In general, one problem I have with a lot of this stuff is in evaluating "technique."  If the game is very complex I'm sure that comparing moves to a computer engine's output is a pretty good way of evaluating the strength of the move.  But what about those pawn-up rook endings with pawns on both sides of the board, etc?  Or endings where you give up material but head for a theoretical win 20 moves away?  It's outside of the computer's horizon, and maybe the computer sees a faster win, but would you really punish someone for playing the easiest win?

That's where a lot of subjectivity will come in, IMO.  So it'd be harder to automate than with football, but if it's just something you want to do on your own with human input for a limited number of games, it's probably pretty accurate.  

This reminds me: way back in 1999 I bought my first PC, and I picked up a copy of Fritz 6 as well as Taimanov's Selected Games.  I fired up Fritz 6 and went through the first game in the book with it, thinking that it'd be an incredible experience, that I'd understand the game more deeply, etc. 

Instead, it just disagreed with all of Taimanov's evaluations, exclams, question marks, etc.  Eventually I realized that I wasn't learning anything from looking at Fritz's output and just read the book.

Engine's are much better now, and I don't mean that as any kind of retort to your efforts, Stigma.  This conversation just reminded me of that experience.

Well okay Stigma you're probably right, and of course it's similar to what's been done at chess-db.com.  But as a scientist/engineer I'd want to see lots of data that can predict future performance, etc., without knowledge of ratings.  I'm probably just being a bit obtuse because of my background.

Stigma wrote on 11/11/13 at 19:38:02:


You just said "subjective," so I'm not sure that we're getting somewhere or not.  Perhaps the answer is yes, but it would still take a ton of human judgment.  It's not the kind of thing that you can enter the box score of a game--like in football--and have it all automated. 

So I just don't see how useful that would be; it's still very subjective and needs a lot of human input.

P.S. I've also made habit of always registering how tired i felt during a game since I've had some sleep problems in recent years. Both wakefulness and tactical sharpness are important short-term factors that affect my results.

I got interested in a lot of advanced metrics in football (American), for instance F/+: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus. ;

This works in American Football because you (basically) have two teams that alternate doing the same thing over and over for 60 minutes.  There are a lot of ways to evaluate how efficiently each team is doing that same thing (trying to move the ball down field and score).

I just don't see how something like that is possible in chess, where you don't do the same thing over and over.  Some games you sacrifice all your material to force mate, other times you win a pawn and play "boringly" for 40 moves but the outcome of the game was never in doubt, etc.  

I'm just not sure how to evaluate chess players' moves absolutely without a TON of subjective human input, other than what has already been done (comparing moves to engine output).

I thought the world's top ranked players would have the highest % scores on chess-db. Solid players like Carlsen, Kramnik and Leko are around 90% and Nakamura above 91% - very impressive for such a sharp player (this method will typically overvalue careful, solid players and deep opening preparation).

But then I noticed one player at 94% - guess who... http://chess-db.com/public/analyzedgames.jsp?id=2903741

Stigma wrote on 10/09/12 at 12:18:40:

No such feature is commercially available. At least I am not aware and I am pretty acquainted with all kind of engines and programs.

Quote:

I have read his work. I understood that you need a lot of HW for that, a lot of time and he uses a self written non commercial program. So only for private use.

Quote:

Personally I think it is wrong to check after each tournament if you improved. You should take longer periods (e.g. 6 months) to make serious conclusions. It is like you check every day your weight when you are on diet. That is also not recommended as the weightdifference between 2 days doesn't say anything about the success of the diet.