The new Caps measurement system does have a big flaw. So when you play the turtle system, you might get punished (lose Caps percentage) for delibaretely following a no-risk strategy. The computer might say "you should have gone for that piece sac! therefore you errored!" while within human terms the piece sac means risk (you might blunder in that tactical skirmish) while there was an easy strategical long term plus with good winning chances which has no risk and you will win or draw while the piece sac might also be losing due to a unexpected path you cannot comprehend at the moment you are saccing.
Next to that, humans are not computers. Sure computers outrank humans in chess results, but that does not mean the computer's path is the best human path. Computers just calculate. Humans have different styles, preferences, emotions etc.
I used to (last year) always let the computer's evaluation weigh highly in openings and positions. But I have changed. It's more important how I feel in the position then what the computer says. I'd rather play a 0.0 opening where I have played many games in and have experience then get 0.4 where I have never played that position before.
Next to that, last year I was into statistics a lot. But now I'd gladly play a statistical inferior position ONLY when I know the position well.
So getting 0.2 disadvantage by the computer and getting like 20% more lost games in the database, as long as I am comfortable with the position and I have played many games in it, and I know some great plans, and I have scored well, then I just go for it
I wrote this in my OTB diary, before a 1700 players decided to kick me out.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/better-than-ratings-chess-com-s-new-caps-system Did you read this?
The new Caps measurement system does have a big flaw. So when you play the turtle system, you might get punished (lose Caps percentage) for delibaretely following a no-risk strategy. The computer might say "you should have gone for that piece sac! therefore you errored!" while within human terms the piece sac means risk (you might blunder in that tactical skirmish) while there was an easy strategical long term plus with good winning chances which has no risk and you will win or draw while the piece sac might also be losing due to a unexpected path you cannot comprehend at the moment you are saccing.
Next to that, humans are not computers. Sure computers outrank humans in chess results, but that does not mean the computer's path is the best human path. Computers just calculate. Humans have different styles, preferences, emotions etc.
I used to (last year) always let the computer's evaluation weigh highly in openings and positions. But I have changed. It's more important how I feel in the position then what the computer says. I'd rather play a 0.0 opening where I have played many games in and have experience then get 0.4 where I have never played that position before.
Next to that, last year I was into statistics a lot. But now I'd gladly play a statistical inferior position ONLY when I know the position well.
So getting 0.2 disadvantage by the computer and getting like 20% more lost games in the database, as long as I am comfortable with the position and I have played many games in it, and I know some great plans, and I have scored well, then I just go for it