Odd Occurance

Where I play blitz, after each game, win or lose, I run their free computer analysis, mainly to see what obvious things I missed. Normally, even in what I feel are good wins, the computer will tell me I had so many inaccuracies, so many mistakes and sometimes so many blunders. Some of these I take with a grain of salt, as it calls 2.f4 in the KG a mistake (unless it's being a critic).

Anyway, today I played two consecutive games. In the first game, it gave me 0 inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders - something it has never given me before. In the second game, it gave me 1 "mistake" when I played 4...Bc5 initiating the Traxler Counter Gambit, but other than that 0 errors.

I don't put any faith in these analyses other than checking for real mistakes or blunders, but I found it curious that I have two consecutative games with almost perfect results, when the computer almost never rates my games such. Anyway, I put the games below (they're nothing great, just typical 4/2 nonsense).

How come you don't play the Smith Morra, batgirl? You seem to enjoy gambit play, bordering on the unsound... Not "19th century" enough?

I have no idea what a centipawn loss even is, but it seems the lower the better.

I've played the Smith Morra with various degrees of success.  I do like gambit play -even the double-Muzio -and, as my record would probably attest, my play tends to border on the unsound.

Batgirl the computer analysis on here is weak. Best to take it with many grains of salt.

Well, this wasn't from here but some other site and I only respect its blunder-check... revealing things I shouldn't have missed even in a blitz game. 

But even so, it always finds some move it doesn't approve of. This time, other than for it's prejudice against the Wilkes-Barre Defense, it didn't disagree with any of my moves.  A lousy milestone, I'm sure, but a milestone nonetheless.

Well I do not know how good the other site's computer is but it is hard to get any computer to agree with many moves good or bad.

They just kind of "think" funny.

I do too. :-D

LOL. You play a mean game of blitz Batgirl!

Only when my opponent lets me.

Well, I AM told they think funny.

I've heard some of the stronger players on lichess say that the analysis there isn't top notch.  I don't know how many plys deep they run Stockfish.  But either way you played well.  A centipawn is 0.01 in the engines plus/minus evaluation.

Well neither is my play... so we're a perfect match. There we go with "perfect" again

You might want to associate with a better class of computers.

Of course I play the Traxler. Not always well though.

Here is my history of the Traxler:

Chess in the Wild, Part 1

Chess in the Wild, Part 2

Chess in the Wild, Part 3

Chess in the Wild, Part 4

or a somewhat different series (leaning toward the Wilkes-Barre history):

A Walk on the Wild Side, Part I

A Walk on the Wild Side, Part II

I play the KG as white.

Lichess' computer analysis is VERY bad. I've lost games there where it said I never made an inaccuracy, mistake, or blunder, as has one of my friends. I've also played games where it's called some of my moves inaccuracies or mistakes when they weren't, not just in the opening, although it does that too to moves that are known in theory.

The comp analysis used to be better at Lichess about 3 years ago when I first used their site. The site got more popular during this time and at some point a change was made to the comp analysis. I believe it only analyzes each move for 1 second now and it's not using one of the best engines to begin with.

Yeah, the analysis doesn't take long. (which is why I run it).

Also in games that are miniatures it's not uncommon to have played a perfect game.