The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Chess games

Scroll to see replies

Original post by IrrationalRoot
Ugh, not only do you say that you don't use 'machine analysis' and do anyway, you go ahead and say that.

Qc2 was not 'the winning reply.' Qc2 isn't some crazy tactical combo that wins the game. It is a positional move which is equalled by a couple of others in the position. Certainly it is not the one 'winning reply.' There are many combinations white has here on the kingside in order to convert his winning advantage.

Also my ability to switch to the king side was much better than yours. My Rooks could have swung over in a single move, but you seem to be rather blocked up over there, with only your king and knight, holding the fort?
Original post by john2054
Also my ability to switch to the king side was much better than yours. My Rooks could have swung over in a single move, but you seem to be rather blocked up over there, with only your king and knight, holding the fort?


I still don't understand how you can't see, even with the computer analysis, how badly you played up to move 17.
I don't really care about anything else in the game, I just want you to understand that you didn't play better like you're saying.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by IrrationalRoot
There's actually a way on the kingside, perhaps somewhat difficult but it's there.
Point is though that I don't like how he's trying to assert that he played more accurate chess for the whole thing. Yes I resigned but that is irrelevant.


I don't see it but that's me; if there is then fair enough lol. Well if you go down it says you made 1 mistake and 1 blunder and he made 3 inaccuracies and 2 mistakes, I'd call it more accurate on your part I suppose (noting that the "blunder" still maintained an advantage)
Original post by IrrationalRoot
Wait a minute did you just write this: "You made four major blunders whilst i only made one."
Love the fact that white is better for the whole game and that what you said is not what the computer analysis says.


the computer analysis gives you the better position, which in this case means you had a better opening. But also you made major blunders. And yes it is the machine analysis which told me this. I am not playing you again because i don't know if i could win another against you. So thanks but no thanks.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CheeseIsVeg
will do, about 10 mins to wait sorry!
link me? Do you mean quote u ?I have tried to raise this issue to the mods but no luck lel

Spoiler



Well erm link me on this thread the thread where the details are (also what was the website again I forgot lol)
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
I don't see it but that's me; if there is then fair enough lol. Well if you go down it says you made 1 mistake and 1 blunder and he made 3 inaccuracies and 2 mistakes, I'd call it more accurate on your part I suppose (noting that the "blunder" still maintained an advantage)


And the fact that the evaluation was always better for white! That is definitive evidence. To say that black played more accurately would make literally no sense.
Original post by john2054
the computer analysis gives you the better position, which in this case means you had a better opening. But also you made four major blunders which were flagged up by the machine with... 'Inaccuracy' , 'inaccuracy' 'mistake' and 'blunder'. And yes it is the machine analysis which told me this. I am not playing you again because i don't know if i could win another against you. So thanks but no thanks.


"I am not playing you again because i don't know if i could win another against you"

I knew that was the reason. I knew it. Good to hear it from you though.

As for the fact that you seem unable to read numbers, I will parrot the computer analysis to you:

Me: 1 mistake. 1 blunder, AFTER WHICH I was still much better.

That is not four major blunders. What the hell...
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
Well erm link me on this thread the thread where the details are (also what was the website again I forgot lol)


pinturillo2.com
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3776143#primary_content
:wink:
Original post by IrrationalRoot
And the fact that the evaluation was always better for white! That is definitive evidence. To say that black played more accurately would make literally no sense.


Yeah. I suppose the best measure is average centipawn loss.
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
I don't see it but that's me; if there is then fair enough lol. Well if you go down it says you made 1 mistake and 1 blunder and he made 3 inaccuracies and 2 mistakes, I'd call it more accurate on your part I suppose (noting that the "blunder" still maintained an advantage)


A game of chess is also decided by factors other than accuracy, such as time, pressure and originality. The first two of which, lichess computer analysis doesn't accurately reflect!
Original post by IrrationalRoot
"I am not playing you again because i don't know if i could win another against you"

I knew that was the reason. I knew it. Good to hear it from you though.

As for the fact that you seem unable to read numbers, I will parrot the computer analysis to you:

Me: 1 mistake. 1 blunder, AFTER WHICH I was still much better.

That is not four major blunders. What the hell...


yes sorry i misread the data when i said that.
Original post by john2054
A game of chess is also decided by factors other than accuracy, such as time, pressure and originality. The first two of which, lichess computer analysis doesn't accurately reflect!


Look, if you want to say that you actually played well enough to deserve a win because of 'factors that a computer does not take into account', then go ahead.

But until you reflect and look back at actual play rather than results, you won't get much better. Your play was very inaccurate, you seem too arrogant to admit it, so there's nothing more I can do here.

The one thing I'm happy with is that I got you to admit you won't give me a rematch because you don't think you could win another game. So I'm alright now.
Original post by john2054
yes sorry i misread the data when i said that.


Nope. Nice try.
Original post by IrrationalRoot
Look, if you want to say that you actually played well enough to deserve a win because of 'factors that a computer does not take into account', then go ahead.

But until you reflect and look back at actual play rather than results, you won't get much better. Your play was very inaccurate, you seem too arrogant to admit it, so there's nothing more I can do here.

The one thing I'm happy with is that I got you to admit you won't give me a rematch because you don't think you could win another game. So I'm alright now.


You played well, i'll give you that. There is even a case for saying you should have won, and you did have the clear advantage from the opening. But I played defensively and you weren't able to find the break through. Plus you were getting in to time trouble if i remember.

Let's try and end this on a good note okay?
Original post by CheeseIsVeg


Well I can't register lol, registration email didn't send
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
Well I can't register lol, registration email didn't send


u dont need to register!U just press union jack
enter ur nickname
and ill give u room no and code when i've made it
(in about 5 minutes now)
Original post by john2054
A game of chess is also decided by factors other than accuracy, such as time, pressure and originality. The first two of which, lichess computer analysis doesn't accurately reflect!


True.
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
True.


Do you wanna have a game at some point (not today)? Dw I won't make a big deal of it, that was only because I was a bit frustrated with his false claims.
You seem to have a decent understanding of chess, so I think it'd make for an interesting game.
Original post by IrrationalRoot
Do you wanna have a game at some point (not today)? Dw I won't make a big deal of it, that was only because I was a bit frustrated with his false claims.
You seem to have a decent understanding of chess, so I think it'd make for an interesting game.


I'll play you if you like too. Just tag me if you want a game (I'm about 2000 rated).
Original post by IrrationalRoot
Do you wanna have a game at some point (not today)? Dw I won't make a big deal of it, that was only because I was a bit frustrated with his false claims.
You seem to have a decent understanding of chess, so I think it'd make for an interesting game.


Yeah if you like. Tbh, especially being online, I'll rush moves and probs make ridiculous mistakes as usual. My play is, I think, usually below my understanding. So don't expect to not win quickly. :colonhash:

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you