16085 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I would love to see a rating given with game analysis,for the strength associated, with each move that is made in games by each player. I think this would be a telling statistic. It would certainly indicate at which point of games you play at your weakest, so you could better try to attack your weaknesses. It also would help to show patterns to your opponents moves, to better help you take advantage of the prospects of playing them again.
I think that some people will think this idea isn't feasible/accurate/necessary,etc. However,I tend to think there are others who would welcome it. I am sure it is possible considering, both the tactics trainer and the mentor associate a rating for puzzles. These puzzles are sometimes only one move puzzles.
Having the programmers work it in, is perhaps another matter entirely, in terms of its feasibility, but if it helped us to see what moves are better in each situation more clearly, as well as how to play certain opponents, or what ones to avoid, because they don't suit our "style" of play, then I think it should be made to happen. I welcome your reactions, yeah or nay...
It would be interesting if it were possible.
Tactics trainer ratings for puzzles are calculated the same way that ratings for players are. If the puzzle 'loses' to a player, it loses points. If it 'wins', it gains points depending on the difference between the puzzle and player's ratings.
Trust me its possible. Whether it is feasible/desirable, to those who can make it happen, is another matter entirely. I am actually waiting to see what other reaction I would get because, I think there could be some unintended fallout, the more I think about it. I do however think that this could very advantageous to Chess.com as a tool for various purposes, if they were willing to look at it from that point of view instead of looking at the potential negative consequenses.
I will let the cat out of the bag a little bit and say that I think it would open the door somewhat into the realm of how our move strength varies at different rating levels and play styles. In other words it would help explain things like the justification of the Veselin Topalov, Vladimir Kramnik fiasco or why one opponent of a particular rating seems to kick you around, while another of perhaps a higher rating, seems like they aren't playing to their potential .
People already do this or I do atleast.
I will let the cat out of the bag a little bit and say that I think it would open the door somewhat into the realm of how our move strength varies at different rating levels and play styles. In other words it word help explain things like the justification of the Veselin Topalov, Vladimir Kramnik fiasco or why one opponent of a particular rating seems to kick you around, while another of perhaps a higher rating, seems like they aren't playing to their potential .
I'm really not sure what you mean by negative consequences. I'm also curious why you're so sure that this is possible.
I had thought of a backwards sort of way to figure this out using a chess engine I have access to. It has variable settings, I could set up the position and take a stab at what rating it would have to be set at, to get it to make that particular move. I realize that with the opening, this is more difficult to isolate. So how is it that you find this information?
Did you ever study what happened when Kramnik played Topalov? Accusations flew about cheating, ironically the guy who made the accusations had a higher propensity by percentage in one of the games, to have his moves more closely matching the best engine of the day, after it analized all of the move choices. Hence, as we study these stats, though would would be simply see how our move choices far against what we could possibly have chosen and how our opponents style looks as "we use this like an xray" to really see what constitutes our style/choices/etc. Adversely, we would have better access to see who might be cheating, when they do and maybe even where they are getting their info, but it could also cause you to get accused of cheating, especially if you are either really good or lucky.
P.S. Tactics trainer/Mentor already has a rating of difficulty given to a puzzle. This is part of the formula for figuring out your rating change, as you solve or fail each puzzle. If it is a one move puzzle, a rating of Blah Blah Blah would be required/indicitive of a person's ability to solve it.
This seems like a good idea, but dont they aalready have something like that? you can use the Analyze and it will give you %win/%loss according to your move
It actually gives you a measure of your material and positional superiority compared to your opponents by using a point based system, based on the value of your pieces, (pawn=1, bishop/knight=3, etc) and how your position will lead to the further lose/gain of material. In other words if your respective positions' will lead to you gaining a pawn advantage,if the best moves are played, though it isn't off the board yet, the system will give an assessment that is notated like this after your move ,something like (1.0) or -1.0, but it won't actually tell you that the move you made, was on the level of a 1500 or a 2000. If it did, you would see when you make your best choices as well as, in general what the strongest moves are, in any given situation. If you have ever tried to match the moves of masters, you will find some of the seemingly most peculiar choices, as the stronger than what would perhaps appear to be. It would be eye opening as to how some of our more passive/ or our best guess moves(zugzwang) really add up. It is one thing to compare it to only the opponent you are actually playing, but what if it was compared to the best possible known, in a language you could better use to critique yourself.
Meh, it seems kinda like cheating to me.allowing the computer to do the moves for you
I am not advocating having a computer make your moves/tell you what best moves to make, this is post game analysis only.
Tactics trainer ratings aren't given. They are adjusted every time a person tries the problem, or is that what you meant by "given"?
I'm not really sure that your original idea would be very helpful. Quite often people make good moves for the wrong reasons.
Imagine being able to see what each move you made was, in terms of an associated rating, especially if a particular move in question seemed extremely insignificant to you, but after noticing it, you chose to study the potential conclusions more carefully, for why this move that seemed "run of the mill" to you, was so good and you ended up seeing why for the first time, but you never would have given it a second thought for any other reason, because it always seemed so insignificant. I would miss something like this a hundred times as to where I really started going wrong and why in a move analysis.
but exactly what good would this serve, just allows you to see how awesome you are?
We all need different things to help us clearly see how to make the best of any situation. I think this would help me in particular. A good example of how, is while trying to get better at positional play. We have a tactics trainer to help us get better at tactics. If you can't figure out how to learn the principles of play by having a trainer, or atleast some feedback that helps you see what level you are at, like the tactics trainer does, then me knowing the level of my subtle pawn moves from my own games would help me to see where I really start going wrong or where I am good. I think this would be a better instant help, than trying to memorize a bunch of opening and defense variations.
Meh, I guess technology just ruined chess, chess is a game of the mind, where you can figure out your own mistakes.
the suggestion is wondeful and one day will be the norm.
I still do not agree.
Is this a draw?
by lookslikeblood a few minutes ago
The Best Chess Computer Wins! Against Humans
by TheARBChessSystem a few minutes ago
What is the worst first move for white?
by ex0du5 3 minutes ago
Time Stamping Please
by sftac 5 minutes ago
live chess connections
by fun2mate 6 minutes ago
Puzzles just for fun!
by ViktorHNielsen 6 minutes ago
Account gets bloced to play
by ilikeflags 7 minutes ago
by fun2mate 7 minutes ago
by caveatcanis 8 minutes ago
by btickler 9 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!