Does anybode else notice how bad the post game analysis can be? Example last game my knight was attacted by a bishop and a pawn. My queen was attaced by a rook. I move the queen the analyses said I left the knight unprotected. Well the only protection I could try was put the queenon a diagonal and have it chased away then the bishop took.
Anther game I missed an opportunity to capture a pawn. True if I didn;t mind being checkmated the next move.
Here is the initial position:
You end up with two rooks, four minor pieces and five pawns for a queen, a rook, two minor pieces and four pawns.
It says that above position is better for you than the position resulting from the move you played, running away with the queen.
It's not easy to compare the two positions. It says the one where you trade your queen for a rook and two pieces is better than what would result from the queen running away.
There is no question that it is difficult to understand the computer analysis sometimes but it you take a few minutes to work through the analysis, I think it should start to make more sense.
Does anybode else notice how bad the post game analysis can be? Example last game my knight was attacted by a bishop and a pawn. My queen was attaced by a rook. I move the queen the analyses said I left the knight unprotected. Well the only protection I could try was put the queenon a diagonal and have it chased away then the bishop took.
Anther game I missed an opportunity to capture a pawn. True if I didn;t mind being checkmated the next move.