I like the feature of running computer analysis after my game, but I propose that the criteria for blunders, mistakes and inaccuracies be changed. Take for example a game I played just now:
http://en.lichess.org/lfXf08oX#0
On 43. move, pacal plays 43...Kd4, which the computer considers a "blunder" as its evaluation goes from 6.8 to 15.5. However, any human can see that this is a move as reasonable as any in a lost position; it's hardly a blunder in the usual sense of the word. Furthermore, more intensive analysis (or maybe an 8-piece tablebase, whenever it is out) would surely show that Black will be mated in maybe 15-25 moves with best play, which shows that calling a move like that a blunder isn't really correct.
I think the computer analysis is a good feature and I would like to see this aspect improved. So how about changing the criteria like this; a move which changes a position evaluation that is already at -3 or worse isn't considered a blunder or a mistake, but only an inaccuracy at worst?
An additional point; it sometimes happens in my games that either me or my opponent is a few moves short of a mate, but because they picked a line that is slightly longer than optional (but still perfectly reasonable), their move is called an inaccuracy. I think this is unnecessary, how about changing that completely?
- Thanks for running the website, I love this site.
http://en.lichess.org/lfXf08oX#0
On 43. move, pacal plays 43...Kd4, which the computer considers a "blunder" as its evaluation goes from 6.8 to 15.5. However, any human can see that this is a move as reasonable as any in a lost position; it's hardly a blunder in the usual sense of the word. Furthermore, more intensive analysis (or maybe an 8-piece tablebase, whenever it is out) would surely show that Black will be mated in maybe 15-25 moves with best play, which shows that calling a move like that a blunder isn't really correct.
I think the computer analysis is a good feature and I would like to see this aspect improved. So how about changing the criteria like this; a move which changes a position evaluation that is already at -3 or worse isn't considered a blunder or a mistake, but only an inaccuracy at worst?
An additional point; it sometimes happens in my games that either me or my opponent is a few moves short of a mate, but because they picked a line that is slightly longer than optional (but still perfectly reasonable), their move is called an inaccuracy. I think this is unnecessary, how about changing that completely?
- Thanks for running the website, I love this site.