By the way, to answer my own question. I believe what is happening is that the engine searches the move tree, finds one that results in mate, decides that that is the best possible move (since mate is the best possible outcome) and then assumes all other moves are a blunder since they are not the 'mate move' it found.
If this is what is happening, a side effect would be that a second 'mate move' further down the tree would be considered a blunder.
Its mate. Who cares what its labeled.
Well, if the computer analysis is so screwed up on something so obvious, what else is it missing?
By the way, to answer my own question. I believe what is happening is that the engine searches the move tree, finds one that results in mate, decides that that is the best possible move (since mate is the best possible outcome) and then assumes all other moves are a blunder since they are not the 'mate move' it found.
If this is what is happening, a side effect would be that a second 'mate move' further down the tree would be considered a blunder.
That seems likely. There is a mate that the computer decided was the best move, so any move that wasn't that mate would be inferior. I would think it could recognize every one move mate as equal, but apparently it doesn't.
Mate isn't a blunder.
Why do you ask silly questions like this?
Wait, I can downvote this post!
The computer wanted you to slowly torture your opponent for another 20 moves.
The computer wanted you to slowly torture your opponent for another 20 moves.
Mate was best move and worst though
Engine evaluation here is inaccurate quite often and have seen it in mine and others games but wow have never seen calling mate a blunder. Only thing I can think of according to the engines programing Qg7 mate was the most correct move, not my reasoning mate is mate and they need to fix this stuff.
I "seem to have noticed" that the computer appears to be inclined to like power moves. Pawn or rook = mate, then rook is correct. Rook or queen = mate, then the queen is correct. If I am correct, it does make me wonder if it also likes less pieces. The poster mated using 3 pieces. Your notice of Qg7#, not only uses the most powerful piece, but also only two pieces to mate.
PerpetuallyPinned, the question "How is mate a blunder?" was rhetorical and did not expect an answer. It was also not the point of this post. The point of the post was more along the lines of how can the computers analyses be so far off as to call mate a blunder, and how can we trust its analysis on other games knowing that it has the potential to be so far off.
As far as I can tell, every person commenting here understood that, except you. Think about that, and consider what that fact implies.