This is really bugging me. Maybe it's my lack of understanding the position.
My knight was on d4 and got attacked by the pawn with c5. I played Nf5 which is a mistake. It says Nxb5 would have been best. Looking at that best line, the next move for black is c4.
How can this be the best move, if the next move in the evaluation is an okay-ish move instead of the best. The knight ends up taking the rook, but that wouldn't be possible with the best move.
What bothers me is how this can be the best move if very next opponent move is assumed to be not the best. That's like saying going for scholar's mate is the best move, provided the opponent doesn't defend against it.
It might of course very well be the best move, but how are we supposed to learn from the analysis if the best lines include blunders from the opponent or am I completely mistaken here?
That's why I suggested for the first best lines to be calculated as line length + depth.
With the default depth = 20 and line length = 10, the second move would only have a depth of 19 and the last the depth of 10, so evaluating them with the full depth of 20 it might get ranked worse. With a depth of 30, the last move would still be consistent with the depth of 20. Or what else might be causing blunders or inaccuracies in the suggested lines?