Realize in this endgame situation the computer analysis at your membership level probably easily looks at 30 ply deep, thus while your move is not 'incorrect', theoretically you may have been able to reach checkmate sooner. However, such 'inaccuracies' by the computer to not consider the fact that some moves (Ba7) are more logical to humans and thus in a wining situation like this it helps to 'seal the deal' sooner rather than later through an obscure king move. If I use Comp analysis it is mainly in positions of equality, but once a player gets ahead I stop (unless of course that player for some reason does not win the game).
About Chess.com Computer Analysis
Sort:
The problems with computer analyses purportedly playing around 2500 Elo are much more embarassing then this. It's simply too lazy for it's own good.
16) 0-0 is wrong!
Although the big computer of chess.com doesn't notice 16) Rxf6 would yield an immediate (after some lousy checks with the black queen) advantage of around 17 pawn units for white as opposed to 9 with 0-0. If you wonder how intricate such a problem for another computer might be, it suffices to say that the post-game-analysis on the slow ipad sees this in a second (I'm not kidding).
Bagramian wrote:
16) 0-0 is wrong!
Although the big computer of chess.com doesn't notice 16) Rxf6 would yield an immediate (after some lousy checks with the black queen) advantage of around 17 pawn units for white as opposed to 9 with 0-0. If you wonder how intricate such a problem for another computer might be, it suffices to say that the post-game-analysis on the slow ipad sees this in a second (I'm not kidding).
16. Rxf6 leads to a draw by perpetual check from Black's queen.
So here is a rather mediocre game. I have gone through the moves and it was not played very well or ambitious. Not having done too much analysis over the whole game I don't expect much input.
My point of posting is a big confusion about the Chess.com Computer Analysis. Let's look at move 37. b4
The move is obviously intended to break through the Queen side pawns and create a passed pawn. The variations are numerous there but with Black's King far away and mine being central and close to the action there is no defence.
My confusion however is the computer analysis given by Chess.com. It says b4 was a mistake and Kc3 would have been much better! I really don't see how, if anything b4 allows a faster win if my opponent blunders and with correct play Kc3 still follows, the move order is just reversed. (As the computer analysis still suggested b4 as move 38 as there is no other logical to proceed)
The most confusing thing about this is that after an inaccuracy, mistake or blunder the analysis always shows the best continuation. Which after my mistake of 37. b4 gave 37. ... cxb4. This was actually played in the actual game and this move was marked as a blunder for my opponent! So how is it that my mistake lead to a best play by my opponent which was also a blunder!? Does the computer not see b4 as winning and only after the move is made it is capable of seeing bit deeper and determine it is winning.
Was Kc3 really superior anyhow? To me it seemed that Kc3 and b4 both had to be played and with correct play from Black the order did not matter. Only that playing b4 first allowed my opponent to blunder easier (which he did).