“A better move” recommended by chess.com but almost never played?
I played a game starting with
- d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nc3 a6 4. a4 Nc6 5. Nf3
Black's next move is 5... Bg4 and it was considered by chess.com as
Inaccuracy (-0.28) A better move was 5... e5 (5... e5 6. d5 a5 7. e4
f6 8. e2 b4 9. g5 O-O 10. O-O)
But according to 365chess.com, the move 5... e5 is seldom played while 5... Bg4 is more popular with a high winning percentage for black. Why does chess.com consider 5... Bg4 as an inaccuracy?
opening queens-gambit websites queens-gambit-accepted
asked 5 hours ago
ZurielZuriel
37029
add a comment |
I played a game starting with
- d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nc3 a6 4. a4 Nc6 5. Nf3
Black's next move is 5... Bg4 and it was considered by chess.com as
Inaccuracy (-0.28) A better move was 5... e5 (5... e5 6. d5 a5 7. e4
f6 8. e2 b4 9. g5 O-O 10. O-O)
But according to 365chess.com, the move 5... e5 is seldom played while 5... Bg4 is more popular with a high winning percentage for black. Why does chess.com consider 5... Bg4 as an inaccuracy?
opening queens-gambit websites queens-gambit-accepted
asked 5 hours ago
ZurielZuriel
37029
1
In general, you can't trust computer analysis of less then 1 point. Additionally computer analysis in the opening is very flawed. There are many lines the engine will say +0.80 and two moves into its main line the assessment changes to +0.00
– Ywapom
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I played a game starting with
- d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nc3 a6 4. a4 Nc6 5. Nf3
Black's next move is 5... Bg4 and it was considered by chess.com as
Inaccuracy (-0.28) A better move was 5... e5 (5... e5 6. d5 a5 7. e4
f6 8. e2 b4 9. g5 O-O 10. O-O)
But according to 365chess.com, the move 5... e5 is seldom played while 5... Bg4 is more popular with a high winning percentage for black. Why does chess.com consider 5... Bg4 as an inaccuracy?
opening queens-gambit websites queens-gambit-accepted
asked 5 hours ago
ZurielZuriel
37029
I played a game starting with
- d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nc3 a6 4. a4 Nc6 5. Nf3
Black's next move is 5... Bg4 and it was considered by chess.com as
Inaccuracy (-0.28) A better move was 5... e5 (5... e5 6. d5 a5 7. e4
f6 8. e2 b4 9. g5 O-O 10. O-O)
But according to 365chess.com, the move 5... e5 is seldom played while 5... Bg4 is more popular with a high winning percentage for black. Why does chess.com consider 5... Bg4 as an inaccuracy?
opening queens-gambit websites queens-gambit-accepted
opening queens-gambit websites queens-gambit-accepted
asked 5 hours ago
ZurielZuriel
37029
asked 5 hours ago
ZurielZuriel
37029
asked 5 hours ago
ZurielZuriel
37029
asked 5 hours ago
ZurielZuriel
37029
asked 5 hours ago
ZurielZuriel
37029
37029
1
In general, you can't trust computer analysis of less then 1 point. Additionally computer analysis in the opening is very flawed. There are many lines the engine will say +0.80 and two moves into its main line the assessment changes to +0.00
– Ywapom
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
In general, you can't trust computer analysis of less then 1 point. Additionally computer analysis in the opening is very flawed. There are many lines the engine will say +0.80 and two moves into its main line the assessment changes to +0.00
– Ywapom
2 hours ago
1
1
In general, you can't trust computer analysis of less then 1 point. Additionally computer analysis in the opening is very flawed. There are many lines the engine will say +0.80 and two moves into its main line the assessment changes to +0.00
– Ywapom
2 hours ago
In general, you can't trust computer analysis of less then 1 point. Additionally computer analysis in the opening is very flawed. There are many lines the engine will say +0.80 and two moves into its main line the assessment changes to +0.00
– Ywapom
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Chess.com listed this as an inaccuracy because the engine is running at a limited depth, only looking at each move for a few seconds.
When I put the position after 5...Bg4 into Stockfish, it gave an evaluation of +0.12 at 16 ply. But at 18 ply, the evaluation dropped to -0.38. Most likely if you had run the analysis at "maximum" (which I realize is locked for non-premium members) the engine would have analyzed enough to know that 5...Bg4 was not an inaccuracy.
answered 2 hours ago
D MD M
4,0881029
add a comment |
5...Bg4 isn't an inaccuracy, the chess.com engine just considers 5...e5 to be better. Deep Fritz, running at depth 23 on my computer, considers 5...Bg4 to be a slightly better move (giving a -0.31 evaluation). On 5...e5, it says that the endgame after 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1 8.Nxd1 is just equal.
Maybe chess.com's engine is better than my Deep Fritz, but that's not really the point. Engines consider one move in the opening to be a bit better than another all the time. It's important to take such differences with a grain of salt: if both moves are playable, choose the one that's easier/more practical to play.
In your scenario, 5...Bg4 clearly looks more comfortable than 5...e5. You're developing a piece and putting pressure on White's knight (which defends the d4-pawn). Meanwhile with ...e5, you're inviting White to push your knight offside.
answered 3 hours ago
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
3,403110
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "435"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23477%2fa-better-move-recommended-by-chess-com-but-almost-never-played%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Chess.com listed this as an inaccuracy because the engine is running at a limited depth, only looking at each move for a few seconds.
When I put the position after 5...Bg4 into Stockfish, it gave an evaluation of +0.12 at 16 ply. But at 18 ply, the evaluation dropped to -0.38. Most likely if you had run the analysis at "maximum" (which I realize is locked for non-premium members) the engine would have analyzed enough to know that 5...Bg4 was not an inaccuracy.
answered 2 hours ago
D MD M
4,0881029
add a comment |
Chess.com listed this as an inaccuracy because the engine is running at a limited depth, only looking at each move for a few seconds.
When I put the position after 5...Bg4 into Stockfish, it gave an evaluation of +0.12 at 16 ply. But at 18 ply, the evaluation dropped to -0.38. Most likely if you had run the analysis at "maximum" (which I realize is locked for non-premium members) the engine would have analyzed enough to know that 5...Bg4 was not an inaccuracy.
answered 2 hours ago
D MD M
4,0881029
add a comment |
Chess.com listed this as an inaccuracy because the engine is running at a limited depth, only looking at each move for a few seconds.
When I put the position after 5...Bg4 into Stockfish, it gave an evaluation of +0.12 at 16 ply. But at 18 ply, the evaluation dropped to -0.38. Most likely if you had run the analysis at "maximum" (which I realize is locked for non-premium members) the engine would have analyzed enough to know that 5...Bg4 was not an inaccuracy.
answered 2 hours ago
D MD M
4,0881029
Chess.com listed this as an inaccuracy because the engine is running at a limited depth, only looking at each move for a few seconds.
When I put the position after 5...Bg4 into Stockfish, it gave an evaluation of +0.12 at 16 ply. But at 18 ply, the evaluation dropped to -0.38. Most likely if you had run the analysis at "maximum" (which I realize is locked for non-premium members) the engine would have analyzed enough to know that 5...Bg4 was not an inaccuracy.
answered 2 hours ago
D MD M
4,0881029
answered 2 hours ago
D MD M
4,0881029
answered 2 hours ago
D MD M
4,0881029
answered 2 hours ago
D MD M
4,0881029
4,0881029
add a comment |
add a comment |
5...Bg4 isn't an inaccuracy, the chess.com engine just considers 5...e5 to be better. Deep Fritz, running at depth 23 on my computer, considers 5...Bg4 to be a slightly better move (giving a -0.31 evaluation). On 5...e5, it says that the endgame after 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1 8.Nxd1 is just equal.
Maybe chess.com's engine is better than my Deep Fritz, but that's not really the point. Engines consider one move in the opening to be a bit better than another all the time. It's important to take such differences with a grain of salt: if both moves are playable, choose the one that's easier/more practical to play.
In your scenario, 5...Bg4 clearly looks more comfortable than 5...e5. You're developing a piece and putting pressure on White's knight (which defends the d4-pawn). Meanwhile with ...e5, you're inviting White to push your knight offside.
answered 3 hours ago
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
3,403110
add a comment |
5...Bg4 isn't an inaccuracy, the chess.com engine just considers 5...e5 to be better. Deep Fritz, running at depth 23 on my computer, considers 5...Bg4 to be a slightly better move (giving a -0.31 evaluation). On 5...e5, it says that the endgame after 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1 8.Nxd1 is just equal.
Maybe chess.com's engine is better than my Deep Fritz, but that's not really the point. Engines consider one move in the opening to be a bit better than another all the time. It's important to take such differences with a grain of salt: if both moves are playable, choose the one that's easier/more practical to play.
In your scenario, 5...Bg4 clearly looks more comfortable than 5...e5. You're developing a piece and putting pressure on White's knight (which defends the d4-pawn). Meanwhile with ...e5, you're inviting White to push your knight offside.
answered 3 hours ago
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
3,403110
add a comment |
5...Bg4 isn't an inaccuracy, the chess.com engine just considers 5...e5 to be better. Deep Fritz, running at depth 23 on my computer, considers 5...Bg4 to be a slightly better move (giving a -0.31 evaluation). On 5...e5, it says that the endgame after 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1 8.Nxd1 is just equal.
Maybe chess.com's engine is better than my Deep Fritz, but that's not really the point. Engines consider one move in the opening to be a bit better than another all the time. It's important to take such differences with a grain of salt: if both moves are playable, choose the one that's easier/more practical to play.
In your scenario, 5...Bg4 clearly looks more comfortable than 5...e5. You're developing a piece and putting pressure on White's knight (which defends the d4-pawn). Meanwhile with ...e5, you're inviting White to push your knight offside.
answered 3 hours ago
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
3,403110
5...Bg4 isn't an inaccuracy, the chess.com engine just considers 5...e5 to be better. Deep Fritz, running at depth 23 on my computer, considers 5...Bg4 to be a slightly better move (giving a -0.31 evaluation). On 5...e5, it says that the endgame after 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1 8.Nxd1 is just equal.
Maybe chess.com's engine is better than my Deep Fritz, but that's not really the point. Engines consider one move in the opening to be a bit better than another all the time. It's important to take such differences with a grain of salt: if both moves are playable, choose the one that's easier/more practical to play.
In your scenario, 5...Bg4 clearly looks more comfortable than 5...e5. You're developing a piece and putting pressure on White's knight (which defends the d4-pawn). Meanwhile with ...e5, you're inviting White to push your knight offside.
answered 3 hours ago
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
3,403110
answered 3 hours ago
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
3,403110
answered 3 hours ago
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
3,403110
answered 3 hours ago
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
3,403110
3,403110
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chess Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23477%2fa-better-move-recommended-by-chess-com-but-almost-never-played%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
In general, you can't trust computer analysis of less then 1 point. Additionally computer analysis in the opening is very flawed. There are many lines the engine will say +0.80 and two moves into its main line the assessment changes to +0.00
– Ywapom
2 hours ago