Nice study!
IMHO making the same kind of blunders (like hanging a piece) less often is only part of the difference. The other is that your measure what you call a blunder evolves with your improvement. Take e.g. the positional blunder against a GM: do you think you would call it a blunder when your rating was ~1500?
My view:
That is totally right, and I could put several examples like this. Sometimes is just the perception we've got on the position.
Most of the time, we don't even understand the position and try to push in a worse position.
I've got a couple of games where I gamble my position with a really bad move+faking an expression so my opponent gets overconfident. It usually works lmao
The first tourament I won (amateur national tourament), I won with just a rule: Don't make the last blunder. This works surprinsingly good but you still need to apply pressure. Chess is an active game, you cannot win with mediocre moves
That is totally right, and I could put several examples like this. Sometimes is just the perception we've got on the position.
Most of the time, we don't even understand the position and try to push in a worse position.
I've got a couple of games where I gamble my position with a really bad move+faking an expression so my opponent gets overconfident. It usually works lmao
The first tourament I won (amateur national tourament), I won with just a rule: Don't make the last blunder. This works surprinsingly good but you still need to apply pressure. Chess is an active game, you cannot win with mediocre moves
Words to live by, I tell this to anyone who listens and who's in a place to learn from me.
For most of my chess life I've been relatively weak at most endgames, positional concepts, openings, everything that's in the book, compared to my peers, but I play on board 1 for the team because I just make less stupid mistakes...
Additional bonus - you still get to learn stuff from lower-ranked players who do know the concepts :D
For most of my chess life I've been relatively weak at most endgames, positional concepts, openings, everything that's in the book, compared to my peers, but I play on board 1 for the team because I just make less stupid mistakes...
Additional bonus - you still get to learn stuff from lower-ranked players who do know the concepts :D
In your fifth position, against the 2180-rated kid, I think 1... Qxe4+ can be met by 2. Bd3 Qxd4 3. Bc2! (not Bb5 why?) Rxa3 4.Rxd4 Rxb3 5. 5xb3 and your position should be alright.
I don't like Qxb3 for other reasons. It opens a file in front of your King.
Here's a line: 1. Qxb3 Rb8 2. Bb6 (if 2. Nb5, then 2... Nxb5 3. Bxb5 Ra5 picks up the piece) Qxe4+ 3. Bd3 Nxd3 4. Rxd3 Rb4
I don't like Qxb3 for other reasons. It opens a file in front of your King.
Here's a line: 1. Qxb3 Rb8 2. Bb6 (if 2. Nb5, then 2... Nxb5 3. Bxb5 Ra5 picks up the piece) Qxe4+ 3. Bd3 Nxd3 4. Rxd3 Rb4
This.
Also, if you're on your way to the 1900s and just lost a game because of a stupid blunder, don't despair. Just try to avoid it next time, but no drama necessary, it is just one game.
Also, if you're on your way to the 1900s and just lost a game because of a stupid blunder, don't despair. Just try to avoid it next time, but no drama necessary, it is just one game.
why people with rating 2000+ blundering bishops and 1200+ played with 95+ accuracy?!(USFC rating)
1. Everyone can have a high accuracy game now and then. If someone can play that precisely often, they wouldn't stay around 1200 for long. Statistically, you can bet that a ~2000 rated player blunders a piece way less often (and playes with 95% accuracy much more often) than a ~1200 one. But there will always be counterexamples; they are not so frequent but that's exactly why we tend to notice them.
2. Accuracy can be deceiving, it correlates with quality of the play only very loosely. In general, high accuracy games are often boring ones like trading everything fast and spending a lot of time in an equal endgame. On the other hand, sharp games with a lot of threats and tactical opportunities or complicated endgames usually result in much lower accuracy number - but does it really mean that players performed worse? I don't think so.
2. Accuracy can be deceiving, it correlates with quality of the play only very loosely. In general, high accuracy games are often boring ones like trading everything fast and spending a lot of time in an equal endgame. On the other hand, sharp games with a lot of threats and tactical opportunities or complicated endgames usually result in much lower accuracy number - but does it really mean that players performed worse? I don't think so.
@vlad4719 said in #8:
> why people with rating 2000+ blundering bishops and 1200+ played with 95+ accuracy?!(USFC rating)
Also you force people into making more mistakes by being aggressive towards them, making more threats on the board. If you're 1200 and they're 1200 and they play "a perfect game", chances are you on your side were being too passive.
> why people with rating 2000+ blundering bishops and 1200+ played with 95+ accuracy?!(USFC rating)
Also you force people into making more mistakes by being aggressive towards them, making more threats on the board. If you're 1200 and they're 1200 and they play "a perfect game", chances are you on your side were being too passive.