Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 06 Mar '17 09:37 / 2 edits
    I don't follow the pro chess stuff by I was interested to read that a result had been overturned. The San Jose Hackers vs Las Vegas Desert Rats match has been affected due to fair play violations. Here is some statistical analysis that someone else has done. I cannot vouch for its veracity but I wonder if anyone knows is there is anything significant in the statistics I cannot see it myself.

    GM Timur Gareyev (FIDE 2617, FIDE rapid 2615) : 387 undecided positions, correlation scores : T1=43.9%, T2=67%, T3=78.3%, blunder rate = 3,88%, acl = 16.77

    FM Elliott Liu (FIDE 2284) : 285 pos, T-scores : 42.6% 57.2% 68.2%, br=5.26%, acl=17.26

    GM Kayden Troff (FIDE 2511) : 675 pos, T-scores : 39.6% 63.2% 70.7%, br=4.44%, acl=17.26

    GM Jacek Stopa (FIDE 2453, FIDE rapid 2511) : 191 pos, T-scores : 39.1% 60.1% 79.8%, br=5.24%, acl=16.88
  2. Subscriber roma45
    st johnstone
    06 Mar '17 12:57
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I don't follow the pro chess stuff by I was interested to read that a result had been overturned. The San Jose Hackers vs Las Vegas Desert Rats match has been affected due to fair play violations. Here is some statistical analysis that someone else has done. I cannot vouch for its veracity but I wonder if anyone knows is there is anything signific ...[text shortened]... Stopa (FIDE 2453, FIDE rapid 2511) : 191 pos, T-scores : 39.1% 60.1% 79.8%, br=5.24%, acl=16.88
    collusion perhaps?
    good to see cheats punished
  3. 06 Mar '17 14:50
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I don't follow the pro chess stuff by I was interested to read that a result had been overturned. The San Jose Hackers vs Las Vegas Desert Rats match has been affected due to fair play violations. Here is some statistical analysis that someone else has done. I cannot vouch for its veracity but I wonder if anyone knows is there is anything signific ...[text shortened]... Stopa (FIDE 2453, FIDE rapid 2511) : 191 pos, T-scores : 39.1% 60.1% 79.8%, br=5.24%, acl=16.88
    FAKE NEWS!
  4. 06 Mar '17 16:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by roma45
    collusion perhaps?
    good to see cheats punished
    No i don't think that was it. How do you know they were cheating? Can you tell from the statistics?
  5. 06 Mar '17 16:15
    Originally posted by mchill
    FAKE NEWS!
    Lol we live in a post truth world.
  6. 06 Mar '17 17:23
    I'm actually doing a piece/blog, should be posted tomorrow, about Timur Gareyev
    and his exploits at blindfold chess. Apparently he holds the world record.

    http://en.chessbase.com/post/timur-gareyev-world-record-blindfold-attempt
  7. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    06 Mar '17 20:39
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    I'm actually doing a piece/blog, should be posted tomorrow, about Timur Gareyev
    and his exploits at blindfold chess. Apparently he holds the world record.

    http://en.chessbase.com/post/timur-gareyev-world-record-blindfold-attempt
    I wonder who is going to go for 50? Can you imagine, 1600 pieces to keep track of. Gads.
  8. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    07 Mar '17 00:13
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    No i don't think that was it. How do you know they were cheating? Can you tell from the statistics?
    I can't, if those are meant to be match ups with an engine then they are lower than one would expect from GMs. If they are meant to be colluding I don't see what there is to analyse. What are those statistics meant to represent, specifically, what does T-score mean?
  9. 07 Mar '17 08:36 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I can't, if those are meant to be match ups with an engine then they are lower than one would expect from GMs. If they are meant to be colluding I don't see what there is to analyse. What are those statistics meant to represent, specifically, what does T-score mean?
    T I suspect must be the engine match up in correlation to first , second and third choice. Do we know what the match up rates are for humans pre computer , like Fischer Spassky?
  10. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    07 Mar '17 16:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    T I suspect must be the engine match up in correlation to first , second and third choice. Do we know what the match up rates are for humans pre computer , like Fischer Spassky?
    This has been posted before, I'll dig around for a thread, but if those are engine match up rates then they are not suspicious.

    Edit: the thread "Cerentola blunders a rook" Thread 169171 has some engine match statistics for top GM's, here are Carlsen's:

    { Top 1 Match: 477/828 ( 57.6% ) Opponents: 452/821 ( 55.1% )
    { Top 2 Match: 617/828 ( 74.5% ) Opponents: 594/821 ( 72.4% )
    { Top 3 Match: 690/828 ( 83.3% ) Opponents: 667/821 ( 81.2% )
    { Top 4 Match: 732/828 ( 88.4% ) Opponents: 709/821 ( 86.4% )

    See pages 2 and 3 for statistics for various GMs and RHP players.