Analysis vs opening explorer

Sort:
Avatar of sambushes

Hi, Not sure where to post this, but in a game analysis, the computer told me an opening move was inaccurate and recommended leading from centre game - normal variation to Qa4. On the opening explorer this appears to be a weaker  move - leading to only 26% of wins for white. 

Who should I trust? :)  

Avatar of notmtwain
sambushes wrote:

Hi, Not sure where to post this, but in a game analysis, the computer told me an opening move was inaccurate and recommended leading from centre game - normal variation to Qa4. On the opening explorer this appears to be a weaker  move - leading to only 26% of wins for white. 

Who should I trust? :)  

Is this the position? And you had probably played 4 Qe3, by far the choice of masters in the position? (Or did you play something else?)

The computer analysis here does say some bizarre things about openings, because it is not working from an opening book. It has the same very limited amount of time to analyze opening moves as it does for any move Naturally, things are less clear in the opening and it comes to some questionable conclusions.

Therefore, it is reasonable to trust your own judgement, especially after you found out that white won only 26% of the games using the variation (4 Qa4) the computer recommended (compared to a 40.3% white win percentage for the 4 Qe3 line).

If that is not the actual variation you are talking about, you can use the Game Editor (the chessboard icon on the top left of the text box) to display the actual opening.

Avatar of sambushes

Yep - thats the version.  I didnt play Qe3... I played Qd1, so I understand that Qa4 might be considered a better move than that...but yes, seemed strange not to suggest Qe3 ...and even then wouldnt it depend on style of play or the moves I plan to follow it with? Is Qd1 thaaaaaaat "inaccurate"? 

But yes, thanks for the clarification! Will remain wary of the computer analysis.