Analysis of correspondence game • page 1/2 • Game analysis • lichess.org

Hi to everybody, I have now begun to play correspondence games and when I did the post game analysis of my few correspondence games (won) the result was just a disaster...10 blunders and so on...and to me, it happens relatively often that in rapid game I make also 0 errors and 0 blunders.

So what could that mean? Do I play better without reasoning too much?

Hi to everybody, I have now begun to play correspondence games and when I did the post game analysis of my few correspondence games (won) the result was just a disaster...10 blunders and so on...and to me, it happens relatively often that in rapid game I make also 0 errors and 0 blunders. So what could that mean? Do I play better without reasoning too much?

MisterJensen

#2

Concerning the rapid games, if your opponent blunders heavily early on, you could end up having no blunders or mistakes: that doesn't mean you played a perfect game, just that you were winning all along.
Concerning the blunders in correspondence game, you would need to check if those were all real blunders or not. Sometimes when winning, giving up material to simplify the game can be seen as a blunder by the computer even though from a human perspective it makes sense.

Concerning the rapid games, if your opponent blunders heavily early on, you could end up having no blunders or mistakes: that doesn't mean you played a perfect game, just that you were winning all along. Concerning the blunders in correspondence game, you would need to check if those were all real blunders or not. Sometimes when winning, giving up material to simplify the game can be seen as a blunder by the computer even though from a human perspective it makes sense.

Sick77

#3

beside a couple of really bad blunders, like free bishop and so on, they where all positional blunders (and yes it is normal that with an easy game it is more easy not to blunders but I'm pretty sure that some rapid I had without errors was pretty good...clearly speaking for my level) but in any case reasonable moves and not computer things.

do it is possible that spontaneity is more powerful than over thinking?

Or it is also possible computer in correspondence is more strength defining blunders?

beside a couple of really bad blunders, like free bishop and so on, they where all positional blunders (and yes it is normal that with an easy game it is more easy not to blunders but I'm pretty sure that some rapid I had without errors was pretty good...clearly speaking for my level) but in any case reasonable moves and not computer things. do it is possible that spontaneity is more powerful than over thinking? Or it is also possible computer in correspondence is more strength defining blunders?

tpr

#4

If you blunder in a corresponden,ce game, then you are doing something wrong.
You have not hours but days to come up with the perfect move. This should never ever be a blunder.

If you blunder in a corresponden,ce game, then you are doing something wrong. You have not hours but days to come up with the perfect move. This should never ever be a blunder.

Sick77

#5

yes it is true but first I have not the fun in studying one day a move...I mean...also in correspondence I do not think more than 30 minutes for a critical situation and second I do not menage in any case to see all possible variation and after a while I loose concentration and I take bad decision (this is also why it is difficult I play classical because while waiting for my adversary I loose concentration and I'm no more in the game)

but I will in any case continue correspondence in order to try to improve my gaming

yes it is true but first I have not the fun in studying one day a move...I mean...also in correspondence I do not think more than 30 minutes for a critical situation and second I do not menage in any case to see all possible variation and after a while I loose concentration and I take bad decision (this is also why it is difficult I play classical because while waiting for my adversary I loose concentration and I'm no more in the game) but I will in any case continue correspondence in order to try to improve my gaming

Sick77

#6

this is a rapid I played today 0 blunders and one errors

https://lichess.org/@/Sick77

this is a correspondence with 10 blunders

https://lichess.org/hgHu2JRJHNMt

:D

this is a rapid I played today 0 blunders and one errors https://lichess.org/@/Sick77 this is a correspondence with 10 blunders https://lichess.org/hgHu2JRJHNMt :D

Sick77

#7

sorry this is the rapid

https://lichess.org/2ASMwNWwaMNu

sorry this is the rapid https://lichess.org/2ASMwNWwaMNu

tpr edited

#8

The difference is that in the rapid game you capitalise on your opponent's blunder. You do not play any better in rapid than in correspondence, your opponent plays worse in rapid.

Even at 30 minutes/move you should never ever blunder.
Besides there is no point in accepting correspondence at say 3 days / move and then take only 30 minutes / move.
If you have no fun in studying one day a move then correspondence is not for you.

"I do not menage in any case to see all possible variation"
How come, you have 3 days for your move, you are allowed to move pieces on the board. Of course you can see all possible variations to some depth.

"after a while I loose concentration and I take bad decision"
If in correspondence you lose concentration, then you can do something else and resume analysis later. That is the essence of correspondence. Correspondence requires no stamina, but it does require patience.

"I play classical because while waiting for my adversary I loose concentration and I'm no more in the game"
In playing classical you should not analyse while waiting for your opponent to move, you should only make general considerations. Only after your opponent moves you should revert to deep concentration and calculate all possibilities.

The difference is that in the rapid game you capitalise on your opponent's blunder. You do not play any better in rapid than in correspondence, your opponent plays worse in rapid. Even at 30 minutes/move you should never ever blunder. Besides there is no point in accepting correspondence at say 3 days / move and then take only 30 minutes / move. If you have no fun in studying one day a move then correspondence is not for you. "I do not menage in any case to see all possible variation" How come, you have 3 days for your move, you are allowed to move pieces on the board. Of course you can see all possible variations to some depth. "after a while I loose concentration and I take bad decision" If in correspondence you lose concentration, then you can do something else and resume analysis later. That is the essence of correspondence. Correspondence requires no stamina, but it does require patience. "I play classical because while waiting for my adversary I loose concentration and I'm no more in the game" In playing classical you should not analyse while waiting for your opponent to move, you should only make general considerations. Only after your opponent moves you should revert to deep concentration and calculate all possibilities.

tnx

just a thing... 30 minutes are a lot of time...if you make a 30 moves match there are 15 hour just for my moves ;) (I think 1 day pro move is more because of people can not stay the entire day ready for replaying to an adversary move and in the meanwhile doing something else and not just a day long thinking about a move)