Why was dropping my Queen a Mistake and not a Blunder?

Sort:
mrfunkydrums


It went from +2 to +15 in my Quick analysis, but was listed as a Mistake. Screenshot: https://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/3595748/2112c1018c8f44f57b98a8d0b2f2c209

notmtwain
mrfunkydrums wrote:
 


It went from +2 to +15 in my Quick analysis, but was listed as a Mistake. Screenshot: https://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/3595748/2112c1018c8f44f57b98a8d0b2f2c209

You want to call it a blunder? Ok, by almost anyone's definition, it was a blunder.

In the Help section, they define their terms:

In the computer analysis, what's the difference between inaccuracy, mistake, and blunder?

  

When you are reviewing the output from a Computer Analysis of a game, it can be useful to know how terms like "inaccuracy," "mistake," and "blunder" compare to each other.

Assuming the position is roughly even (no big advantage for either white or black), it works like this:

"Inaccuracy" - The computer evaluates that this move resulted in a position that is at least 0.3 points worse than the position resulting from the best move available

"Mistake" - This move is at least 0.9 points worse than the best move available

"Blunder" - This move is at least 2 points worse than the best move available - pretty bad!  :)

These values are somewhat relative to existing/previous advantages held by one player or another.  For instance, if you are already massively ahead - say, by 30 points - and you make a move that drops your evaluation to +28, you're stillmassively ahead; relatively speaking, the size of your advantage hasn't changed significantly.  Therefore, such a move would not be labeled a blunder.

 / So you were already losing and therefore it wasn't classified as a blunder.

mrfunkydrums

But not dropping my Queen would have been about +2 and it should have been an 11 point difference, which by their definition is a Blunder right?

notmtwain
mrfunkydrums wrote:

But not dropping my Queen would have been about +2 and it should have been an 11 point difference, which by their definition is a Blunder right?

Yes. It seems like being down 2 points doesn't fit the description of being "massively" behind so I don't know why they didn't call it a blunder.

ArtNJ

The Quick Analysis is notoriously bad.  This is baffling even by that standard, but its not worth dwelling on.  Any decent interface that uses a decent engine should suffice ... there is really no excuse for Quick to be bad -- they are just trying to sell premium.  

jonnin

its a little more trouble but download a good engine and use that on your local computer.  the CDC free analysis has a lot of problems and can't be trusted.  Here, its just a word wrong (the scored position looks right.   Above 1500 or so, -5 means very likely to lose,  but below that there is an increasing chance the opponent will hang something and equalize it).  The odds of your opponent goofing this up badly enough to lose it is slim, though with that rating, you could still try to let him stalemate you with overpowered attack mistakes, or be a gentleman & resign (probably best). 

 

gingerninja2003

the computer engine analysis on chess.com isn't very clever in putting moves into the excellent, good, inaccuracy, mistake and blunder sections. I've had a computer call someone dropping their queen a 'good' move even though the analysis goes from +5--->+11