How is this not a blunder?

Can someone explain how this isnt a blunder?

idk, maybe they have too much compensation?

The positions so bad that any move isn't a blunder ..

dude, no this is for serious comments

A blunder is when you have an equal position, and you suddenly make a move that loses the game for you. In this position the position is already losing for white, that this move doesn't count as a blunder. OK?

No not exactly if it's already a worse position you can blunder I think it just has to make it into an even worse position

On this site, a blunder is roughly defined as a move that decreases your chances of winning a game by more than a certain amount compared to the best move in the position.
When you are already losing badly, very few moves will actually decrease those chances by that much.

sorry

I'm astonished every time.

When is it you people will stop believing softwares do things such as "thinking" or "appreciating"?

Softwares don't do anything such, and when they seem to be doing it, they do it through a process that is totally alien to human thinking or feeling.

The software has been instructed and fed by lines of codes, that are ultimately maths, and can all be taken down to "0 or 1" problems, as in, there is or there is not.

HENCE

It is NOT surprising AT ALL that them stoopid softwarez of hell keep spitting out BS and oddities all the bloody time.

Get it? Yeah? Are you sure?

I dread the day where someone will complain their kids have been poorly educated by the washing machine or the toaster... It's coming, I can feel it in my bones.

I'll add, in case I was not clear enough, and in case you guys keep believing in machines thinking, that when you ask some questions to a software running on a machine, it doesn't even know what you're talking about, but will compute what it is supposed to reply, according to the instructions it has in store.

Just like, if instructed to reply "corned beef" to the question "what time is it?", one would do, even if not knowing anything about time, hours or watches. Or corned beef. It's a mechanical thing, like when the ring bells when you push the related button at the front door.

What kills me, is that I'm so very sure, some will not even be convinced of what I'm saying... We are doomed.

Who said anything about softwares "thinking" or "appreciating"?

Are you sure that you are in the right thread?

@magipi is saying "this is a blunder" (and not just a faulty move) not a matter of appreciation?

In a lost position, I may try, lost for lost, to set a trap by playing a move that does lose more percentile than others, but that, actually, represents the only practical chance of saving the game. The software will still count it as "blunder" cos all it sees is the huge loss of percentile. Do you "see" it what I'm saying?

So, every now and then, I do see threads where players go complaining about how an evaluation, a brilliancy, or else, made by some dumb software, doesn't match what any regular human would have said about it. Am I not right when I'm saying, too many of us still have it all wrong about how these things work? And am I not right when I'm saying, these threads comes from the illusion that machines would do things we do, such as thinking or appreciating, the same way we do, when they can't and won't? Is it then so off topic like you claim it would be?

I see what you're saying. What you're saying in technically true, but it only shows that you don't know how chess.com's software works, and also you haven't read anything in this thread.

The thing is that when a position is lost, the software isn't calling anything a blunder. Had you bothered to read the comments, you'd know that already, as comment #3 said exactly that, and comment #8 has even elaborated on it further.

I have read alright, but my own comment was addressing more the OP and their pairs, than the correct answers posters below.

As for "not understanding how x software works", you have it all wrong, they all work the same way (0 1 etc), and the specifics of a given software matter little to not at all for what I'm saying.

Furthermore, I was not trying to explain what was already explained by others, but ranted about how members keep posting these threads, as if they expected softwares to give them evaluations and appreciations the same way a human would. When obviously, as ANYONE should know by now (year 2024 hey) these things CAN'T do that what you're (rethorical you) expecting out of mixing sci-fi movies and reality.

I'll elaborate, @magipi, in order to prove to you I've read other posts and understand how the evaluation software works:

If the difference between the move played and the best move the software can see, is a number, that number alone is not enough: it also needs to be translated into an other number, that is %.

If first evaluation is -2.00 and other is -1.00, the difference is 1.00 in brute numbers, but the % is 50% one way, 100% the other way around.

But if the first evaluation is -3.00 anf the second -2.00, then the % drops to 33% and 50%.

If the software is instructed to flag "blunder" when the difference is above 50%, it'll flag blunder in the first case, but not in the second case, when, in brute numbers, the difference is the same (1.00).

etc.

Of course, you won't trigger the "blunder" marker when you play a -66.67 move instead of a -55.45 move.

For science fiction fans, let me tell you the difference between Dolores (Westworld) and Demerzel (Fondation).

Dolores "lives" in the near future. Her Intelligence is bad science fiction: we are not close to achieve anything such any soon. I like Westworld and I like the character Dolores, but it's BS for idiots.

Demerzel lives in a distant future (30.000 years or so). We don't know what finding outs and science breakthroughs will happen between now and then. This is correct science fiction.

No need to be an expert in anything, in order to figure out what can be, and what cannot be.

For an example, to the question "Do electrical cars have got a future?", one can easily answer "No". As in, not until someone figures out an other technology to store electricity, that doesn't have the flaws of the current one.

And, the current one, is yes, the ONLY available technology there is, that allows to store electricity.

Sure we improved it, and made it more efficient, going alcaline, then lithium and maybe other variations of it, but it's still that same old technology, that makes batteries losing storage capacity as we use these, until that capacity drops to practical zero, letting us with a piece of expensive trash, very polluting and hard to recycle.

And one has to keep that in mind, when they want to evaluate the hope some sensational news tries to raise in our hearts, about the future. The future is dark, and as we keep it up so, it will end ugly and sad.

If the needed revolution in energy uses is not happening, it's for a big part, because people do believe in fairy tales that are given to them by short sighted merchants, who do believe their money will compensate for the damages done by their lethal businesses.

People don't revolt, because they don't care to know, when it's so warm & fuzzy to believe instead.

F