13517 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
and here, chess.com computer analysis says: (5.69) MISTAKE - That was a mistake. Much better was 22. Ne4which is exactly what I played???
It would be easier for us to look at it if you post the analysis rather than just the game.
I don't think it's a priority of theirs.
The analysis by their computer is not particularly strong either. I made a move the computer called a blunder but I was positive it was strong. After throwing it on an engine it said my move was easily winning, but the line was a little more complex than what I had calculated on the blitz game. So perhaps it just does not dig too deeply when analyzing as well.
The text is just shoddy too. Qxg7# 'Play may have continued'. It's just easy fixes that leave a bad impression.
Just wondering at what strength ie:1800 , 2000 or 2400....was this game analyzed.....maybe thats the issue....???
I used the analysis engine on a game against a 300 rated player several days ago and it marked 8 moves as inaccuracies and 2 moves as blunders. What I learned about the engine was this:
1. If a move gives a deviation from the previous evaluation of +/- 0.25 points, it will score the move as an inaccuracy (?!)
2. If the move deviates the evaluation +/- 0.50 it will mark it as a blunder (?)
3. The analysis engine will not mark a move as strong unless the deviation is +/- 1.00 (!) increasing advantage further for the side operating the move, usually involving some type of sacrifice or clear advantage of some type.
4. Nor does it mark a move as excellent unless one of two conditions exist:
A) The previous move from the other side is a blunder and you or your opponent find what it considers the strongest reply.
B) The evaluation increases to the favored side by +/- 1.50
5. The engine cannot differentiate between a novelty move and a brilliant move.
An example which I will be happy to provide a link to as well as the posting in the thread shows that OTB, I had a clear advantage on White's moves Nf1 and Bd2 when i played Ba6 and Bd3 respectively. In this case was the winning of an exchange in a semi closed position (neither side had control of the b file yet). To compound matters, 3 moves earlier, I played f4 looking later to notice that gxf4 holds drawing chances for White and exf4 gave Black a decisive advantage by removing a defender of d4, setting up a second winning exchange. Following is the link:
Please direct to posting #1467.
This engine is basic, something akin to an early comet or Crafty engine and really weak at positional analysis. Please feel free to download the .pgn file and evaluate with a more current engine and tell me if it marks Bd3 as an inaccuracy (?).
Hopefully this will help you understand a bit about chess.com's analysis engine or at least confuse you enough to seek a solid engine such as Stockfish.
BTW is it any coincidence that the first four letters in analyze spell "ANAL?"
Computer analysis for basic members is 2000 strength afaik.
How do I do this?
Yes, this also happens to me a couple of times that's why I encourage you to analyse your games on your own. Just a thought. :D
I think even if you give the link, we still are not able to look on it.
Where do you guys see those comments? When I click analyze I can only click through the game. I was wondering.. how is this analyzing?
Would be great if you could tell how I can see one of my games with those computer comments and alternative lines.
Go to your games archive, view a game and click computer analysis on the right. You will get a message when it's done.
Go to the analysis and click PGN. Then post it like any other game.
Twice in one game. dxc6 is apparently better than dxc4 too.
I never knew the computer was this stupid!
(0.52) INACCURACY - You slipped from a better position to an equal one. You should have played 5. dxc6
(5.69) MISTAKE - That was a mistake. Much better was 22. Ne4
Um.. er.. um.. er.. um... er... um... er... ok. If it says so.
Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?
by ponz111 a few minutes ago
Someone please recommend be a chess set.
by bananaboatcaptain 4 minutes ago
by pfren 5 minutes ago
by tigerprowl 5 minutes ago
12/5/2013 - Too Many Attackers, Too Little Defenders
by KevinLichte 5 minutes ago
Anyone Played 1000 Games?
by DrFrank124c 5 minutes ago
Post your best miniatures here
by Ziryab 5 minutes ago
CHESScom: Beautiful game, beautiful mate ... I did not expect!
by GR_OlegLider 6 minutes ago
QG - Tarrasch vs Albin Counter Gambit
by FromMuToYou 8 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by Somebodysson 8 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!