So I have noticed this for multiple times now, but it has happened so often that my curiosity got the better of me...
Why does Stockfish often contradict itself?
> lichess.org/F7C3jLUf
6. h3?!
1. 6. h3 is in theory the best refutation for stafford gambit
2. 6. h3 is what the browser Stockfish 13+ NNUE suggests using it's cloud analysis
3. After 6. h3 Stockfish even increases the evaluation from +1.8 to +2.0 indicating that the move was potentially even better (because of extra depth after the move was made)
At the same time the game analysis marks the move it just suggested as an innacuracy and continues to give a +1.5 at best for the 2nd best alternative 6. f3
Is there a logical explanation (either technical or a simplified one) for this phenomenon?
Why does Stockfish often contradict itself?
> lichess.org/F7C3jLUf
6. h3?!
1. 6. h3 is in theory the best refutation for stafford gambit
2. 6. h3 is what the browser Stockfish 13+ NNUE suggests using it's cloud analysis
3. After 6. h3 Stockfish even increases the evaluation from +1.8 to +2.0 indicating that the move was potentially even better (because of extra depth after the move was made)
At the same time the game analysis marks the move it just suggested as an innacuracy and continues to give a +1.5 at best for the 2nd best alternative 6. f3
Is there a logical explanation (either technical or a simplified one) for this phenomenon?