For data lovers only

[Rebel]

Made a start trying (emphasis added) to separate chaff of corn from the giant monthly Lichess downloads.

So far I have 3.7 million human-human games between at least 2200 elo rated players.

About 8 million annotated (score only) Stockfish games. And I am not even halfway.

http://rebel13.nl/download/data.html

[Ovyron]

So far I have 3.7 million human-human games between at least 2200 elo rated players.

Why was 2200 elo chosen as the cutting point? I believe it's equivalent to 1900 elo of chess.com.

[Dann Corbit]

Made a start trying (emphasis added) to separate chaff of corn from the giant monthly Lichess downloads.

So far I have 3.7 million human-human games between at least 2200 elo rated players.

About 8 million annotated (score only) Stockfish games. And I am not even halfway.

http://rebel13.nl/download/data.html

I think all of it has value because of the tremendous volume.
What mistakes do players below 1000 tend to make?
Below 1500?
Below 2000?

If we only care to find the best moves we need to filter. But there are other interesting answers to questions hid in that data,

[jp]

I think all of it has value because of the tremendous volume.
What mistakes do players below **** tend to make?

But then it'd really help to know what Lichess ratings would correspond to in FIDE elo.

Otherwise, we just know they are very bad, but not exactly how bad.

[Rebel]

So far I have 3.7 million human-human games between at least 2200 elo rated players.

Why was 2200 elo chosen as the cutting point?

Keep the volume reasonable. Maybe I will do 2100 and 2000 later.

[jp]

Keep the volume reasonable. Maybe I will do 2100 and 2000 later.

Or 2400 and 2500 for smaller download sizes.

[EroSennin]

So far I have 3.7 million human-human games between at least 2200 elo rated players.

Why was 2200 elo chosen as the cutting point? I believe it's equivalent to 1900 elo of chess.com.

The higher you go, the closer the ratings get to chess.com's. At least Lichess 2500 is already 2500 on chess.com

[Daniel Shawul]

Made a start trying (emphasis added) to separate chaff of corn from the giant monthly Lichess downloads.

So far I have 3.7 million human-human games between at least 2200 elo rated players.

About 8 million annotated (score only) Stockfish games. And I am not even halfway.

http://rebel13.nl/download/data.html

This will be useful for supervized neural network training.
It is good if it is sorted by elo from lowest to highest pairs, so that it can emulate
the progression of the neural network in self-training.

[Rebel]

Made a start trying (emphasis added) to separate chaff of corn from the giant monthly Lichess downloads.

So far I have 3.7 million human-human games between at least 2200 elo rated players.

About 8 million annotated (score only) Stockfish games. And I am not even halfway.

http://rebel13.nl/download/data.html

This will be useful for supervized neural network training.
It is good if it is sorted by elo from lowest to highest pairs, so that it can emulate
the progression of the neural network in self-training.

I heard that before. Just for the record, only the 3.7M human games are checked on 2200 elo, the SF games not.

[Rebel]

Keep the volume reasonable. Maybe I will do 2100 and 2000 later.

Or 2400 and 2500 for smaller download sizes.

Once you have the human database of 3.784.887 games installed you can extract from that database higher elo rated database such as 2300, 2400, 2500 etc. with SOMU 1.5, see the page.