- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Measuring Level of Play in different Endgame Types

The important thing is not whether the research is perfect, but that anyone is doing this research at all! I am most curious how amateurs may learn from this.

The important thing is not whether the research is perfect, but that anyone is doing this research at all! I am most curious how amateurs may learn from this.

nice, would be cool to see a category strictly for pawnless endgames if there is enough data

nice, would be cool to see a category strictly for pawnless endgames if there is enough data

The types of endgames Rook, Bishop, Knight, Pawn, Queen are treated equally, but rook endgames happen much more frequently.
Bishop vs. Knight is relatively frequent, but excluded.
For the new generation not enough data is available. Maybe go back 5 years.
Some more players may be relevant: Ding Liren, Karjakin, Anand...

The types of endgames Rook, Bishop, Knight, Pawn, Queen are treated equally, but rook endgames happen much more frequently. Bishop vs. Knight is relatively frequent, but excluded. For the new generation not enough data is available. Maybe go back 5 years. Some more players may be relevant: Ding Liren, Karjakin, Anand...

It seems Carlsen is outstanding.
It would be interesting to compare Carlsen with Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Rubinstein, Lasker.

It seems Carlsen is outstanding. It would be interesting to compare Carlsen with Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Rubinstein, Lasker.

@tpr said in #5:

It seems Carlsen is outstanding.
It would be interesting to compare Carlsen with Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Rubinstein, Lasker.

Comparing players across time periods is tricky with this method, as it depends on the opponents of the players.
I think that defensive technique has improved a lot over the years, so it was easier to win better endings 50 or 100 years ago. Also the pre-war players often played in tournaments where there were a couple of players that weren't on their level, which again inflates their results compared to the expected score.

@tpr said in #5: > It seems Carlsen is outstanding. > It would be interesting to compare Carlsen with Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Rubinstein, Lasker. Comparing players across time periods is tricky with this method, as it depends on the opponents of the players. I think that defensive technique has improved a lot over the years, so it was easier to win better endings 50 or 100 years ago. Also the pre-war players often played in tournaments where there were a couple of players that weren't on their level, which again inflates their results compared to the expected score.

#6
Yes, tricky, but interesting nevertheless.
Does Carlsen handle rook ending better, worse, or the same as Capablanca?

#6 Yes, tricky, but interesting nevertheless. Does Carlsen handle rook ending better, worse, or the same as Capablanca?

How did you atomatically label wich position is the start of a certain endgame?

How did you atomatically label wich position is the start of a certain endgame?

@tpr said in #5:

It seems Carlsen is outstanding.
It would be interesting to compare Carlsen with Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Rubinstein, Lasker.

Carlsen is outstanding... water is wet... of course Carlsen is outstanding. :)

The comparison with historical players is interesting. I remember chess com doing such a thing, comparing accuracies from historical players using the same 'measure': Stockfish 8 analysis. Of course this also showed Carlsen to be (by far) the best chess player in history.

There were some side notes to be made. Specifically it did not take into account how long the player was active, especially after their peak. Carlsen hadn't peaked yet, and Fischer pretty much stopped after becoming a world champion, while others continued to play long after they were successful. Another 'problem' with that analysis is that the whole idea of comparing players by comparing accuracies isn't all that great. Accuracy is actually a poor indicator for strength of play.

It would be interesting to see such an analysis split for game phase and/or end game type nevertheless, totally agree. But I must say: I expect Carlsen to be the best in all categories.

@tpr said in #5: > It seems Carlsen is outstanding. > It would be interesting to compare Carlsen with Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Rubinstein, Lasker. Carlsen is outstanding... water is wet... of course Carlsen is outstanding. :) The comparison with historical players is interesting. I remember chess com doing such a thing, comparing accuracies from historical players using the same 'measure': Stockfish 8 analysis. Of course this also showed Carlsen to be (by far) the best chess player in history. There were some side notes to be made. Specifically it did not take into account how long the player was active, especially after their peak. Carlsen hadn't peaked yet, and Fischer pretty much stopped after becoming a world champion, while others continued to play long after they were successful. Another 'problem' with that analysis is that the whole idea of comparing players by comparing accuracies isn't all that great. Accuracy is actually a poor indicator for strength of play. It would be interesting to see such an analysis split for game phase and/or end game type nevertheless, totally agree. But I must say: I expect Carlsen to be the best in all categories.

#9
"split for game phase and/or end game type"

  • I would like rook endgame comparison of Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Lasker.
#9 "split for game phase and/or end game type" * I would like rook endgame comparison of Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Lasker.