Am I reading this Chess.com Computer Analysis correctly?

Jump to forum:
 
26th March 2009, 12:35am
#1
by nimbleswitch
Idyllwild, California United States
Member Since: Apr 2008
Member Points: 338


You need to open the Move List window by clicking on MOVE LIST, below. Scroll down to the real game move 22. (In black letters.) Immediately thereafter, in colored letters, there appears a Computer Analysis suggested line beginning with 22...g4. Follow that colored line along to White's move, 29. Nxd4. Click on that move and look at the board position. Is there any doubt what Black's next move should be? Then look at what the 2500-rated Computer Analysis gives as Black's next logical move. Am I just reading this wrong somehow?

26th March 2009, 01:19am
#2
by NM tonydal
United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 4427

Yeah, that was pretty funny!  Maybe the computer takes after Chigorin...?

26th March 2009, 01:39am
#3
by Saccadic
Vaughan, Ontario Canada
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 620

I'll stick with my 2000~ rated computer analysis, thank you very much..

26th March 2009, 02:57am
#4
by TonightOnly
Phoenix, AZ United States
Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 1521

Yes, I have had one experience with computer analysis and it wasn't very helpful. I have also heard others with similar stories to yours.

26th March 2009, 03:17am
#5
by cuendillar
Stockholm Sweden
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 816

Your probably reading it wrong if you believe it credible more than 6 or 7 ply down the line - particularly in non-forcing lines. I sometimes let the engine analyse my games, but only to see if I missed any short-term tactics - and to get a good chuckle out of it otherwise... This example was quite extreme though.

4th April 2009, 10:58am
#6
by nimbleswitch
Idyllwild, California United States
Member Since: Apr 2008
Member Points: 338

I think you're absolutely right, cuendillar. From now on, I'll be using Chess.com's computer analysis for catching shallow-ply errors only. I think it's still very worthwhile for that, though.

But even there you have to be careful. For example, the game I showed above ended by resignation immediately after 31...Rh5+. Computer Analysis's suggested line from there is: 32. Kg6 (forced), but then 32...Qe7, a non-checking move which I consider to be inferior for that reason alone, even though it shows mate as being only one move away. The line I intended to use was: 32...e5+, with similar forcing checks all the way until mate on the 8th rank. But maybe that's just a matter of style.

I have HIARCS 12.1--supposedly rated at 2950 on my computer--for deep analysis if I want to go to that trouble. I haven't noticed this problem with HIARCS yet.

4th April 2009, 11:27am
#7
by edgy_rhinx
Puteaux France
Member Since: Nov 2008
Member Points: 165

Computer is missing mate in 1?!

4th April 2009, 02:54pm
#8
by nimbleswitch
Idyllwild, California United States
Member Since: Apr 2008
Member Points: 338
edgy_rhinx wrote:

Computer is missing mate in 1?!


Yeah, that was the point of the original post. But that was many plies into the analysis. I think, as cuendillar pointed out, we just have to adjust our expectations as to Computer Analysis.

4th April 2009, 03:39pm
#9
by uritbon
tel aviv Israel
Member Since: Apr 2008
Member Points: 1000

I'm shocked. simply shocked.

4th April 2009, 03:46pm
#10
by Feldmm1
United States
Member Since: Dec 2007
Member Points: 611

Wow.

4th April 2009, 04:31pm
#11
by BigOto
Kirkland, WA United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 5753

The red shows what moves would have lead to a better position.

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.