weird computer analysis of Fischer vs Spassky 1972 Game 1

i was watching agadmator's video about Fischer vs Spassky 1972 Game 1 , when game comes to move 29 agad says it was an obvious blunder to play Bh2.
After the video i checked the game analysis from lichess and i saw stockfish doesnt counts move 29 Bh2 as blunder ,
my question is that was it actually a blunder or not?

i also realized that on move 42 stockfish says best move for black is Kf5 , and fischer's move was also Kf5. but when you play it , it counts that move as a blunder. what is going on here?

lichess link : lichess.org/QU21eVtE#0
agadmator's youtube link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGTVAHI-30&ab_channel=agadmator%27sChessChannel

the analysis board sometimes gets a bit buggy when there have been multiple imports. try to let SF14 run deeper on those paradox moves and it might fix it, i assume that the cloud analysis from SF13 is interfering or something.

id try to help, but my laptop is useless for this.

They both can be right. There's no rule that says everyone has to define blunder the same way. Most people use the word subjectively without a precise definition. Computer won't work without an objective definition, and it fits the definition that's coded into the Lichess program.

You don't have to agree with the definition if you don't want to.

no its not the definition of the word, its that analysis board shows it as blunder and as best move simultaneously.

at depth 22 its already one of two top moves with same eval.

as said earlier, those paradoxons occur with reimport, reanalyzation with SF14 and then some old remains of deep cloud analysis. def a bug, but it can be fixed really easy with just letting the engine run for a while.

€: btw at depth 30 kf5 is already the only decent move (not that it matters too much, all seems to be winning for white)

@husam_mbcm Stockfish analysis of a game goes only to depth 15 for each move, meaning that it sometimes misinterprets a position badly. That is probably why.

There were several ways to draw after Bh2?! However, without it would have been easier...

@ChessMathNerd which depth should i go to check move 29 Bh2 was actually a blunder or not? i mean after move 29, the position lost for black or is it playable to lead a draw? i mean by playing Bh2 did fischer actually blundered? or he knew that was not a blunder and rest of the game is playable for black?

@Sarg0n so you mean agadmators blunder comment about move 29 was wrong ?

agadomator is sorry about that

Even if he had been able to draw, it was still a blunder/oversight to take on h2 (presumably he overlooked the Bd2 idea a bit later on).