This is only the most recent of instances.
If I move my bishop to safety, I lose a knight, but if I do this, I trade a bishop for a pawn, which isn't the best trade, but is better than losing my knight with no compensation.
I assume the previous move was d5. If you moved the bishop to d3 it would capture pawn; you would have the bishop instead of the knight in that variation.
Yeah but doing this seemingly puts me in a better position while having the same amount of captured material. That makes sense though, thanks for explaining why chess.com may have said that was a good move.
I thought of a possible counterpoint to this, but then realized that the position in image one would actually be slightly different (queen would threaten knight, leading to white spending a move dealing with that threat). So yeah, black would develop one more piece. Thanks for explaining!
The most interesting thing is that the "explanation" given by Game review is complete nonsense. You could argue that it's technically correct, but it's misleading and useless.
That probably has something to do with the fact that chess.com workers don't want to have to create an explanation for each and every move.
The most interesting thing is that the "explanation" given by Game review is complete nonsense. You could argue that it's technically correct, but it's misleading and useless.
would you rather have a bishop or a knight? Bishop obviously. If someone has ever traded bishop for a knight without doubled pawns as compensation, the engine hates it.
The most interesting thing is that the "explanation" given by Game review is complete nonsense. You could argue that it's technically correct, but it's misleading and useless.
would you rather have a bishop or a knight? Bishop obviously. If someone has ever traded bishop for a knight without doubled pawns as compensation, the engine hates it.
I can't tell if this is just me being bad at the game or you making a joke. From what I've seen, knights are more useful than bishops.
just open analysis with engine lines and see which line gives better outcomes, what is the point of arguing with a computer ?
Idk what open analysis is but I guess your points make sense. It just seems like knights are better but in a game like chess if I'm wrong I'm wrong.
Mweh, I use chessbook to go through my openings, most of the time chess.com is right, but if you want to be sure its the best move, just use stockfish engine after.
The most interesting thing is that the "explanation" given by Game review is complete nonsense. You could argue that it's technically correct, but it's misleading and useless.
would you rather have a bishop or a knight?
In this position, the bishop. Getting the bishop pair in this open position is a very good thing, that's why the engine strongly prefers that line.
However, my point is that this isn't what chess.com's Game review said. It said nothing about getting the bishop pair, or even the choice between losing a bishop or a knight. It talked about "saving the bishop" and ignored the loss of the knight altogether. That's why I say it's misleading nonsense.
In my opinion, Game review is so bad that chess.com should shut it gown.
also in the opening the engine might label certain moves as bad which may be good in practice, for example I play the Rousseau gambit (f5 against the Italian game) and the engine considers it a mistake however in practice it has the highest win rate against the Italian
another example is the Halloween gambit which is considered a complete blunder by the engine but in practice it's very hard to play against it 🎃
like Gotham said in one of his vids that the engine counts based on stockfish vs stockfish only and doesn't take into account human factors 
This is only the most recent of instances.