This is one of the most common and newbie questions but then again, i want to ask that in many of the games that i have seen Grandmasters have 0 inaccuracies and 0 mistakes, leave apart the blunders. i mean in a game you think that your move is correct but later computer analysis shows it is a mistake or an inaccurate move. So, how do GMs or experts knows that it is indeed an accurate move (according to the engines also)?
I just don't believe that statement to be true, if you check with an engine GMs games are filled with non-top computer choices on a frequent basis, however, they might consistently find the top 3 choices which is enough to win against 99% of all players.
The difference in the top choice and the second choice might be 0,15 on each move and maybe not even seen as a mistake but the accumulative numbers add up. I would say that games that last more than 20 moves where one party plays flawlessly are quite rare unless its a theory battle were all is known before the game.
Regards Richard
The difference in the top choice and the second choice might be 0,15 on each move and maybe not even seen as a mistake but the accumulative numbers add up. I would say that games that last more than 20 moves where one party plays flawlessly are quite rare unless its a theory battle were all is known before the game.
Regards Richard
Lichess inaccuracy is about half-pawn so it means absolutely nothing for top player when they have time think about the moves. 0.5 below the best move is a mistake in most situations. Couple of those and you are in losing position. But grand master do make non-optimal moves. Just less than the others
Just play good moves. And then it happens every now and then. Think I had many „flawless“ blitz games (in terms of the lichess analysis).
Recently: lichess.org/forum/game-analysis/wow-many-tactical-skirmishes-as-well-as-a-flawless-blitz-game-of-mine-000-acpl-7-or-9#1
Recently: lichess.org/forum/game-analysis/wow-many-tactical-skirmishes-as-well-as-a-flawless-blitz-game-of-mine-000-acpl-7-or-9#1
@gablusky #1
This also depends on playing style.
Games from Bobby Fischer and Jose Capablanca, both crystal clear positional players with brilliant technique, will show you quite a few 0/0/0 games with Lichess analysis.
GMs who played more adventurous and risky like e.g. Mikhail Tal will likely show less 0/0/0 games with Lichess analysis.
As an example the 0/0/0 3 acpl game by Fischer :
Source with annotated game : http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008419
This also depends on playing style.
Games from Bobby Fischer and Jose Capablanca, both crystal clear positional players with brilliant technique, will show you quite a few 0/0/0 games with Lichess analysis.
GMs who played more adventurous and risky like e.g. Mikhail Tal will likely show less 0/0/0 games with Lichess analysis.
As an example the 0/0/0 3 acpl game by Fischer :
Source with annotated game : http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008419
@gablusky
They don't know. They try to give their best and have worked on their deficiencies over years.
It's like learning a language. If you practise each day you get better. The learning curve is losing steepness. That's all.
They don't know. They try to give their best and have worked on their deficiencies over years.
It's like learning a language. If you practise each day you get better. The learning curve is losing steepness. That's all.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.