chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

nimh
Member since Sep-23-06 · Last seen Jul-25-17
Chess is a combination of the science of making accurate moves, and the art of making the opponent to make inaccurate moves.

The five most remarkable players in chess history:

1. Paul Morphy
2. Emanuel Lasker
3. Jose Raul Capablanca
4. Robert James Fischer
5. Garry Kasparov
________________________________________________-
___

My homepage, dedicated to analyzing the level of chess play of various chessplayers:

http://www.chessanalysis.ee/chessan...

I'm currently doing an analysis study, where I compare roughly 2650-rated players according to chessmetrics elo rating throughout the history of chess. The aim is to find which level of play corresponds to a certain rating in different decades.

The latest version is available here:
http://www.chessanalysis.ee/Quality...

The methods are as follows:

I analyze games between 2600-2700-rated players. Moves by both sides are subject of the analysis. Results are displayed by decades from 1860s till 2000s. Plus, I also analyze games by 2000-2700-rated players after each 100 points from 2008 for comparisons.

The games are randomly chosen from the decades.

The start point of the analysis of every game depends on a period: 1860s-70s 8-th move, 1880s-90s 9-th, 1900s-10s 10-th, 1920s-30s 11-th, 1940s-50s 12th, 1960s-70s 13th, 1980s-90s 14th and 2000s 15th move.

The minimal length of a game is 20 moves + the start point; depending on a period it may vary from 28 to 35.

The maximum length of games is unlimited. Positions with fewer than 10 pieces are not taken into account, except blunders.

Rybka 3 Default with default settings is used for the purpose of the analysis. The time per position was 5 minutes on an older computer. Now it's 65 seconds per move.

Moves outside [-2; 2] interval are discarded.

The maximum value for an error is 4.00.

A separate engine is used to calculate the complexity of positions, Stockfish 14. The complexity of a position is determined from depths 2 to 15 and by adding differences between the eval of the best and the second best moves each time Stockfish 14 finds a new move. Differences found on the depths 10-15 are multiplied by 2.

Distribution graphs:

http://www.chessanalysis.ee/distrib...

Contains new positions that have not been included in the study yet.

________________________________________________-
___

The accuracy of famous chess players according to Blunder Check: (and the number of analysed games)

Paul Morphy 10.0% (31)
Adolf Anderssen 10.7% (10)
Louis Charles Mahe De La Bourdonnais 12.3% (18)
Alexander McDonnell 14.4% (20)
Francois Andre Philidor 21.0% (7)

>> Click here to see nimh's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   nimh has kibitzed 1783 times to chessgames   [more...]
   May-28-17 Hans-Joachim Federer (replies)
 
nimh: Keres was a very good amateur tennis player. In fact, he has got 3 third places at the Soviet Estonian tennis doubles championsips in 1945-48.
 
   Feb-19-17 Hillar Karner (replies)
 
nimh: Unfortunately he died today at the age of 81. RIP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilla...
 
   Jan-18-17 Kasparov vs Constellation, 1985
 
nimh: It's interesting that none of strongest engines at my disposal have the bishop sac among the 4 best moves at lowest available depth. Even the weakest engine on CCRL 40/40 list - Ziggurat 0.22 - never considers it. Looks like it was an evaluation issue; a very faulty one. By contrast, ...
 
   Dec-25-16 nimh chessforum
 
nimh: Thanks to both of you!
 
   Dec-18-16 Jeremy Lim (replies)
 
nimh: I think too, that the influence of European players and playing philosophy is likely the main reason, along with the adoption of zone defence, why 3p shooting has gone up. However, it doesn't fully explain ecverything. Something must have happened around 2012. Or perhaps I'm just ...
 
   Nov-08-16 Magnus Carlsen (replies)
 
nimh: <Sally> I have no objections to the noition 'trap'. Perhaps it's easier for you and others to understand than using such terms as 'difficulty of positions of 'increased levle of difficulty'. Except that it's too narrow. There are other things too, such as creating threats, ...
 
   Nov-05-16 Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016) (replies)
 
nimh: <Depending on who did the analysis (Regan!)> Doesn't surprise me, considering the methods he employs.
 
   Oct-09-16 Emanuel Lasker (replies)
 
nimh: A popular misconception is that Einstein was the inventor of the theory of relativity. But this is not correct at all. The concept of relativity originates from Lasker who has shown that what we call correct play is relative to the opponent.
 
   Sep-20-16 M Bluebaum vs T Seeman, 2016
 
nimh: So, at the age of 47 and never having been rated higher than 2440, the Estonian IM finally reaches the pinnacle of his chess career - he gets to decide whether it's USA or Ukraine who wins the gold! :) Hopefully he enjoyed his 15 minutes, figuratively speaking. But it's still quite ...
 
   Jun-11-16 Grand Chess Tour Paris Rapid (2016) (replies)
 
nimh: <That's because the k-factor used in rapid/blitz rating calculations is double than the one used for classical (20 instead of 10), so a single event can lead to huge gains or losses;> It is wrong to use a bigger K-factor where results are less significant, such as rapid or blitz.
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

The laboratory of chess analysis

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-02-14  SugarDom: For the highest and lowest evaluations, you are using the 5 best moves?
Jun-04-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: <my cheap HP laptop and only using free engines.>

You don't want to be more specific?

I had i7 860 @ 2.8 GHz, 65 seconds per move with Rybka 3. It would be preferable to have such a combination of engine, hardware and time per move that's superior to mine. As for free engines, stay away from Stockfish. It's undoubtedly the best free engine available by far, but it's not good for analysis, because its evals are relatively unstable.

How about purchasing Komodo 7 or Komodo TCEC? You may have slightly weaker hardware than me and devote somewhat less time per move for analysis, but the superiority of various more recent Komodo versions over Rybka 3 compensate enough.

<I'm gonna study what you wrote up there. It looks complicated.>

Life is complicated, as are the circumstances that determine the accuracy of play.

<It would be nice if somebody can create a program and then the program will calculate everything by just inputting the PGN.>

That's what I also wish. A lot of utterly tedious handwork would be made non-existent.

<For the highest and lowest evaluations, you are using the 5 best moves?>

The more PV-s you have, the shallower the search will be. Obviously, there's no such thing as 'the correct number of PV-s'. It's upon you to decide how many PV-s you need. In case the move made by a player is outside PV-s, you simply let the engine run after the move actually played until depth n-1, and subtract the evaluation from best evaluation from position before the move.

I have an interesting proposal to you. Would you like to carry out a comparative analysis of Fischer's games 1970-1972 and Karpov's games in Candidates' matches? You would not need to worry about time controls and practical play, since being in the same decade the time controls should be quite similar, and both Fischer and karpov were objective players.

Jun-05-14  SugarDom: <I have an interesting proposal to you. Would you like to carry out a comparative analysis of Fischer's games 1970-1972 and Karpov's games in Candidates' matches? You would not need to worry about time controls and practical play, since being in the same decade the time controls should be quite similar, and both Fischer and karpov were objective players.> How many games are we talking here?
Jun-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: 85 games.

Fischer - Taimanov: 6
Fischer - Larsen: 6
Fischer - Petrosian: 9
Fischer - Spassky: 21

Karpov - Polugaevsky: 8
Karpov - Spassky: 11
Karpov - Korchnoi: 24

Jun-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: Did that scare you away, <dom>? :)

Of course, if you feel intimidated, you don't have to do all games. Randomly selecting games until you reach 500-1000 positions for both eligible for analysis should be statistically enough.

Nov-12-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: Five years ago I posted this on my forum, announcing the start of another analysis Project:

<I have started a new analysis study, where I compare roughly 2650-rated players according to chessmetrics elo rating throughout the history of chess. The aim is to find which level of play corresponds to a certain rating in different decades. The methods are as follows:

I analyze games between 2600-2700-rated players. Moves by both sides are subject of the analysis. Results are displayed by decades from 1860s till 2000s. Plus, I also analyze games by 2200, 2400 and 2600-rated players from 2008-09 for comparisons.

The games are randomly chosen from the decades.

The start point of the analysis of every game depends on a period: 1860s-70s 8-th move, 1880s-90s 9-th, 1900s-10s 10-th, 1920s-30s 11-th, 1940s-50s 12th, 1960s-70s 13th, 1980s-90s 14th and 2000s 15th move.

The minimal length of a game is 20 moves + the start point; depending on a period it may vary from 28 to 35.

Rybka 3 Default with default settings is used for the purpose of the analysis. The time per position is 5 minutes.

Moves outside [-2; 2] interval are discarded.

All blunders valued more than 2.00 are considered as 2.00.

A separate engine is used to calculate the complexity of positions, Stockfish 14. The complexity of a position is determined from depths 2 to 15 and by adding differences between the eval of the best and the second best moves each time Stockfish 14 finds a new move. Differences found on the depths 10-15 are multiplied by 2.>

In 2010 I completed and uploaded the first part:
http://www.chessanalysis.ee/a%20stu...

Now I can proudly say that the long work finally is over and the final versioon of the study has been completed!

http://www.chessanalysis.ee/Quality...

It is divided into five sections.
Section 1 introduces the subject and offers some theoretical background. Section 2 describes the methodology in greater detail. Section 3 provides detailed results of this study. Section 4 provides several miscellaneous conclusions. Section 5 concludes the whole work and gives some ideas for future.

The main conclusions the study provides are as follows:

1) In the middle of 19th century players were around 2200-2300 strength, by the end of the century they were already playing as good as modern 2500-rated players. 2600-level was first reached at the first decades of the 20th century, 2700-level in 1940s. Lasker may have been the first player to be comparable to modern GM strength.

2) Carlsen's TPR 3001 at Nanjing 2009 appears to be overrated due to his game with white pieces against Wang Yue being unusually inaccurate. But he played better than Fischer against Larsen and Taimanov in 1971, or Kasparov at Linares 1999.

3) There is no simple relationship between rating systems of humans and engines.

4) Since 1970, FIDE rating has inflated by 5 points per decade with respect to absoluute strength of play, whereas Chessmetrics rating has deflated by 38 points per decade.

5) Higher rated players have a relatively bigger importance of intuition and knowledge, on the other hand, stronger engines rely on search function more than evaluation function.

6) The biggest source of inaccuracies are errors around 0.20, not blunders.

Nov-12-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <2700-level in 1940s.>

Is this the run of the mill GM types, or do you mean to include the 1930's Alekhine and Capa and Keres and Botvinnik, etc, as below 2700?

Nov-12-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: According to the data, yes. However, I believe Alekhine's quality of play in San Remo and Bled was good enough to be worthy of 2700+ TPR today.
Nov-12-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Okay, just absorbing, not agreeing, not disagreeing, does a Lasker steadily improve his ELO level thorough his long career? Does a Keres or Botvinnik who sort of crossed that 40's decade threshold while fairly young increase their ELO level through the 40's and 50's?
Nov-13-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: Lasker in 1920 obviously was much stronger than in 1890s.

Botvinniks seems to have hit the peak in 1946 after which a modest but steady decline kicks in.

Keres' peak of strength appears to be in lšte 1950s-early 1960s.

Nov-21-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: I have now started a new analysis project with improved methodology. The primary goal is to determine the relationship between FIDE and CCRL rating systems as of 2014.

There will be two groups of games.

FIDE games are represented by 8 cohorts than contain randomly picked games. Both players of each game within specified ranges are analyzed. Below are rating ranges of games in each cohort:

2825-2775; 2675-2625; 2525-2475; 2375-2325; 2225-2175; 2075-2025; 1925-1875; 1775-1725. The average ratings of cohorts are separated by 150 points.

CCRL rating system is represented by randomly picked games by the following engines from november 15 2014 40/40 list:

Houdini 1.5a 64-bit 4CPU (3200)
Stockfish 1.5.1 32-bit 2CPU (2908)
Bison 9.6 (2618)
Alex 2.12a (2327)
BikJump 1.8 32-bit (2037)
Ziggurat 0.22 64-bit (1745)

The start point of analysis for human games depends on the average rating of a cohort:

2800-2650 15
2500-2350 14
2200-2050 13
1900-1750 12

The analyis of all engine games starts at the 12th move, as the book used in the CCRL games is up to 12 moves.

The engine is Komodo 8 on the Arena 3.5 GUI with 2 minutes per move; the CPU is AMD FX 9590.

Only positions where both the move made by a player and a move suggested by the engine fall within the [2.00 ; -2.00] evaluation range are counted in.

The maximum cap for errors is 4.00.

The minimum length of games is start point + 10 moves. This is to avoid wasting time, because each game data must have separate sheet in the spreadsheet and most engine runs aredone overnight.

Three different factors of difficulty of positions are used.

1) evaluation stability. It's the difference between the lowest and the highest evaluation the engine assign to the best move at a certain depth. If at d7 the eval is 0.20, and at d15 it is 0.45, then the evaluation stability value is 0.45 - 0.20 = 0.25. Larger values represent less stable and therefore more complex positions.

2) difference between 2 best moves. It indicates how important it is to play the best move.

3) the number of equal moves. Sometimes there are no moves that clearly stand out among others, and more importan becomes the number of more-or-less equal choices a position can offer. A move is considered equal when it is within 0.30 range from the best move.

The evaluation of the best move at the final depth is also included, but, strictly spoken, it is not a factor of difficulty, as it is independent of player's nature on the calculative-intuitive scale.

The minimum number of valid moves for each entity is 400.

Nov-27-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: Interesting, I just learned that the CCRL list actually has determined a rating of a random mover called BrutusRND; 209 rating points.

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccr...

This seems to be another indicator that it is impossible to get a nnegative rating on engine rating lists, and that the accuracy of play decreases exponentially.

Dec-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  wordfunph: <nimh> Merry Christmas and Happy 2015!
Dec-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: Thanks and Merry Christmas to you too!
Jan-09-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: ** Tata Steel Moves Prediction Contest **

Conducted by the Legendary <chessmoron> and hosted at Graceland, home of Elvis. Click on Elvis for details.

Jan-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: I have now finished analyzing Ziggurat 0.22, rated 1746 - the weakest on the CCRL 40/40 list - and FIDE 1725-1775-rated (avg 1750) humans with Komodo 8.

The average errors are as follows:
centipawns: Ziggurat 0.22 - 0.256; FIDE 1750 - 0.299; expected scores: Ziggurat 0.22 - 6.08%; FIDE 1750 - 6.00%.

They have a quite similar raw accuracy of moves, but the engine had more difficult positions, confirming that at the 1700-level CCRL has higher quality of play, although the gap appears to be a lot smaller than what my previous analysis had showed.

This paper demonstrates how the average errors rise due to the increasing difficulty according the three different difficuly factors and absolute evaluation.

http://www.chessanalysis.ee/ziggura...

As expected, the engine's play is relatively less affected by the difficulty of posiitons. It's also noteworthy how expected scores are virtually immune to the evaluation of the best move.

Using expectes scores instead of centipawns was suggested to me in the talkchess forum. The biggest advantage of it is the fact that it bebomes unnecessary to use artifical cut-offs. The difference between going from a positions evaluated 1.50 to 3.56 and from 1.50 to 21.87 becomes quite insignificant using expectes scores.

The formula for comverting cps to exp scores is

<p=cp=p/100
a=1.1 normalization factor

ExpectedScore = 1 + (Exp[p/a] - Exp[-p/a])/(Exp[p/a] + Exp[-p/a])/2 >

And here is a list of sample cp values converted into exp scores:

-3.00 - 0.67%
-2.50 - 1.53%
-2.00 - 3.44%
-1.50 - 7.59%
-1.00 - 15.89%
-0.50 - 30.29%
0.00 - 50.00%
0.50 - 69.71%
1.00 - 84.11%
1.5 - 92.41%
2.00 - 96.56%
2.50 - 98.47%
3.00 - 99.33%

Apr-14-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  WinKing: Hi <nimh>. <lostemperor> will hold his prediction contest for the Gashimov Memorial if enough members sign up. Just wanted to let you know. :)
Apr-17-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: ** Last Call **

** Gashimov Memorial Moves Prediction Contest **

Conducted by the Legendary <chessmoron> and hosted at Graceland, home of Elvis. Click on Elvis for details

Jun-14-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  WinKing: Coming up the 3rd Norway Chess 2015 Tournament - http://2015.norwaychess.com/superto...

The tournament runs from June 15th-26th, 2015.

< Prediction Contests: (Win virtual medals - Gold, Silver & Bronze) >

User: YouRang - Predict the result 1-0, 1/2, or 0-1 (3 categories to medal in)

lostemperor chessforum - Predict the order the players will finish. (3 categories to medal in)

User: OhioChessFan - Predict the result 1-0, 1/2, or 0-1 & the number of moves for each game. (4 categories to medal in)

As of this posting I know <lostemperor>'s & <chessmoron>'s contests will be active. I have not heard from <YouRang> yet so I am not sure about his contest.

*****

Also don't forget about <chessgames> ChessBookie game for this event. He can't wait to take some or all of your chessbucks. ;)

ChessBookie Introduction

Don't miss out on the fun for this Super Tournament!

Nov-30-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  WinKing: The 7th London Chess Classic 2015 Tournament starts Friday December 4th - http://www.londonchessclassic.com/

The tournament runs from December 4th thru December 13th, 2015.

< Prediction Contests: (Win virtual medals - Gold, Silver & Bronze) >

User: Golden Executive - Predict the result 1-0, 1/2, or 0-1 (3 categories to medal in)

User: OhioChessFan - Predict the result 1-0, 1/2, or 0-1 & the number of moves for each game. (4 categories to medal in)

The two contests are now active & open for business!

*****

Also don't forget about <chessgames> ChessBookie game for this event. She can't wait to take some or all of your chessbucks. ;)

ChessBookie Introduction

Don't miss out on the fun for this Super Tournament!

Dec-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: Nimh, any new updates on your computer based analysis of old time masters vs modern masters?

I'm curious how it's going in 2016 with newer, stronger engines and faster hardware.

Dec-03-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: Actually I'm currently working on a paper that compares the way engines and humans play chess. A comparison between CCRL 40/40 and FIDE 2014 ratings will also be included. Here is a preliminary comparison between engines and humans.

http://www.chessanalysis.ee/rating%...

But bear in mind that it is based on absolute values of accuracy - directly from Komodo 8's output, without taking into account the difficulty of positions. But you still get the idea; the accuracy-rating relationship between humans and machines is completely diametrically opposite.

After I've finished it, I'll begin another research where the focus is on differences in objective and practical players througout the history of chess.

Dec-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: Looks like more fascinating work! I really enjoy your exploration in this area.
Dec-25-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  ketchuplover: Wishing ye and yours a soothing holiday season :)
Dec-25-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: Thanks to both of you!
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 22)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·  Later Kibitzing>

A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC