This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

of time. FIDE rating of 2008 serves as a basis of comparison. There exist two types of analyses: those that comprise players, and those that comprise certain time periods. The advantage of time period-based analyses lies in the fact that their results are not affected by style of play so much as it could sever the credibility of results. Tactical play by humans often contains moves that objectively are not optimal, but give good chances in practical play. If games are chosen randomly, the probability of either wild, or calmer and positional games happening to be within a selection is equal. Thus decades from 1860s till 2000s are taken as an object in the study. To ensure the coherence of data, players from the chessmetrics.com rating interval 2600-2700 were taken into consideration. The average rating stays therefore always near 2650. For the sake of interest, Carlsen's games from Nanking 2009 are also included where his performance rating was even 3002. It has been often described as the most impressive display of chess skill ever by human. Later on Fischer vs Larsen and Taimanov, and Karpov in Linares 1994 will be analyzed as well. Some theoretical principles. Every computerized analysis whose aim is to ascertain the playing strength of a player in comparison with today's FIDE-rated chessplayers, has to consider following theoretical principles: 1. All moves must be taken under scrutiny as long as one of the players does not have a won position, except opening moves. It's crucially important that all moves after leaving theory are analyzed, provided the position is more or less equal. If one picks an arbitrary selection of moves from a game, the whole picture will not be seen like in the case of all other measurings in the world. As long as the position remains more or less equal, a player supposedly mostly retains the objective and neutral opinion. Things are different when the position inclines decisively towards one or other side. For example, if a player is in a clearly lost position, there would be no reason to expect him to make every effort due to psychological reasons, or he would resort to swindling, or just go into complete passivity. In a won position pursuit of accuracy, on the other hand, is not the most essential, if there exist other, more natural for humans, ways leading to victory. It must be admitted, though, that in the case of data size being large enough it is not so important, as it would be cancelled out statistically. 2. It must be considered that time control may be different by games, whereas in earlier times they were longer than nowadays. Time controls in tournaments and matches have become shorter in the course of time, and due to the spread of computers, adjournments have disappeared. One of reasons must be making chess more attractive to the audience. Shorter time controls also decrease the number of number of draws via the lessened quality of play. 3. Longer time control leads to more accurate play. By doubling thinking time, the playing strength of humans increases further than computers (cs 5070 ELO). Also, the increase in accuracy is sharper at faster time controls. 4. Positions in a game of chess are of different degrees of difficulty that affect the accuracy of play. Generally, positions occurring in a game can be classified into two categories: tactical and positional/strategical. The more tactical elements there are in a position, the more difficult it is for a

000 0.181 0. Each position was analyzed for 5 minutes with 5 simultaneous PV-s on dual 2GHz Athlon. including thinking time. Derive the average expected error on the basis of difficulty factors and actual average error. 7.211 0.228 a .122 0. It demonstrates how important it is to put the opponent under pressure. The methods of analysis used in this study. The accuracy of play of a tactical player. The rating of a player is a reflection of his playing skills in a numerical way. it is theoretically possible that both equally good players with a similar style of play are playing at equal strength. but the same altogether. It makes move-choosing more complicated. Next find out various difficulty parameters. to strive for the initiative.185 0. The level of play or the rating of a player is indicated by what his expected average error is at a certain degree of difficulty. the expected average error of a player of the same level of play can be slightly different with respect to the extremes of the degree of difficulty. The GUI was Arena 2. 3.146 0. is relativelt better in more difficult and tactical positions.147 0. It is possible to determine the difficulty of position with the help of various parameters whose sum total makes up the general factor of difficulty.0.human to maintain the accuracy of play.225 0. but one of them loses due to his positions being more difficult.129 0. nonetheless.135 0.172 0. Depending on the style of play. Since the difficulty of positions is also influenced by moves players make. 4 phases can be distinguished: 1. I prefer the terms 'higher accuracy of play' or 'lower accuracy of play' over 'easier/harder to find best moves' because in more than a half of positions the notion of 'best move' matters extremely little. Since the amount of data was relatively average actual error Carlsen Nanking 2009 1870s 2700 2400 1900s 1880s 2600 1860s 2500 1890s 2200 2300 2000 2100 0. Find out the actual average error.200 0. How much a factor influences the accuracy of play can be determined from measuring how much relatively the actual error changes within an equal sized amount of positions. The corresponding indicator of positionally playing chessplayer in simpler and more strategical positions is higher than that of a equistrong tactical player.184 0. 5. 4.119 0. Compare the results with that of the modern FIDE-rated players to get an overview of the playing level of players being analyzed. The outcome of a game of chess is determined by the actual accuracy of play. It is calculated by taking the eval of best move by Rybka and substracting the evaluation of the move made by a player from it. The expected error is a function of the actual error and the difficulty factor: f expected error= actual error difficulty The general difficulty factor is equal to the joint effect of all separate difficulty factors.063 0. generally more threatening and aggressive moves tend to highen the difficulty for the opponent. 2. In determining the average actual error Rybka 3 Default with default settings has been used. 6.

but player B only one mistake withe the value of 13.68.00% result of some external influences. positions where both the evaluation of move proposed by computer and the evaluation of move actually played are outside of the evaluation interval [2.13% 6.94. For the sake of interest. Thus. it doesn't matter how large it exactly was.52% account in the analysis.85% 5.00% 10.31% the calculation of the expected error will be. An exception has been made for mistakes that really turn the situation around: a won position to a drawn or a lost one and vice versa. and are dependent on the placement of pawns and pieces that in turn depends on the style of play and openings. the frequency of blunders is displayed here. 1.97% 2600 3. -2] and are with the same sign. What actual average error indicates in the ideal situation is how much the accuracy of play deviates from the absolute point of view of perfect play. Internal factors develop in the course of game. evaluation). the start point where the analysis begins depends on a time-period as shown in the following table: 1860-1879 1880-1899 1900-1919 1920-1939 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000s 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The minimal length of games is 20 moves + the start point of the analysis. 1890s 1860s 2500 2200 2300 2100 2000 3.97% 6. stabilizing points have been used. it ranges between 2835 according to period. As mentioned previously. difference) and indirect ones (material. otherwise the conclusions could have been misleading. conditions at playing venue etc. but not over 2.23% play harder. Since Rybka 3 is quite untrustworthy in properly evaluating endgames. feeling. If I didn't use the boundary value. psychological pressure as a 0. a serious matter acts as an obstacle: how easily one Carlsen Nanking 2009 0.74% is able to lower his error rate depends not only on his playing 1880s 1.55% There are two types of difficulty factors: external and internal ones. Only positions during which the situation of the game stays more or less equal are considered. A blunder is a mistake valued 1. The more of them. but the fact that a mistake was committed. not how much theory one has learnt by heart.92% 5. the more trustworthy 2700 2. blunder percentage Unfortunately. except when the number of valid moves is under 30. exactly this criterion plays a determining role in the outcome of a game. but also on factors that make maintaining one's accuracy of 1870s 1. This is why it is necessary to take those factors into 2400 2.89% 1900s 2.00 or more. we would arrive at the conclusion that both players had played at a similar level of accuracy. have been removed.90% 4. An example can be instanced where player A in a game makes 5 mistakes 2.scarce. which would be obviously misleading. 2.81% skills. So. internal factors are also valuable indetermining the playing style of chessplayers.01.00% 5.00. • The largest mistake possible is 2.34. In the case of large mistakes. positions with less than 10 pieces or pawns have been left out of consideration. Because opening theory is advancing every year. . Only thinking time can be measured and considered.08 and 2. Unlike external ones. 2.44.01% 4. Games whose blunder percentage exceeds 15% were removed. External factors are thinking time.00. • • There is no point in including opening moves if purely chess skills are being analyzed. 2. the fate of a game depends on to what extent one can bring his divergence from the absolute to a minimum. Internal factors can be classified into two groups: direct (complexity.00 is chosen arbitrarily and is not actually more valid than any other similar value.

Evaluation Evaluation describes how far a position has drifted from the complete equilibrium towards a decisive result.4.000 0. One has to take into account the fact that changes at greater depths are more difficult to see for players. whereas Carlsen Nanking 2009 0. 3. Positions where best moves are forced have 2100 0.550 0. Difference 2500 0.435 0. and enabling a player to choose among many more-or-less equal moves. it shows indirectly how tactical a position is.394 0.680 0.391 difference is in correlation with lower accuracy of play.460 are regarded as 3.472 easily.The difference between direct and indirect factors lies in the fact that direct factors determine the the tacticality or the positionality of a position directly. But that's 1870s 0.500 strategical positions difference factor is relatively small. so all differences within the interval 10-15ply were further multiplied by two.519 0.530 0.504 Difference is simply the evaluation difference between the best 1890s 0. Higher complexity and difference occur chiefly in tactical positions. a smaller difference is presumably in correlation evaluation with how moany PV-s are within a certain evaluation window. It shows how important it is for a player to 2400 0.934 0.507 0.417 1860s 0.487 2600 0. irrational and unclear where concrete calculation has greater prominence than positional evaluation. Since all the players analyzed here 2200 0. indirect ones do not.Stockfish 1. 2300 2100 2000 2700 2500 1890s Carlsen Nanking 2009 2400 1880s 2200 1900s 1860s 2600 1870s 0. A short description of the five difficulty parameters usen here in the study is as follows: complexity 1.00.482 0.369 the probability of choosing the best move increases.507 0.504 0.500 After that all differences between first and second best move at each point of move change are added together.483 0.417 choose best moves.674 0.504 and the second best move. Secondly. Complexity.612 0. Complexity shows for what extent a position is tactically complicated.00 and all higher values 2300 0. In more peaceful and 0.000 . the maximal difference is set at 3. 1880s Carlsen Nanking 2009 1860s 2000 2300 1900s 1890s 2700 2100 2600 1870s 2200 2400 2500 0.538 0. very often the best move is not obvious and clearly distinguished at all.426 difference 2.435 0.716 0.343 1880s 0.727 0.497 0.758 0. however.401 0.338 precisely why chess is interesting. some surprising and hard-to-see tactical shots are found.458 0. A high complexity can occur also in seemingly calm positions but where. enabling more fine-grained distinguishing. Although it has not been considered here.560 0.546 0.000 0.555 2000 0. deviations tend to have bigger values due to bigger proportions even if other factors remain same.488 generally play on a quite high level and do not make oversights so 2700 0.455 0. because its evaluation figures are larger than Rybka 3. a large amount of material on the board and a high evaluation do not reveal anything about the type of positions.440 greater difference. It is the same as the absolute value of the evaluation of an engine on the best variation. It may seem a bit strange that higher 1900s 0. Another engine is used . Also.458 0. Complexity is calculated this way: all instances of Stockfish changing its best move at each depth from 2 to 15 are determined.500 1.000 0.500 0. 0. since the frequency of evaluation jumps in messed-up positions is certainly bigger either as a result of participants committing more errors or engines having troubles in orienting tin a thicket of variations. in positions where evaluations are higher.

Material The system devised by Larry Kaufman with the help of computer was used in describing the quantity of material. 3 min.00 5. rook 5.56 24. Thinking time There are numerous sites on the internet where information on time controls in various times at various tournaments and matches are available. How to measure them? There is no some thinking time uniform criterion.3 2596 2621 2860 -239 5.95 23.. slight diminishing returns can also be observed. estimates given by Encyclopaedia Britannica were used: 18800.43 26.06 28.1985 3 min 45 s.06 24.511 2534 2567 2811 -243. In case of humans. Queen 9. Material describes the 'endgameness' of a position. 1986-. 1926-1945 3 min 20 s.0 2632 2657 2865 -208 4.0 2408 2446 2682 -236 4.0 2378 2441 2763 -322 5. doubling thinking time means a rise of playing level by about 110 ELO. according to the following graph.7 The method consists of comparing the performance rating of a player giving a simul to his own actual rating and dividing it by mean time odds.. One possibility was to use clock simuls. so I included an arbitrary 1 2400 164 hour to every adjourned game.0 2620 2658 2854 -196 4.0 2348 2398 2795 -397 4. 1946. in earlier times there even was an unwritten Carlsen Nanking 2009 134 2000 144 statute that adjourned games were not analyzed. One of the most annoying problems were adjourned games.3 2596 2609 2860 -251 3.78 22. In any case. it seems 2500 153 2200 158 impossible to find a decent solution. one of the most difficult problems needed to be solved: how changes in the thinking time affect the accuracy of play? Computer's playing strength increases by 50-70 ELO each time thinking time is doubled. 2600 153 especially against foreign players. as displayed below: player 1 Kasparov 2 Kasparov 3 Kasimdzhanov 4 Kramnik 5 Tal 6 Fischer 7 Kasparov 8 Kasparov 9 Kasparov opposition Czech team Czech team Uzbek team German team Warsaw team Greek team German team Israeli team Israeli team year 2001 2001 2007 2004 1966 1968 1992 1998 1998 average 2700 1890s 1880s 1870s 1900s 1860s 0 167 262 264 265 265 342 100 200 300 400 time odds opposition performance player gap 3.0 2620 2658 2854 -196 4.64 28. material 1860s 2000 1900s 1890s 1880s 2100 2200 1870s 2600 Carlsen Nanking 2009 2500 2700 2400 2300 30. In current case it appears that 4. In case no data on a particular event was available.5-fold time odds causes a player to lose his playing strength by ca 250 ELO points.75. bishop and knight 3.91 26. these phenomena are more intensified.00 1925 4 min.42 28.4.01 27. In general. .34 23. bishop pair adds 0. there is a tendency for the accuracy of play to be greater towards material diminishing.0 2604 2617 2765 -148 8.00 20.67 40. It is known that 2300 147 soviet masters used to help each other in analyzing them.25.95 29.58 26.5. 2100 164 Next.

18 0.63 0.60 complexity difference vs actual error 0.68 0.08 0.54 0.78 0.36 1.96 1.40 2.000 5.04 2. The accuracy of play of tactical players in positions that are more complicated and more familiar to them is relatively better compared to players inclined towards positional play.06 0.80 0.24 0.66 0.14 actual error 0.04 0. the average expected error has to be calculated on the basis of them.72 0.46 2.32 0.82 2.04 1.80 1. Depending on the style of play and the nature of positions.64 2.84 0.40 1.44 1.14 0.21 0.84 0.000 4.12 0.02 1.52 2.64 0.34 2.96 1. It is strongest in the case of the difference.44 1.77 0. It shows hypothetically what the accuracy of play of chessplayers would be if each had identical types of positions and time controls.26 1.000 0.28 1.07 0 R² = 0.000 time odds 3.14 1.52 0.08 1.40 0.14 0.56 0.7 0.56 0.22 2.91 0.000 -285 -255 -225 -195 -165 -135 -105 -75 -45 -15 15 45 75 105 135 165 195 225 255 285 -300 -270 -240 -210 -180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 ELO After determining the difficulty factors of every cohort.12 0.20 0.36 0.50 1.000 1.6.36 0. the curve of positional players is steeper.5 actual error 0.42 0.42 0.70 2. and the lowest in the case of the material.16 1.56 0.28 0.35 0.32 1.58 2.30 0.000 2.00 0.12 1.76 2.63 0.48 1.24 0. On the other hand.88 dif f erence . But it is lower in positions requiring strategical thinking and and generally in endgames.52 1.16 2.08 1.32 1.68 1.84 0.91 0.42 0.21 0.20 1.00 0.00 1.28 0.10 2.48 0.60 0.35 0.38 1.49 0.62 1. The influence of each difficulty factor on actual error is individual.49 0.76 0. Their curve of the expected error is therefore flatter.48 0.92 1.60 0.24 1.56 1. The average expected error is a function of playing accuracy in respect to all difficulty factors.72 0.94 0.44 0.07 0 R² = 0. complexity vs actual error 0.77 0.84 0.20 1.56 0.88 0.16 0.86 1.28 0. the curve may be flatter or steeper.92 2.74 1.28 2.90 1.98 2.7 0.

the red curve is a statistical regression line.107 0.036 Carlsen Nanking 2009 1880s 2700 1870s 2400 1900s 2600 2200 1860s 1890s 2100 2500 2300 2000 0.08 0 40.25 17.32 0.25 21.03.36 1.213 0.16 1.42.evaluation vs actual error 0.25 26.56 0.40 1.0.25 24.77 0. 0.25 25.169 0.88.25 22.00 1.96 1.21 0.134 0.044 Carlsen Nanking 2009 0.24 0.14 0.28 0. The most influential and most trustworthy of them is the difference criterion.48 1. measure ponts must be chosen first.64 1.111 0.35 0.25 12.34 0. 0.08 1.20 0.25 35. 0.25 16. Evaluation: 0.068 0. In creating all the graphs.32 1.20 1.72 0.00.159 0.88 0.32 0.25 27. 50% and 75%: Complexity: 0.13 dif f erence of 0.250 dif f erence of 0.18.42 0. 0.34.097 0.25 11.16 0.184 0.000 0. For the purpose of this study. served as a basis.092 0.25 13. expected error by difference expected error by complexity 0.44.100 complexity of 0.84 0.44 0.25 15.7 0.88 0.64 0.25 20.56 1.25 39.56 actual error 0. 0.56 0.080 0.8 0.52 0.25 37.12 1.52 1.72 0.44 1.25 28.40 0.25 41.25 10.68 0.12 0.25 9.25 33.00 0. R2 is the correlation coefficent. Difference: 0.25 material R² = 0.25.04 1.053 0.143 0.28 0.25 36.16 actual error 0.25 19. 18.300 av erage 2700 2600 2400 1900s 1870s 2500 2200 1860s 1890s 1880s 2300 2000 2100 0.13.25 30. To get the expected error values by each difficulty factor.25 14.050 0.42 complexity of 0.84 0.126 0.01 The green curve shows the amount of positions in percentages.25 18. the number of moves that included at least 95% of valid positions.07 0 R² = 0.24 0.200 0. Material: 35.24 1.48 0.000 av erage complexity of 0. 28.25 38.129 0.25 34.4 0. 0.68 ev aluation material vs actual error 0.63 0.91 0.16 0.28 1.087 0.150 0.100 0.111 0.074 0.176 0.113 0.25 32.130 0.80 0.03 dif f erence of 0.200 0.72 0.108 0.60 0.25 23.72.49 0.04 0.094 0.25 29.76 0.36 0.48 0.164 0.25 31.094 0.08 0. the points were chosen in such a way that they are standing at the transition spots between percentiles of 25%.75.066 0.60 1.72 .64 0.00 0.92 1.

Unfortunately it was not feasible to directly apply this effect on the actual average error.147 0.165 0.127 0.112 0.18 0.171 0.182 0. It hints at well-known fact that the more far back one is as to his playing skill.200 0. in this study 3 minutes per move (2 hrs per 40 moves) was chosen as a common denominator.063 0.121 0.124 0.212 0.136 0.229 0. thinking time is taken into account on the basis of ELO rating.200 0.199 0.052 0.137 0.000 av erage by ev aluation 0.171 0.160 0.155 0.100 0.154 0.139 0.050 0.150 0. the easier it is to raise the rating.44 material of of 18.130 0.300 ev aluation of 0.203 0.200 0. The relation is best described by logarithmic trendline.000 av erage ev aluation of 0.186 0.100 0.88 expected error by material Carlsen Nanking 2009 1870s 1900s 2700 1880s 2600 1860s 2400 2500 1890s 2200 2300 2000 2100 0. . The relationship between the accuracy of play and the rating is represented by the graph below. Unlike the other difficulty factors.111 0.139 0. The tme control there is correlated to 180 s per move.143 0.155 0.185 0.200 0.224 0.182 0.182 0.0 0.148 0.149 0.187 0.300 ev aluation of 0.25 average expected error Carlsen Nanking 2009 2700 1870s 1900s 1880s 2400 2600 1860s 2500 1890s 2200 2300 2100 2000 0.150 0.200 0. Having determined its values.expected error by evaluation Carlsen Nanking 2009 2700 2400 1870s 1900s 1880s 2300 2500 1890s 1860s 2200 2000 2600 2100 0.064 0.120 0.75 0.250 by complexity by material by dif f erence The average expected error is the mean value of all specific expected error values.104 0.000 av erage material of of 35.134 0. it is time to fit it to an identical thinking time.151 0.100 material of of 28.

0 40. It demonstrates that the study is still in an immature stage. standard deviation of rating changes vs ELO 80.080 0. And that's how it actually is! The graph below shows that the standard deviations of rating changes increase in the case of the rating of a player being lower.average expected error vs ELO 0.120 0.200 0. The red bars represent performances corresponding to rating peaks of the decades. . logically.0 70.100 0.79 average expected error 0. Computers currently show no understanding whether a mistake is caused by an oversight or insufficient positional knowledge.0 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 ELO 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 R² = 0.020 0.0 standard dev iation 50.0 30. there is a need to increase the amount of games and positions and figure out how to solve the problem of practical.0 20. As can be seen on the graph below. First of all.060 0.140 0.33 After applying thinking times on figures represented by the graph 'average expected error'.160 R² = 0.0 60.040 0.000 30 50 29 00 27 50 26 00 25 00 24 50 23 50 22 00 21 00 20 50 19 50 19 00 30 00 29 50 28 50 28 00 27 00 26 50 25 50 24 00 23 00 22 50 21 50 20 00 ELO Since at a lower level of play similar changes in the accuracy of play should at least theoretically cause bigger relative playing level fluctuations. The highest rating peaks of randomly picked 8 chessplayers by half-years within 2005-2009 were compared. Figures on the bars display the expected rating according to the chart 'average expected error vs ELO'. we get a hypothetical playing strength for each player of the past in comparison with today's players. opponenoriented play and take such aspect of chess into consideration.0 10. the results are quite unstable. it must be indicated in FIDE rating statistics. or a deliberate calculated risk that by raising the difficulty level creates problems for the opponent to solve. and one is expected to make no far-reaching conclusions yet. some of them show incredibly unrealistically high playing level.180 0.0 0.

250 2970 0.102 2700 2760 2650 2830 2640 2590 2810 2580 2760 2580 2460 2390 2360 2590 2330 2440 2290 2040 1980 0.133 2600 0.200 0.250 average expected error by time .185 0.159 2300 0.000 Carlsen Nanking 2009 0.150 expected performance of rating peak of a decade 0.023 0.100 0.200 0.157 1860s 0.131 1880s 0.100 0.050 0.Average expected error by thinking time + rating 0.050 1870s 0.162 2100 0.153 1890s 0.124 1900s 0.000 0.147 2200 0.150 0.133 2500 0.180 2000 0.122 2400 0.

5 42 1901 B22 2623 1-0 34 1906 D60 2654 1-0 53 1909 B15 2639 .5 45 1904 B40 positions 2602 1-0 55 1900 C45 269 2656 0. moves of both participants were taken into account.5-0.5-0.5 57 1898 D53 2697 1-0 32 1899 C44 2653 0-1 45 1894 C27 2660 0-1 61 1897 C77 2616 0-1 77 1899 C26 2657 1900s no White 1 Lasker 2 Mason 3 Alapin 4 Burn 5 Forgacs average rating Black 2675 Marshall 2634 Brody 2658 Blackburne 2625 Swiderski 2669 Bernstein 2652 2645 rating result moves year opening number of valid 2658 0.5-0. 1860s no White 1 Kolisch 2 Anderssen 3 Paulsen 4 Anderssen 5 De Vere average rating Black 2628 Anderssen 2611 Steinitz 2652 Kolisch 2660 Paulsen 2675 Steinitz 2645 2653 1870s no White 1 De Vere 2 Anderssen 3 Zukertort 4 Anderssen average rating result moves year opening number of valid positions 2645 0-1 45 1861 B40 2688 0-1 44 1866 C51 299 2624 0.5 29 1861 C00 2663 1-0 29 1862 C65 2688 0-1 76 1867 A10 2662 rating Black 2601 Steinitz 2648 Paulsen 2663 Blackburne 2638 Zukertort 2638 2644 rating result 2696 0-1 2624 1-0 2617 0-1 2663 0-1 2650 moves year opening number of valid 50 1870 C60 positions 54 1873 C41 265 61 1878 C11 49 1878 C65 1880s no White 1 Chigorin 2 Mason 3 Bardeleben 4 Chigorin average rating Black 2631 Schwarz 2689 Winawer 2651 Tarrasch 2636 Paulsen 2652 2656 rating result 2657 1-0 2676 0-1 2664 1-0 2645 1-0 2661 moves year opening number of valid positions 55 1882 C01 37 1883 C45 276 82 1888 D32 44 1881 B32 1890s no White 1 Bird 2 Schiffers 3 Burn 4 Cohn 5 Mason 6 Teichmann 7 Blackburne average rating Black 2603 Blackburne 2662 Walbrodt 2669 Marco 2616 Schlechter 2670 Marco 2638 Charousek 2655 Cohn 2645 2651 rating result moves year opening number of valid 2665 0-1 30 1892 A02 positions 2664 1-0 42 1897 C00 308 2643 0. those that satisfy the criteria described above were meant. By 'valid positions'. Except Carlsen's games.5-0.The following is a list of games included in this analysis.

5 1992 1-0 2015 0.5 2182 0.5 1978 0.5-0.5-0.5 2084 1-0 2096 1-0 2099 1-0 2082 1-0 2094 2096 moves year 52 45 42 50 45 50 opening number of valid positions 310 2105 Galje 2103 Rakaczki 2078 Volkov 2101 Gustavsson 2108 Sermier 2099 Bras 2099 2008 B22 2008 B01 2008 D40 2008 D63 2008 D11 2008 B14 2200 no White 1 Kozak 2 Tsõganova 3 Shytaj 4 Masse 5 Wyss 6 Jagodzinski average rating Black rating result 2212 0.5-0.5 2782 0-1 2757 1-0 2791 0.5 2023 0-1 2005 2003 moves year 57 41 116 50 40 45 39 opening number of valid positions 336 1991 Pohjala 1992 Fiedler 2002 Stolarczyk 2017 Straka 2025 Kirk 1996 Rickenbach 1987 Stric 2001 2008 A12 2008 D13 2008 B26 2008 B26 2008 E97 2008 A08 2008 E99 2100 no White 1 Potze 2 Kanyadi 3 Weber 4 Crombleholme 5 Li 6 Milonakis average rating Black rating result 2121 0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5 2740 1-0 2776 2774 moves year 44 41 58 63 25 64 43 69 34 38 opening number of valid positions 271 2772 Leko 2777 Topalov 2738 Carlsen 2743 Carlsen 2787 Radjabov 2757 Carlsen 2808 Carlsen 2792 Wang 2747 Carlsen 2796 Jakovenko 2772 2009 C45 2009 E90 2009 D83 2009 B92 2009 B30 2009 D72 2009 B33 2009 D17 2009 D86 2009 D31 2000 no White 1 Luodonpää 2 Buehler 3 Falkowski 4 Boucek 5 Achereiner 6 Schaad 7 Miciak average rating Black rating result 2022 0.5-0.5 2081 0.5-0.5 1979 1-0 2023 0.5 2208 1-0 2213 1-0 2205 0-1 2179 0-1 2200 2202 moves year 63 83 42 45 53 43 opening number of valid positions 321 2195 Toma 2221 Korchagina 2212 Zoldan 2196 Arsenault 2181 Kojima 2216 Klim 2204 2008 D93 2008 E61 2008 B07 2008 E32 2008 B33 2008 B22 .Carlsen Nanking 2009 no White rating 1 Carlsen 2 Carlsen 3 Wang 4 Jakovenko 5 Carlsen 6 Leko 7 Topalov 8 Carlsen 9 Radjabov 10 Carlsen average Black rating result 2762 1-0 2812 1-0 2783 0.5 2741 1-0 2796 0.5 2791 0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.

2300 no White 1 Geenen 2 Barreto Filho 3 Petersen 4 Limontas 5 Franciskovic 6 Pachta average rating Black rating result 2321 0.5 2607 1-0 2599 0.5-0.5-0.5 2687 1-0 2720 0.5-0.5 2614 0.5-0.5-0.5 2277 0-1 2288 0-1 2278 1-0 2296 2297 moves year 35 89 48 41 44 35 opening number of valid positions 318 2304 Ringoir 2300 Prates 2309 Jacobsen 2289 Tvarijonas 2275 Kantorik 2312 Aschenbrenner 2298 2008 B96 2008 D11 2008 B06 2008 D02 2008 A21 2008 E68 2400 no White 1 Marinovic 2 Löffler 3 Housieaux 4 Brumen 5 Huss 6 Saptarshi 7 Zvara average rating Black rating result 2393 0-1 2415 0-1 2378 1-0 2396 0.5-0.5-0.5 2525 1-0 2511 0.5 2409 0-1 2400 2401 moves year 37 38 38 41 40 68 50 opening number of valid positions 317 2408 Nestorovic 2411 Pinter 2411 Debray 2383 Rogulj 2378 Gerber 2404 Himanshu 2409 Kanovsky 2401 2008 C85 2008 D80 2008 D25 2008 C26 2008 E14 2008 D01 2008 B43 2500 no White 1 Jakubowski 2 Porper 3 Ushenina 4 Vovk 5 Bhat 6 Mainka 7 Jakubowski average rating Black rating result 2506 0-1 2524 0.5 2389 1-0 2423 0.5 2501 0-1 2495 1-0 2488 0.5 2507 2498 moves year 73 47 43 43 46 35 35 opening number of valid positions 330 2497 Onischuk 2476 Friedel 2484 Carlsson 2488 Sulashvili 2498 Lima 2482 Firman 2497 Bachmann Schiavo 2489 2008 B15 2008 E13 2008 A60 2008 B19 2008 D53 2008 B50 2008 A48 2600 no White 1 Smeets 2 Malakhatko 3 Atalik 4 Macieja 5 Guseinov average rating Black rating result 2610 0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5 2298 1-0 2316 0.5 2716 1-0 2704 2699 moves year 37 66 45 45 50 41 37 opening number of valid positions 337 2681 Polgar 2682 Naiditsch 2708 Dominguez 2711 Jakovenko 2709 Cheparinov 2687 Gelfand 2684 Grischuk 2695 2008 E21 2008 C55 2008 B91 2008 E26 2008 C67 2008 C42 2008 C89 .5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5 2708 0-1 2711 0.5 2604 0.5-0.5 2607 2606 moves year 60 37 55 98 35 opening number of valid positions 302 2604 L'Ami 2612 Mchedlishvili 2585 Pantsulaia 2606 Rozentalis 2617 Rodshtein 2605 2008 B19 2008 E11 2008 A30 2008 E40 2008 C12 2700 no White 1 Van Wely 2 Bologan 3 Alekseev 4 Alekseev 5 Jakovenko 6 Cheparinov 7 Wang Hao average rating Black rating result 2707 0.5 2678 0.

- AKTIVITETET
- Misteri i Mumjes Së Vjedhur
- Këpucët Rozë
- Këpucët Rozë.docx
- Uji
- Nderimi i Vetvetes
- aforizma
- Lumturia Dhe Pasuria
- 1993_ci_ECE_v5_HQ
- 89576233 Learning Chess Step4 Workbook
- Kapitulli II- NOCIONI DHE KONCEPTI I SHPENZIMEVE.ppt
- Gramatikë në Anglisht 2
- school
- Heisman 119
- Financa_ 03 Vlera Ne Kohe e Parase
- Financa_08 Banka
- Financa - 9 Menaxhmenti Bankar
- Financa_02 Paraja - Historia
- Financa_08 Banka
- Doc1
- Ndermarresia Libri
- Heisman 119
- e Dashur Mesuese
- 39589444 Aesop Fables
- 34609573 Jeremy Silman Complete Endgame Course

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulchess

chess

- Winning Chess Brilliancies - Seirawan
- Chess Strategies for Beginners
- Ten Tips to Winning Chess
- 10.1.1.7.4678 @rob
- The Symbolism of Chess
- ALLIZA LIBU
- Rules of Chess - Frequent Asked Questions
- Chess Introduction
- BDA Stand Plan - 23.04.15
- kcminternational-1
- Chess Opening Principles by Six Famous Grandmasters
- The Modern Opening Way to Break the Center - Chess
- 212_5th Aim Rating Tmt Prospectus
- Nat U 9 2016 Prospectus
- FIDE Arbiters Magazine No 2 - February 2016
- There
- Chess Opening - Sokolsky Opening
- Mark Donlan - King
- How to Play Chess
- Infosys Press - Practical Software Estimation Function - Point Methods for Insourced & Outsourced Projects
- Al Mann - The Knight's Gambit
- Flute Fingerings
- Anatomy_of_Games
- AZLAN BIN MOHAMED IQBAL AND MASHURI BIN YAACOLE - A SYSTEMATIC AND DISCRETE VIEW OF AESTHETICS IN CHESS
- National Championships 2012 at Goa
- Stem
- Search Base
- 2011_5_104-105_spread_kasparov
- Byzantine Chess
- Ishan Bose Pyne Chess Tournament (1)
- chess

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd