15105 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!
Yes. But how did you get there?
Car, van, bike...
An A on a test is good, buts its not perfect, you could have done better, if you didnt get 100% then you made mistakes. But regardless of how you define mistake, the definition the analysis uses is based on it not being the best move and clearly missing something (for example a slower mate) In this case I would definitly consider it a mistake because it took an extra turn, so in a speed game or if you were almost out of time, then the extra move could lose you the game
I suppose I agree with that.
I have finally proved the computer analysis is incorrect, misleading, and just generally annoying. Somehow, I reached the exact same position in two bullet games after move 22. In one I then played:
22. ...Ke7 (-8.56) which was a "mistake" as the "best move" was 22. ...Nd6 (-8.96).
In the other game I played:
22. ...Nd6 AND IT WAS A "MISTAKE"
WTF, they even had different scores (with 22. ...Ke7 being the "best move")
It's all about how long the computer is set to analyze a move. It's possible the first time, the computer spent a little bit less or a little bit longer on that move, and it change it's output. I've seen situations where analysis with my own engine suggests something like Nxd5 with a score of .5, then the same with a score of -2, then e4 with a score of -1.5 then Nxd5 with a score of .43, because each time it changed it examined one ply further.
Okay, well amongst all the interesting things that the computer analysis gives, this may be the strangest.
I promoted a pawn to a queen. It was a "mistake", as the best move was the promote to a bishop (slightly better score).
The sequence that followed was for my opponent to then take the piece/queen regardless. So how can it have a different score?
Since I'm looking at this post anyway, might as well answer - it's (probably) because the engine analyzes bishop/knight, rook, then queen promotions, in that order. Because the first it analyzed was a bishop, and it didn't matter either way, it said that was the best move and the move it analyzed second was a mistake.
[HURT HEAL] Queen Pawn Openings w/o 1...d5
by QueenBlunder a few minutes ago
by mattlightbody99 3 minutes ago
Is there a competition for THE WORST PLAYER ON CHESS.COM?
by evertVB 3 minutes ago
Carlsen vs Anand rematch
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 6 minutes ago
Video ads kill your product
by RonaldJosephCote 9 minutes ago
So I was playing the Queen's Gambit pretty happily until
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 10 minutes ago
[HURT HEAL] OPENINGS
by Indirect 11 minutes ago
by NearHeart 14 minutes ago
3/15/2014 - Speed Chess Tactics
by ericliyuyang 14 minutes ago
No sound on opponent's moves...
by Citadel_7 20 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!