[SamBam]

> at least one of the natural moves here is a blunder

Interesting, I'm not sure if a computer has the ability to recognize something as a "natural move but also a blunder." It would require a very human-like way of thinking about moves, which computers don't generally have.

[fizx]

Anyone 1500+ can recognize the natural move--that's what makes it natural.

Probably the easiest case of "natural move but blunder" is anything that is a top 3 engine move when looking 3-5 moves deep, but losing significantly on deeper evaluation.

Also, this sort of categorization is at the heart of how chess puzzle collections are automatically assembled. A good chess puzzle contains an unnatural move that wins--the exact opposite of the natural but blunder. Chess sites scan their online play databases for these all the time, and serve them up as puzzles.

[SamBam]

> Anyone 1500+ can recognize the natural move--that's what makes it natural.

Any human 1500+ can recognize the natural human move. The way the computer thinks about moves is different.

I really don't believe that Stockfish can tell you "this move is tempting, but wrong."

I'm sure you could build something in that might kind of work, but until I see it I'm skeptical.

[folli]

In any case, you would need a human operator who is a very strong chessplayer himself.

[cuu508]

Magnus Carlsen has commented that Hans' mentor Maxim Dlugy "must be doing a great job"

https://youtu.be/c50PJmOj2-U?t=83