered future tense "will be" but the timelines are so messed up that I thought ploughing straight down the middle the best course of action.

e.g. The series is set in the future but when you actually watch an episode it's happening in the present. Very confusing.

good point, but i try to block out the whales.