1 centipawn loss: http://fr.lichess.org/dAC4D4wU
seems like long dead won end games f*ck up the average somehow
I hate when I analyze an otherwise beautiful game and it says I made 4 blunders and 3 mistakes because I missed mate in 9's or other such things.
I did a 0 0 0 0 some days ago,
I did not post it cause it was not an interesting game
and It was not fair I was like 700 points, anyway
here is the game
http://en.lichess.org/IY78s45G/black#30
and another thread about this
http://en.lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/has-anyone-ever-got-0-average-centipawn-loss?page=2
but I repeat that I would not trust the machine in centipawns, scandinavian defence has an inaccuracy for example and sometimes the evaluation of the first move changes depending on the next ones
and It seems to be very time dependant althought I think thibault has improved the servers and the stockfish capability,
so It may start being more accurate even in centipawns.
In summary I just dont think a game is good or bad depending on the inaccuracies centipawn statistics, like how tough the game was or how much resistance or opposition the opponent put Its difficult to measure or even the length of the game although this one can be measured exactly
but I would not think of chess as a collection of numbers,
there is a real difference between the games of the high correposdence players and the top players.
For example this game,
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1224863&kpage=5#kibitzing
a game that I dont like at all, perhaps I dont understand it but it seems awful to me.
so there are other things that are more difficult to measure
like a solid structure or the risky dinamics safety, etc.
machine is a rule of thumb to guide you unless there are concrete tactics
specially in the opening, its always been said that engines do not understand openings
all they do is database grandmasters ideas which are changing every year.
hope it helps, bye.
I did not post it cause it was not an interesting game
and It was not fair I was like 700 points, anyway
here is the game
http://en.lichess.org/IY78s45G/black#30
and another thread about this
http://en.lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/has-anyone-ever-got-0-average-centipawn-loss?page=2
but I repeat that I would not trust the machine in centipawns, scandinavian defence has an inaccuracy for example and sometimes the evaluation of the first move changes depending on the next ones
and It seems to be very time dependant althought I think thibault has improved the servers and the stockfish capability,
so It may start being more accurate even in centipawns.
In summary I just dont think a game is good or bad depending on the inaccuracies centipawn statistics, like how tough the game was or how much resistance or opposition the opponent put Its difficult to measure or even the length of the game although this one can be measured exactly
but I would not think of chess as a collection of numbers,
there is a real difference between the games of the high correposdence players and the top players.
For example this game,
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1224863&kpage=5#kibitzing
a game that I dont like at all, perhaps I dont understand it but it seems awful to me.
so there are other things that are more difficult to measure
like a solid structure or the risky dinamics safety, etc.
machine is a rule of thumb to guide you unless there are concrete tactics
specially in the opening, its always been said that engines do not understand openings
all they do is database grandmasters ideas which are changing every year.
hope it helps, bye.
Chess theory is useless. The average GM can't beat a cell phone these days. Stockfish rules! Chess is a lot like life, in that people rationalize all the wrong moves they have made.
Still, RJD says you have to bleed for the dancer, not for the answer.
Still, RJD says you have to bleed for the dancer, not for the answer.
Stockfish rules, thanks to the gms,
it is aggregate knowledge, so dont disregard chess theory as useless because Im sure programmers use it to program Stockfish.
it is aggregate knowledge, so dont disregard chess theory as useless because Im sure programmers use it to program Stockfish.
This was my best game so far, though I missed forced checkmate at the end.
http://sr.lichess.org/qwTEWvSD
http://sr.lichess.org/qwTEWvSD
Sorry, posted the wrong game.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.