The engines are not lying
The preliminary analysis is done at a different depth. It may get a different result than the full analysis.
When I ran the Game Review on your game, I got different results.
I found one move I thought was interesting and might have been marked as brilliant at a lower engine depth.
Nd4 offers the knight as a "sacrifice" while discovering an attack on the black Queen.
The engines are not lying
The preliminary analysis is done at a different depth. It may get a different result than the full analysis.
Understood. But then that's misleading, which is another form of lying.
I honestly don't mind not having brilliant moves in games, that's been a norm for me.
But incorrectly claiming there were 2 brilliant moves, and not even attributing those to my opponent is sad.
The engines are not lying
The preliminary analysis is done at a different depth. It may get a different result than the full analysis.
Understood. But then that's misleading, which is another form of lying.
I honestly don't mind not having brilliant moves in games, that's been a norm for me.
But incorrectly claiming there were 2 brilliant moves, and not even attributing those to my opponent is sad.
I don't think it is lying. It is not deliberately misleading.
It is just what happens sometimes when two different depth assessments are run on the same game.
I think it's lying, and I’ve made a similar post with a more basic example -> https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/arbitrary-scores-given-during-in-app-game-review
Yes, a lot of cloud engines are "lying" if they are configured to run in MPV mode and low ply depth. Not because they are set like that, but because their computational power is limited and don't have enough time to reach a reasonable evaluation.
If you run e.g. Stockfish 18.1 from ChessDot UI, it will reach the very same evaluations that a 256-core server will reach using a local instance of Stockfish 18.1. The only difference is that the server will reach there in less than a couple of minutes, while the ChessDot Stockfish may need more that a couple of days.
The engines are not lying
The preliminary analysis is done at a different depth. It may get a different result than the full analysis.
Understood. But then that's misleading, which is another form of lying.
I honestly don't mind not having brilliant moves in games, that's been a norm for me.
But incorrectly claiming there were 2 brilliant moves, and not even attributing those to my opponent is sad.
Another way of putting it is that the invitation to use game review is like an advert for a lottery which shows someone winning it and that someone is you.
I don't think justbefair sees what you mean.
Chess.com purposefully does this to manipulate their audience in order for them to buy premium. If you hover over the brilliant moves when it shows them, it says that it "May change during game review".
I don't quite understand what Chess,com is doing in some instances. I'm not playing people atm but I've been playing bots for about a year. At first it was faithfully putting all my bot games on my profile. then it wiped them all off. They've just returned. But a lot of the time I'm using the bots for analysis purposes. Taking moves back and trying different ones so that they aren't real games.
I just played this one with a bot that's supposed to be 2300 and that was a real game with no takebacks, played in about 20 minutes. As I said, I don't see much point in having them on the profile but regarding the 2300, this felt like playing a 1900 FIDE or less.
For the life of me I can't figure out why the Chess Engine would state that the game had 2 Brilliant moves, and then when I opened the analysis, there were none. As a noob, can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 Year Old? Because I see no motive for such a tactic. Was this an error?
