What is your chess style?

[Clive Wismayer]

Interesting toy. I don’t buy it’s assessment of endgame affinity in my case & the strange idea I am high risk is easily explained - it’s due to being a crap player & having to swing wildly when, as usually happens, my grip on some benighted pawn is loosened by an unforeseen tactic.

[Joey Stewart]

Id be a little skeptical of any programme that is rating members of this forum as being better at any aspect of the game then karpov at peak strength

[IM Jack Rudd]

Hehe, 303% risk. I like it.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'm going to guess that mystery player #3 is Richard Bates.

[Graham Borrowdale]

I upgraded from CB12, but I'm reasonably sure CB11 would still be fine. The newer one is noticeably faster and a bit easier to use, but I don't think there is much essential new functionality.

Style reports are available to forumites on on request, Graham's 52 games is at the lower limit they say is needed. He is too modest in some respects, but does indeed need to buy an opening book!
gb.jpg

Thanks Paul.I will treat that last comment with the contempt it deserves!! Not sure about loving sacrifices - maybe a few games blundering material; and endgame affinity = nil but wins drawn endings? But a good bit of fun, and thanks for posting.

[MartinCarpenter]

I upgraded from CB12, but I'm reasonably sure CB11 would still be fine. The newer one is noticeably faster and a bit easier to use, but I don't think there is much essential new functionality.

Style reports are available to forumites on on request, Graham's 52 games is at the lower limit they say is needed. He is too modest in some respects, but does indeed need to buy an opening book!
gb.jpg

Thanks Paul.I will treat that last comment with the contempt it deserves!! Not sure about loving sacrifices - maybe a few games blundering material; and endgame affinity = nil but wins drawn endings? But a good bit of fun, and thanks for posting.

Endgame affinity is the one score here I can't quite work out. The rest seem like plausible fun.

I think that EA must be an absolute measure somehow, or it would be very hard indeed to get zero - as several are doing.

[Paul Cooksey]

Chessbase does give game references to justify the report. So for example this one to prove Graham likes to sacrifice. But with relatively little data we do not know if it is typical.
[Event "BCF-chT4 2223 (4NCL)"] [White "Borrowdale, Graham E"] [Black "Ajimal, Jet"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D46"] 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Bd6 6. Bd3 Nbd7 7. O-O O-O 8. e4 Nxe4 9. Nxe4 dxe4 10. Bxe4 Nf6 11. Bc2 Re8 12. Bg5 Be7 13. Re1 Nd7 14. Bxe7 Rxe7 15. Qd3 g6 16. Rad1 Nf6 17. Ne5 Bd7 18. Re3 Be8 19. Rh3 Qc7 20. Qe3 h5 21. c5 Nd7 22. Rxh5 f5 23. Rh3 Nxe5 24. dxe5 Rh7 25. Rxh7 Kxh7 26. Bb3 Bf7 27. Rd4 Qe7 28. g3 g5 29. Rd6 Rd8 30. Qd4 Rxd6 31. cxd6 1-0

I think endgame affinity is supposed to represent how often a player chooses to play an ending. But having players who really like endings (Karpov, Arkell, etc) in the 70s does seem strange. The developer noted online games profile differently for everyone (fewer draws, more endings). So it might be about the dataset.

None of the terms are defined precisely anywhere I can see. The cynic in me suspects because the definitions are the tricky bit in making the reports and they do not want to share with eg chess.com.

[Roger de Coverly]

Chessbase does give game references to justify the report. So for example this one to prove Graham likes to sacrifice.

Is it really any more than winning a pawn by using a mate threat?


[SetUp "1"] [FEN "r3b1k1/ppqnrp2/2p1p1p1/2P1N2R/3P4/4Q3/PPB2PPP/3R2K1 b - - 0 22"]

[Paul Cooksey]

indeed, I gave this example for that reason. Of course what constitutes a sacrifice as opposed to just a tactic has never been very easy to define.

[Joey Stewart]

I personally feel like a tactic should have a clear defined outcome like winning material, getting mate, avoiding an attack etc...
A true sacrifice is one of uncertainty, maybe your initiative will lead to something, maybe the opponent might find a series of really accurate moves, but at the time of playing there shouldn't be any clear cut way to win.

[Matt Mackenzie]

So on that restrictive a definition, the Evergreen and Immortal games (the later stages, anyway) don't actually involve sacrifices.

I think that most would instinctively disagree.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

What Joey describes is an unclear, long-term, or positional sacrifice, with no immediate resolution of the tension or imbalance (e.g. a pawn sacrifice or gambit in the opening, or an exchange sacrifice of some type). That is only one grouping of sacrifices. Some sacrifices are short-term (e.g. one or two moves). If the resolution is: (a) obvious; and (b) decisive, then that is a successful sacrifice. If the end-result is not decisive (e.g. winning a pawn or gaining a positional advantage), then I would call that a tactical blow. Tactics are usually short-term, winning material. Positional advantages can result from moves where no material is lost or gained. You cannot sacrifice material if you are only manoeuvring (but you might offer material in the process). So I would define a sacrifice as a set of moves where material is gained by your opponent, but you gain an advantage (whether by winning back the material and more, or by checkmating, or by gaining long-term positional pressure).

[Joey Stewart]

Sor on that restrictive a definition, the Evergreen and Immortal games (the later stages, anyway) don't actually involve sacrifices.

I think that most would instinctively disagree.

If the first sacrifices were defendable then they could be considered so but certainly the end of the games they are pretty much forced moves for white as it is either win or lose with the heavy material deficits - I would be lothe to put those games into an engine and see the brilliancies undone by cold calculation but I'm sure it was possible to grab some material and hold it.

I'm thinking more in terms of this "sacrificial affinity" value - even solid grindy players will sacrifice their queen and a few pieces 10/10 times if they were capable of calculating the resulting position but I don't really consider that to be overly brave "sacrificing" when you know for certain it is a forced mate

[Paul Cooksey]

I was disappointed not to get more guesses at my mystery forumite, despite the big hint it was someone who gets clear opening advantages without playing modern main lines. Maybe you need to have seen a lot of reports to know that is unusual.

So I will give it away with a game chessbase says includes sacrifices

player3.jpg (49.34 KiB) Viewed 1299 times

[White "Player"] [Black "Opponent"] [Result "1-0"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. a3 b5 8. Ba2 Bb7 9. Qe2 Nc6 10. Be3 Be7 11. O-O O-O 12. Rad1 Qc7 13. Bc1 Rac8 14. Rfe1 Rfd8 15. Rd3 Nxd4 16. Rxd4 Nd7 17. Rd3 Bf6 18. Rh3 Nf8 19. Bb3 Qc6 20. Qg4 Qd7 21. Nd1 e5 22. Qh5 d5 23. Ne3 dxe4 24. Ng4 Bd5 25. Rd1 Qe6 26. Bxd5 Rxd5 27. Rxd5 Qxd5 28. Nxf6+ gxf6 29. Qg4+ Kh8 30. Bh6 Ne6 31. Bg7+ Kg8 32. Bxf6+ Kf8 33. Rxh7 Ke8 34. Qg8+ Nf8 35. Qxf8+ 1-0

[Joey Stewart]

I was disappointed not to get more guesses at my mystery forumite, despite the big hint it was someone who gets clear opening advantages without playing modern main lines. Maybe you need to have seen a lot of reports to know that is unusual.

So I will give it away with a game chessbase says includes sacrifices

I'll try and guess Leonard Barden on the basis of that hint - there's a lot of the forum users I've never played so not really familiar with their "styles" to have been worth trying such an impossible task otherwise.