Forums

Strange Statistics in ChessBase

Sort:
TheAdultProdigy
TheAdultProdigy
Jan 25, 2017
0
#21

Lopez is still great. His stuff has been very helpful.

Diakonia
Diakonia
Jan 25, 2017
0
#22
Milliern wrote:
JamesColeman wrote:

Of course ...a6 is a losing blunder as it loses a pawn for nothing after Bxc6. The 35 % is meaningless if it's only isolating a small number of games. 

 

Say for example there were 10 games with 1.e3 and white scored 0% (just using these numbers for an example). Then after you enter the moves 1.e3 e6 2.e4 e5 you transpose back into a main position where White obviously scores decently.

 

It does sound like you need to reset your search boosters on chessbase if your database is a decent size (several millon games) and that's all you're getting. (reference database, right click/delete search booster, right click again/create search booster)

LOL...  I obviously didn't spend any time looking at the position.  I was looking at the statistics.  Oops.

Nothing personal against you, but this is a perfect illustration on the reliance of technology, and not actually using your own abilities to think things through.  I think we are all guilty of this to some extent.

llama
llama
Closed: Inactive
Jan 25, 2017
0
#23
Diakonia wrote:
Milliern wrote:
JamesColeman wrote:

Of course ...a6 is a losing blunder as it loses a pawn for nothing after Bxc6. The 35 % is meaningless if it's only isolating a small number of games. 

 

Say for example there were 10 games with 1.e3 and white scored 0% (just using these numbers for an example). Then after you enter the moves 1.e3 e6 2.e4 e5 you transpose back into a main position where White obviously scores decently.

 

It does sound like you need to reset your search boosters on chessbase if your database is a decent size (several millon games) and that's all you're getting. (reference database, right click/delete search booster, right click again/create search booster)

LOL...  I obviously didn't spend any time looking at the position.  I was looking at the statistics.  Oops.

Nothing personal against you, but this is a perfect illustration on the reliance of technology, and not actually using your own abilities to think things through.  I think we are all guilty of this to some extent.

Reliance on technology, or just any learning in general. Our minds are limited so we use a lot of shortcuts.

Last week I played a blunder in a tournament game because I remembered an old game I'd seen where ____ happened. My opponent switched the move order, so I thought they'd be 1 move behind if I did the same plan as in the game I remembered.

But if I'd known nothing about the position, and only relied on calculation, I wouldn't have blundered.

Of course the flip side is if we rely too much on calculation we'll also play poorly.

TheAdultProdigy
TheAdultProdigy
Jan 25, 2017
0
#24

I wasn't relying on technology. I was focusing on how to use the statistics and so overlooked something basic about the position.

TheAdultProdigy
TheAdultProdigy
Jan 26, 2017
0
#25

Not sure what you were hoping to use the English language to express, but I appreciated the effort.

SirFlintstone
SirFlintstone
Apr 27, 2017
0
#26

Sometimes the programmers put in artificially low percentages or a number of silly games to bias the score.  This may be a cue to the program or a way for the program to search for tactics, especially easy ones, to save space in  the database.