What do you think about stockfish calling this a mistake?

I think taking the rook was better, but stockfish thinks taking the bishop was better.

Any thoughts? Did I not see something that stockfish did?

@Chess_Galaxy1078 said in #1:
> I think taking the rook was better, but stockfish thinks taking the bishop was better.
>
> Any thoughts? Did I not see something that stockfish did?
Have you tried turning on the engine and playing a couple moves?

@End_Game_Flame said in #2:
> Have you tried turning on the engine and playing a couple moves?
No, but I did have a good look at the move, and what stockfish recommended.

@Chess_Galaxy1078 said in #1:
> Did I not see something that stockfish did?

Yes. You most likely missed the 17 Qxh7+ idea.

(Of course, it's a won game either way, so...)

@MrPushwood said in #4:
> Yes. You most likely missed the 17 Qxh7+ idea.
Oh right. I missed that in the analysis. Thanks!

why stockfish levels never resign??

it's obvious, not because of Qxh7 actually, but because if you take a rook, then your queen is stuck in backyard, compared to advantage(rook vs boshop) gained , that is very low, but taking bishop allows you to use checks with your rook very good after

Mate.

@Chess_Galaxy1078 said in #1:
> Any thoughts? Did I not see something that stockfish did?

Unlike just taking the Rook, taking the Bishop with check means your opponent is not free in the next move, so you have to add that move to the balance and sometimes you can get an advantage from it.

Maybe you thought you were protecting your (apparently) otherwise lost Bishop on a2, but after 3-4 moves it is back in the game unless you prefer other lines.

I agree with both @aVague and my friend @OctoPinky. Sometimes, the action and positioning of your pieces are more important than the material (in this case, quality)