- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Is Carlsen better after losing a game?

<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>

equal endgame definition?
I saw endgame definition in back reference, but something I might have missed about the measure of equal.

To find equal endgames, I checked if the first position in the endgame is equal

Should I assume this is not only about material classes being equal or symetric across side (color).
Some engine score? Or EGTB? I forgot that one. Calling it draw?

I did read that you were using a certain lower threshold of rating, but then another word that threw me in "what is the definition" came up in there.

I ended up using all games where one player was rated over 2800 as a comparison and scored them from the perspective of the 2800 player. By doing the comparison this way, I only get games where the players have a rating similar to Carlsen and are the rating favourites in each game.

"rating" favourites.
I am sorry if this is obvious. I do have some candidate. But like better rating than Carlsen at the game event start. I do not know the extent of my ignorance and my only chess learning experience is through here.. (online).. so I walk on shells, a priori. I might also be having a bad brain day, or just don't know how to read.. (possible)...

Also none of those question are critiques. One has to start somewhere, and damn the questions torpedoes, this is where to ask the questions.

> equal endgame definition? I saw endgame definition in back reference, but something I might have missed about the measure of equal. > To find equal endgames, I checked if the first position in the endgame is equal Should I assume this is not only about material classes being equal or symetric across side (color). Some engine score? Or EGTB? I forgot that one. Calling it draw? I did read that you were using a certain lower threshold of rating, but then another word that threw me in "what is the definition" came up in there. > I ended up using all games where one player was rated over 2800 as a comparison and scored them from the perspective of the 2800 player. By doing the comparison this way, I only get games where the players have a rating similar to Carlsen and are the rating favourites in each game. "rating" favourites. I am sorry if this is obvious. I do have some candidate. But like better rating than Carlsen at the game event start. I do not know the extent of my ignorance and my only chess learning experience is through here.. (online).. so I walk on shells, a priori. I might also be having a bad brain day, or just don't know how to read.. (possible)... Also none of those question are critiques. One has to start somewhere, and damn the questions torpedoes, this is where to ask the questions.

Answering my own "equal" question. If material is symmetric, the interesting thing is about the non-symetric configuration (which might never really exist given the game is a turn by turn). I sometimes can be thick (ok often).

at the considered start of your each mini-game in selected data set,

Qualitative (exact, or branching proportion, or else):

  1. it might be EGTB top line (or portrait of draws, wondering there that about how "solid" would a draw be in non-perfect chess at 2800, if using EGTB.

Quantitative:
2) it might be quantitative using a certain engine of a certain version. An upper absolute value score.

Then for the termination call, I should keep reading the backreference... I guess.

Answering my own "equal" question. If material is symmetric, the interesting thing is about the non-symetric configuration (which might never really exist given the game is a turn by turn). I sometimes can be thick (ok often). at the considered start of your each mini-game in selected data set, Qualitative (exact, or branching proportion, or else): 1) it might be EGTB top line (or portrait of draws, wondering there that about how "solid" would a draw be in non-perfect chess at 2800, if using EGTB. Quantitative: 2) it might be quantitative using a certain engine of a certain version. An upper absolute value score. Then for the termination call, I should keep reading the backreference... I guess.

going to work off substack reading. Might take me a while. so I don't journal too much here. (no promise for there). Although deleting there does actually delete the vertical space....

I actually enjoy more the definition challenge and data sampling model than the target question. or results... :)

going to work off substack reading. Might take me a while. so I don't journal too much here. (no promise for there). Although deleting there does actually delete the vertical space.... I actually enjoy more the definition challenge and data sampling model than the target question. or results... :)

I think you could make a graph on score based on oppo ents rating, that would show, if winstreaks due to weaker opposition in swiss tournaments influneced the graph.

But on the other hand, similar information should be able to be extracted from the second - performance graph

I think you could make a graph on score based on oppo ents rating, that would show, if winstreaks due to weaker opposition in swiss tournaments influneced the graph. But on the other hand, similar information should be able to be extracted from the second - performance graph

@CkickyCheck said in #7:

I think you could make a graph on score based on oppo ents rating, that would show, if winstreaks due to weaker opposition in swiss tournaments influneced the graph.

But on the other hand, similar information should be able to be extracted from the second - performance graph

My idea was that the performance rating would look differently if the opponents during win streaks are weaker. But Carlsen had the highest performance rating in rapid and blitz after winning games, so he performed also better, when one takes the level of the opponents into account.

@CkickyCheck said in #7: > I think you could make a graph on score based on oppo ents rating, that would show, if winstreaks due to weaker opposition in swiss tournaments influneced the graph. > > But on the other hand, similar information should be able to be extracted from the second - performance graph My idea was that the performance rating would look differently if the opponents during win streaks are weaker. But Carlsen had the highest performance rating in rapid and blitz after winning games, so he performed also better, when one takes the level of the opponents into account.

It's an interesting question for sure.

I was just wondering about your statistical method here. Isn't looking at 'the game after a lose' introducing some statistical bias? Like, Carlsens loses are already pretty rare in classical, and by taking the game after a lose, you're by definition excluding one lose out of your sequence of results (Wins/Draws/Loses). So what remains of this sequence is then guaranteed to be of higher performance then the sequence you started with.

For example, if I take some random short tournament sequence 110111011, my performance after a win is obviously much less than after a lose, which is in fact 100% here.

Might be negligible for high number of games though... I dunno. Interesting that rapid and blitz appear to be different, so perhaps even Carlsen is just tilting sometimes then.

It's an interesting question for sure. I was just wondering about your statistical method here. Isn't looking at 'the game after a lose' introducing some statistical bias? Like, Carlsens loses are already pretty rare in classical, and by taking the game after a lose, you're by definition excluding one lose out of your sequence of results (Wins/Draws/Loses). So what remains of this sequence is then guaranteed to be of higher performance then the sequence you started with. For example, if I take some random short tournament sequence 110111011, my performance after a win is obviously much less than after a lose, which is in fact 100% here. Might be negligible for high number of games though... I dunno. Interesting that rapid and blitz appear to be different, so perhaps even Carlsen is just tilting sometimes then.

That was a really interesting read, thanks for this!

That was a really interesting read, thanks for this!