Strange Eval

OK so the game is as follows;



It's only a bullet game so obviously not jam packed full of quality. My question arises after the computer analysis - I had 91% accuracy and only 2 inaccuracies - which is a very good game for me as far as bullet is concerned - yet at one stage my opponent was more than +3 on the evaluation...

How do 2 inaccuracies get you basically a piece down, surely a blunder should be marked on at least one of my moves?

Sometimes the eval drops at once because of a one move blunder. Sometimes it drops little by little because the setup as a whole is bad. This is such a case.

Thanks for the reply. I get how the evaluation works. But how do you go from being equal - at the start of the game - to +3 to my opponent if I didn't blunder. +3 is totally winning for white. At the higher level and especially the computer level it's completely crushing - yet I only made 2 inaccuracies?

I guess what I'm asking is - should the computer analysis reflect that I did in fact blunder somewhere and record it as such? Rather than calling it an inaccuracy. Or is it a case of maybe the analysis is not of sufficient quality (depth) to fully recognise the mistakes made?

@userfriendly2 said in #3:
> Thanks for the reply. I get how the evaluation works. But how do you go from being equal - at the start of the game - to +3 to my opponent if I didn't blunder. +3 is totally winning for white. At the higher level and especially the computer level it's completely crushing - yet I only made 2 inaccuracies?
>
> I guess what I'm asking is - should the computer analysis reflect that I did in fact blunder somewhere and record it as such? Rather than calling it an inaccuracy. Or is it a case of maybe the analysis is not of sufficient quality (depth) to fully recognise the mistakes made?

Black went from 0ish to +3 by making seven bad moves out of the first ten : 3... Bg4, 4... Bxf3, 5... e5, 7... b5, 8... Qb6, 9... b4 and 10... Qc6. Out of those seven moves only two hit the stockfish threshold for inaccuracies but that doesn't mean the other were good or even ok. At the end the cumulated bill is +3 and it's not the product of a single big mistake. Of course at some point the game went from objectively drawn to objectively lost but nobody, even the strongest engines, is able to tell exactly at which move it occured.

Lots of weak moves that dont do quite enough damage to be called innaccuracies. Death of a thousand cuts in other words.

@ArtofDefeat said in #5:
> Lots of weak moves that dont do quite enough damage to be called innaccuracies. Death of a thousand cuts in other words.

Great description. Thanks for the insights guys.