undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTenoke3y ago0 comments

In one of those games, Nieman was losing by 1.3 points in the first 10 moves despite being 100% according to this analysis so I'll take it with a grain of salt. This only looks at having moves within the top 3 engine moves done by one of the engines tested, and sometimes there's just 1-2 good moves so doing 1 out of 10 (or whatever) possible moves doesn't mean you did anything good. Further, it's unclear how cherry-picked it is. If it was that obvious I'd think the other analysis would've caught it which they didn't.

You can find more discussion of it on reddit, but the threads are generally all over the place.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/xofl99/one_of_the_10...

0 comments

Etheryte3y ago

A 1.3 difference out of an opening sideline is neither rare nor lost, and mostly simply comes down to the fact that the engine doesn't understand the opening. Even the mod pin in the link you posted clearly outlines that this is a misleading way to frame this. It would be better to read more into the discussion before helping misinformation spread.

TenokeOP3y ago

I didn't describe it as lost like the poster did, I said 'losing by 1.3' which is accurate. At any rate, if you actually did read deeper you'd see that losing by 1.3 is plenty relevant, when claiming 100% engine play correlation, and that the mod is somewhat cherry-picking. Further, playing openings where you are -1.3 in 2000 blitz is fine, but in super GM games 1.3 points down is more often than not pretty bad.

zone4113y ago

"The engine doesn't understand the opening" might have applied 10 years ago but you'll have a very hard time finding a single opening in all of chess where it would be the case now.

roflyear3y ago

1.3 is evaluated as more than a pawn, which is significant.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse