lichess.org
Donate

Is computer analysis TRULY helpfull?

http://en.lichess.org/oGA6WJLt/black#34

Now this isn't my best game, and I kinda got my butt kicked here. So I thought maybe the computer would be able to show me where I went wrong... How did I start down that bad road. I probably played on without resigning longer than I should have, towards the end I'm like a 1 armed man in a boxing match so no point in continuing.

I used the computer engine to show me where exactly I went wrong. However it's not very clear to the engine... or at least it doesn't show it. There are points where I am down according to the computer 1 or 2 points of evaluation... BEFORE IT OFFERS ALTERNATIVES. If I'm already down 1-2 points of evaluation then surely the computer could have recommended something better for me sooner than move 17?
After move 13 it says I'm down 210 centi pawns... or 2 and 1/10 pawns... Yet it only shows my opponent having an inaccuracy at move 14... So Them dropping from +2.1 to +1.4 Merited for the machine some sort of alternative line to help my opponent... Yet it never once showed me any possible improvement from when I started an even game 0... to dropping down OVER TWO PAWNS in evaluation over little over a dozen moves... End rant
I think the computer evaluation only shows alternatives when you're losing material. Of course, your position is absolutely horrendous - that the computer can see, but it doesn't seem to care as much about that to warrant a deeper analysis.
Maybe someone can give the official answer, but the definitions seem to be (approximately):

Inaccuracy: loss of 0.5 pawns (as compared to the optimal move)
Mistake: loss of 1 pawn
Blunder: loss of 3 pawns

So yes, once you get to the point where your mistakes are less than 0.5 pawns a move, you'll need to use more in-depth analysis than the one offered here.

But I think it's awesome until you get to that point. I actually find it dispiriting to just be told every single move was less than optimal, and going through the whole thing just feels like such a slog.
The first 9 moves (at least) are a known line in the Scotch Gambit, so it probably just ignored those.
It might be more than that, but I know I usually play QxQ then Nxc3 instead of Qxc3 and it's straight book up to that point.
Maybe a computer won't suggest an alternative unless you lose more than half a pawn on a single move. I think I just lost quarter pawns on more moves and they didn't register any great improvement

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.