chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 GK Analysis - funny mistake! game It was an interesting game overall - a lesson on not giving up that I learnt the hard way - but the interesting part's at move 22. Obviously a blunder that I should have seized on...but then look ahead to GK's alternate line for White's move 24... |
||
|
Indeed, Alex ..... |
||
|
|
||
|
I have one of thosegame On move 24 I miss mate in 4, but my move still forces mate in 6. However, the GK continuation misses the winning move 27. Rd4. Try to get black out of that. On the mate in 6, black gains a move by 24...e5. The GK continuation leads to mate in 5. |
||
|
Guess there are still a few bugs there... |
||
|
x-machine, in your game, the chess engine saw that your opponent repeated the same position by moving the Rook to its previous square and it assumed that the game can be force into a threefold repetition draw. It's a well-established shortcut in the computer analysis that if a position was repeated twice, it will be repeated 3 times (simply because if a particular move was chosen previously, why wouldn't it be chosen again given the exact same position as before?), which means the game will be drawn. However, humans don't work that way, and a human player might have simply overlooked something the first time, and will choose a different move the next time in the same position, because they found a potentially better move. sccadams, in your game, the chess engine simply stopped looking any deeper once it found the mate in 4. It doesn't mean it missed the mate in 6, it just wasn't even trying to find it any more. Yes, in an actual game, it doesn't really matter if you win in 4 moves or in 6 moves. However, that's not what the post-game computer analysis is for -- it shows you where you (or your opponent) missed a better move. And a move leading to a mate in 4 is definitely better than a move leading to a mate in 6, which is what the computer analysis is designed to find. The bottom line is that every tool has its purpose, and it's unfair to blame a microscope for not working too well for looking at the stars, or for hammering nails. |
||
|
invisible hand running the whole thing and never replying to anyone who uses the website! Maybe I didn't explain that well, but you get the gist! |
||
|
thereaper1 24-Jun-11, 00:24 |
|
Log in 
