I just had the following game reviewed for computer analysis. And it seems like most of the moves that it suggested were sometimes just flat wrong? Maybe I am a much weaker player then I had thought, but it seems as if it is just flat un helpful, or I just don't understand the meaning behind some of the suggested moves. Any clarity of some of the breakdowns would be very helpful, thanks.
Wow, that's a whole screenful of blue stuff.
So are you saying that that punctuation all came from the computer? Like "?!" to the Sicilian and "?" to White 3rd move? (lol) If so, yeah, that's some seriously compromised material.
Yea.. I apolagize, but I don't know how to turn it into the neat-clean looking pdf game style :(. But ya that's the type of stuff I'm talking about.
lol @ 1...c5?! and it suggests instead the marshal gambit in the scandinavian. And as andy said it also questions 3.d4 (lol).
 other than the laughable opening stuff, it points out some good tactics to look at in the middlegame.
Oh thanks for posting it like that Wafflemaster. Ya a few of the variations that it suggested were more beneficial for white, but I was playing as black...? Your right though, definantally some moves I missed for sure.
hahaha maybe the computer only thought that the moves that steered the game into tactical positions were best.
Hahahahah, Najdorf ?!
Seems like Kasparov made a lot of mistakes! ;)