Originally posted by Artsew2 other 2000+ players have played Bf5 (Mega 2012) 28 games in total with this move
Avtually I prefer to start with this game between Miles and Christiansen because of the story behind it. Both seem to blunder big time!
[pgn][Event "San Francisco (USA)"] [Site "San Francisco (USA)"] [Date "1987.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Anthony Miles"] [Black "Larry Christiansen"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C42"] [PlyCount "11"] [EventDate "1987.??.??"] 1 ...[text shortened]... 5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Bf5 6.Qe2 1-0[/pgn]
Ouch!
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you have any objections to me analysing 20 of your games from 2011 which have more than 20 or more non-database moves vs 2000+ rated players & publishing the engine match rate results in this forum?
I am not familiar with that one, but I still think I remember f4 being played
in the Dragon at a much later stage, of course.
Originally posted by ZygalskiI've done that already, but i'd be interested to see how your results would compare with mine.
Do you have any objections to me analysing 20 of your games from 2011 which have more than 20 or more non-database moves vs 2000+ rated players & publishing the engine match rate results in this forum?
These are the 20 games that I just selected from RJ's game history for analysis:
Game 8821710
Game 8895566
Game 8895571
Game 8914482
Game 8895568
Game 8914481
Game 8895565
Game 8845055
Game 8845060
Game 8821820
Game 8821766
Game 8775723
Game 8775725
Game 8804595
Game 8804592
Game 8650789
Game 8695484
Game 8695491
Game 8653987
Game 8653988
The one flaw I see in all of this analysis stuff with Rybka, Fritz or whatever, and saying Kasparov or other top masters matched up with a less percentile then certain players here do is that these masters were not playing Correspondence Chess.
With Correspondence Chess you essentially have a adjournment after every single move with all the time in the world to study the next move.
In Correspondence Chess you have no pressure. You have access to all kinds of material. Books, internet, etc, on the latest lines and such, before you make the next move. Unlike the Great masters in tournament play.
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe best pre-computer era CC World Championship finalists have also been analysed in the same way.
The one flaw I see in all of this analysis stuff with Rybka, Fritz or whatever, and saying Kasparov or other top masters matched up with a less percentile then certain players here do is that these masters were not playing Correspondence Chess.
With Correspondence Chess you essentially have a adjournment after every single move with all the time in ...[text shortened]... test lines and such, before you make the next move. Unlike the Great masters in tournament play.
Humans can only play engine-like chess to a certain extent, regardless of whether it's Carlsen OTB last month (with his team's rigorous engine prep) or Tonu Oim spending days analysing a single move on his way to the CC Championship win in 1983.
All the best unassisted players have engine match rates for non-database moves which hover around the same % rates. They're remarkably consistent actually.
Then I analyse a player here with no real-world credentials who literally blows all the benchmarks out of the water with engine-like play, often also with many games in progress & very few draws or losses in comparison to wins.
What would be by far the most likely reason for that?
Originally posted by ZygalskiI did not realize that. I stand corrected then.
The best pre-computer era CC World Championship finalists have also been analysed in the same way.
Humans can only play engine-like chess to a certain extent, regardless of whether it's Carlsen OTB last month (with his team's rigorous engine prep) or Tonu Oim spending days analysing a single move on his way to the CC Championship win in 1983.
All the best ...[text shortened]... aws or losses in comparison to wins.
What would be by far the most likely reason for that?
To add my 5c worth...In Purdy's book on winning the first correspondence world championship he mentions how he got into correspondence chess playing some games against a player far below him in over the board chess, and how he was quite surprised at losing...so it is possible for people to be much stronger in correspondence than OTB. Sadly for my performance on RHP, I seem to relatively stronger at blitz than at longer games...even on RHP I still make the same blunders, just at a slower rate!
Originally posted by ZygalskiNo. If you will do an accurate analysis with no prejudice, I would be
Do you have any objections to me analysing 20 of your games from 2011 which have more than 20 or more non-database moves vs 2000+ rated players & publishing the engine match rate results in this forum?
interested myself, for I have no way to do it.
P.S. These matchup rates by Proper Knob covers 3 possibe moves which is
likely for anyone to match one of the 3 possible moves. I want the matchup
rate for the number one move in each case. And don't exclude the games
I lost against top players and their matchup rate in those games compared
to mine either. You don't have to mention their names.
Originally posted by ZygalskiI did not see this before my reply. It looks like you have picked the best of
These are the 20 games that I just selected from RJ's game history for analysis:
Game 8821710
Game 8895566
Game 8895571
Game 8914482
Game 8895568
Game 8914481
Game 8895565
Game 8845055
Game 8845060
Game 8821820
Game 8821766
Game 8775723
[gid]87757 ...[text shortened]... 9[/gid]
Game 8695484
Game 8695491
Game 8653987
Game 8653988
my hard fought battles. Good job.
Originally posted by RJHindsThese matchup rates by Proper Knob covers 3 possibe moves which is likely for anyone to match one of the 3 possible moves.
No. If you will do an accurate analysis with no prejudice, I would be
interested myself, for I have no way to do it.
P.S. These matchup rates by Proper Knob covers 3 possibe moves which is
likely for anyone to match one of the 3 possible moves. I want the matchup
rate for the number one move in each case. And don't exclude the games
I lost against ...[text shortened]... matchup rate in those games compared
to mine either. You don't have to mention their names.
Really? What evidence have you got to support this claim?