POV: You got a blunder just because you couldn’t find checkmate in 9, but found checkmate in 20.
(This just happened to me.)
I'm guessing that this was a reference to the machine's "??" comment on 47 fxg3 in the [Site "https://lichess.org/yLRulaK9"] game ([Black "Katzenschorle"]).
"(Mate in 9 --> 3.58) Lost forced checkmate sequence. Kf3 was best. (47. Kf3 g2 48. Rg4 Kh2 49. Rxg2+ Kh1 50. Rg4 h3 51. Rg8 Kh2 52. Rh8 Kh1)"
Evaluating overloked checkmate in 9 moves as a blunder is ridiculous. Such things
should be removed from computer analysis. In general, we should treat the word
"blunder" in computer analysis with reserve. Hanging a piece in one move is not
the same like overlooking some non-obvious good move.
@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/WOOXHjZg)
> I'm guessing that this was a reference to the machine's "??" comment on 47 fxg3 in the [Site "https://lichess.org/yLRulaK9"] game ([Black "Katzenschorle"]).
> "(Mate in 9 --> 3.58) Lost forced checkmate sequence. Kf3 was best. (47. Kf3 g2 48. Rg4 Kh2 49. Rxg2+ Kh1 50. Rg4 h3 51. Rg8 Kh2 52. Rh8 Kh1)"
Correct! Wait how long did it take for you to find that game?
At the time (~3 days ago) the Katzenschorle game was a recent game for you.
"... (This just happened to me.)" - TitusPlaysChess123 (#1)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.