Ask Coach/The Community!

Thanks, ya'll,

Based on your feedback, this is how I think I will relate to "Gene's" opinions. . . I'm also open to any added questions that might be helpful.

30,000 VIEW: What does the eval bar say about the general shape of the game. Does it reveal some obvious critical moments in the game? Also, what does the gap between my score and my opponent's score say about our relative strength to each other?

Then. . . 

ASSESS POTENTIAL CRITICAL MOMENTS: Could a typical player at my elo find those or is Gene just being a punk, here? Does this moment just reflect that I'm taking a slower, possibly more positional approach rather than a "tactics at every move" approach (which Gene seems to favor). Was I working on a specific skill or idea in these critical moments, which is why I didn't see the more efficient path? Were there any points in the game where I just got "lucky" because we both missed a critical moment? Did I make a choice, not just on the "best" move, but based on my read of my opponent's psychology and skill level, which might distort the accuracy rating?

LOOK AT MY OPPONENT'S HISTORY FOR CONTEXT: Did this person have a higher peak in the recent past? If this is a new account, could this player actually be higher rated? Does their play seem to reflect that they might be newer to the game? Do either of us seem to be tilting or just having a bad day? Is there any concern about cheating? . . . etc.

WRITE A BRIEF REFLECTION: Either annotate and/or send myself an email with the game attached, with 1-3 sentences describing the critical moments and what I learned from them.

...........

In the game I referenced (from my second account). Gene wanted us to see a fork in three+ moves, which I don't think most 800 elo folks are looking for. I was actually practicing a specific skill. . . punishing early queen development and trying to be more active early. I also made a one mover that was a bit knowingly risky, but I assessed I could do so based on my positional advantage and my sense of my opponent's board awareness. I did learn more about the power of two bishops on a diagonal, which would have allowed me to trap the knight and punish my opponents lack of development. I saw how they could apply pressure to the queen but didn't fully assess how vulnerable the knight was.

Anyways, do any of you have a "rubric" of sorts you use to analyze games? I would love to see what others do.

@hhart10k looking at this weeks marathon game, its quite a good one, there's two moves the engine doesn't like and I think it works well as an example for when to tell Gene to shut up.

These are:

1.  9... a5. This is a move that is thematic in the Scotch Gambit.
2. 12...Bb6 with ideas as shown in the game taking advantage of the misplaced Queen

For the 9th move Gene wants Qe7 this makes sense and the improvement from this is quite clear keeping the pressure down the centre to take advantage more of a misunderstanding of the system here. A5 is still a decent move through as it adds value and is heading in the right direction so I shouldn't look at it too negatively.

For the 12th move however Gene suggests Re8 and eventually sacrificing the exchange for an attack, to throw in d4 in a way that it can't be taken before sacrificing e8 Rook, very complex. It would also rather I play d4 and just give up a pawn and then wants to sacrifice the exchange for pure positional advantage. The engine review of these is around -3 and -2.5 rather than a bit below -2 for my own move.

There was even a bunch of other stranger moves it suggested that just seemed to give up pawns for some complex compensation that I didn't understand.

However, I think the move I choose is much easier to play with ideas of c4 for a nice push towards where the King will likely castle or lose a pawn for a massive attack.

In this position I would go as far to say that Gene is unhelpful, my win % will be much higher with Bb6 and my loss % lower therefore it is a better move, for me at least. I hope this practical example was helpful.

@Cartoon46, yes, it's helpful, thank you . .I think the idea of win% but relating to it subjectively is helpful as there is a human element to chess. .. and "Gene" will never be able to understand that . . . neither one's relative skills and skill level nor style of play. ..

I think "Gene" can be pretty overwhelming to newer players (I'm still relatively new), and I think it can be helpful to have both subjective and objective criteria when assessing a game. For, like a 300-400 elo player, maybe not hanging any pieces is fantastic, even if Gene criticizes for not seeing a fork or pin. . . and maybe at 500-600. . . maybe if one sees some forks and pins but misses how to exploit a pin . . maybe that's progress, too. And so, in the game I played, at 800ish, I applied pressure to a queen - making it difficult for my opponent to develop, created a mating net with three pieces, and coordinated mate with three pieces in the middle of the board. . .that's pretty good, even if I didn't see a fork in 3+ moves. I missed a faster mate, too, actually . .but mating in the middle of the board is good for me, with where I am at in m skill development. That's progress.

So, all that to say, "yes," considering a win% based on one's ACTUAL skill level makes sense.

I am bringing up the topic because I think it can be psychologically super hard to have "skittle" evaluations that Gene sometimes gives us, and those are SUPER common in my rating range. Gene can just be a punk, haha.

Thanks for your feedback, and I hope the pub club is going well!!

Warmly,

hhart10k

Just briefly checking in and love the discussion! Please send me a reminder about a conversation with Gene as a monthly community lecture topic. I won't have time to focus on that before our next community class (December 12th at 9am CST), but I would love to add that and any other recommendations for 2026 content planning.