@Toadofsky
Sure, playing the machine here and using automated analysis here will give some poor results.
That's why I was very careful to talk about reasonable hardware and tournament (classical OTB) time controls.
Yes, if you have SF capped as it is here, then you'll see this more frequently (although again, I think the situation is less common than might be thought; it's a bit of a selection bias. People don't pay attention to all the times the computer recommends a correct move instead of their mistake, or correctly avoids marking their correct moves as mistakes).
I'm up for a challenge. Let's go through a suite of opening positions, I'll use SF on my laptop (about 1.5 Mnps, single core), and give it a minute per position.
I'd wager we'll see very, very few clearly suboptimal moves unless we're talking about a known quagmire like the Traxler.
Either way, it seems we're largely on the same page (well, except for the fact that this post starts a new page) and differ on the fine details only :)
@Toadofsky
Sure, playing the machine here and using automated analysis here will give some poor results.
That's why I was very careful to talk about reasonable hardware and tournament (classical OTB) time controls.
Yes, if you have SF capped as it is here, then you'll see this more frequently (although again, I think the situation is less common than might be thought; it's a bit of a selection bias. People don't pay attention to all the times the computer recommends a correct move instead of their mistake, or correctly avoids marking their correct moves as mistakes).
I'm up for a challenge. Let's go through a suite of opening positions, I'll use SF on my laptop (about 1.5 Mnps, single core), and give it a minute per position.
I'd wager we'll see very, very few clearly suboptimal moves unless we're talking about a known quagmire like the Traxler.
Either way, it seems we're largely on the same page (well, except for the fact that this post starts a new page) and differ on the fine details only :)