Greetings,
Clearly I've had plenty of spare time on my hands today, looking through on-going tournaments on this site,
I noticed this epic battle going on between these two players.
In this one tournament, they keep drawing against each other and so the round keeps restarting over again.
They are both above 2500 rated (at the time of writing).
I was curious to see how accurate each of their games were.
So I took the PGN of each of their completed head-to-head games and put them through an analysis tool.
See results for each game below:
Round 2
Game 12237982
cenerentola
Inaccuracies - 2
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 10
Jason King
Inaccuracies - 2
Mistakes - 1
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 11
Game 12237998
Jason King
Inaccuracies - 2
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 9
cenerentola
Inaccuracies - 0
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 8
Round 3
Game 12623222
cenerentola
Inaccuracies - 0
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 7
Jason King
Inaccuracies - 0
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 4
Game 12623223
Jason King
Inaccuracies - 1
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 8
cenerentola
Inaccuracies - 1
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 8
Round 4
Game 12828507
cenerentola
Inaccuracies - 1
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 10
Jason King
Inaccuracies - 1
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 10
Game 12828508
Jason King
Inaccuracies - 3
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 12
cenerentola
Inaccuracies - 1
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 11
Round 5
Game 12959569
cenerentola
Inaccuracies - 0
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 5
Jason King
Inaccuracies - 1
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 5
Game 12959570
Jason King
Inaccuracies - 0
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 6
cenerentola
Inaccuracies - 0
Mistakes - 0
Blunders - 0
Average centipawn loss = 5
------------------------------
So who knows how long this is going to go on for.
I have a feeling that eventually Jason King will be the one to crack.
What gives me this impression?
Well, how about this game, which was from round 1 in this same tournament.
RHP 2017 - Kratic (1658) vs Jason King (2509)
Move 11 is a doozy...
@64squaresofpain
OK you got me! What was the "mistake" made by Jason King in the first of these games you listed? Turns out it was 16....Nd7? which adds +1 to the computer assessment.
A quick look at a database of OTB GM games shows that this move has in fact been played by luminaries such as Boris Gelfand. A look at a database of ICCF games however shows an overwhelming preference for the "correct" d5 at this point. What is interesting that cenerentola's 17. c4 appears a theoretical novelty in both databases (which only include games up to about the year 2013 so I don't know if it's been played since). Stockfish, running on my laptop, promotes it to the top move after about 90 seconds. Who said you shouldn't move pawns in front of your king!
@ragwort saidWouldn't it be a blast to see both those dudes on a real over the board game! See how many mistakes they make THEN.
@64squaresofpain
OK you got me! What was the "mistake" made by Jason King in the first of these games you listed? Turns out it was 16....Nd7? which adds +1 to the computer assessment.
[pgn][Event "Quartets"]
[Site "https://www.dailychess.com"]
[Date "2017.06.01"]
[EndDate "2017.10.13"]
[Round "2"]
[White "cenerentola"]
[Black "Jason King"]
[WhiteRating "2572"]
...[text shortened]... it to the top move after about 90 seconds. Who said you shouldn't move pawns in front of your king!
So you figure they are both using Stockfish? It sure as HELL isn't THEM playing.
@sonhouse
No. Stockfish is the analysis engine that the Lichess site uses to produce the sort of report in the OP. My point was that AS it generally assumed that the top players here ARE consulting engines THEN we WOULDN'T EXPECT to see anything that could be described as a "mistake".
However the position where the "mistake" occurs is move 16 in a position known to both OTB GM chess (thus subjected to pre and post game engine analysis) as well as ICCF engine assisted chess so there could well be "pre-existing research material" available to either one of the RHP players.
Clearly stockfish doesn't rate black's pawn sacrifice in this line of the Najdorf despite the fact that white's king is, in theory, being opened up, but on the face of it OTB GM's have had more faith in it than their ICCF counterparts.
I don't know if Jason King blindly followed theory and was caught out, took a risk and had a difficult draw or if cenerentola had hatched his TN on the hoof, before the game or if it has been played in a game more recent than the databases I have access to. Neither do I know if 17. c4 is actually any stronger than the previously played alternatives.
I have read recently that some ICCF GM's are abandoning human opening theory now as they deem it no longer strong enough!
@ragwort saidThat last I believe! I have often said computers will make humans better at chess. I asked Cenerentola what engine he used and he put me on block. I mean, how DARE I suggest he uses engines.....
@sonhouse
No. Stockfish is the analysis engine that the Lichess site uses to produce the sort of report in the OP. My point was that AS it generally assumed that the top players here ARE consulting engines THEN we WOULDN'T EXPECT to see anything that could be described as a "mistake".
However the position where the "mistake" occurs is move 16 in a position known to bo ...[text shortened]... that some ICCF GM's are abandoning human opening theory now as they deem it no longer strong enough!
I missed a backward Knight move. Which I only saw after sending my move
and resigned. Infact looking at it again I missed a winner and do not think
I actually saw the a5 Knight at all (that is worrying.) I do not know what happened.
Never mind, sure it will not be the last time.
