My winning move was "inaccurate" but if I followed the "best" move from the engine I'd be mated??
Sort:
Its because the opponent had mate in 2 after the bishop move.
Understandable and I noticed that, but that move was literally my only hail marry move to win and if I would have moved the rook as it suggested it would have been over. The engine doesn't take into account human fallacies of your opponent is all I'm saying, its suggestions are sometimes pure fantasy land.
Thats nothing. At least that has some inner logic.
First game I've played on this site, the chess.com analysis praised the rook move my opponent was making ... while he had missed that I was attacking his queen.
Lets just say ever since I dont really take the chess.com analysis all too seriously.
Qxf7 would have mated you next move.
Nuttymiked wrote:
Understandable and I noticed that, but that move was literally my only hail marry move to win and if I would have moved the rook as it suggested it would have been over. The engine doesn't take into account human fallacies of your opponent is all I'm saying, its suggestions are sometimes pure fantasy land.
Engines are Engines. You know it was your only hope and you might have anyway been mated. But your opponent's elo was low giving you chances and he as expected blundered. I agree with you, you did the right thing. But it was given inaccurate as it hangs mate in 2.
ThankfulBone wrote:
Qxf7 would have mated you next move.
But the thing is that the opponent won't see it a hang mate in 1. That's the idea 💡.
Nuttymiked wrote:
Understandable and I noticed that, but that move was literally my only hail marry move to win and if I would have moved the rook as it suggested it would have been over. The engine doesn't take into account human fallacies of your opponent is all I'm saying, its suggestions are sometimes pure fantasy land.
I understand your point.
If you are losing in all lines anyway, then sure... it's best to play something that gives your opponent a chance to go tragically wrong.
Computers don't think like that, though. They think that getting mated in nine moves is somehow "better" than getting mated in two moves... even though both are equally checkmated.
It's because your opponent would have mated you, if he wasn't so dumb, or nooby. But he hasn't, it's not computer's fault. Analyse your games, comparing each move with best answers, not with your opponent's answers. Also, if you don't believe to computer, you can play from the positions from your games against maximum computer, and it will show you why you're wrong or right.
blueemu wrote:
Nuttymiked wrote:
Understandable and I noticed that, but that move was literally my only hail marry move to win and if I would have moved the rook as it suggested it would have been over. The engine doesn't take into account human fallacies of your opponent is all I'm saying, its suggestions are sometimes pure fantasy land.
I understand your point.
If you are losing in all lines anyway, then sure... it's best to play something that gives your opponent a chance to go tragically wrong.
Computers don't think like that, though. They think that getting mated in nine moves is somehow "better" than getting mated in two moves... even though both are equally checkmated.
I was analyzing a Magnus Carlson Blitz game recently and even he missed a checkmate in the middle of the game. It happens at all levels, of course less often at the higher levels, but it happens. As you said, I just thought it was hilarious that the "best" practice would have been to get checkmated in 9 moves rather than 2, even though I kind of understand why it suggested what it did, I found it funny that my only move in that position to actually win was labeled "inaccurate."
Well the engine doesn't understand how people work
MariasWhiteKnight wrote:
Thats nothing. At least that has some inner logic.
First game I've played on this site, the chess.com analysis praised the rook move my opponent was making ... while he had missed that I was attacking his queen.
Lets just say ever since I dont really take the chess.com analysis all too seriously.
I believe the game you are referring to is this one: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/104894060906?tab=review&move=28
The engine did not praise the move, unless you call an inaccuracy praise...
Nuttymiked wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Nuttymiked wrote:
Understandable and I noticed that, but that move was literally my only hail marry move to win and if I would have moved the rook as it suggested it would have been over. The engine doesn't take into account human fallacies of your opponent is all I'm saying, its suggestions are sometimes pure fantasy land.
I understand your point.
If you are losing in all lines anyway, then sure... it's best to play something that gives your opponent a chance to go tragically wrong.
Computers don't think like that, though. They think that getting mated in nine moves is somehow "better" than getting mated in two moves... even though both are equally checkmated.
I was analyzing a Magnus Carlson Blitz game recently and even he missed a checkmate in the middle of the game. It happens at all levels, of course less often at the higher levels, but it happens. As you said, I just thought it was hilarious that the "best" practice would have been to get checkmated in 9 moves rather than 2, even though I kind of understand why it suggested what it did, I found it funny that my only move in that position to actually win was labeled "inaccurate."
It is normal as the analyser is the machine not a human.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/107284724876?tab=reviewshaktiprasad89 vs. Nuttymiked | Analysis - Chess.com
I just started playing on chess.com recently and just had my first very rough game this morning. I just thought it was funny that the 2nd to last move that allowed me to checkmate my opponent was labeled as "inaccurate" when if I would have followed the "best" practices according to the engine my game would have ended in my opponent checkmating me! What! Am I missing something here? lol.