I noticed that sometimes I pull off strategies (not tactics, I am bad at those) that contain moves that later stockfish thinks are blunders...
Yet, those strategies frequently work just fine. (against humans at least...)
Should I stop doing them? Continue doing them? How I analyse my own games when I think I did right but stockfish disagrees with me?
I noticed stockfish LOOOOVES checks, frequently it considers the best move to cause a check, even if it suicides a piece over nothing.
And of course, computers can't be 'baited', the last match I won, I deliberately baited opponent in attacking the wrong place in the board, then surprise-mated his king when he blundered, computers would never fall for it, but humans do... at least on my puny 1100 level...
Please present a concrete example, otherwise your question is impossible to answer.
Deliberately playing bad moves - hm, I would rethink my strategy. Or do you want to keep your level?
Btw, meanwhile computers mostly think so deep that this mountain of tactics is nothing else as "strategy".
As tpr said, it's tough to be too helpful without some examples, but there are some safe general remarks I can make.
First, if SF recommends a move that seems to lose a piece, it will basically never be for nothing.
Either the position is losing so badly that giving up the piece leads to the slowest loss, or there's a tactic that justifies the move.
Second, I'd be careful to just generalize that SF "loves checks". Checks are a powerful tool in many tactical sequences, so it's likely that if you miss a lot of tactics, checks will figure prominently in the recommended lines.
That's different than just generally loving and seeking out checks, though (it's a selection bias, of sorts).
Third, to your main point, the full answer is the almost-always-correct-and-almost-always-equally-unhelpful "it depends".
If a couple moves are more or less equal, and one sets an interesting trap for your opponent while the other is simpler, by all means choose the former.
Making the position difficult for your opponent is an important part of chess.
On the other hand, if you have one move that maintains the balance, and another one that is losing but sets a trap, playing the second move is just a mistake.
The first goal should be to play a move that is objectively ok. If you then have several objectively decent moves to choose from, by all means choose the one that gives your opponents ways to go wrong.
If you switch that around, though, and make your main goal to set traps no matter how bad the move is, just hoping your opponent won't see it, it will be very difficult to get better.
Just my two cents :)
I notice in every forum the same: weaker player seek general advice although chess is mercilessly concrete. With hindsight you can draw rules but mostly it needs a concrete position to check first.
If you want a general rule for described behaviour: seems completely wrong (inappropriate) with the given information in #1.
it's eeazy, yfirst:
1. google search online engine
2. make your window that you see 2 browser
3. do same moves as the negine
4.. kama putair
5. win
Easiest way to answer this is, if you really don't believe stockfish to know the best continuation, play against it. It will show you why it's right and your strategies are wrong. Just because it works against a person doesn't make it good. Scholar's mate works a lot against bad players, it's still a really bad opening.
