The Right moves for the wrong reasons!

Chessmaster computer analysis says it agreed with 100% of my moves! 2 moves were book moves so it agreed with the remaining 15 moves. Opponent made 1 wrong move and scored 93%. Usually I am happy if I can get above 75%. Longer games with a lot more moves makes it more difficult to get a high score. This was my first game ever that I scored 100%. It's agrreement pact is 100% but that doesn't necessarily mean it would have played the moves I played!

Realy the only thing of interest about this game is the computer agreed 100% I simply tried to develop better than my opponent and then the king side attack presented itself. 

I have had an interest in Chess computers and software all my life but I have nver been a stronger enough player to understand why the computer makes the moves it does and the reasoning behind them. However, I recently bought Reasses You Chess, Amatuer's Mind and Understanding Chess Move by Move. 

So any comment you have on this game or any wisdom or instructional comments about how computers play chess welcome, or on my game.

Sorry...hate to sound negative, but i have to call shenanigans.  After looking over some of your other games,  I cant help but feel this was computer aided.

I suppose I should have expected that reaction. However, I joined chess.com to play chess against other humans, not let my computer play against them. I have always wondered myself that if I improved, others would think I was cheating, just like so many others have lamented here in the forums. So that doesn't help me, because I have had my own chessmaster software analyse each move and it would not play the moves I played, but it awarded me a 100% agreement on the moves I made! So that is what I am interetsed in, because I made those moves. 

I know I play better turn based chess than when I play live chess. There are days when I play better chess and I have commented on that in another forum. 

I'll share something else, hopefully it will inspire someone else to comment. I have analysed some master games and the computer has awarded the winner with 100% and yet again on some positions it would not make the moves the master made!

I save every game that I play on Chess.com and I have made a habit of analysing every game as well. Occasionally, I have also felt my opponent has been cheating, I suppose, that, at times, it's human nature, but analyses on these games showed a very low score - something like between 60% agreement with computer moves. And when one really looks at the reason for losing you can find where the the real weak moves were and how the opponent expoloited those bad moves and then I totally dismiss my notion that because the opponent won they must have been computer aided.

I have also had games where I have won and got a 61% score, my opponent something like 65% and yet I won. I have managed to play a decent move right at the end. I put this down to playing positionally. In some position one seems to see what's necessary. If I manage to get a reasonable lead in the opening, and don't make any misyakes when I'm in front I usually go on to win the game. However, I thought I have played some really good games only to blunder right at the end.

So the goal is too become more consistant and understand what is going on.

There is no way any engine is going to 'agree with' 3. ..Nh6. Furthermore, it is not 'developing with a tempo'.

Faulty premise but that was the reasoning. 

I agree, 3. ..Nh6 seems a little odd, though I also admit I'm not familiar with any of these lines since I don't play the Sicilian (much). I think the OP's comment regarding "tempo" was meant to indicate that Nc6 could come in response to a check, and could therefore, perhaps, be delayed. His choice of words may not be entirely appropriate for chess jargon, but I understand his reasoning. Interesting choice -- not sure whether or not I would have made the same one.

You have to like the knight sac for mate. I'm sure his opponent was unpleasantly surprised. Nice miniature.

{edit} Also ... note the title of the thread!!! Congrats, days!

Well, he mislabeled where the end of book lines are. 2. ..d5 is not a book move.

I see. Okie. I think we've all been there before.

I think you may be mistaking 'agree with moves' with 'not objecting to them'.

Engines usually don't point out a move unless it leads to a substantial loss of some type. This is usually in the engine settings. For example, I use Fritz and I set the threshold to 30 which is the equivelant to 1 pawn. So it won't complain about a move unless it figures the move has the potential of losing 1 pawn or more worth of material.

Kleelof wrote:

"I think you may be mistaking 'agree with moves' with 'not objecting to them'." Isn't the game timed (countdown)?

Again, I don't play Sicilian, but isn't it in some "book" lines?

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/defeating-the-grand-prix-attack

We've all probably played ...     the wrong moves for the right reasons as opposed to the right moves for the wrong reasons. I supposed  the wrong moves for the right reasons, they are the moves that lose the game!

So if I improve, I'll be playing the right moves for the right reasons!

Not objecting to them - now makes things more clearer. So it  makes sense to achieve a better than 75% agreement pact.

To make things clearer. 100% agreement pact -really means 100% non -losing moves.

Is this a variation of the fishing line?

Another observation. You have all commented on 3...Nh6 being odd or incorrect play - the intention was to get it to f6 which I did 6 moves later as I had to deal with other threats first, but the knight was then crucial in a sacrifice to win the game!This has occurred in other games I have played on chess.com - I have moved pieces that the analysis considered incorrect or blunders and then those pieces were instrumental in winning the game. My thread - Computer didn't see the win   is an example. A bishop sacrifice the analysis considered a blunder and yet on the next move checkmate!

Well, it does, in fact... Top choice! Colour me surprised too! Stockfish 5.

I guess it is intended to avoid a cramped position.

Then you play ...e6, move your knight to f5 and Bob's your uncle :) That's what I would do.