@AsDaGo said in #10:
> This?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami>
> I don't really see how Stockfish is a swami.
Right. It isn't.
The problem is that a lot of players regard Stockfish as a swami. What it says is then some sort of ultimate truth.
It is a very useful tool for analysis, of course. Chess journalists who annotate games have a much easier task these days than they used to. But their input is still required.
Tomato, tomatoe.
It was a winning endgame. The PC just tried to squeeze even more advantage that you already had for a super easy endgame.
It was not a bad move what you did, but its less precise than the computer.
If you were to play both endgames until a mate is reached, you would have to grind a bit more than the computer. Still the same result, but one would have 10+ more moves than the other.
By trading your pieces, you removed any actual checkmate treath with the material you had there in the short term, as the queen is always a treath.
If you wanted the most precise endgame, yes, it was a mistake. But if you just wanted to win, it was as good as any endgame that leaves you with an easy win.
@Druismat said in #1:
> Sure the enginemoves are far ahead of my nooblevel but Qf8+ seems a clear move to me. The engine recommendation 38 Re2 is not a move I would even consider
@MrPushwood said in #6:
> There are mistakes and then there are mistakes...and this one I would classify as a "mistake." ;) Often happens with the Silicon Swami btw...the more lopsided a game becomes, the more inane its comments tend to get.
As a guy in Gr. 10, if this is how hard English is going to become, later on, I better reconsider going to university...
Don't forget that engine is programmed for best response move, it will prefer forced mate in lesser moves than a longer one.
Re2 wins the rook and the engine finds forced mate in few moves.
In such winning position, engine isn’t required to be checked. Play whatever you want.
both moves are mate in 100, your SF depth is too low!
