lichess.org
Donate

Brilliants moves (!!) and others (Good, Book, Dubious) for game analysis

mcgoves

@Axaet said ^

You haven't read the full request

To be.fair,.you posted a wall of text,which few would read. The subject line makes it clear you are rehashing an old discussion; not exactly enticing people to engage fully.

@Axaet said [^](/forum/redirect/post/SVQeqMxo) > You haven't read the full request To be.fair,.you posted a wall of text,which few would read. The subject line makes it clear you are rehashing an old discussion; not exactly enticing people to engage fully.
Axaet

@mcgoves said ^

You haven't read the full request

To be.fair,.you posted a wall of text,which few would read. The subject line makes it clear you are rehashing an old discussion; not exactly enticing people to engage fully.

I understand that, but the original post is not that long.
Forums are exactly for discussing, and exposing a well argumented initial idea is part of it.

At any case it is exactly to contribute and to pre-move on possible questions or counterpoints, and to guide the discussion more to the core (which is defining a pragmatic algorithm and implementing the possible code) rather than leaving space to the phylosophical aspects.

@mcgoves said [^](/forum/redirect/post/Nek3iR31) > > You haven't read the full request > > To be.fair,.you posted a wall of text,which few would read. The subject line makes it clear you are rehashing an old discussion; not exactly enticing people to engage fully. I understand that, but the original post is not that long. Forums are exactly for discussing, and exposing a well argumented initial idea is part of it. At any case it is exactly to contribute and to pre-move on possible questions or counterpoints, and to guide the discussion more to the core (which is defining a pragmatic algorithm and implementing the possible code) rather than leaving space to the phylosophical aspects.
<Comment deleted by user>
JustDoIt404

Maybe my Point has already been Made, haven't read through everything. But I really like the idea and I think it's pretty much the only thing that chess.com offers, that lichess doesn't. In general lichess of course by far better.

I'm following quite a lot of elite chess tournaments and watch a lot of interviews and stuff and in general there is this tendency, to measure one's performance by the truth (aka. what the engine gives as the best move), instead of the game result . I've seen a lot of interviews where people were disappointed by themselves, even though they won. For example if they missed an easier win, missed a tactic, forgot about their opening prep, couldn't find the correct strategic idea earlier and so on and so forth. Top players and probably to some degree most chess players who are invested in this game have some kind of this notion. It makes sense to some degree: it keeps you motivated, it makes you learn and it makes you improve (as long as it doesn't end in a downwards spirale).
In fact, the way top players spoke about chess irritated and fascinated me at the same time when I first got into watching those tournaments.

Maybe what I just described was the fascinating part.

But on the other side, there was the irritation: why would people suffer for hours on the board, draining their energy and give it their all, just to be disappointed in themselves no matter what.
Obviously having "the truth" as your standard in one of the most complicated games ever, cannot really be healthy. Obviously we're meant to fail.

And finally now back to the point, I also found it strange, that an objective analysis (again with the truth as the standard), would only call out small, medium and big mistakes (or inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders how chess society decided to call them). What kind of education would that be in school or in parenting, if majors only called out mistakes and never small, medium or big good things you did. It would just be cruel...

I for sure would enjoy to get some love taps by the machine every now and then and I really could imagine that especially new players could be more attracted or less frustrated (or at least less fast), that even after a loss the machine would call out "hey, this why you lost, but here, here and here you did well". And maybe it's even a small part of the reason why chess.com is so successful.

Tldr: it's a great feature please do it :)

Maybe my Point has already been Made, haven't read through everything. But I really like the idea and I think it's pretty much the only thing that chess.com offers, that lichess doesn't. In general lichess of course by far better. I'm following quite a lot of elite chess tournaments and watch a lot of interviews and stuff and in general there is this tendency, to measure one's performance by the truth (aka. what the engine gives as the best move), instead of the game result . I've seen a lot of interviews where people were disappointed by themselves, even though they won. For example if they missed an easier win, missed a tactic, forgot about their opening prep, couldn't find the correct strategic idea earlier and so on and so forth. Top players and probably to some degree most chess players who are invested in this game have some kind of this notion. It makes sense to some degree: it keeps you motivated, it makes you learn and it makes you improve (as long as it doesn't end in a downwards spirale). In fact, the way top players spoke about chess irritated and fascinated me at the same time when I first got into watching those tournaments. Maybe what I just described was the fascinating part. But on the other side, there was the irritation: why would people suffer for hours on the board, draining their energy and give it their all, just to be disappointed in themselves no matter what. Obviously having "the truth" as your standard in one of the most complicated games ever, cannot really be healthy. Obviously we're meant to fail. And finally now back to the point, I also found it strange, that an objective analysis (again with the truth as the standard), would only call out small, medium and big mistakes (or inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders how chess society decided to call them). What kind of education would that be in school or in parenting, if majors only called out mistakes and never small, medium or big good things you did. It would just be cruel... I for sure would enjoy to get some love taps by the machine every now and then and I really could imagine that especially new players could be more attracted or less frustrated (or at least less fast), that even after a loss the machine would call out "hey, this why you lost, but here, here and here you did well". And maybe it's even a small part of the reason why chess.com is so successful. Tldr: it's a great feature please do it :)
underscore_x

every day it's some new horror proposed to enshittify what is a perfect experience for playing chess.

every day it's some new horror proposed to enshittify what is a perfect experience for playing chess.
zebano

Please don't do this. The Chess.com brilliancy !! are awful. Did you sac a piece? Yes, you get the double exclam. That's simply not how that should work.

Please don't do this. The Chess.com brilliancy !! are awful. Did you sac a piece? Yes, you get the double exclam. That's simply not how that should work.