mistakes?
Sort:
EvaGoode
Aug 24, 2021
0
#1
When I play against the computer here I get a post-game recap that I’m still figuring out how to use fully. One thing it’ll tell me is that some moves were “mistakes” but I’ve sometimes seen that the move it prefers would have won the same amount of material yet left me with less of an advantage. Or just put more material at risk for no reason. Is it my inexperience that has me thinking the computer is wrong in these cases, or is it possible that it really is wrong?
Aug 26, 2021
0
#3
The question isn’t specific to an example, it’s more about how to interpret the offered analysis. Without much about WHY the move is a mistake, it’s hard to learn much from it.
And another thing: it frequently says “missed mate” or “missed win” but even if I retry, the “Best” next move still isn’t a mate or a win.
And another thing: it frequently says “missed mate” or “missed win” but even if I retry, the “Best” next move still isn’t a mate or a win.
Aug 26, 2021
0
#5
What are some effective methods or ways to become more efficient at avoiding mistakes?
Aug 26, 2021
0
#6
In general, engine is almost always right. On lower depths (like depth 10) its evaluation might sometimes be shaky, but even then it is generally right.
On higher depths, that engine is stronger than any human, including strongest grandmasters and it is almost 100% right.
I am quite curious. What is the highest depth level an engine has ever reached?
I think with the engine its helpful to compare lines not individual moves. So when the engine says you made a mistake, play through its preferred line, say 3 or 4 moves, and understand the idea, there may be a tactic, or it might have opened a file and grabbed control ready for a rook lift, it may be improving control of a key square, or gaining space on the queenside. Look at a few moves and try to summarise the idea and compare it with your plan.
Aug 26, 2021
0
#9
No matter how much of a general question it may be, these things are always very situational and there’s no one size fits all answer. If I had to guess, I would imagine that the machine didn’t want to put more material at risk ‘for no reason’ but that it’s more likely the reason just wasn’t apparent to you.
As has already been suggested, pop in an example (when you get one) and someone will most likely figure out what’s going on.