gotta 99% accuracy • page 1/3 • Game Analysis • lichess.org

SANJAY-KURAMA2003

still miss mate in #1

https://lichess.org/KyDTDlOU

but got the job done
Note: if op will reported me for that that's report are waste lol
anyways ggs

still miss mate in #1 https://lichess.org/KyDTDlOU but got the job done Note: if op will reported me for that that's report are waste lol anyways ggs

shadow1414

And this game deserves its own thread because...?

SANJAY-KURAMA2003

@shadow1414 said ^

And this game deserves its own thread because...?

wdym I don't understand?

@shadow1414 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/b97TXHId) > And this game deserves its own thread because...? wdym I don't understand?

GCVM

@shadow1414 said ^

And this game deserves its own thread because...?

This is the game analysis thread. Welcome.

@shadow1414 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/b97TXHId) > And this game deserves its own thread because...? This is the game analysis thread. Welcome.

TheMagnusAura

@shadow1414 said ^

And this game deserves its own thread because...?

Because it is a game analysis forum.

@shadow1414 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/b97TXHId) > And this game deserves its own thread because...? Because it is a game analysis forum.

shadow1414

(@)SANJAY-KURAMA2003: Public forums do not benefit from low-effort, low-quality threads. This threads is nothing more than a game where your opponent played terribly, thus allowing you an easy win. What meaningfull discussion---or, in other words, analysis---can be derived from it?

(@)TheMagnusAura: (@)GCVM already made that argument. Thus, you could just upvote their post, instead of making a practically identical one.

(@)SANJAY-KURAMA2003: Public forums do not benefit from low-effort, low-quality threads. This threads is nothing more than a game where your opponent played terribly, thus allowing you an easy win. What meaningfull discussion---or, in other words, analysis---can be derived from it? --- (@)TheMagnusAura: (@)GCVM already made that argument. Thus, you could just upvote their post, instead of making a practically identical one.

GCVM

[@]shadow1414, sharing games is what this forum is for. One can't forbid another to post something that isn't against the rules of lichess. If you have something against this tread, report, and don't complain for no reason.

shadow1414

(@)GCVM: Discussion is what forums are for. One cannot forbid another from complaining about low-quality content---using free speech, in other words---when it is not against the rules. If you have something against my post, report it, and do not accuse me of, 'complaining for no reason' when I have stated the reasons as to why I complain.

Before responding to my posts, you should consider reading them.

Before complaining about me complaining, you should consider disproving my claims first: Prove that this game was worth making an entire thread about when the sub-forum is named, 'Game Analysis.'

Post script: This is a sub-forum; it is not a forum.

(@)GCVM: Discussion is what forums are for. One cannot forbid another from complaining about low-quality content---using free speech, in other words---when it is not against the rules. If you have something against my post, report it, and do not accuse me of, 'complaining for no reason' when I have stated the reasons as to why I complain. Before responding to my posts, you should consider reading them. Before complaining about me complaining, you should consider disproving my claims first: Prove that this game was worth making an entire thread about when the sub-forum is named, 'Game *Analysis*.' Post script: This is a sub-forum; it is not a forum.

NM MrPushwood edited

I do wish that people would stop boasting about their "accuracy" in lopsided contests. The machine is notoriously unreliable about such matters...and such a statistic becomes essentially meaningless.

Consider this, SANJAY: how "accurate" could your play really be said to have been when you missed not only that mate in 1 you mentioned (I assume you were talking about 18 Qf7), but also a mate in 2 (19 Nd5+ Kd7 20 Qe8), then another mate in 1 (20 Qf7)--and yet another (22 Qg6)? There was also 20 Rh6+ Kg7 21 Qh8#.

I have no idea how the engine derives its conclusions about this sort of thing...but they are frequently misleading (and at times downright inept).

And incidentally, I don't think this thread is really "Game Analysis"...it is more like bragging. ;)

I do wish that people would stop boasting about their "accuracy" in lopsided contests. The machine is notoriously unreliable about such matters...and such a statistic becomes essentially meaningless. Consider this, SANJAY: how "accurate" could your play really be said to have been when you missed not only that mate in 1 you mentioned (I assume you were talking about 18 Qf7), but also a mate in 2 (19 Nd5+ Kd7 20 Qe8), then another mate in 1 (20 Qf7)--and yet another (22 Qg6)? There was also 20 Rh6+ Kg7 21 Qh8#. I have no idea how the engine derives its conclusions about this sort of thing...but they are frequently misleading (and at times downright inept). And incidentally, I don't think this thread is really "Game Analysis"...it is more like bragging. ;)

kindaspongey edited

“If you believe someone's comments are inappropriate, report them. ...” - A Lichess Moderator (~3 days ago)
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/what-if-your-rating-is-zero-?page=2
“... In future please discuss title matter instead meta discussions about the discussion.” - A Lichess Moderator (~2 days ago) https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/chess-behaviour?page=3

(@SANJAY-KURAMA2003, @TheMagnusAura, and @GCVM have recently been addressed here.)

“If you believe someone's comments are inappropriate, report them. ...” - A Lichess Moderator (~3 days ago) https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/what-if-your-rating-is-zero-?page=2 “... In future please discuss title matter instead meta discussions about the discussion.” - A Lichess Moderator (~2 days ago) https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/chess-behaviour?page=3 (@SANJAY-KURAMA2003, @TheMagnusAura, and @GCVM have recently been addressed here.)