When we receive a Computer Analysis of a game, the statistics reported for the number of inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders seem to apply to only the player requesting the analysis, not both players.

For example, looking at a game in which only two inaccuracies are reported in the stats might lead someone to think it was a good game based on the stats when in fact the opponent may have blundered 4 times to lose the game.  The blunders are in fact reported in the body of the analysis but you have to scroll through it to find them.

I would prefer to spend time analyzing or reviewing games whose outcomes were not decided by a blunder (on either side).

It would be useful to have the statistics for both white and black separately.

Is this possible?

I agree, plus opponent inaccuracies aren't even mentioned at all.

Chess.com game analysis is worthless.

...says the guy who gets fairly worthless BASIC analysis :) the diamond-level analysis is very good and checking blunders and missed opportunities. if you want a serious in-depth strategic analysis, you need something more than a computer anyway. 

Hey, that's a great idea!  How shall I deliver the PGNs of the games I would like analyzed by you, Erik? 

I could use the help! 

 In case it ever happens, will it point out my good moves?

Hi Erik,

Thanks for looking in and for your input.  Even the fact that you or someone from the staff replies to our comments in such short time indicates a high level of interest and support for a site like this.  Kuddos to you and the other staff.

I'm wondering if it would be possible for the site to publish the analysis statistics for both colours.  It would seem that if it's able to report them for one colour (the colour of the person requesting the analysis) it should be a simple matter to have it report the stats for the other colour.

The purpose is the following.

I'll often play several games in a row and then request the analyses after the fact.  Sometimes several days later.  Unfortunately I don't have anything close to the recollection skills of master players and I don't always remember exactly what I did in a given game when I'm reviewing it later.  Games which are won or lost by blunders on my part or my opponent's part are not as useful to me for cross-referencing for example to search for weakenesses in the way I play a particular variation since the blunder usually overides any positional advantage me or my opponent may have been gaining in the game by playing a particular line.

I do find the stats useful to get a snapshot in terms of accuracy of how the game was played but it's really only useful if you have the stats for both players.

It just seems like an easy thing to provide (reporting the stats for both colours).  Is it?

caparojo:

it's SHOULD be easy, but it's actually not. it would take a day to do it, but it isn't the time, it's the distraction. we have dozens (or hundreds) of requests like these that yes, would improve the site in some way for some people. but prioritizing those above huge projects just isn't the right decision. if we did every request like this (which this one is a good one!), we'd never do things like live tournaments or some of the other big things we're working on. 

anyway, idea is certainly noted in the wishlist, but i'll be honest - it isn't on the roadmap of nearterm coding. sorry!

Dave,

I am a sub-1300 player. I analyze every game I play. If I have the time and I try make time for this, I first analyze the game without using assistance.  Regardless of whether I did the unassisted analysis or not, I always run the game through Rybka3. (I also have Fritz12 but I prefer Rybka3.)

Beside my chess improving at rapid rate, what I have found from my base of 253 games that I have played is that almost every game has blunders of some type. I am able to find some of the blunders without the engine. However certain blunders that I have made were "above my pay scale" so to speak: I did not know they were blunders until Rybka pointed them out and I then tried to understand why they were blunders. That has made a strong improvement in my game.  It is in fact an extremely rare game where  no blunders were made.

As a sub-1300 player, often games are matches where we trade blunders. I will blunder and then my opponent will blunder, and back and forth we go until enough material is gone where a single blunder becomes a crucial game losing factor. I have a game where there may be more than 10 blunders made. As a Master, you may have forgotten those days of playing chess. But I understand even the best players in the world occasionally blunder: witness Wang's blunder in the Carlson (2813) - Wang (2752) Kings Gambit game in the recent 2010 Kings Tournament.

As a learning exercise, identifying one's blunders and being able to spot blunders in your opponent's game is extremely valuable. At our level, almost every game is "representative" regardless of whether we win or lose. I very much support your thesis that " looking at your blunders is in fact probably the best place for you to apply yourself" but we do need a little help as we don't know enough where to look! I would challenge any player of my ilk to present a game without blunders.

I have watched a number of your videos where you play live and enjoy these very much although it is hard for me to stay up with your on the spot analysis.  Thank you for providing these.

Walt

nice info to learn

Well, I just set a personal record for the number of blunders in one of my games and I won the game!  I made 12 blunders and my opponent 9.

Probably could have done better playing blindfolded. I gave away a rook. When he made blunders, I did not capitalize on them. I had him in forks that I did not see. I botched move orders, you name the type of blunder and I probably made it tonight. And I am supposed to be learning... Sometimes, I can be so dense!

I have a somewhat tortured relationship with the "Game Analyisis" feature as well although I accept it and simply use it for a quick check of missed tactical shots. My experience includes a pair of games against the same opponent (both losses). Well, according to the analysis I only committed a total of 5 inaccuracies for a total of 93 moves. Yet, I felt without having a chance in game 1 and walking the edge in game 2. Ironically, the winning maneouver by my opponent was greeted with "Blunder!" before the score jumped a couple of moves later. Contrary to that, I finished another game where I felt comfortable throughout the game and winning by move 16. After I pocketed the win I in 38 moves I ran the analysis: 5 inaccuracies, 5 mistakes and 3 blunders!! Considering that the first 8 moves very book moves the engine essentially told me that every second move I chose a crappy one. I was ready to posthumously award the point to my opponent ...

Games which you are up huge amounts of material often lead to blunders every move because you won the easy way instead of going for a mate in 16.