Forum

I intend to post a summary of the most recent engine-match analysis of our completed VC games here. Games that timed out, finished within book, or were of a different variant (Chess960) are excluded. # Game Total Book Other Net 1st. 2nd. 3rd. T1% T2% T3% Last Book Move Moves Analysed Totals: 731 430 120 65 59% 75% 84% 1 FVF Vs SPL 47 11 14 22 12 4 3 55% 73% 86% 11.Qd2 12-33 2 Serious Applicants Only 30 11 8 11 6 0 1 55% 55% 64% 11.Bd3 12-20 3 Italian Game: Classical Variation 1 29 12 16 1 1 0 0 100% 100% 100% 12.Bh4 13 (only) 4 Italian Game: Classical Variation 2 30 12 4 14 6 1 3 43% 50% 71% 12...c6 13-26 5 FVF vs Carpe Diem 68 19 29 20 13 5 1 65% 90% 95% 20.axb5 20-39 6 Nimzo-Indian Defense 18 5 6 7 2 1 1 29% 43% 57% 5...c5 6-12 7 Ruy Lopez - Berlin Defense 40 9 18 13 8 0 2 62% 62% 77% 9...Re8 10-22 8 FVF vs Intl 10 min - KID 32 9 4 19 16 1 1 84% 89% 95% 9...Ng4 10-28 9 benko 40 14 11 15 10 3 1 67% 87% 93% 14.e4 15-18 & 26-36 10 A few against the fanatics 33 14 11 8 4 2 0 50% 75% 75% 14.Rc1 15-22 11 1...Nc6 35 12 0 23 9 7 1 39% 70% 74% 12.Nb3 13-35 12 Raiders of the Long Dark II: Polyp'frs Wars 46 11 11 24 17 4 0 71% 88% 88% 11...Nd5 12-35 13 Top Ten Vote Chess Team Battle 42 12 8 22 14 2 3 64% 73% 86% 12.Ne2 13-34 14 FVF open challenge - King's Pawn Opening 40 8 11 21 15 3 1 71% 86% 90% 8.h3 9-29 15 DAVID AND GOLIATH, OR ARE YOU AFRAID :-) 12 11 0 1 1 0 0 100% 100% 100% 11.Bf4 12 (only) 16 VCL Open Swiss V R1: FVF vs Team Brazil 33 11 0 22 11 7 2 50% 82% 91% 11.e5 12-33 17 VCL Open Swiss V R2: LEGION vs FVF 31 10 12 9 6 0 2 67% 67% 89% 10...Bd7 11-19 18 UU vs FVF - The fair rematch! 22 11 2 9 6 0 1 67% 67% 78% 11...Nde5 12-20 19 Shaky start, but strong finish! ;) 54 14 8 32 15 4 3 47% 59% 69% 14...Nf5 15-33 & 41-53 20 FVF vs Bobby Fischer Group 29 12 5 12 9 1 0 75% 83% 83% 12...Bxf6 13-24 21 FVF vs THE SEVEN-UPS 30 14 0 16 10 2 2 62% 75% 88% 15.Ne2 15-30 22 CD vs FVF re-match 64 9 7 48 25 11 6 52% 75% 88% 10.exd6 10-57 23 French training game #2 Black 34 15 0 19 10 4 1 53% 74% 79% 15...Bd7 16-34 24 FVF vs Adults only group 44 12 10 22 16 1 1 73% 77% 82% 13.Be2 13-34 25 VCL Open Swiss V R4: Team Hungary - Magyar 34 13 5 16 9 4 1 56% 81% 88% 14.Qd2 14-29 26 VCL Open Swiss V R3: Fantastic Voting Fanat 57 15 23 19 11 2 3 58% 68% 84% 15...dxc5 16-34 (44 omitted) 27 The Reindeer Sleeps 30 11 8 11 6 3 2 55% 82% 100% 11.Be2 12-22 28 FVF vs BHARAT 35 9 16 10 6 2 1 60% 80% 90% 9.bxc3 10-19 29 FVF vs Bengal United 27 7 4 16 8 3 1 50% 69% 75% 7.Bd3 8-23 30 Reindeer Rematch 52 19 15 10 1 1 67% 73% 80% 19...Qh5 29-34 & 36-44 31 Smith-Morra Gambit: Accepted 73 14 53 28 12 4 53% 75% 83% 14...Bg4 15-28, 30-31, 33-38, 40-67, 69-71 32 KNOCKOUT VOTE CHESS R1: Fantastic Voting Fa 26 10 13 3 3 0 0 100% 100% 100% 10.Bd3 11-13 33 KNOCKOUT VOTE CHESS R1: BLACK KNIGHT CHESS 26 8 10 8 5 0 0 62% 62% 62% 9.a3 9-16 34 Last Rites vs FVF 38 12 23 13 5 2 57% 78% 87% 12...Bg4 13-27, 29, 31-33, 35-38 35 KNOCKOUT VOTE CHESS S1 QF: FVF vs LATINO 23 9 8 2 3 2 25% 62% 88% 9.Bh4 11-18 36 KNOCKOUT VOTE CHESS S1 QF: LATINO vs FVF 48 12 20 15 1 0 75% 80% 80% 12...Ne5 14-18, 20-24, 26-30, 32, 38, 40-42 37 Best Of Three? 21 14 2 2 0 0 100% 100% 100% 14.dxe6 15-16 38 KNOCKOUT VOTE CHESS S1 SF: OCD vs FVF 27 17 9 6 0 3 67% 67% 100% 18.fxe4 18-19, 21-27 39 KNOCKOUT VOTE CHESS S1 SF: FVF vs OCD 36 25 7 6 1 0 86% 100% 100% 25.Ra2 26-31, 33 40 FVF vs Last Rites 34 15 12 8 3 0 67% 92% 92% 15...Nd8 41 Evans Gambit #2 33 11 14 10 2 2 71% 86% 100% 11.Qd1 12-20, 22, 24-27 42 Evan's Gambit #1 46 12 22 15 3 3 68% 82% 95% 13.Rae1 13-14, 16, 18-22, 24-31, 33, 35-39 43 KNOCKOUT VC S1 Final: FVF vs Lewis Chessmen 57 25 24 11 7 0 46% 75% 75% 25...Bb5 26-35, 37-44, 46-49, 54-55 44 Lewis v FVF Knockout S1 Final 37 4 29 14 5 4 48% 66% 79% 4...O-O 5-18, 20-26, 28, 31-37 - * 1) 'Total' moves is the number made by FVF in the game 2) 'Book' moves are those available from most opening databases such as Explorer & are normally excluded from analysis 3) 'Other' are those such as forced moves or moves in which there's a large difference between the engine's first & nth. choice. Any moves in which any of the engine choice moves exceed 2 pawns in strength are excluded, because a competent player would be expected to be able to see this for themselves 4) 'Net' moves is the number of qualifying moves used to calculate the T1, T2 & T3 figures 5) 1st, 2nd & 3rd give the counts of those moves we made that corresponded to the engine's assessed first, second & third best moves in the position. Sometimes we made moves that weren't in any of those categories, so the three counts won't always add up to the Net figure 6) T1, T2 & T3 represent the proportion of moves we made that correspond to the engine's best choices, as a percentage & are calculated like this:- T1 = (1st / Net) * 100% T2 = ((1st + 2nd) / Net) * 100% T3 = ((1st + 2nd + 3rd) / Net) * 100%

@blackcabbage David Beacham, London Joined: Jan 17, 2008 Daily: 1998 (Jan/2020) I've sent him a short message to ask if he ever plays VC? Not much point in pursuing it if he's not interested.

[COMMENT DELETED]

I went through the game move by move and made a note of chivasia's comments and votes, comparing then to the moves that were eventually played. I only got as far as move 21, but I may as well post my notes here. In my opinion, chivasia had a significant influence on the moves that were played by our opponents, and his justifications were not entirely convincing. If he was on our team I would be concerned. The notes also include a few other comments on other aspects of our opponent's play that I found interesting for one reason or another. Move 2. They are studying our semi-final games v OCD and looking a long way ahead to identify where they might diverge. (Move 17!) Move 5. They are getting only 3 or 4 votes per move. One regular voter (Bogor) never comments. Move 6. 3 votes Move 7. Unmaster joins. Hadn’t realised it was on the go. 5 votes Move 8. Torkil proposes a line through to move 11, which they go on to follow. Move 11. Torkil is the dominant voice on the team to this point. Move 13. First appearance of chivasia. He is the first to comment and proposes Rc1, which ends up being the choice. But it is just following the Judit Polgar game that both they and us were aware of and had been previously mentioned in their comments. 3 votes, not including chivasia. Move 14. Still following the Polgar game. 5 votes. Chivasia didn’t comment or vote. Move 15. This was where they diverted from the Polgar game. They considered 15…e4, which would have followed that game, but they were talked out of it by sarrat who said it was weak and proposed Nd3. The vote was 3 to 2 in favour of Nd3. Chivasia’s comment was meaningless, saying first he liked e4 but now he likes Nd3. The only interesting thing he says is that he has been playing very badly recently. Possibly he’s been losing due to trying to play without assistance, and he feels he needs to justify himself to his team mates? In the end he didn’t even vote. Move 16. Finally, chivasia gets involved in the discussion. Proximo (Danny) finds a line that they all agree with. Chivasia basically supports it but without going into much detail, just saying he can’t find anything wrong with it. 5 votes. Chivasia does vote this time. His first vote. Move 17. Now chivasia is fully involved. Danny’s plan was 17. Nac5 with a double attack on our bishop. They are aiming to win the b4 pawn. Torkil suggests that 17…Qb6 would enable us to keep that pawn (In fact we never even considered 17…Qb6). Unmaster isn’t worried about 17…Qb6. Chivasia chips in with a diagram ignoring 17…Qb6 (“Nxc5 looks more normal”). There’s much more. He has a lot to say but all of it is to do with 17. Nac5, which was not originally his idea. He does say that if 17. Nac5 Nxc5 then they “ought to consider” 18. Nxc5 rather than the original suggestion 18…dxc5, and that is what they play in the end. Move 18 Some of the team had forgotten that 18. dxc5 had a question mark over it from the last move. chivasia is one of those to remind them (also Sarrat). They end up unanimously voting for Nxc5, but chivasia fails to vote. I have checked on chess.com’s Stockfish and it gives dxc5 as -0.49 and Nxc5 as -0.02. There is something a bit fishy here, though. Sarrat suggests that 18.dxc5 doesn’t work because Black has 18…Bxd3, winning a pawn. He is wrong, according to Stockfish, which rates the position -0.21 after 18…Bxd3 (Black’s best move is just to retreat the DSB to c7.) 18...b3 is also rated very slightly better than ...Bxd3. Now chivasia doesn’t give any rationale on this move for preferring Nxc5 except that it was discussed last time. So I looked at his diagram for last time. After 18. dxc5 he says “… they will not go Bd7 but Bc7.” (He meant not Be7). He’s right: Bc7 is about 0.30 better, per Stockfish. Chivasia then gives the Stockfish line exactly (in his diagram for move 17), sacking the DSB on h2 and then the Q fork winning back the minor piece. OK. It’s not the hardest tactic to spot, but what I don’t like is that his support for Nac5 on move 17 is sort of conditional on 18. Nxc5, and he is SO certain about this! My impression is that Chivasia’s contributions on moves 17 and 18 were an important element in getting them to play the two moves that they did. Danny (Proximo) was the one to suggest 17. Nac5 but he was going to follow up with 18. dxc5. It was definitely chivasia that put them straight on that, from the point that he said on move 16: Chivasia Aug 8, 2017 Trying to find out what is wrong with your line Danny...it is actually quite interesting ...at least the first moves Till he put them straight on move 18 and got them to vote for the “correct” move. Nothing conclusive, obviously, but I find his interventions a bit fishy at this point. BTW, dalephilly was still playing for us at this stage. People in glass houses? Move 19 Bd2 is proposed as one of several moves by Proximo. Sarrat supports it. Chivasia Aug 21, 2017 Yes, Bd2 is what we earlier talked about, but that was after the exchange on a8 I believe They do indeed opt unanimously for the rook exchange and play Bd2 on the next move, but the above is chivasia’s only contribution. He again fails to vote. Move 20 Proximo opens the discussion with “Qd2 was Sarrat’s plan here” and Sarrat himself supports this. Then Chivasia chips in: Chivasia Aug 24, 2017 To me Bd2 feels more natural. Qd2 restricts the queen a bit, and at least restricts the bishop. I think one of their plans is Qb8, and if we go f4 we have opened a diagonal for the queen. Bd2 is indeed stronger (0.00 according to Stockfish) and is the top move up to about depth 22, after which maybe e4 is stronger (I got different results! Seems odd.) Qd2 would have given Black about half a pawn advantage. So again, Chivasia’s intervention was crucial. 3 votes for Bd2, unanimous. Chivasia did not vote. Move 21 f4 is the best move by a distance and is proposed. Chivasia chips in early: Chivasia Aug 28, 2017 f4 was mentioned. I think Torben was not too happy with it. g3 is an alternative. h3 is not working due to Bg3 This time, in fact, his suggestion would probably have lost them the game. Unmaster spots the flaw and Chivasia backs down quickly. This time they have 6 votes, all for f4, but once again chivasia does not vote.

This is the engine-match analysis done by one of the guys in the Fair Play group, beginning on the 14th/August:- This exceeds established benchmarks for 2300+ clean players here:ChessAnalyse report:Total Moves; 1674 Top 1 match: 907 / 54,2%Top 2 match: 295 / 71,8%Top 3 match: 179 / 82,5%Doing 50 games scan now, will update this thread with new results later today. If someone could put his games on PGN Spy or even better to chess base, that would be cool, to clear any doubts. On large sample, numbers still impressive: LOL what ? ? ? 50 games, 15 book moves, 20 ply, 10/20 seconds, SF 7: UNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 660T1: 179/425; 42.12% (std error 2.40)T2: 198/308; 64.29% (std error 2.73)T3: 194/257; 75.49% (std error 2.68)>0 CP loss: 244/660; 36.97% (std error 1.88)>10 CP loss: 167/660; 25.30% (std error 1.69)>25 CP loss: 101/660; 15.30% (std error 1.40)>50 CP loss: 44/660; 6.67% (std error 0.97)>100 CP loss: 16/660; 2.42% (std error 0.60)>200 CP loss: 2/660; 0.30% (std error 0.21)>500 CP loss: 0/660; 0.00% (std error 0.00)CP loss mean 12.03, std deviation 27.82 LOSING POSITIONSPositions: 24T1: 3/11; 27.27% (std error 13.43)T2: 3/7; 42.86% (std error 18.70)T3: 3/7; 42.86% (std error 18.70)>0 CP loss: 12/24; 50.00% (std error 10.21)>10 CP loss: 11/24; 45.83% (std error 10.17)>25 CP loss: 9/24; 37.50% (std error 9.88)>50 CP loss: 9/24; 37.50% (std error 9.88)>100 CP loss: 6/24; 25.00% (std error 8.84)>200 CP loss: 2/24; 8.33% (std error 5.64)>500 CP loss: 2/24; 8.33% (std error 5.64)CP loss mean 417.13, std deviation 1259.77 Clear (and instructive) case of selective cheater. Lets compare some data now: 1900 to 2100 Range:Reserved for PGN Spy 111 games UNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 4541T1: 1046/2896; 36.12% (std error 0.89)T2: 995/1763; 56.44% (std error 1.18)T3: 988/1405; 70.32% (std error 1.22)CP loss mean 24.37, std deviation 125.22 @dalephilly (2000+ rated) : Positions: 660T1: 179/425; 42.12% (std error 2.40)T2: 198/308; 64.29% (std error 2.73)T3: 194/257; 75.49% (std error 2.68) CP loss mean 12.03, std deviation 27.82 Way above his rating range, where he sits for a while now. So, this is how "targeted" cheating looks like. 9 games against IM @Jungleman82 scoring better than IM: @dalephilly, 9 games UNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 165T1: 46/101; 45.54% (std error 4.96)T2: 47/60; 78.33% (std error 5.32)T3: 37/43; 86.05% (std error 5.28)CP loss mean 16.96, std deviation 54.19 Compared to: IM @jungleman82, 9 games UNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 164T1: 38/89; 42.70% (std error 5.24)T2: 32/50; 64.00% (std error 6.79)T3: 27/34; 79.41% (std error 6.93)CP loss mean 13.54, std deviation 51.01 25 plies deep analysis reveals real numbers: Last 12 games, unfiltered analysis with PGN Spy: White Black Result Undecided positions T1 moves T1% T2 moves T2% T3 moves T3% zorglub53 dalephilly 1-0 26 16 61.54% 21 80.77% 22 84.62% dalephilly PanMath1947 1-0 20 14 70.00% 17 85.00% 17 85.00% dalephilly wsharabati 0-1 14 6 42.86% 10 71.43% 12 85.71% dalephilly PanMath1947 1-0 39 23 58.97% 32 82.05% 34 87.18% dalephilly PanMath1947 1/2-1/2 19 13 68.42% 17 89.47% 17 89.47% dalephilly Spectrall 0-1 20 6 30.00% 17 85.00% 18 90.00% Spectrall dalephilly 1/2-1/2 16 10 62.50% 15 93.75% 15 93.75% HomeIsRelative dalephilly 0-1 28 22 78.57% 26 92.86% 27 96.43% dalephilly Gater-Nation 1-0 14 10 71.43% 13 92.86% 14 100.00% Gater-Nation dalephilly 1/2-1/2 17 14 82.35% 17 100.00% 17 100.00% dalephilly HomeIsRelative 1-0 34 21 61.76% 31 91.18% 34 100.00% dalephilly PanMath1947 1-0 25 17 68.00% 25 100.00% 25 100.00%

I have completed work on my model to the point where I would like to share it with you both. Do either of you know whether I can attach an Excel spreadsheet to a Forum Topic in chess.com? If not, how about if we set up a DropBox? Joe

Since we're now down to just one game, we need to start some new ones. Any suggestions for groups we might challenge? Here are all the games we've played that resulted in either a draw or a loss... LAST RITES ... draw in last game The Unsound Openers ... draw in last game Doubles Vote Chess for Coaching League... draw in last game THE SEVEN-UPS... draw in last game Team Brazil ... draw in last game (not sure how much I trust this group) 1.Nc3 1...Nc6 Fans! ... draw in last game The Unseen University ... draw in last game The Great British Empire ... lost! (although we've won in two games against them) Los Mollejoski ... lost! Not trustworthy! 1.b3 Nimzo-Larsen Attack ... lost! (only played them once) Any of those look appealing? I'd like to challenge some of the teams we lost to before.

From one of my cheat-detector 'colleagues' & the one who carried out the analysis of my own games:- @Babarberousse (FIDE 2150): 51 games UNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 685T1: 152/435; 34.94% (std error 2.29)T2: 170/306; 55.56% (std error 2.84)T3: 185/270; 68.52% (std error 2.83)>0 CP loss: 282/685; 41.17% (std error 1.88)>10 CP loss: 203/685; 29.64% (std error 1.74)>25 CP loss: 129/685; 18.83% (std error 1.49)>50 CP loss: 76/685; 11.09% (std error 1.20)>100 CP loss: 30/685; 4.38% (std error 0.78)>200 CP loss: 9/685; 1.31% (std error 0.44)>500 CP loss: 2/685; 0.29% (std error 0.21)CP loss mean 18.85, std deviation 53.96 LOSING POSITIONSPositions: 59T1: 13/32; 40.63% (std error 8.68)T2: 13/26; 50.00% (std error 9.81)T3: 11/18; 61.11% (std error 11.49)>0 CP loss: 24/59; 40.68% (std error 6.40)>10 CP loss: 24/59; 40.68% (std error 6.40)>25 CP loss: 17/59; 28.81% (std error 5.90)>50 CP loss: 12/59; 20.34% (std error 5.24)>100 CP loss: 5/59; 8.47% (std error 3.63)>200 CP loss: 3/59; 5.08% (std error 2.86)>500 CP loss: 0/59; 0.00% (std error 0.00)CP loss mean 34.58, std deviation 69.32 GM @DJ_Haubi: 100 games UNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 2030T1: 514/1405; 36.58% (std error 1.29)T2: 593/976; 60.76% (std error 1.56)T3: 615/863; 71.26% (std error 1.54)>0 CP loss: 905/2030; 44.58% (std error 1.10)>10 CP loss: 648/2030; 31.92% (std error 1.03)>25 CP loss: 404/2030; 19.90% (std error 0.89)>50 CP loss: 164/2030; 8.08% (std error 0.60)>100 CP loss: 37/2030; 1.82% (std error 0.30)>200 CP loss: 9/2030; 0.44% (std error 0.15)>500 CP loss: 0/2030; 0.00% (std error 0.00)CP loss mean 14.25, std deviation 29.12 LOSING POSITIONSPositions: 98T1: 18/45; 40.00% (std error 7.30)T2: 15/27; 55.56% (std error 9.56)T3: 12/14; 85.71% (std error 9.35)>0 CP loss: 49/98; 50.00% (std error 5.05)>10 CP loss: 46/98; 46.94% (std error 5.04)>25 CP loss: 43/98; 43.88% (std error 5.01)>50 CP loss: 27/98; 27.55% (std error 4.51)>100 CP loss: 19/98; 19.39% (std error 3.99)>200 CP loss: 9/98; 9.18% (std error 2.92)>500 CP loss: 5/98; 5.10% (std error 2.22)CP loss mean 81.39, std deviation 205.42 NM @Impractical 75 games UNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 745T1: 152/440; 34.55% (std error 2.27)T2: 165/291; 56.70% (std error 2.90)T3: 168/250; 67.20% (std error 2.97)>0 CP loss: 310/745; 41.61% (std error 1.81)>10 CP loss: 229/745; 30.74% (std error 1.69)>25 CP loss: 149/745; 20.00% (std error 1.47)>50 CP loss: 65/745; 8.72% (std error 1.03)>100 CP loss: 17/745; 2.28% (std error 0.55)>200 CP loss: 4/745; 0.54% (std error 0.27)>500 CP loss: 1/745; 0.13% (std error 0.13)CP loss mean 15.89, std deviation 47.47 LOSING POSITIONSPositions: 6T1: 0/2; 0.00% (std error 0.00)T2: 0/1; 0.00% (std error 0.00)T3: 0/0>0 CP loss: 5/6; 83.33% (std error 15.21)>10 CP loss: 5/6; 83.33% (std error 15.21)>25 CP loss: 5/6; 83.33% (std error 15.21)>50 CP loss: 5/6; 83.33% (std error 15.21)>100 CP loss: 2/6; 33.33% (std error 19.25)>200 CP loss: 0/6; 0.00% (std error 0.00)>500 CP loss: 0/6; 0.00% (std error 0.00)CP loss mean 106.33, std deviation 64.66 WGM @WGM_Adriana_Nikolova 48 games UNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 939T1: 232/632; 36.71% (std error 1.92)T2: 275/452; 60.84% (std error 2.30)T3: 280/391; 71.61% (std error 2.28)>0 CP loss: 431/939; 45.90% (std error 1.63)>10 CP loss: 330/939; 35.14% (std error 1.56)>25 CP loss: 208/939; 22.15% (std error 1.36)>50 CP loss: 117/939; 12.46% (std error 1.08)>100 CP loss: 53/939; 5.64% (std error 0.75)>200 CP loss: 10/939; 1.06% (std error 0.33)>500 CP loss: 0/939; 0.00% (std error 0.00)CP loss mean 20.82, std deviation 45.19 LOSING POSITIONSPositions: 109T1: 20/63; 31.75% (std error 5.86)T2: 17/35; 48.57% (std error 8.45)T3: 17/26; 65.38% (std error 9.33)>0 CP loss: 61/109; 55.96% (std error 4.75)>10 CP loss: 56/109; 51.38% (std error 4.79)>25 CP loss: 47/109; 43.12% (std error 4.74)>50 CP loss: 32/109; 29.36% (std error 4.36)>100 CP loss: 16/109; 14.68% (std error 3.39)>200 CP loss: 7/109; 6.42% (std error 2.35)>500 CP loss: 3/109; 2.75% (std error 1.57)CP loss mean 59.76, std deviation 129.32

After suspicions were raised in the Cheating Forum recently because my TT rating is so low compared to my Daily rating, I invited the cheat-detectors to carry out an analysis on my own games & this is what resulted (with comments):- "Pretty good for an untitled player, but not meaningfully beyond what a strong untitled player should be capable of if he takes correspondence seriously." 50 games UNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 758T1: 205/551; 37.21% (std error 2.06)T2: 243/441; 55.10% (std error 2.37)T3: 257/395; 65.06% (std error 2.40)>0 CP loss: 369/758; 48.68% (std error 1.82)>10 CP loss: 286/758; 37.73% (std error 1.76)>25 CP loss: 196/758; 25.86% (std error 1.59)>50 CP loss: 106/758; 13.98% (std error 1.26)>100 CP loss: 40/758; 5.28% (std error 0.81)>200 CP loss: 10/758; 1.32% (std error 0.41)>500 CP loss: 0/758; 0.00% (std error 0.00)CP loss mean 22.00, std deviation 42.98 LOSING POSITIONSPositions: 56T1: 5/31; 16.13% (std error 6.61)T2: 9/22; 40.91% (std error 10.48)T3: 13/19; 68.42% (std error 10.66)>0 CP loss: 31/56; 55.36% (std error 6.64)>10 CP loss: 25/56; 44.64% (std error 6.64)>25 CP loss: 18/56; 32.14% (std error 6.24)>50 CP loss: 10/56; 17.86% (std error 5.12)>100 CP loss: 8/56; 14.29% (std error 4.68)>200 CP loss: 5/56; 8.93% (std error 3.81)>500 CP loss: 2/56; 3.57% (std error 2.48)CP loss mean 57.73, std deviation 138.01 I'm hoping these might help as a kind of baseline for a player around 1900/2000 but who has no comparable OTB experience. That's to say for someone who has a very analytical style of play. * BTW, my TT rating is awful because I disabled the rating function early on in order to disable the clock, which used to irritate me. I reason that being an exclusively long time control player, constantly being timed was of no benefit to me. I now use the TT facility on GameKnot where I have a rating of 1656 but haven't used it in more than a year.

And just when you have enough to deal with, another problem arrives... https://www.chess.com/member/cp6033 This time it's our old team member 87654321 who's done the analysis. He's pretty thick with hicetnunc - cut off the same granite block so to speak! Daily team match games >30 moves.Classic t3, upto 850cp.T2 above 99.99% confidence levels if 60/70/80 baseline.26 gamesUNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 934T1: 490/934; 52.46% (std error 1.63)T2: 736/934; 78.80% (std error 1.34)T3: 809/934; 86.62% (std error 1.11)>0 CP loss: 417/934; 44.65% (std error 1.63)>10 CP loss: 314/934; 33.62% (std error 1.55)>25 CP loss: 209/934; 22.38% (std error 1.36)>50 CP loss: 109/934; 11.67% (std error 1.05)>100 CP loss: 58/934; 6.21% (std error 0.79)>200 CP loss: 18/934; 1.93% (std error 0.45)>500 CP loss: 2/934; 0.21% (std error 0.15)CP loss mean 22.61, std deviation 55.91LOSING POSITIONSPositions: 0 (My comment) His stats look consistent across all categories of play with a USCF rating too:-USCF 2160Tactics 2486Bullet 2036Blitz 2052Rapid 1921Lessons 2454Daily 2146Chess 960 1907 * I've just been reminded that the T3 figures above are a classic type of analysis & it's better to compare the 'baseline' figures in the other thread with filtered results instead. Here are CP's filtered T3 stats:- "Here's CP6033's filtered T3 using my normal settings. This is not particularly suspicious." 50 games UNDECIDED POSITIONSPositions: 1113T1: 307/788; 38.96% (std error 1.74)T2: 366/625; 58.56% (std error 1.97)T3: 403/558; 72.22% (std error 1.90)>0 CP loss: 487/1113; 43.76% (std error 1.49)>10 CP loss: 358/1113; 32.17% (std error 1.40)>25 CP loss: 218/1113; 19.59% (std error 1.19)>50 CP loss: 100/1113; 8.98% (std error 0.86)>100 CP loss: 36/1113; 3.23% (std error 0.53)>200 CP loss: 7/1113; 0.63% (std error 0.24)>500 CP loss: 3/1113; 0.27% (std error 0.16)CP loss mean 18.15, std deviation 67.71 LOSING POSITIONSPositions: 123T1: 19/57; 33.33% (std error 6.24)T2: 23/37; 62.16% (std error 7.97)T3: 17/27; 62.96% (std error 9.29)>0 CP loss: 62/123; 50.41% (std error 4.51)>10 CP loss: 52/123; 42.28% (std error 4.45)>25 CP loss: 43/123; 34.96% (std error 4.30)>50 CP loss: 33/123; 26.83% (std error 4.00)>100 CP loss: 20/123; 16.26% (std error 3.33)>200 CP loss: 9/123; 7.32% (std error 2.35)>500 CP loss: 3/123; 2.44% (std error 1.39)CP loss mean 59.65, std deviation 141.38 Those look much better! I think we can rest easy in this case.

Joe, it would be useful to share this task & so we don't duplicate messages to members, this is where we can maintain the list of members who've been contacted already. Please use your own wording but if you prefer, I'll post a suggested 'template'. karangtarunasemarang .... contacted 14/1/17 # deleted 14/2/17 Abhishek2 .... contacted 16/1/17 # deleted 14/2/17 joaolima39 .... contacted 16/1/17 # deleted 14/2/17 isaacthebird .... contacted 15/1/17 # deleted 14/2/17 Chicken_Monster .... contacted 15/1/17. Replied that there aren't any new games to join - I said we'd be setting some up soon. PhoenixArisen .... let's give Andy a pass for now. MrTully .... contacted 16/1/17 # deleted 14/2/17 # .... sent a final message to all of these on 7/Feb/17.