but that isn't my intention.
I try to simulate actual GM-Praxis ...
Have a look here (GM-Theory)
Code: Select all
Games : 135430 (finished)
White Wins : 47252 (34.9 %)
Black Wins : 29841 (22.0 %)
Draws : 58337 (43.1 %)
Unfinished : 0
White Perf. : 56.4 %
Black Perf. : 43.6 %
ECO A = 18877 Games (13.9 %)
ECO B = 36313 Games (26.8 %)
ECO C = 23767 Games (17.5 %)
ECO D = 30737 Games (22.7 %)
ECO E = 25736 Games (19.0 %)
Only a small problem with ECO C and D.
But I like it to have more 1. e4 games ...
Code: Select all
Latest 2.500 games
ECO A = 330 Games (13.2 %) - 0.7, OK
ECO B = 641 Games (25.6 %) - 1.2, OK
ECO C = 573 Games (22.9 %) + 5.4, OK will have more C
ECO D = 452 Games (18.1 %) - 4.6, OK will have lesser D
ECO E = 504 Games (20.2 %) + 1.2, OK Furthermore, all ECO codes should be play.
You can find in each critical ECO code good lines, balanced for both sites. Such lines for E99, or C30-C39 other openings (examples). But all this you know better I think.
All works fine here ...
Won, draw, lost statistic is absolutly right ... have a look in GM-Theory based on 135.000 TOP GM games.
Again ...
I try to simulate, yes ...
But the complete book is optimated with FCT1 and SWCR1 / SWCR2 engine games. Basic comes from GM-games, all the corections from eng-eng games ... new games I added only from my eng-eng tourneys. That works wonderful ...
Once problem I have is an older collected database from GM games. Without to check the lines I added the database in my book. Today I have the problem that I have to fish the bad lines. In this case each FCT1 games are checked and from time to time I deleted the bad lines, find by FCT1 engines.
But I can life with it because I find interesting things if I checked all again and again, again and again and again.
Best
Frank