Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Chess Analytics Revealed: How I Discovered My Hidden Strengths and Weaknesses

One interesting thing is that it seems like you are playing against someone with a higher ELO than you, since there are more defeats or against cheaters using stockfish ELO 3000, lol, but here you can know your ELO based not on victory/defeat, but on performance, it is not perfect but it works. https://www.chessmonitor.com/u/M92oV4ESB3oA1l5sZfPi. I always have 100 points more than ELO lichess, and it has happened that I win and go to check and lose points, because I played mediocre...

One interesting thing is that it seems like you are playing against someone with a higher ELO than you, since there are more defeats or against cheaters using stockfish ELO 3000, lol, but here you can know your ELO based not on victory/defeat, but on performance, it is not perfect but it works. https://www.chessmonitor.com/u/M92oV4ESB3oA1l5sZfPi. I always have 100 points more than ELO lichess, and it has happened that I win and go to check and lose points, because I played mediocre...

@chesstom2021 said in #3:

ai generated

Not at all, your case is the opposite, either you use an engine, or you are choosing your opponents with a lower ELO on purpose, which in theory would be a form of disguised cheating, because I don't believe you are using an engine to win, right? Your 75% win rate doesn't make sense, since Magnus Carlsen himself only has 55%, and could you explain why?

@chesstom2021 said in #3: > ai generated Not at all, your case is the opposite, either you use an engine, or you are choosing your opponents with a lower ELO on purpose, which in theory would be a form of disguised cheating, because I don't believe you are using an engine to win, right? Your 75% win rate doesn't make sense, since Magnus Carlsen himself only has 55%, and could you explain why?

@manoale50 said in #4:

Not at all, your case is the opposite, either you use an engine, or you are choosing your opponents with a lower ELO on purpose, which in theory would be a form of disguised cheating, because I don't believe you are using an engine to win, right? Your 75% win rate doesn't make sense, since Magnus Carlsen himself only has 55%, and could you explain why?

where exactly is this?
if you care about it so much maybe you should report to Lichess?
also its bullet and stuff happens in bullet ...

@manoale50 said in #4: > Not at all, your case is the opposite, either you use an engine, or you are choosing your opponents with a lower ELO on purpose, which in theory would be a form of disguised cheating, because I don't believe you are using an engine to win, right? Your 75% win rate doesn't make sense, since Magnus Carlsen himself only has 55%, and could you explain why? where exactly is this? if you care about it so much maybe you should report to Lichess? also its bullet and stuff happens in bullet ...

@chesstom2021 said in #5:

where exactly is this?
if you care about it so much maybe you should report to Lichess?
also its bullet and stuff happens in bullet ...

following my and your reasoning and why Carlsen only has a 55% good performance, when the cheaters started to win too much, they should play against other cheaters who are just as good, and when the performance went up too much they should play against other better ones, because they managed to improve their good cheating and so on, no one honestly can perform better than 55%, but it is precisely this illusion that keeps the cheaters happy, so ignorance is sometimes a blessing, right?

@chesstom2021 said in #5: > where exactly is this? > if you care about it so much maybe you should report to Lichess? > also its bullet and stuff happens in bullet ... following my and your reasoning and why Carlsen only has a 55% good performance, when the cheaters started to win too much, they should play against other cheaters who are just as good, and when the performance went up too much they should play against other better ones, because they managed to improve their good cheating and so on, no one honestly can perform better than 55%, but it is precisely this illusion that keeps the cheaters happy, so ignorance is sometimes a blessing, right?

GPTZero AI Detection
Model 3.7b
We are highly confident this text was AI generated
Probability breakdown
100% AI generated
0% Mixed
0% Human

The first few lines only have gotten this clear result

GPTZero AI Detection Model 3.7b We are highly confident this text was AI generated Probability breakdown 100% AI generated 0% Mixed 0% Human The first few lines only have gotten this clear result

@chesstom2021 said in #7:

GPTZero AI Detection
Model 3.7b

Try GPT-5... lol...

@chesstom2021 said in #7: > GPTZero AI Detection > Model 3.7b Try GPT-5... lol...

"I had lost 20 games purely due to time pressure. Not because I was outplayed, not because I made tactical blunders under normal circumstances, but because I simply ran out of time with winning or equal positions." * If you lose on time in a winning position, then you played too slow. Identify the move that took you most time. I recommend to play with increment: that gives you time to win a winning position or draw an equal position.

"Against weaker players, I played carelessly, took unnecessary risks, and often lost on time because I didn't respect the position. Against stronger opponents, I played my best chess – focused, careful, and surprisingly effective." * The same may be true for your opponents. Your stronger opponents played carelessly. Your weaker opponents played their best chess.

"My win rate with this opening was a staggering 75% across 20+ games." * It is also the opening you played most, i.e. with which you had accumulated most experience.

"flashy openings and trying to memorize the latest theoretical novelties" * Bad idea

"my best results came from a simple, solid system I understood deeply" * No surprise

"rest, mood, and mental preparation played a bigger role than I'd ever imagined" * Very true

"blitz performance was catastrophically bad compared to rapid games" * Skill descends from the slower to the faster time controls. Focus on rapid 15+10.

"studying five different openings superficially" * Disaster

"I analyzed master games, learned typical middlegame plans, and studied endgame patterns that arose from this opening. The improvement was immediate and sustainable." * Indeed

"I learned to approach lower-rated opponents with the same respect I showed higher-rated players." * Great. Otherwise hide opponent's ratings.

"Exclusive focus on 10+0 rapid games" * Better 15+10

"Maximum 3 games per session to maintain focus" * 1 game per session is even better, with analysis immediately after a lost game, while the imprint is still fresh

"Added 15+10 games to build deeper calculation skills" * I would play 15+10 exclusively.

"expanding opening repertoire" * Bad idea

"Introduced basic endgame study to complement opening work" * Endgames are much more important than openings, but endgame proficiency is a long term goal.

"You might be surprised how many games you're throwing away due to clock pressure" * Most players play too fast.

"Has anyone else noticed day-of-week performance patterns in their games?" * Slept well / slept badly

"What's been your experience with time management in different time controls?" * Focus on one time control only, preferably 15+10. That gives you a natural pace, without looking at the clock.

"learning new tactics" * It is not

"memorizing opening variations" * Not useful

"I had lost 20 games purely due to time pressure. Not because I was outplayed, not because I made tactical blunders under normal circumstances, but because I simply ran out of time with winning or equal positions." * If you lose on time in a winning position, then you played too slow. Identify the move that took you most time. I recommend to play with increment: that gives you time to win a winning position or draw an equal position. "Against weaker players, I played carelessly, took unnecessary risks, and often lost on time because I didn't respect the position. Against stronger opponents, I played my best chess – focused, careful, and surprisingly effective." * The same may be true for your opponents. Your stronger opponents played carelessly. Your weaker opponents played their best chess. "My win rate with this opening was a staggering 75% across 20+ games." * It is also the opening you played most, i.e. with which you had accumulated most experience. "flashy openings and trying to memorize the latest theoretical novelties" * Bad idea "my best results came from a simple, solid system I understood deeply" * No surprise "rest, mood, and mental preparation played a bigger role than I'd ever imagined" * Very true "blitz performance was catastrophically bad compared to rapid games" * Skill descends from the slower to the faster time controls. Focus on rapid 15+10. "studying five different openings superficially" * Disaster "I analyzed master games, learned typical middlegame plans, and studied endgame patterns that arose from this opening. The improvement was immediate and sustainable." * Indeed "I learned to approach lower-rated opponents with the same respect I showed higher-rated players." * Great. Otherwise hide opponent's ratings. "Exclusive focus on 10+0 rapid games" * Better 15+10 "Maximum 3 games per session to maintain focus" * 1 game per session is even better, with analysis immediately after a lost game, while the imprint is still fresh "Added 15+10 games to build deeper calculation skills" * I would play 15+10 exclusively. "expanding opening repertoire" * Bad idea "Introduced basic endgame study to complement opening work" * Endgames are much more important than openings, but endgame proficiency is a long term goal. "You might be surprised how many games you're throwing away due to clock pressure" * Most players play too fast. "Has anyone else noticed day-of-week performance patterns in their games?" * Slept well / slept badly "What's been your experience with time management in different time controls?" * Focus on one time control only, preferably 15+10. That gives you a natural pace, without looking at the clock. "learning new tactics" * It is not "memorizing opening variations" * Not useful

@DeepLies said in #1:

Comments on adjva4.dpdns.org/@/deeplies/blog/chess-analytics-revealed-how-i-discovered-my-hidden-strengths-and-weaknesses/VqqHKbRC
This blog seems to lack the human touch...

@DeepLies said in #1: > Comments on adjva4.dpdns.org/@/deeplies/blog/chess-analytics-revealed-how-i-discovered-my-hidden-strengths-and-weaknesses/VqqHKbRC This blog seems to lack the human touch...