royalbishop wrote:
Stats does not work well with chess. Some how something goes wrong way ....out of the way. I want nothing to do with it.
Then why are you commenting on this thread?
Most games take about 25 moves?
Sort:
It is like a train wreck even more we all get sucked in at chess.com. We know what is there and what is coming and like a moth to a flame......
yip trou better spinding your energie off whats matter the game is the game
:)
royalbishop wrote:
Yeah they said the world was flat.
Bla bla we found out they were wrong.
Well, well... the world seems pretty flat to me. It depends on your viewpoint, genius.
"The system assumes an average game-length of 40 moves to estimate the total length of time available to each player..."
My quickest game was 7 moves. My longest was around 77 moves.
As others said, 25 is very short. Also note that the length of the game is no indication of how well either player played. i.e. I can't boast "I lasted 50 moves against a master" because the length means nothing. I may have been losing from move 20 and the type of winning advantage was a technical grind lasting into the endgame.
@Gil-Gandel If I could play like Spassky, you'dbe posting my games. Lol. J/k. Of course, he probably set it up like that and you can't take away any credit from him. But, it also seems strange that Bronstein was busy progressing a pawn and developing the knight, but eventually just curled up on his own squares and lost.