Computer analysis is disheartening

     Of Course the computer is going to put ?? after our moves.  It doesn't

know what we are thinking!  How can a computer even fathom the depth

of our complex combinations of attack. 

Until the computer can ask "why did you do that?", how can I trust it's

insight, intuition, understanding of the motivation behind every move?

Let the computer do the math, but play by the seat of your pants.

Before you all click my name, yes I am a whopping 1300+ player ???!!

Inaccuracies, Mistakes and Blunders.  Does chess.com have its definitions for those things posted somewhere?  I had one game analyzed, but couldn't find an obvious link to the definitions for those terms.  'Blunder' seems pretty clear...but the others...not so much.   Thanks...

I hope that your joking...

this is EXACTLY what you can do on Playchess - when the game is over, you just click on the "Analysis mode" button, and the Fritz engine is loaded, for you to analyze the game. Pretty nice feature...

I too would like to see an occasional ! (good move) in the computer analysis.

The software must have a move it has judged the best?  And therefore can let you know when your move agrees with their idea of the best move?

 I understand it to be:

an innacuracy is a move that doesn't "do as much" for you as a different       move would.

a mistake is a move that puts you in a worse position than you were in.

a blunder is a move that costs you material.

i played this game one time where i left a knight en prise on d5 of 5 moves, i thought it was brilliant!  i was making threats on both sides of the board, attacking his king, weakining his pawns and attacking his rooks and queen...i thought i was Alekhine for that game...toward the end i hallucinated a checkmate and tried to sac a rook, i thought if he took it then i could deliver mate, my opponent thought the same thing and didnt take the rook which left me with a crushing position any way!  the computer said that my "brilliant" play was crap!  (i was rated around 1450 at the time and my opponent was 1575 or so)  i was disheartened too...but i realized that i still won, and that im not playing Karpov anytime soon... so i continue to believe that im Alekhine!

computers are snobs

I think take the ?! as good because it means you are thinking at least.

I'm disappointed when 10 moves by me and my opponent go by with no comment. Are we suppopsed to have played perfect chess? That's unlikely for 3 moves let alone 10. Even if it was perfect chess I'd still appreciate some comment on the situation and the many alternative possibilities.

I suppose I want to talk about the moves, not just the bad moves. An in-depth human 'post-mortem' is so much better than a spillage of algebraic jiz from a computer when it spots a mistake. I wouldn't credit computer spillage with the word 'analysis' (because it's not thorough enough)and even if it was, the human eyes glaze over as they pretend to study algebraic plop.

That's the main problem with man and machine. They don't think. they don't "see" anything actually. It's just brutal force calculating engine vs overall understanding of the plane. Computers can help you on evaluating possibilities. But this don't necessarely mean they are making the right choice every time according to your plane. Human thinking is infinitely superior..... computer is just an helping tool (builded by humans at any given time of science developement) not a sobstitute for our brain, and it will never be.

(forget about hal and 2001 space odissey if there is a meaning among others on that movie... that's the one)

"+1.32 ?? Your move sucks, you should have played our move which we rate at +1.34". - Narz

example of computer analysis of a great game of mine.

My moves 11 and 14 probably deserve !