the analysis probably want you to get a stalemate,draw by repetition or it just computer error
Confusing Analysis
Sort:
With perfect play 51... Kd6 gets you mated in 8, while 51... Kxf5 gets you mated in 7. By allowing yourself to be mated a move sooner, the computer tells you that you "blundered". Likewise, your opponent "blundered" by playing 53 g5, because with perfect play that mates in 8, while 53 Qe1 (or 53 Qg3) mates in 7.
To many (perhaps all) chess engines/programs getting yourself mated in 8 is better than yourself getting mated in 7. The analysis tool here is one of them. Also, mating your opponent in 7 is better than mating your opponent in 8. Since everything needs to be quantified for a computer, it's difficult to program in abstract ideas. In practice, it may be a good idea to have it this way, since the extra move may give the opponent one more chance to blunder, or perhaps the extra move may cause the opponent to run out of time.
That makes sense and the reason I figure to play out a losing end game is to make the fewest blunders possible. But the computer's theoretical continuation at 52, the 52. Kd6 Kf3 53. Kc7Qa7+ 54. Kd8 Qe7+55. Kxe7, makes me question the accuracy of the computer (Unless I really am to believe that my opponent would just give me his queen for no reason). So it's clear to me that the theoretical continuation is wrong, because of that I am unsure how far I can trust the analysis.
Fezzik wrote: Answering those questions will help you to become a strong player far more than worrying about whether you should choose a cyanide pill or to fall on your sword when all is lost.
True, which is why I have used the computer analysis for most my games. It's not that I was worried about how I lost in a losing endgame, more that evidence of the computer screwing up analysis causing me to question if I can trust it to make sound analysis.
It does sound like this is a non-issue though. Just too many options in a lame endgame.
Someone want to explain to me why 17. Rhf1 is a mistake and why 17. Raf1 is better? It seems to me you'd be wasting a move trying to force black to do what he wants to do anyway.
I'm trying to use the computer analysis to learn from my mistakes, figure out where I'm making the most mistakes. For the most part it seems helpful, but often times I get an inaccuracy that I question or a blunder that just doesn't make sense. Now I understand that as a novice player much of my confusion is due to not understanding the dynamic nuances of the game, and I have had some of those explained to me, but It seems at times the analysis does get things wrong.
So my question is how far can I trust the analysis? Is it mostly accurate, does it have problems analyzing the end game? Here is an example of what I'm talking about. In it I screw up a few times and get my butt kicked. At issue is the blunder at 52 and what the computer states is the obvious continuation.
Cheers,
Bernau