What if it meant that your opponent was winning early on but blundered it away?
I think the numbers only show your mistakes and blunders, not your opponent's.
What was the game?
I don't want to get into the game, thats not the point I'm trying to make. It's the lack of clarity, "one player was winning" what a stupid comment, why doesn't it say which player! And as you suggest, does it show my mistakes and blunders or the other guy's. Generally speaking I think the whole idea is kool but they really have some things to work out.
One might with several mistakes be said to "blunder the game away." It's not the same as a single-move blunder (I suppose).
That comment only goes to underline what I'm saying, one ends up "supposing". If they are going to program the computer to make a comment then it should be precise and informative and not some generalised bla bla that only leaves you guessing, "well gee what does that mean?"
I agree these new commentaries are extremely flawed. When you compare them to the computer analysis you discover that they're pure BS.
On a game I had won it gave the commentary "One player dominated the game then blundered it away". So I analyzed it and I was ahead after practically every move made. At most he was up 0,6 or something, while I used to be ahead with 2.0 or 3.0 for the rest of the game. Both before and after his top. Being up 0.6 during one move is that "dominating"?!? I like the idea of this new feature but right now it's not accurate at all.
Totally agree with, America_de_Cali, "I like the idea of this knew feature but right now it's not accurate at all" !!!
Dear chess.com please get on the job and do something about this less than mediocre knew feature.
It's just one of those 'dumbing down' additions that everyone likes to add to everything nowadays since we live in a land of Twitter and chess players who obsess over engine evaluations even though they have no clue what is really going on.
They'd be a good idea if they were properly sarcastic like 'Every move you made was a blunder. Maybe you should try snakes and ladders' or 'You hung your Queen on move 27 you plonker'. Then I'd think they were great, but as they are they are neither informative nor funny nor anything.
They may well serve a purpose of tempting the aforementioned engine-obsessed players into getting a paid membership though, which is presumably their purpose.
Well, I had to find something that got the point across without being outright offensive or getting me banned and 'plonker' fits the bill over here!
My last one was really informative, telling me that one player managed to win. Really? I would never have known that from the message telling me my opponent resigned. It also told me I made 3 blunders and 3 mistakes. How fascinating. And here was me thinking I'd played the perfect game, hanging a few pieces along the way.
My last one was really informative, telling me that one player managed to win. Really? I would never have known that from the message telling me my opponent resigned. It also told me I made 3 blunders and 3 mistakes. How fascinating. And here was me thinking I'd played the perfect game, hanging a few pieces along the way.
I am sure that it meant to say, "A true blunderfest decided by the last blunder."
Happy now?
That would be better. Add even more sarcasm to it and I'd sign up straight away. If chess.com wants to take the mickey out of my chess they are more than welcome to, I just don't want the banal messages that do neither one thing nor another!
How strong is this machine ?
How strong is this machine ?
By rating? We have no idea. They don't tell us what they are doing. It is probably the same stockfish engine they normally use given a very tiny fraction of a second per move. Naturally, the quality suffers.
It seems designed to be only a quick blunder check, not a comprehensive analysis. That's why people get distressed comparing the quick view to a more lengthy analysis.
How strong is this machine ?
By rating? We have no idea. They don't tell us what they are doing. It is probably the same stockfish engine they normally use given a very tiny fraction of a second per move. Naturally, the quality suffers.
It seems designed to be only a quick blunder check, not a comprehensive analysis. That's why people get distressed comparing the quick view to a more lengthy analysis.
I was wondering because sometimes i didn't make a mistake and i always make mistakes .
My one today claimed I made no mistakes or blunders. It also said that the game was close until one player made a blunder. Well, I guess it was close for 7 moves before my opponent contrived to perform a manoeuvre that hung 2 pieces in as many moves when he could have simply retreated his Bishop from a fork to avoid losing any pieces! He then threw away a few more pieces as the game progressed. I still very much doubt my own play was anywhere near flawless though, it was just that my opponent kept losing material so it was easy!
Yes, it's completely fraudulent. No analysis is performed. It just randomly generates some cliche (eg "one player earned the win") that is deliberately contrived to fit all situations. It's like the way horoscopes say deliberately vague things like "a change is coming", to cover up the fact they're totally bogus. The mistakes/blunders/missed wins count is also fake. It bears no relation to the actual number of mistakes or blunders or missed wins. I could randomly guess, with a blindfold on, the number of "mistakes/blunders/missed wins" there will be in some future game of chess that I'm not even involved in and that guess would be as likely to be accurate as the "analysis". I'd have about a five percent chance of being correct, which is about the same as the analysis. (If not better - in the several dozen games I've played since this feature was introduced, not one has been analysed even remotely correctly.)
I think we all initially thought it was legitimate, then we noticed it was frequently inaccurate but gave it the benefit of the doubt (we thought maybe its inaccuracies were just down to the speed) but now it's clear that it's a complete con. It's just an ad. If you click on it, you'll be taken to the analysis page, where you will then be given the option of "upgrading", ie paying money.
I don't mind ads, I just wish chess.com were honest about this one. If it said, "click here if you want analysis", that would be absolutely fine. But it doesn't. It deliberately deceives users into believing that analysis is being performed. It's that deviousness that annoys me.
Using the terms, fraudulent, bogus, a complete con, deception, devious...is over the top.
Get a grip and contemplate your status as a free member on a site which has to operate as a business.
Has to operate as a business?
Well it's patently not a charity, how else should it operate?
And if all the free Members followed your suggestion of using an adblocker...
