3 ms·
These evaluation-centric definitions of blunder are a bit awkward though. Traditionally blunders were defined in more player-centric way: player blundered, whe
by smatija 3y ago
These evaluation-centric definitions of blunder are a bit awkward though.
Traditionally blunders were defined in more player-centric way: player blundered, when he made a mistake obvious enough, that a player of his strength is very unlikely to make. So what is a blunder for a strong player may merely be a mistake for a weaker player.
Problem with evaluation-centric definition is that not all moves that worsen position by 14% are equally obvious - if you hang a queen in one that is certainly a blunder, if you miss a non-trivial sacrificial combination on the other hand...
- salamo 3y agoChess.com is also definitely using an evaluation-centric definition to label moves as blunders. The issue is that this definition is also some function of the change in winning probability. > So what is a blunder for a strong player may merely be a mistake for a weaker player. Statistically this intuition appears to be correct. Your winning probability is still more than 25% when down a queen against an 800 rated player, but under 10% if playing a 2200: https://web.chessdigits.com/articles/when-should-you-resign#h.9rzdbhraiwgd https://web.chessdigits.com/articles/when-should-you-resign#... So it would make sense for the definition to take into account the opponent's Elo rating.
- smatija 3y agoI agree - all attempts at automatic classification of blunder have same problem. This is why analysing games without engine still matters and is going to matter for foreseable future. Don't forget also impact of time control - shorter games lead to more mutual mistakes. While in 90+30 first big blunder should decide the game, in blitz it's just the beginning. Amusing example is Chessbrah speedruning to 2000, while hanging queen in every game: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/593176969 https://www.twitch.tv/videos/593176969