3 ms·
Chess.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 c
by salamo 3y ago
Chess.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