Something is wrong here. After Qb5, white plays Re1 and wins the queen because of the mate threat. The computer would not miss that.
It didn't misst it.
37... Qb5 38. Re1 Qd7 39. Re7 Qxe7 40. Qxe7 Kg7 41. d6 Kg8 42. d7 Kg7 43. d8=Q Kg6
White has a decisive advantage
37... Qxd1+ 38. Kh2 Qxd5 39. Kg3 Qd3+ 40. f3 Qe3 41. a4 Qe1+ 42. Kh2 Qd2 43. f4 Qd7 44. Qxh6 Qxa4 45. Qg5+ Kh7 46. Kg3
White has a moderate advantage.
Something went wrong with the computer. That line it gave for Re1 is like a 30 (white up two queens and a rook) not a 1.33. Without setting up the pieces, I'm sure that the final position up 2Q's + rook is mate in 3 or 4 moves so maybe that messed it up somehow.
Don't worry about it much. If you care, buy Houdini to do your analysis.
obviously something went wrong, the 1,33 wasn't for the Qb5 line though but for the line I played, queen takes rook.
Computer analysis was not so insightful. It depends on exact calculations. What computer analysis do you use?
Computer analysis was not so insightful. It depends on exact calculations. What computer analysis do you use?
the one from this site
Qxd1+ was the best move. :)
Computer analysis was not so insightful. It depends on exact calculations. What computer analysis do you use?
the one from this site
There is a problem on that game analysis you received. I'm speaking with the programers about it at the moment for you.
The computer analysis I got wasn't good also (I remember I stopped reading it after it started to make silly suggestions). You'll do better analysing with your own chess enginie (Rybka / Houdini etc.).
I been stopped trusting this sites computer analysis it's just aweful alot of times.
Computer analysis was not so insightful. It depends on exact calculations. What computer analysis do you use?
the one from this site
There is a problem on that game analysis you received. I'm speaking with the programers about it at the moment for you.
thanks, I never had any problems before, at least not that I noticed. No flat out wrong suggestions
I analysed a couple of finished games on chess.com thinking I was going to get some good feedback and learn something. No such luck. If I wasnt so cheap I'd buy a chess computer or program but I dont like computer chess much. The analysis feature here does seem like a waste of built-up expectations.
Yes, use Houdini instead. It's elo is 3200. Version 2.0 or less is free. The computer engine (free users) on this website has elo of 2000 approx. Also, it is subject to horizon effect, etc. You can analyze it for hours on your computer and avoid many issues. I am no expert but to me Qxd1+ looks like the only move here.
I'm not really interested in getting other engines, I hate doing stuff with computers and am extremely lazy and easily distracted. Don't want to go through the installing, trouble shooting, and then every time import pgn files etc. besides an elo of 2000 should be well high enough for my level.
I am pretty sure that a valid point has been made that the computer analysis was inaccurate. I generally always do a computer analysis after I finish a game, irrespective of the outcome. In almost every case what it comes up with is helpful and I have to concur, but sometimes it declared mistakes or blunders when that isn't the case, especially in the end game. The moral is use the computer analysis as a guide but you need to make the judgement as to what you think is best!
saying it analysis is that of a 2000 is a insult to real players who have achieved the 2000 rating that comp. analysis at best is the same as a 1500 player
i meant OTB your rating in OTB would be estimated in the 1800s so you can still learn a little from it
Rxd1 was absolutely right...
On one game I submitted for analysis I had a Bf7 sac in a game that led to a mate net that the computer analysis marked as a "mistake". I calculated all variations and could not find the mistake.
However it does have a thousand eyes on the board and usually reveals mistakes and blunders. The computer engine on the site is rated 2600 and is usually right though.
I'm not. It sometimes comes up with some pretty clever variations.
Different versions are used for computer analysis for premium members vs. for free members.
I'm baffled by this. The computer marks my 11th move here as a blunder when it wins the queen! My opponent thought so too as he resigned. Were we both wrong?
http://www.chess.com/home/computer_analysis?id=56802448&game_type=1
I'm baffled by this. The computer marks my 11th move here as a blunder when it wins the queen! My opponent thought so too as he resigned. Were we both wrong?
http://www.chess.com/home/computer_analysis?id=56802448&game_type=1
That link doesn't work, can't post computer analysis. Looked the game up.
Note that the computer is harsh with blunders, When there's a winning move and an even more winning move, the simply winning move is a blunder in it's eyes.
Check out both lines while looking at "details" and see which one gives a better material ratio in the end to see if the computer was right or wrong
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
So I just got a computer analysis feedback for a game in which I played horrible, but won on time in the end (horrible I know).
Going over the analysis however, I couldn't help but feel that the computer was wrong. Here's the situation.
So, I played Qxd1+
Here's what the analysis says:
(1.33) MISTAKE - That was a mistake. Much better was 37... Qb5 queen to b5?? how can that possibly be better, can anyone explain, is the computer wrong or am I too stupid to see it?
Also when I follow the two lines in the analysis, Qb5 gives white a 'decisive advantage'
While taking the rook gives white a 'moderate' advantage,
So actually, the computer admits it's wrong