3 ms·
The study only looks at positions in which there is a defined set of moves that can be shown to be winning (endgames), and treats all non-winning moves as "blun
by cowpig 10y ago
The study only looks at positions in which there is a defined set of moves that can be shown to be winning (endgames), and treats all non-winning moves as "blunders".
Then it considers the "difficulty" of the position, as the proportion of moves that are "blunders".
So, assuming you're looking at any other than a perfect player, this seems like it will inherently be true in any game.
- AstralStorm 10y agoAdditionally, it neglected the fact that grand masters plain old memorise a lot of good positions and transformations. This is why some are more likely to blunder in new ones. Say, a weak move can throw a typical plan off, while there is a great counter, this is not a typically tried path, so the player might pick a vastly suboptimal move - they are reduced from memorisation to actual positional and combinatorial analysis. This often leads to untried, complex positions. There are a few that look like wtf moves until you go way deeper in analysis.