Well I think it's a nice win because you were never in trouble, goes to say that the evaluation was always to your advantage probably.
In fact the analysis system is broken, but you definitely should have spoke about the brilliant move controversies and the CAPS averaging as well, I played an extremely chaotic games with 2 blunders by me and 2 missed wins from my opponent, we both got 90+% I couldn't believe it
I went and looked, and I think it said 3 inaccuracies, 2 bad moves, and 1 blunder by White, although the blunder is taking a pawn instead of winning a piece, ending up in a +2 rather than +8.
But still, I think Nice Win, I think a game with no bad moves or blunders. Not the best move every time necessarily, but ? And ?? Should not be there for the side with the "Nice win". A win is a win is a win, and better to be lucky than good sometimes, but yeah, my "Nice Win 67.7" or post 2's "Double-Blunder 90+" is ridiculous!
Engine and post analysis actually breaks my confidence after a comfortable 30 min rapid game win. They don't actually help when you lose except finding some motives or a cute move. When winning they are designed to instill a fear phobia on your mind just like some people.
u just realized analysis was trash now? I've known the analysis was trash ever since it labeled a king moving out of check as brilliant lol. I mean if moves like these were "brilliant" then I would have gotten about 1500 brilliant moves by now.
The most useful part of analysis, in my opinion, is the score graphs. That's most of what I look at. It's a tool, and like any tool, you have to take from it what you can.
u just realized analysis was trash now? I've known the analysis was trash ever since it labeled a king moving out of check as brilliant lol. I mean if moves like these were "brilliant" then I would have gotten about 1500 brilliant moves by now.
No, I have always known it was trash - just have not had the hard evidence until now when seeing other posts brag about how great they are because they got a 98+ when those things are hogwash. Only now did I get the "physical evidence" as opposed to some conspiracy theory!
And actually, it is examples like mine that give players here the false sense of security that makes them think they are good.
They see "Nice Game" and think they accomplished something.
I have played far better games than this piece of junk in post 1. If I was stupid enough like many users on here are to believe that BS, I would start thinking I was a genius. I am not dumb enough, unlike many others, to actually believe that!
Just click on the download icon above the chatbox ( it's right next to the share icon )
Select and copy the PGN
Open a new tab in your browser
Go to li chess
Hover above Tools to get a dropmenu
Click on import game
Paste the PGN in the box where it says " Paste the PGN text here"
Check the red box that says " Request computer analysis "
And click on the big blue button that says "Import Game"
And you'll get a decent analysis
I just got 100% accuracy!!!! I resigned after three book moves because I decided I didn't want to play anymore (it was against a bot). But still, 100%!!
I find the analysis quite useful most of the time. Now if I could just put into practice what analysis shows ..........
The real problem with the analysis system is it tells me that some strong moves are blunders (Stockfish confirms it) and recommends weak moves in their place (Stockfish confirms it).
Also in some of the lines it shows it plays very weak moves along the way (Stockfish confirms that there are stronger possibilities)
It is good at pointing out gross blunders and missed tactics that would have won material, but not much else.
Positionally it is clueless.
The analysis is gimmicky and aimed at beginners. Of course you're not going to like it TF.
The real problem with the analysis system is it tells me that some strong moves are blunders (Stockfish confirms it) and recommends weak moves in their place (Stockfish confirms it).
Also in some of the lines it shows it plays very weak moves along the way (Stockfish confirms that there are stronger possibilities)
It is good at pointing out gross blunders and missed tactics that would have won material, but not much else.
Positionally it is clueless.
Unless you change it, the site usese Stockfish. However, the depth of analysis is where those problems can come from. Same thing can happen in a standalone version if you have limited depth.
I see people all the time complaining on here about the Analysis grading system. Everything from bragging about a 99 to using it as a basis of accusations and everything in between.
Well, this post will put the complete kibosh on the validity of the entire system.
Take a look at the following game. It was about as chaotic as can be. Everything from Black playing screwy, pathetic moves to it being a 3-minute game, which means no way White (myself) plays all the best moves, and I don't play all the best moves. Actually, I am sure I made numerous mistakes (remember, this is not a brag post, this is to show the Analysis system is crap).
Well, I just ran the Analysis bit to see what numbers it gave.
mid 60s for White
mid 20s for Black
At game conclusion, it says "Nice win. You were never in trouble."
I may never have been in trouble. But how on earth can anyone say that 66 or 67 is a "Nice Win". The whole game was crap with just a cute end to it where a pawn mates and it opens up the Bishop to cover the escape square and otherwise Black self-blocked himself.
This is NOT a "Nice Win". This is "eh" play by White and terrible play by Black
"Nice Win" - PA-LEEZ!
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/14817990575?tab=analysis