I lost in 18 moves, but didn't make a single mistake?

Bro, the chess.com engine is Stockfish But maybe you're right, Komodo will probably do a better job.

Your mistake was: 1.e4??, the game was lost on move 1. And exd5 on move 8. sucks 8. 0-0 and and you got a lead in development, but as I said 1.e4 and you where lost fron the start.

Hello, fellow chess players. I have an interesting game which i would like to show to you. And ok, the game itself isn't that interesting. I simply get crushed by Stockfish in a correspodence game.

But my question to you, is, why? I tried chess.com's analysis but it just told me i made pretty excellent moves, and the ending position is about -2 so black is completely winning. I would like to learn something about this game, where did i go wrong? There is a rule that goes: "A chess game is won by a mistake,whether it's your mistake or your opponent's mistake." , which makes sense. Ok, i resigned the game but I'm pretty sure i would have lost even if i had played it to the end, and with perfect play. Mysterious,huh?

Do you realy think if you lose in 18 moves that this is possible without making any mistakes? Just resign because a friend phoned you I do not count.

Hello, fellow chess players. I have an interesting game which i would like to show to you. And ok, the game itself isn't that interesting. I simply get crushed by Stockfish in a correspodence game.

But my question to you, is, why? I tried chess.com's analysis but it just told me i made pretty excellent moves, and the ending position is about -2 so black is completely winning. I would like to learn something about this game, where did i go wrong? There is a rule that goes: "A chess game is won by a mistake,whether it's your mistake or your opponent's mistake." , which makes sense. Ok, i resigned the game but I'm pretty sure i would have lost even if i had played it to the end, and with perfect play. Mysterious,huh?>>>

No it isn't mysterious. First, you have to understand that Chess.com's analysis is complete rubbish. But there have been a lot of posts here .... too many to read through.

You were positionally outplayed right from the start. That means that you made not one but a series of below-par moves. Given the bad opening you played, which doesn't challenge black, you have to make something of it. I don't know much about e4 openings as white but even I can see that you probably should have played 4. Bc4 and 5. 0-0. I know that this computer is a tough opponent but if you play positionally weak openings, which you did, you give black too many juicy targets which, when accumulated, lead to a win for black or a difficult-to-achieve draw for white. If you're playing for a draw, then play something sensible like 2. Nf3 or maybe the London System instead. If you're playing a positionally weak opening as you did, you have to attack, Stockfish or not.

That game is more interesting as it seems at first... interesting to see how bad 2.d4 already is (in the sense of keeping the "first-move" advantage).

2.d4 is already a move, that throws away the "first-move" advantage. The position is equal.

2...Bc5 is a strong engine move actually. It tries to defend the pawn as much as possible and if White does not go into Gambit-lines (which White should be ready to do when playing 2.d4) with an unclear outcome, Black is at least equal (if not better).

3.Nxd4 even gives Black already the initiative (the position is still equal, but it is White who needs to be careful). Something went wrong here aleady and I will therefore stop analysing here. White should go for Gambit-lines instead (he could as well play the main move 2.Qxd4 and go into Gambit-lines). Better would be 3.Bc4 (with many options to keep the evaluation equal... but no advantage).