@Mago1 said in #4:
> How to install and use this?
You can follow the instructions in the README here: https://github.com/RemiFabre/WickedLines?tab=readme-ov-file#installation
That should walk you through installation and usage.
If you've never clone a repository or ran a command line program, this might sound a bit technical, but nowadays you can ask an LLM (like chatGPT) to guide you on how to achieve this. Once you install it, running it becomes very easy.
If you do, please make a Pull Request with the reports that your "Hunts" will automatically generate
@cyqsimon said in #5:
> I liked the graphic for the English.
Haha, I admit I had some fun with that one
@Vyom_captain said in #6:
> Can you make it a website
I’ve never made a website before, but you’re not the first to ask, so maybe I’ll give it a try!
@vizmai said in #7:
> @paren1 I have a theory on the weird graph for the King's Gambit. It goes down with elo probably because people start being prepared against it, and know how to refute the main lines, but probably at the highest levels there are some random strong players who will be aware of the common "refutations" and still know how to keep playing against them. Not only that but most people would stop playing Kings Gambit at higher elos because "it doesn't work anymore" meaning those that DO still play it, are likely only those who are extremely prepared on it, and not just "playing fun gambits".
>
> For example, I, as a highish rated D4 player, would consider myself to be extremely prepared against the Englund gambit; I know refutations to all of what I consider playable lines. I'm talking dozens of moves deep. Most of the time I smile when an oponent plays it because I win around 80% of the time against it. Still, one day I faced a high rated guy (2700ish) that apparently knew theory well beyond what I kne. He would reach the "end positions" of my preparation (which look completely winning for white) and still blitz out maybe 3-5 more instant moves, where I had to actually start thinking, and completely outplay me. I then checked his profile and he literally only played Englund against D4, and had thousands of games on it.
Yes, absolutely, I agree with your take. Your feedback is really interesting, especially regarding how the role of theory evolves with Elo. My intuition is that the search tree becomes exponentially large very quickly, so it gets harder and harder to reach deep layers reliably, and therefore less likely that knowing deep theory gives consistent benefits.
That said, I think some types of openings might still allow for this. Either through very forcing lines (where deep prep matters), or through systems with lots of transpositions and recurring structures (where understanding the typical ideas matters more than specific moves). Searching for this kind of pattern with my software isn’t trivial, but it’s definitely an interesting direction to explore.
@Toadofsky said in #8:
> Although I'm no longer playing rated OTB games, I assume someday players may find such a tool useful; however, making a useful tool sounds challenging since players' needs may differ.
I think I’ll start with something simple, like just showing opening statistics. Then I’ll see if there’s demand for more features and build from there.
It would be great if you could derive conclusions from this too. Various conclusions others than the most obvious ones.
@LKama said in #13:
> I’ve never made a website before, but you’re not the first to ask, so maybe I’ll give it a try!
Thanks
When can we have a website on this? Can't wait to see the data on KID and KIA :)
@jeffforever why did you block me?