Comparing top players and Niemann

[M ANSARI]

Code: Select all

[Event "9th Sinquefield Cup 2022"]
[Site "Saint Louis USA"]
[Date "2022.09.04"]
[Round "3.1"]
[White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Black "Niemann, Hans Moke"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2688"]
[BlackFideId "2093596"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[ECO "E20"]
[EventDate "2022.09.02"]
[Opening "Nimzo-Indian"]
[Variation "Romanishin-Kasparov (Steiner) system"]
[WhiteElo "2861"]
[WhiteFideId "1503014"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 15 @60s per pos, eval is SPOV"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.g3 O-O 5.Bg2 d5 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 dxc4 8.Nf3 c5 9.O-O cxd4 10.Qxd4 Nc6 11.Qxc4 e5 12.Bg5 { 0.00/31 } ( 12.a4 { 0.00/31 } ) 12...h6 { 0.00/31 } ( 12...Be6 { 0.09/31 } ) 13.Rfd1 { -0.24/34 } ( 13.Bxf6 { 0.00/34 } ) 13...Be6 { 0.37/32 } 14.Rxd8 { -0.30/34 } ( 14.Qc5 { -0.28/34 } ) 14...Bxc4 $7 { 0.31/31 } 15.Rxa8 { -0.29/31 } 15...Rxa8 $7 { 0.39/31 } 16.Bxf6 { -0.25/33 } ( 16.Nd2 { -0.19/33 } ) 16...gxf6 { 0.22/35 } 17.Kf1 { -0.30/40 } ( 17.Nd2 { -0.23/34 } ) 17...Rd8 { 0.45/39 } 18.Ke1 { -0.29/34 } 18...Na5 { 0.25/37 } 19.Rd1 { -0.22/36 } ( 19.Bh3 { -0.19/36 } ) 19...Rc8 { 0.28/39 } 20.Nd2 { -0.19/34 } ( 20.Bh3 { -0.15/34 } ) 20...Be6 { 0.28/38 } 21.c4 { -0.45/31 } ( 21.Ne4 { -0.21/32 } ) 21...Bxc4 { 0.23/39 } ( 21...b6 { 0.41/33 } ) 22.Nxc4 { -0.15/36 } ( 22.Ne4 { -0.13/36 } ) 22...Rxc4 { 0.20/29 } 23.Rd8+ { -0.12/35 } 23...Kg7 { 0.18/37 } 24.Bd5 { -0.17/36 } 24...Rc7 { 0.25/34 } 25.Ra8 { -0.39/41 } ( 25.f3 { -0.12/37 } ) 25...a6 { 0.37/37 } 26.Rb8 { -0.30/38 } ( 26.a4 { -0.25/38 } ) 26...f5 { 0.38/35 } 27.Re8 { -0.47/33 } ( 27.f3 { -0.18/33 } ) 27...e4 { 0.61/35 } 28.g4 $2 { -1.09/35 } ( 28.Rd8 { -0.48/33 } ) 28...Rc5 { 1.11/33 } 29.Ba2 { -1.95/30 } ( 29.Rd8 { -1.25/30 } ) 29...Nc4 { 1.69/32 } ( 29...fxg4 { 1.93/32 } ) 30.a4 { -2.25/32 } ( 30.Bxc4 { -1.77/33 } ) 30...Nd6 { 2.25/33 } 31.Re7 $4 { -4.12/32 } ( 31.Rd8 { -2.20/32 } ) 31...fxg4 $5 { 2.14/31 } ( 31...Rc2 { 4.07/31 } ) 32.Rd7 { -1.76/29 } 32...e3 { 1.89/31 } 33.fxe3 { -1.87/28 } 33...Ne4 { 1.84/33 } 34.Kf1 { -2.33/29 } 34...Rc1+ { 0.79/30 } ( 34...Rf5+ { 2.13/31 } ) 35.Kg2 { -1.04/30 } 35...Rc2 { 1.01/32 } 36.Bxf7 { -0.85/29 } 36...Rxe2+ { 0.69/31 } 37.Kg1 { -0.69/30 } 37...Re1+ { 0.94/32 } 38.Kg2 $7 { -0.66/37 } 38...Re2+ { 0.70/35 } 39.Kg1 { -0.69/30 } 39...Kf6 { 0.83/32 } ( 39...Re1+ { 0.94/32 } ) 40.Bd5 $2 { -1.27/34 } ( 40.Rxb7 { -0.51/34 } ) 40...Rd2 { 1.49/35 } 41.Rf7+ { -1.49/27 } 41...Kg6 { 1.50/30 } 42.Rd7 $4 { -5.77/29 } ( 42.Rf4 { -1.35/30 } ) 42...Ng5 { 5.73/30 } 43.Bf7+ { -7.18/27 } ( 43.Kf1 { -5.89/27 } ) 43...Kf5 { 4.65/29 } ( 43...Kf6 { 7.08/30 } ) 44.Rxd2 { -4.79/26 } 44...Nf3+ $7 { 2.66/25 } 45.Kg2 { -5.61/28 } 45...Nxd2 $7 { 5.11/24 } 46.a5 { -5.95/27 } 46...Ke5 { 6.67/32 } 47.Kg3 { -7.62/29 } ( 47.Kf2 { -7.45/29 } ) 47...Nf1+ { 7.76/39 } 48.Kf2 { -10.19/27 } ( 48.Kxg4 { -8.20/28 } ) 48...Nxh2 { 10.39/31 } 49.e4 { -13.52/31 } ( 49.Be8 { -11.54/29 } ) 49...Kxe4 { 13.65/30 } 50.Be6 { -15.80/30 } ( 50.Kg3 { -13.66/25 } ) 50...Kf4 { 15.83/28 } ( 50...h5 { 15.93/29 } ) 51.Bc8 { -21.66/25 } ( 51.Bf7 { -15.94/25 } ) 51...Nf3 { 22.79/25 } ( 51...h5 { 28.50/25 } ) 52.Bxb7 { -55.47/30 } 52...Ne5 { 55.47/33 } ( 52...Nd2 { 55.47/32 } ) 53.Bxa6 { -152.65/33 } 53...Nc6 { 152.65/37 } 54.Bb7 { -319.54/37 } ( 54.Bd3 { -152.65/31 } ) 54...Nxa5 { 319.77/45 } 55.Bd5 { -319.79/50 } 55...h5 { 319.79/48 } 56.Bf7 { -319.81/62 } 56...h4 { 56.94/29 } 57.Bd5 { -319.55/29 } 0-1

Now, I can understand why Magnus did this. Hans showed some accurate plays prior to this game, but this game is on top.

In that famous Carlsen vs Niemann game, ENDGAME started from move 14 onwards (so early) and it continued till the end of the game (move 57)

I am reminded of the interview from GM Jacob Aagaard (about Hans Niemann):

Our training session was a week. It was meant to be a camp, but no one else could make it. Hans was difficult to train. I tried to do calculation and endgame training with him (he had requested endgame training). At first, I showed exercises from recent games (last 18 months) that I really liked. He knew them ALL. I was astonished by his memory. I was astonished by his intuition. Both were off the charts for what I have seen training Shankland, Gelfand, and other 2600+ and a few 2700s.

There were obvious big holes in his chess, but to be honest, I see big holes in the game of Giri, Aronian, Mamedyarov, Firouzja, and other top players. When I get a 2650 student, I usually try to find out what part of their game is at a much lower level. There is always some area of chess where they are just blank. Maybe they cannot really visualise. They don’t know how to make simple decisions. They cannot calculate a line till the end. All three examples of real 2650 players I have worked with.

Hans’s confidence in his own intuition and his surprise when it was wrong was a recurring theme of the week he was here. Another was that whenever I came to his room, he was looking at chess. Playing through ALL games from all tournaments on Follow chess.

I have seen nothing out of the ordinary in the last two days. Hans playing reasonably well against opponents that are not playing that well. His big confidence. His awkwardness in front of the camera. His highly intuitive way of thinking. His lack of accuracy in variations. Him blundering when suggesting things, he thinks he might have looked at.

I also did not see anything out of the ordinary from Carlsen. Entitlement. Lack of responsibility. Lack of accountability. A Norwegian troll army ready to defame a man who only 400 days ago was a minor. Carlsen has acted badly in many situations after losing in the past. In that way, he reminds me of Federer, who was a badly behaved teenager. Become the best player in the world and behaved excellently. Then started losing to Djokovic and needed a period to adjust to reality.

People say that Carlsen does not behave badly when he is losing in his Meltwater Tour to Praggnanandhaa. It is partly because it is like Federer losing a set. It is partly because Praggnanandhaa is deferential to Magnus. Hans is not. Hans wants to kill the king. Wants to take the throne. He has no remorse over this at all.

Endgame may be his forte, and that could be the reason he was playing so accurately in that game with Carlsen, with Queens off the board as early as move 13!

I think that it is funny how Aagard mentions that Hans was surprised when he found that his intuition was wrong. I mean intuition can be extremely useful in bullet and even blitz ... but in classical, if you play by intuition and don't calculate to make sure the move you chose is correct ... then it will be a disaster. In Hans post game analysis you can see that in action ... his intuition is many times totally wrong and positions he thought were winning are totally lost. Somehow his great "intuition" doesn't go wrong in the game itself. It could be just a stroke of good luck that his intuition during a game is always correct without calculation ... but I doubt it. HIs calculation of positions in post game analysis and his recollection of main plans and critical points in the game is incredibly suspect. That is why he always says "I let the chess speak for itself" and is now refusing to analyze anything post game. That is INCREDIBLY suspect to me and of course we can make excuses for that ... but I have never seen any chess player not be able to coherently go through his thoughts in a classical game where several hours were spent playing the game. I mean yesterday in the US championships, even the little girl who is only an FM and still in high school and rated around 2100 ELO ... was able to go move by move in her thought process of critical points of the game and what variations she saw and what variations she avoided. This is normal for any chess player ... but for some reason Hans can't do that properly? Just very strange!

[Uri Blass]

Code: Select all

[Event "9th Sinquefield Cup 2022"]
[Site "Saint Louis USA"]
[Date "2022.09.04"]
[Round "3.1"]
[White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Black "Niemann, Hans Moke"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2688"]
[BlackFideId "2093596"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[ECO "E20"]
[EventDate "2022.09.02"]
[Opening "Nimzo-Indian"]
[Variation "Romanishin-Kasparov (Steiner) system"]
[WhiteElo "2861"]
[WhiteFideId "1503014"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 15 @60s per pos, eval is SPOV"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.g3 O-O 5.Bg2 d5 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 dxc4 8.Nf3 c5 9.O-O cxd4 10.Qxd4 Nc6 11.Qxc4 e5 12.Bg5 { 0.00/31 } ( 12.a4 { 0.00/31 } ) 12...h6 { 0.00/31 } ( 12...Be6 { 0.09/31 } ) 13.Rfd1 { -0.24/34 } ( 13.Bxf6 { 0.00/34 } ) 13...Be6 { 0.37/32 } 14.Rxd8 { -0.30/34 } ( 14.Qc5 { -0.28/34 } ) 14...Bxc4 $7 { 0.31/31 } 15.Rxa8 { -0.29/31 } 15...Rxa8 $7 { 0.39/31 } 16.Bxf6 { -0.25/33 } ( 16.Nd2 { -0.19/33 } ) 16...gxf6 { 0.22/35 } 17.Kf1 { -0.30/40 } ( 17.Nd2 { -0.23/34 } ) 17...Rd8 { 0.45/39 } 18.Ke1 { -0.29/34 } 18...Na5 { 0.25/37 } 19.Rd1 { -0.22/36 } ( 19.Bh3 { -0.19/36 } ) 19...Rc8 { 0.28/39 } 20.Nd2 { -0.19/34 } ( 20.Bh3 { -0.15/34 } ) 20...Be6 { 0.28/38 } 21.c4 { -0.45/31 } ( 21.Ne4 { -0.21/32 } ) 21...Bxc4 { 0.23/39 } ( 21...b6 { 0.41/33 } ) 22.Nxc4 { -0.15/36 } ( 22.Ne4 { -0.13/36 } ) 22...Rxc4 { 0.20/29 } 23.Rd8+ { -0.12/35 } 23...Kg7 { 0.18/37 } 24.Bd5 { -0.17/36 } 24...Rc7 { 0.25/34 } 25.Ra8 { -0.39/41 } ( 25.f3 { -0.12/37 } ) 25...a6 { 0.37/37 } 26.Rb8 { -0.30/38 } ( 26.a4 { -0.25/38 } ) 26...f5 { 0.38/35 } 27.Re8 { -0.47/33 } ( 27.f3 { -0.18/33 } ) 27...e4 { 0.61/35 } 28.g4 $2 { -1.09/35 } ( 28.Rd8 { -0.48/33 } ) 28...Rc5 { 1.11/33 } 29.Ba2 { -1.95/30 } ( 29.Rd8 { -1.25/30 } ) 29...Nc4 { 1.69/32 } ( 29...fxg4 { 1.93/32 } ) 30.a4 { -2.25/32 } ( 30.Bxc4 { -1.77/33 } ) 30...Nd6 { 2.25/33 } 31.Re7 $4 { -4.12/32 } ( 31.Rd8 { -2.20/32 } ) 31...fxg4 $5 { 2.14/31 } ( 31...Rc2 { 4.07/31 } ) 32.Rd7 { -1.76/29 } 32...e3 { 1.89/31 } 33.fxe3 { -1.87/28 } 33...Ne4 { 1.84/33 } 34.Kf1 { -2.33/29 } 34...Rc1+ { 0.79/30 } ( 34...Rf5+ { 2.13/31 } ) 35.Kg2 { -1.04/30 } 35...Rc2 { 1.01/32 } 36.Bxf7 { -0.85/29 } 36...Rxe2+ { 0.69/31 } 37.Kg1 { -0.69/30 } 37...Re1+ { 0.94/32 } 38.Kg2 $7 { -0.66/37 } 38...Re2+ { 0.70/35 } 39.Kg1 { -0.69/30 } 39...Kf6 { 0.83/32 } ( 39...Re1+ { 0.94/32 } ) 40.Bd5 $2 { -1.27/34 } ( 40.Rxb7 { -0.51/34 } ) 40...Rd2 { 1.49/35 } 41.Rf7+ { -1.49/27 } 41...Kg6 { 1.50/30 } 42.Rd7 $4 { -5.77/29 } ( 42.Rf4 { -1.35/30 } ) 42...Ng5 { 5.73/30 } 43.Bf7+ { -7.18/27 } ( 43.Kf1 { -5.89/27 } ) 43...Kf5 { 4.65/29 } ( 43...Kf6 { 7.08/30 } ) 44.Rxd2 { -4.79/26 } 44...Nf3+ $7 { 2.66/25 } 45.Kg2 { -5.61/28 } 45...Nxd2 $7 { 5.11/24 } 46.a5 { -5.95/27 } 46...Ke5 { 6.67/32 } 47.Kg3 { -7.62/29 } ( 47.Kf2 { -7.45/29 } ) 47...Nf1+ { 7.76/39 } 48.Kf2 { -10.19/27 } ( 48.Kxg4 { -8.20/28 } ) 48...Nxh2 { 10.39/31 } 49.e4 { -13.52/31 } ( 49.Be8 { -11.54/29 } ) 49...Kxe4 { 13.65/30 } 50.Be6 { -15.80/30 } ( 50.Kg3 { -13.66/25 } ) 50...Kf4 { 15.83/28 } ( 50...h5 { 15.93/29 } ) 51.Bc8 { -21.66/25 } ( 51.Bf7 { -15.94/25 } ) 51...Nf3 { 22.79/25 } ( 51...h5 { 28.50/25 } ) 52.Bxb7 { -55.47/30 } 52...Ne5 { 55.47/33 } ( 52...Nd2 { 55.47/32 } ) 53.Bxa6 { -152.65/33 } 53...Nc6 { 152.65/37 } 54.Bb7 { -319.54/37 } ( 54.Bd3 { -152.65/31 } ) 54...Nxa5 { 319.77/45 } 55.Bd5 { -319.79/50 } 55...h5 { 319.79/48 } 56.Bf7 { -319.81/62 } 56...h4 { 56.94/29 } 57.Bd5 { -319.55/29 } 0-1

Now, I can understand why Magnus did this. Hans showed some accurate plays prior to this game, but this game is on top.

In that famous Carlsen vs Niemann game, ENDGAME started from move 14 onwards (so early) and it continued till the end of the game (move 57)

I am reminded of the interview from GM Jacob Aagaard (about Hans Niemann):

Our training session was a week. It was meant to be a camp, but no one else could make it. Hans was difficult to train. I tried to do calculation and endgame training with him (he had requested endgame training). At first, I showed exercises from recent games (last 18 months) that I really liked. He knew them ALL. I was astonished by his memory. I was astonished by his intuition. Both were off the charts for what I have seen training Shankland, Gelfand, and other 2600+ and a few 2700s.

There were obvious big holes in his chess, but to be honest, I see big holes in the game of Giri, Aronian, Mamedyarov, Firouzja, and other top players. When I get a 2650 student, I usually try to find out what part of their game is at a much lower level. There is always some area of chess where they are just blank. Maybe they cannot really visualise. They don’t know how to make simple decisions. They cannot calculate a line till the end. All three examples of real 2650 players I have worked with.

Hans’s confidence in his own intuition and his surprise when it was wrong was a recurring theme of the week he was here. Another was that whenever I came to his room, he was looking at chess. Playing through ALL games from all tournaments on Follow chess.

I have seen nothing out of the ordinary in the last two days. Hans playing reasonably well against opponents that are not playing that well. His big confidence. His awkwardness in front of the camera. His highly intuitive way of thinking. His lack of accuracy in variations. Him blundering when suggesting things, he thinks he might have looked at.

I also did not see anything out of the ordinary from Carlsen. Entitlement. Lack of responsibility. Lack of accountability. A Norwegian troll army ready to defame a man who only 400 days ago was a minor. Carlsen has acted badly in many situations after losing in the past. In that way, he reminds me of Federer, who was a badly behaved teenager. Become the best player in the world and behaved excellently. Then started losing to Djokovic and needed a period to adjust to reality.

People say that Carlsen does not behave badly when he is losing in his Meltwater Tour to Praggnanandhaa. It is partly because it is like Federer losing a set. It is partly because Praggnanandhaa is deferential to Magnus. Hans is not. Hans wants to kill the king. Wants to take the throne. He has no remorse over this at all.

Endgame may be his forte, and that could be the reason he was playing so accurately in that game with Carlsen, with Queens off the board as early as move 13!

I think that it is funny how Aagard mentions that Hans was surprised when he found that his intuition was wrong. I mean intuition can be extremely useful in bullet and even blitz ... but in classical, if you play by intuition and don't calculate to make sure the move you chose is correct ... then it will be a disaster. In Hans post game analysis you can see that in action ... his intuition is many times totally wrong and positions he thought were winning are totally lost. Somehow his great "intuition" doesn't go wrong in the game itself. It could be just a stroke of good luck that his intuition during a game is always correct without calculation ... but I doubt it. HIs calculation of positions in post game analysis and his recollection of main plans and critical points in the game is incredibly suspect. That is why he always says "I let the chess speak for itself" and is now refusing to analyze anything post game. That is INCREDIBLY suspect to me and of course we can make excuses for that ... but I have never seen any chess player not be able to coherently go through his thoughts in a classical game where several hours were spent playing the game. I mean yesterday in the US championships, even the little girl who is only an FM and still in high school and rated around 2100 ELO ... was able to go move by move in her thought process of critical points of the game and what variations she saw and what variations she avoided. This is normal for any chess player ... but for some reason Hans can't do that properly? Just very strange!

1)Nobody claims that hans intuition is always correct without calculation.
It is clear that hans use his time in long time control games.

2)Chess players do not memorize all their thoughts during a chess game.

If a player cannot give a good explanation in post game analysis for his moves then maybe the explanation is not in his short term memory
It does not mean that he forgot but only that maybe he needs time to reconstruct his memory.

I remember reading about a case when some GM explained his mistake in a game by the fact that he replaced the order of moves when of course he calculated earlier correctly(it was before the time that compuers were strong and I do not believe he was cheating).

If a player may have mistakes because of wrong memory even in a game that they play then they certainly can have mistakes in post game analysis when it is less important for them not to be wrong and it is hours after thinking about the relevant position and not minutes after thinking about it.

[M ANSARI]

Yes you could be right and there could be an psychological explanation for Hans not being able to have good analaysis of the game he just played ... but it is highly unusual as I have never seen another GM suffer the same thing. Good chess players usually tend to have very good memory. Even players in the 2000 ELO bracket, after playing a long time control game ... can walk you through the game and give the variations they were looking at critical moments of the game. I think Hans knows that he has very poor analysis post game and that is why he does the "Chess speaks for itself" thing. This way he can avoid the issue.

[swami]

Blame it on his poor presentation skills, fear of public speaking, social skills, eccentric behaviour but these in no way indicate cheating in the game.

It appears that he has a tendency to exchange pieces quickly and arrive at the late middle game/early engame, with few pieces on the board, that's when he tries to outplay his opponent with superior endgame skills. Intuition certainly works more often in that phase of the game.

[CornfedForever]

Yes you could be right and there could be an psychological explanation for Hans not being able to have good analaysis of the game he just played ... but it is highly unusual as I have never seen another GM suffer the same thing.

Perhaps you would do well to read my post about The Grandmasters Mind in the other thread today...

[Ferdy]

Run some more game analysis between players in the rating range [2640, 2900] around top 100 players from FIDE rating list, on events with long TC. So far I got this table ranked by t1% engine match when the position is not yet winning/losing. The players under the name column won the game, with zero blunders (b), zero mistakes (m), zero dubious (d), and zero "equal moves from better position (e)". The counting starts at move 12.

There are two 100% t1% but the number of positions is lower. id 16 has pos 11 (position is not yet winning/lossing) [-299, 299] cp. But there are 45 positions that were already winning [300, 32000] cp. Out of 45 winning positions, anton failed to maintain on 1 position (2.2%), it happened at move 24.



[pgn]
[Event "FIDE Grand Swiss 2021"]
[Site "Riga LAT"]
[Date "2021.11.04"]
[Round "8.8"]
[White "Fedoseev, Vladimir3"]
[Black "Anton Guijarro, David"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2658"]
[BlackFideId "2285525"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[ECO "C84"]
[EventDate "2021.10.27"]
[Opening "Ruy Lopez"]
[Variation "closed defence"]
[WhiteElo "2704"]
[WhiteFideId "24130737"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.d3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a3 Na5 9.Ba2 c5 10.Nc3 Be6 11.Nh4 c4 12.Nf5 Bxf5 { -0.12/28 } 13.exf5 d5 { -0.16/29 } 14.Bg5 O-O { -0.20/29 } 15.Qf3 e4 { 0.13/30 } 16.dxe4 dxe4 { 0.19/29 } 17.Qh3 Re8 { 0.43/29 } 18.Rad1 Qc7 { 0.37/31 } 19.a4 Qc6 { 1.40/27 } 20.axb5 axb5 { 1.84/29 } 21.Bb1 Nb7 { 1.87/28 } 22.Ne2 Nc5 { 2.30/27 } 23.Rd4 h6 { 3.35/26 } 24.Be3 Nd5 $5 { 2.66/31 } ( 24...Na4 { 3.29/26 } ) 25.Rfd1 Rad8 { 4.15/26 } 26.Nf4 Nxe3 { 4.24/28 } ( 26...Nxf4 { 6.00/28 } ) 27.Qxe3 Rxd4 { 4.53/27 } 28.Rxd4 Bg5 { 3.42/27 } ( 28...Bf6 { 5.15/27 } ) 29.g3 Nd3 { 3.35/27 } 30.cxd3 exd3 { 6.63/29 } 31.Qc1 Qb6 { 5.82/27 } ( 31...Bxf4 { 7.25/28 } ) 32.Rd5 Bxf4 { 4.12/28 } ( 32...Qb7 { 6.51/29 } ) 33.gxf4 Re2 { 4.66/29 } 34.Qf1 Rxb2 { 5.00/28 } ( 34...Qa5 { 5.04/28 } ) 35.Bxd3 cxd3 { 5.20/29 } 36.Rxd3 Rc2 { 5.48/28 } 37.h3 Rc5 { 3.56/33 } ( 37...b4 { 7.04/28 } ) 38.Qd1 Rxf5 { 5.30/29 } 39.Rd6 Qc7 { 5.59/31 } 40.Qd2 Qc4 { 5.26/32 } ( 40...Kh7 { 5.72/32 } ) 41.Rd4 Qc6 { 5.21/31 } ( 41...Qb3 { 5.61/31 } ) 42.Qd3 Qg6+ { 5.43/29 } 43.Kh1 Kh7 { 5.75/31 } 44.Kh2 Rc5 { 6.09/32 } 45.Qxg6+ Kxg6 { 7.20/33 } 46.Rd7 Kf6 { 8.12/29 } 47.Rb7 Rf5 { 8.51/30 } 48.Kg3 Ke6 { 8.87/31 } 49.Kg4 g6 { 8.73/32 } ( 49...h5+ { 8.95/32 } ) 50.h4 h5+ { 9.13/31 } 51.Kf3 Kd6 { 9.26/32 } 52.Ke3 Kc5 { 9.54/31 } 53.Re7 Kc4 { 10.03/29 } 54.Re4+ Kc3 { 10.38/28 } 55.Ke2 b4 { 10.56/28 } 56.Kd1 Rd5+ { 11.31/29 } ( 56...Rf6 { 10.74/28 } ) 57.Kc1 b3 { 11.87/27 } 58.Re1 Rd2 { 11.89/27 } ( 58...Rd4 { 11.97/27 } ) 59.f5 gxf5 { 13.13/27 } ( 59...b2+ { 13.25/28 } ) 60.f4 Rf2 { 12.82/27 } ( 60...Rd3 { 13.31/28 } ) 61.Re3+ Kc4 { 14.53/25 } ( 61...Kb4 { 15.11/25 } ) 62.Re7 Rxf4 { 16.80/24 } 63.Rxf7 Rf1+ { 19.78/24 } 64.Kb2 Rf2+ { 19.93/25 } 65.Kb1 f4 { 22.43/22 } 66.Rc7+ Kd3 { 23.03/23 } ( 66...Kd4 { 23.12/24 } ) 67.Rb7 b2 { 24.28/24 } ( 67...Rh2 { 24.30/22 } ) 0-1
[/pgn]

The 2nd 100% is played between sargissian and mamedyarov. Sargissian won this game.

[pgn]
[Event "44th Olympiad 2022"]
[Site "Chennai IND"]
[Date "2022.08.08"]
[Round "10.2"]
[White "Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar"]
[Black "Sargissian, Gabriel"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2698"]
[BlackFideId "13300881"]
[BlackTeam "Armenia"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[Board "1"]
[ECO "D37"]
[EventDate "2022.07.29"]
[Opening "QGD"]
[Variation "classical variation (5.Bf4)"]
[WhiteElo "2759"]
[WhiteFideId "13401319"]
[WhiteTeam "Azerbaijan"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 O-O 6.e3 Nbd7 7.c5 c6 8.b4 b6 9.h4 a5 10.a3 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Rxa6 12.b5 cxb5 { -0.52/28 } 13.c6 Qc8 { -0.51/30 } 14.c7 b4 { -0.43/30 } 15.Nb5 a4 { -0.19/28 } 16.Qc2 b3 { 2.65/28 } 17.Qe2 Ra8 $5 { 1.65/29 } ( 17...Qa8 { 3.01/27 } ) 18.Rc1 Qa6 { 1.55/27 } 19.Nd6 b5 { 4.58/26 } 20.Nxb5 Rfc8 { 4.81/26 } 21.Nd2 Qb6 { 4.42/26 } 22.Nb1 Ra5 { 4.69/26 } ( 22...Ne4 { 4.83/26 } ) 23.N5c3 Bd6 { 4.73/28 } ( 23...h5 { 4.90/28 } ) 24.Bxd6 Qxd6 { 5.06/30 } 25.O-O Qxc7 { 4.78/28 } ( 25...h5 { 5.00/28 } ) 26.Na2 Qb7 { 5.05/28 } 27.Rxc8+ Qxc8 $7 { 4.81/28 } 28.Rc1 Qb7 { 5.05/28 } 29.Nb4 Ra8 { 5.20/27 } ( 29...Ne4 { 5.28/27 } ) 30.f3 Rc8 { 4.91/26 } ( 30...h6 { 5.50/27 } ) 31.Rc3 h5 { 4.15/38 } ( 31...Rxc3 { 5.18/28 } ) 32.Kf2 Rc7 $5 { 2.76/33 } ( 32...Ne8 { 4.54/29 } ) 33.Qa6 Qxa6 { 3.01/32 } ( 33...Nb6 { 3.21/32 } ) 34.Nxa6 Rb7 $5 { 2.67/28 } ( 34...Rxc3 { 3.12/29 } ) 35.Rc6 Ne8 { 3.19/29 } 36.Ke2 Kf8 { 3.75/31 } 37.e4 Rb6 { 3.88/30 } 38.Rxb6 Nxb6 $7 { 4.21/26 } 39.e5 Ke7 { 4.22/33 } ( 39...g5 { 4.64/30 } ) 40.Kd3 Kd8 { 3.84/34 } ( 40...Nc4 { 4.39/31 } ) 41.Nc5 Nc7 { 4.27/32 } 42.Nc3 Nc4 { 4.22/34 } 43.g4 g6 $5 { 2.73/32 } ( 43...b2 { 4.77/32 } ) 44.gxh5 gxh5 { 3.46/33 } 45.f4 Ke7 { 3.43/32 } ( 45...Nb2+ { 4.07/33 } ) 46.N3xa4 b2 { 6.66/37 } 47.Kc2 Nb5 { 7.27/31 } 48.Nxb2 Nbxa3+ { 7.67/33 } 49.Kb3 Nxb2 { 7.91/34 } 50.Kxb2 Nc4+ { 7.70/26 } 51.Kc3 Ne3 { 8.37/34 } 52.f5 Nxf5 { 9.78/30 } 53.Nd3 Kf8 { 4.04/30 } ( 53...f6 { 10.94/30 } ) 54.Nf4 Ng3 { 6.14/36 } 55.Kd3 Kg7 { 7.01/34 } 56.Ke3 Kh6 { 8.07/33 } 57.Kd3 Nf5 { 7.99/30 } ( 57...Kg7 { 8.45/31 } ) 58.Ng2 Ne7 { 8.64/35 } ( 58...Kg6 { 8.65/35 } ) 59.Ke3 Ng6 { 8.74/32 } ( 59...Nf5+ { 9.01/32 } ) 60.Kf3 Kg7 { 9.39/31 } ( 60...Ne7 { 9.40/31 } ) 61.Ke3 f6 { 10.37/31 } 62.exf6+ Kxf6 { 11.57/32 } 63.Kf2 e5 { 11.59/32 } ( 63...Kf5 { 11.66/32 } ) 64.Ke3 Kf5 { 13.18/34 } 65.Ne1 e4 { 13.18/31 } 66.Ng2 Kg4 { 15.84/33 } 67.Kf2 Nf4 { 15.82/29 } ( 67...Kh3 { 18.62/30 } ) 0-1
[/pgn]

The table is sorted by t1% and wt1%.



Most cheaters playing online in lichess and chesscom at lower rating that I have observed have zero blunder, zero mistakes, zero dubious, zero equal from better, high t1% and wt1% and a low or zero wfail% (meaning they can maintain winning positions).

Will update the data in the api later.

[CornfedForever]

Most cheaters playing online in lichess and chesscom at lower rating that I have observed have zero blunder, zero mistakes, zero dubious, zero equal from better, high t1% and wt1% and a low or zero wfail% (meaning they can maintain winning positions).

Will update the data in the api later.

Thanks for all the work. But...could you break it down into words, I mean, what does the data tell you, at the moment anyway?

[Ferdy]

Most cheaters playing online in lichess and chesscom at lower rating that I have observed have zero blunder, zero mistakes, zero dubious, zero equal from better, high t1% and wt1% and a low or zero wfail% (meaning they can maintain winning positions).

Will update the data in the api later.

Thanks for all the work. But...could you break it down into words, I mean, what does the data tell you, at the moment anyway?

At long TC, top players (if given a chance by the opponent playing suboptimal moves) are capable of playing moves that almost match or match all the Stockfish 15 recommendations. No blunders, no mistakes, no dubious moves not even an equal move from a better position. The t1% reaches 100 (the position is not yet winning/losing or [-299, +299] cp). When the position is already winning or [300, 32000], most players have a lower wt1% compared to the t1%. wt1% is the percentage of player moves that matches the engine's top 1 move when the position is already winning. This is lower compared to t1% because these players don't need a top move if there are alternative moves that are also winning or even just a clearly better position. In the case of id 34, the wt1% is 100, which can happen because there are only 3 winning positions as indicated by wpos. Naturally their merr or mean error (engine_top1_move_score - player_move_score) is low because they have a high t1% and have no b, no m, no d, and no e.

Blunder move counts are indicated by b with categories 1 to 7. If there is b1 that means the player played a move that brings a winning position to losing, like from 500 to [-32000, -300]. The b7 blunder is from [-299, -199] to [-32000, -300], which means the player blundered from a bad position. The m, d, and e are similar, they also have categories to easier interpret the evaluation ranges of the player move against the evaluation of the engine move. Mistakes are those moves that bring the position to a bad position [-100, -299], Dubious [-50, -99], equal [-49, +49]. They have categories too depending on the best value of the position according to the engine.

In the case between magnus and hans (highlighted in yellow), there is a high number of pos which is 30. pos is the number of positions that are not yet winning/losing. That means there is a long battle in this game when the position is not yet winning for one side, hans got 83.3% match from the top 1 move of Stockfish 15. Opening moves from 1 to 11 are not included. When the position is already winning according to the engine [300, 32000], hans got 66.7% top 1 move match from the engine. In 6.7% or 1 of 15 wpos as in indicated by wfail%, hans failed to maintain a winning position. I will show later how magnus performs on this game.

I am still analyzing some games on long TC from late 2021 and some games from 2022 from these top players so we can see a clearer picture of how these players can hold an advantageous position and convert it to a win.

The table above is the result of filtering the data where t1% is 80 and above; zero b, zero m, zero d, and zero e; and the point is 1, meaning the players under the name column won the game. There are other features in the column that I have not shown. However, what is in the current table are features that are easier to understand and matter most to how the player moves when compared to the top 1 engine move.

[CornfedForever]

[quote=Ferdy post_id=935880 time=1665541765 user_id=4054]


Thanks for fleshing that out for me!

I was curious how that worked because I sent a friend of mine a worksheet for him to better target his weakenesses in games - largely using engine evaluations ...because, afterall, it is mistakes which decide games, not 'great moves'. I got the idea of the spreadsheet from Alex Smiths: Pump Up Your Rating and an old book by Soltis called Catalog of Chess Mistakes. Of course, eval and certain programs he uses on chess.com and lichess....even aimchess, don't take into account many positional thoughts like...playing on the wrong side of the board and they treat time pressure mistakes/blunders as 'move issues', not for what they really are which skews things.

[Ferdy]

Position analysis from the player under the name column can be found in the api at https://yzfg9p.deta.dev/docs.

There is an endpoint at https://yzfg9p.deta.dev/position

You can query with epd/fen.

Code: Select all

https://yzfg9p.deta.dev/position?epd=2r3k1/pp3p2/4bp1p/n3p3/8/P1P3P1/3NPPBP/3RK3 w - - 8 21

Typical output:

Code: Select all

[{"epd":"2r3k1/pp3p2/4bp1p/n3p3/8/P1P3P1/3NPPBP/3RK3 w - -","move":"d2e4","score":-21,"depth":32,"engine":"Stockfish 15"},{"epd":"2r3k1/pp3p2/4bp1p/n3p3/8/P1P3P1/3NPPBP/3RK3 w - -","move":"c3c4","score":-45,"depth":31,"engine":"Stockfish 15"},{"epd":"2r3k1/pp3p2/4bp1p/n3p3/8/P1P3P1/3NPPBP/3RK3 w - -","move":"d1c1","score":-60,"depth":31,"engine":"Stockfish 15"}]

Or epd/fen with move.

Code: Select all

https://yzfg9p.deta.dev/position?epd=2r3k1/pp3p2/4bp1p/n3p3/8/P1P3P1/3NPPBP/3RK3 w - - 8 21&move=c3c4

Position analysis records are updated in the api with the games under pgn folder from players that won the game when both players have a rating of 2640 and above.