Hi there, sometimes I analyse my games and having hard time interpreting my mistakes. For example, It is really easy to understand why something is blunder but when It comes to inaccuracies sometimes I am having hard time to understand it. Considering I have ~1700 elo in blitz, what would you suggest? Thanks in advance :)
Many times it dings u for not castling soon enough or not developing pieces in right order.
Sometimes it wants you to take center with knight though knight will be lost but it improves the pawn structure.
It will ding you for not going after active piece immediately instead of pushing pawns, or you take with a pawn instead of a piece.
Or you take with one piece leaving something unprotected when you should take with a different piece or block. Missing a fork gets you one.
That "obvious to computer" 5 move checkmate you missed by not moving bishop here or there but you found another checkmate pattern in 3 with help from opponent zigging instead of zagging bc you understand the human level than the machine.
Sometimes it wants you to take center with knight though knight will be lost but it improves the pawn structure.
It will ding you for not going after active piece immediately instead of pushing pawns, or you take with a pawn instead of a piece.
Or you take with one piece leaving something unprotected when you should take with a different piece or block. Missing a fork gets you one.
That "obvious to computer" 5 move checkmate you missed by not moving bishop here or there but you found another checkmate pattern in 3 with help from opponent zigging instead of zagging bc you understand the human level than the machine.
As has been discussed before, the engine nomenclature is often...er, less than useful. I wouldn't pay it too much concern.
If you have a specific example to post, that might help a bit with the clarification.
If you have a specific example to post, that might help a bit with the clarification.
A certain inaccuracy could make you lose.
if the engine can see easily 10/20/30 moves in future it does not need a reason one can explain to call something in accurate. So quite often not understandable easily by humans
Inaccuracy as per engine doesn't matter at all. Rather there should be two category, dubious move and terrible move in order to clarify a bit and make it more sensible.
Not too long ago, I saw a machine consider the position after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nh6 3 d4 f6 4 Bxh6 gxh6 5 Nxe5 fxe5 6 Qh5+ Ke7,
and express a preference for 7 Nc3. It is perhaps instructive to note that a move like 7 Nc3 could be the best choice, but I don’t think anyone should be blamed for being content to go with 7 Qxe5+.
and express a preference for 7 Nc3. It is perhaps instructive to note that a move like 7 Nc3 could be the best choice, but I don’t think anyone should be blamed for being content to go with 7 Qxe5+.
After reading the engine continuations (the only way I know to get an explanation from it) you can see 7 Qxe5+ just captures a weak pawn, places your queen in a dangerous position and then there is no further progress (supposing perfect moves by black), but 7 Nc3 supports the queen and prepares (with some additional help from the bishop) Nd5+, Nc7, Nxa8, at the same time avoiding black's Bb4+.
This is the kind of inaccuracy "you could gain more", not that you are losing anything except that opportunity.
This is the kind of inaccuracy "you could gain more", not that you are losing anything except that opportunity.
I mean KG is an accuracy, 1. d4 d6, 1. d4 g6. The heck, the computer just counts centipawns in his fashion. Forget about!
Hes right.. really only 2500+ or titled players understand that
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.