So I just got Chess Assistant 8.1 (which is excellent) as part of my drive to take chess more seriously.
For the first time I have been able to analyse my past games at RHP and I am quite suprised at the high number of blunders (.4 of a pawn or higher) in even some of my "better" efforts.
These include a number of obvious missed moves and fairly basic positional errors.
It is also interesting how often even far better players than me blunder, or a least chose a clearly inferior move to the correct line.
All of which has made me feel slightly more optimistic about the prospect of improving simply by taking a bit of extra time to think about positions & choose solid moves.
(Although in one of my first moves since getting CA I've just blundered away a bishop...)
Incidentally if anyone I have played wants a copy of the analysis, give me a shout.
Originally posted by dottewellJust on the point of how a little time looking at your moves can improve your game, I got my rating up a good 200 points by learning to play from the other side of the board, not playing up but playing down, it gives you the ability after you have gotten used to it of swapping sides mid game and taking a look at what your opponent is facing and looking at what traps and pit falls you see before you, then you can quite easly prevent the p[ositional errors and blundered moves simply by playing as your opponent in your head but getting used to the wrong way round, its amazing how much this can increase your ability. give it a try
So I just got Chess Assistant 8.1 (which is excellent) as part of my drive to take chess more seriously.
For the first time I have been able to analyse my past games at RHP and I am quite suprised at the high number of blunders (.4 of a pawn or higher) in even some of my "better" efforts.
These include a number of obvious missed moves and fairly ba ...[text shortened]... ishop...)
Incidentally if anyone I have played wants a copy of the analysis, give me a shout.
Sorry, but I don't think engine evaluation difference of about 0.4 (of a pawn) can be considered a Blunder.
0.4 of a pawn, is too small to be considered significant.
I think you trust the engine too much, they are not that good at positional judgement.
I think a more realistic scale is about double that figure,
that is: 0.8 of a pawn or higher (maybe 0.65-0.70 if you use Hydra, but not less) - 'Inaccuracy' not blunder.
Over 1.2 of a pawn - thats a 'serious Inaccuracy' or a mistake.
Double that again to about 1.5 of a pawn (or higher) - and that's a Blunder (or 'fatal mistake' or Bhaaaaa).
Originally posted by zebanoYou seem to trust the engines too much.
I consider 1 pt/pawn enough to win in most cases, and often less is needed. Therefor .4 is 4/10 of the way to a lost game. Do that twice and you will probably lose. That is significant enough for me.
Most engines put my (white) move 11 down as a huge blunder. Game 1514982
1 point advantage isn't normally enough to win a game, btw.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakWell Tiger didn't immediately flag it as a blunder and suggested more analysis. At which point it suggested if black had played 14...Kf6 his position might have held together very well.
You seem to trust the engines too much.
Most engines put my (white) move 11 down as a huge blunder. Game 1514982
1 point advantage isn't normally enough to win a game, btw.
D
[EDIT: Top game, by the way!]
Sorry again zebano, but if you were Kasparov then I could find it easier to accept your statement: "I consider 1 pt/pawn enough to win in most cases, and often less is needed".
I take it back!, If you can win Most games when you are a fraction of a pawn ahead ("...and often less is needed"😉 ) - then you should chalange Topalov, even he can't win such close games that often.
And to make matters worse, what Chess God engine are you using?
is this chess program suggesting moves that are the best in any possible way? if so, this sprogram should never lose!, not to another program nor to a human, ever!.
On the more serious side, we all know that NO chess program/engine, to this day. has the absolute 'Chess Truth' in its guts.
They only evaluate the position based on the chess knowledge the programmer/s put in them. Yes, good programs do it at top GM level, but there is no absolute evaluation to most/many chess positions (except of course when there is specific tactics in site, aka 'sharp positions'/'forced vaiation'😉.
You can see this in many ways. A simple test would be to set a specific position and use several different engines to evaluate it - you will see a difference in candidate moves and in numeric evaluation between (almost) any 2 engines, and I bet more than 0.4 of a pawn difference...
So, getting help from chess program to analyse is very good way to train & improve, but do not take this as the absolute truth from a Chess God/Engine.
Thats why I wrote in my previous post to look for bigger numeric values/difference, since at 'small numerics' (less then about 0.65-0.7) I wouldnt trust engine analysis too much, and certainly wouldn't call such a difference a Blunder.
Originally posted by dottewellI hardly think so. The fork was still on, so at the very least, Black goes down the exchange and his position is in a mess.
Well Tiger didn't immediately flag it as a blunder and suggested more analysis. At which point it suggested if black had played 14...Kf6 his position might have held together very well.
[EDIT: Top game, by the way!]
But, nice game indeed. Bam, bam, bam and White never even bothered to castle. Lovely!
Originally posted by buffalobillThanks. I would have preferred it if I hadn't nearly thrown away the game with move 22. For some reason, I never even thought that he'd capture my knight with his rook on move 23. One of those blind spots that happens to us all at times, I guess.
I hardly think so. The fork was still on, so at the very least, Black goes down the exchange and his position is in a mess.
But, nice game indeed. Bam, bam, bam and White never even bothered to castle. Lovely!
On my move 10, I realised that the position looked like it might be open for the classic bishop sacrifice, so I grabbed "The Art of Attack in Chess", and found this on page 128...
And the result was my first win against a 2000+ player. 🙂
D
Originally posted by buffalobillHe goes down the exchange but has already sacced a bishop. A good attack for white, but defensible for black.
I hardly think so. The fork was still on, so at the very least, Black goes down the exchange and his position is in a mess.
But, nice game indeed. Bam, bam, bam and White never even bothered to castle. Lovely!
Have you tried playing this position against a strong engine?