I kept noticing patterns in my opening repertoire but couldn't put my finger on it. So I built something that measures two checkpoints on top of the standard metrics: the engine eval at the position the opening actually gave me, and the eval at the endgame I entered.
For example I found in my own games: my Vienna Opening looks healthy overall, but I don't play well when I face Anderssen defense.
Everything shows 95% confidence intervals with raw counts, because most of these samples are small and I did not want a 100% built on one game to look like a strength.
It's free, no signup, and runs entirely in your browser. You can expand the openings to see specific variations and then the corresponding games.
Happy to explain the methodology, and genuinely want to hear how the numbers look to stronger or beginner players.
Try Plyscope here

I kept noticing patterns in my opening repertoire but couldn't put my finger on it. So I built something that measures two checkpoints on top of the standard metrics: the engine eval at the position the opening actually gave me, and the eval at the endgame I entered.
For example I found in my own games: my Vienna Opening looks healthy overall, but I don't play well when I face Anderssen defense.
Everything shows 95% confidence intervals with raw counts, because most of these samples are small and I did not want a 100% built on one game to look like a strength.
It's free, no signup, and runs entirely in your browser. You can expand the openings to see specific variations and then the corresponding games.
Happy to explain the methodology, and genuinely want to hear how the numbers look to stronger or beginner players.
[ Try Plyscope here ](https://plyscope.com/)
