You're right, I should have checked the board first. But the odd thing is that I always play the Sicilian and it's never been marked as an inaccuracy. I figured something changed with the engine.
Wasn't it Alekhine who said that the Sicilian opening was nothing but a "cheap trick"? :D
Well I certainly can't argue with Alekhine, but the Sicilian is pretty good for us mortals...
Well, I think most engines don't like the sicilian that much. And the chess.com analysis isn't exactly the most accurate thing ever.
I've had something like this happen before.
Don't take computer analysing openings for serious.
It wasn't that exact position, but the same idea. Two pawns, sacrifice one to queen the other one. And it told me to make a bishop instead of a queen. And it's suggested line was KxB. And it called it a mistake, not just an inaccuracy.
If the king was forced to take the promoted piece, the computer might have thought that underpromotion to a bishop was better because it only loses a bishop instead of a queen? Obviously this makes no sense, but it's the sort of way an engine might have been programmed to think.
(Although if it came up in one of my games and was a win either way, I might promote to the bishop just for the novelty of it. I think Carlsen did something similar once.)
chess.com analysis is horrible. its the worst tool on the website, one of the few flaws, its garbage. I've never seen such a bad helper. I forgot chess.com had it even because it's so useless to me.
I was working on my book "The Sicilian Has Been Refuted" and apparently chess.com caught wind of it. So, no, this is not an error, but simply advanced notice that any grandmaster playing c5 will be refuted by mere class players who will checkmate them within 20 moves.
True story.
1.c4 e5 is = for black
1.e4 c5 is +/- for white.
Therefore the sicilian is refuted.
If I play the sicilian and you resign you have shown that you understand chess better than computers do.
The Sicilian has NO refutation, only too much theory. Eric Fleet sounds like an idiot.
And with all due respect, if you couldn't tell the post had ten pounds of sarcasm in it...
In order for you to believe my post was serious, you would have to belive
1) I think I have a refutation for the Sicilian
2) I am writing a book about it
3) chess.com is spying on my book writing activities
4) class players can beat Grandmasters
And the usual criticism I hear from Europeans is that Americans don't get humor...
I was working on my book "The Sicilian Has Been Refuted" and apparently chess.com caught wind of it. So, no, this is not an error, but simply advanced notice that any grandmaster playing c5 will be refuted by mere class players who will checkmate them within 20 moves.
True story.
I'd like to put your theory to the test, say against Judit Polgar, whose famously known for her killer knowledge of the sicilian of all variations.
How do you not get sarcasm?
What, you don't think Jonathan Swift really wanted to eat children?
I recently submitted a game for analysis, and here is what I got for the first move:
As a french player, I fully approve of this 
The computer disapproved of my 1. e4 c6?! as well.
The Sicllian defence has to be an inaccuracy. That explains why I lose in 20 moves if I play it.
The computer disapproved of my 1. e4 c6?! as well.
you should wait for my next book "Why the Caro-Kann Leads to a Forced Mate in 8" co-authored by BlueBird1964 and Master_Valek.
The Sicilian has NO refutation, only too much theory. Eric Fleet sounds like an idiot.
And with all due respect, if you couldn't tell the post had ten pounds of sarcasm in it...
In order for you to believe my post was serious, you would have to belive
1) I think I have a refutation for the Sicilian
2) I am writing a book about it
3) chess.com is spying on my book writing activities
4) class players can beat Grandmasters
And the usual criticism I hear from Europeans is that Americans don't get humor...
They would also have to believe that you would title a book: "The Sicilian has been refuted"
I mean, why not something that sounds better, like, "refuting the sicilian" or something.
That might be more believable.
And "Why the caro-kann leads to a forced mate in 8", honestly, your titles are like 10 words long.
I recently submitted a game for analysis, and here is what I got for the first move:
1. e4 c5?! (Inaccuracy. Perhaps better was ...e6)
This makes me question the validity of the whole analysis but I'm hoping a sys admin can tweak the analysis engine.