Feature new tab for analysis graph: dots & lines combined • page 1/1 • Lichess Feedback • lichess.org

A picture is worth what it shows. When I go over my games, I like to see an overall view of the game.The anlaysis graph does that in tabs.

But the dots that represent the key mistakes during the game are not remaining active on the graph. The only way to see some of the dots on the graph, is to hover the mouse over the analysis results.

Can't screen capture the graph with all dots enabled.

Can the first tab orange analysis line change size as more time is spent on the move. The move time tab is good. I like the blue time lines.

But measuring the difference between the two blue time lines is not that obvious. Could the distance between the two lines be
measurable? The tension in a game will probably affect the distant between the too lines. Maybe if in the first tab the orange analysis line could also represent the difference between the two blue lines. The orange line could then thicken or thin out by time difference like an area graph shadowing the orange line. This would give a global picture of the game on one graph.

Global tab that shows the tensions of the game through thicknesses of the lines.

Having a third tab that could combine the two original tabs and dots would give a global picture of the came.

People could then screen capture the tab they want.

Graphs are like pictures, they express lots of things.

A picture is worth what it shows. When I go over my games, I like to see an overall view of the game.The anlaysis graph does that in tabs. But the dots that represent the key mistakes during the game are not remaining active on the graph. The only way to see some of the dots on the graph, is to hover the mouse over the analysis results. 1. Can't screen capture the graph with all dots enabled. Can the first tab orange analysis line change size as more time is spent on the move. The move time tab is good. I like the blue time lines. But measuring the difference between the two blue time lines is not that obvious. Could the distance between the two lines be measurable? The tension in a game will probably affect the distant between the too lines. Maybe if in the first tab the orange analysis line could also represent the difference between the two blue lines. The orange line could then thicken or thin out by time difference like an area graph shadowing the orange line. This would give a global picture of the game on one graph. 2. Global tab that shows the tensions of the game through thicknesses of the lines. Having a third tab that could combine the two original tabs and dots would give a global picture of the came. 3. People could then screen capture the tab they want. Graphs are like pictures, they express lots of things.

Toscani

Windows Snipping Tool has a delay feature, so I was able to get those dots I wanted on the screen before the capture.
But could not get all 3 (Inaccuracy, mistakes and blunders) all at the same time without doing one at a time. i tried overlapping all 3 images but was not clear enough.

Windows Snipping Tool has a delay feature, so I was able to get those dots I wanted on the screen before the capture. But could not get all 3 (Inaccuracy, mistakes and blunders) all at the same time without doing one at a time. i tried overlapping all 3 images but was not clear enough.

Toscani

edited

Maybe a general representation could be shown in the analysis results (by phase) : Example 1_2_3 Phases = Totals

Player-openblas-Results
1 : 1 : 1 inaccuracies = 3
0 : 1 : 1 mistakes = 2
0 : 0 : 1 blunder = 1
21 Average centipawn loss
90% Accuracy

Time used in each phase: Phase1 : Phase2 : Phase3 (M = Min, S=Secs)
30s : 2m: 15s Total = 2 mins 35 secs

May be this would point the blunder was in the end game, rushed by time.
All that without even looking at the graph. Comparing results between each player by digits.

Maybe a general representation could be shown in the analysis results (by phase) : Example 1_2_3 Phases = Totals Player-openblas-Results 1 : 1 : 1 inaccuracies = 3 0 : 1 : 1 mistakes = 2 0 : 0 : 1 blunder = 1 21 Average centipawn loss 90% Accuracy Time used in each phase: Phase1 : Phase2 : Phase3 (M = Min, S=Secs) 30s : 2m: 15s Total = 2 mins 35 secs May be this would point the blunder was in the end game, rushed by time. All that without even looking at the graph. Comparing results between each player by digits.

Toscani

edited

I was imagining something like this but also with dots. The shadow would be the time used by the players.
Obviously this image is only to help explain what I'm looking for in a global picture of a game.
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/format:webp/1*LH8o05qTL8u79eTTPzE9Hg.png
The image came from...
https://medium.com/applied-data-science/how-to-analyse-chess-games-using-graph-networks-38dd3b77d4be

I was imagining something like this but also with dots. The shadow would be the time used by the players. Obviously this image is only to help explain what I'm looking for in a global picture of a game. https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/format:webp/1*LH8o05qTL8u79eTTPzE9Hg.png The image came from... https://medium.com/applied-data-science/how-to-analyse-chess-games-using-graph-networks-38dd3b77d4be