Can we bring a feature to find a player's best game with high accuracy and less centipawn loss.I think that this feature would help many of us
I doubt it will be very helpful to the user, and fear that - if publicly searchable, as your phrasing suggests - it could be used to accuse others of cheating, creating new cases of public shaming for the mods to deal with.
this is one of your best games according to accuracy (98%!) and centipawn loss (5!!!):
it may not be *the* best game according to those metrics, but it's up there. and the actual best game will be something very similar.
and that's why it would be a useless feature. no cheating accusations though, i am sure that was a legit game.
it may not be *the* best game according to those metrics, but it's up there. and the actual best game will be something very similar.
and that's why it would be a useless feature. no cheating accusations though, i am sure that was a legit game.
@PremRaaghavan said in #1:
> Can we bring a feature to find a player's best game with high accuracy and less centipawn loss.I think that this feature would help many of us
1. it does not help a lot i think. it is easy to play perfectly or nearly perfectly if your oppenent blunders in the opening. Most times you see if you played a good game or not.
2. @AAArmstark told you the reasons
> Can we bring a feature to find a player's best game with high accuracy and less centipawn loss.I think that this feature would help many of us
1. it does not help a lot i think. it is easy to play perfectly or nearly perfectly if your oppenent blunders in the opening. Most times you see if you played a good game or not.
2. @AAArmstark told you the reasons
Then maybe we want to find the minimum sum of our and our opponent's centipawn loss. So that we played a great game against a strong opponent but came out on top. We should be minimizing the sum of centipawn losses.
@snared said in #5:
> Then maybe we want to find the minimum sum of our and our opponent's centipawn loss. So that we played a great game against a strong opponent but came out on top. We should be minimizing the sum of centipawn losses.
great idea! love it. here's one of op's best games according to this metric, an incredible sum of cpl of only 11! can you imagine? what an amazing game between two strong players:
> Then maybe we want to find the minimum sum of our and our opponent's centipawn loss. So that we played a great game against a strong opponent but came out on top. We should be minimizing the sum of centipawn losses.
great idea! love it. here's one of op's best games according to this metric, an incredible sum of cpl of only 11! can you imagine? what an amazing game between two strong players:
@glbert said in #6:
> great idea! love it. here's one of op's best games according to this metric, an incredible sum of cpl of only 11! can you imagine? what an amazing game between two strong players:
Yes now simply bucket by number of moves, and this will give you an entire spectrum of best games of each length. Can you do the minimum cpl sum for a game of theirs with # moves <= 30 filtered out?
> great idea! love it. here's one of op's best games according to this metric, an incredible sum of cpl of only 11! can you imagine? what an amazing game between two strong players:
Yes now simply bucket by number of moves, and this will give you an entire spectrum of best games of each length. Can you do the minimum cpl sum for a game of theirs with # moves <= 30 filtered out?
3 2 1 Pushwood rant....
@snared said in #7:
> Yes now simply bucket by number of moves, and this will give you an entire spectrum of best games of each length. Can you do the minimum cpl sum for a game of theirs with # moves <= 30 filtered out?
great idea! love it. here's one of op's best games according to this metric, an incredible sum of cpl of only 7! can you imagine? it's totally not an extremely boring game where both sides were just happy to exchange pieces as quickly as possible and then played on for ages for no reason:
do i have to filter out games with # moves >= 100 next? how long do you want to play this game before you accept that acpl is a bad metric for defining the human notion of a "well played" game?
> Yes now simply bucket by number of moves, and this will give you an entire spectrum of best games of each length. Can you do the minimum cpl sum for a game of theirs with # moves <= 30 filtered out?
great idea! love it. here's one of op's best games according to this metric, an incredible sum of cpl of only 7! can you imagine? it's totally not an extremely boring game where both sides were just happy to exchange pieces as quickly as possible and then played on for ages for no reason:
do i have to filter out games with # moves >= 100 next? how long do you want to play this game before you accept that acpl is a bad metric for defining the human notion of a "well played" game?
@AAArmstark said in #2:
>
By this logic they shouldn't have anything. And why would mods need to deal with "public shaming"? If someone accuses you of cheating and you didn't just get over it. Maybe the mods should worry about the actual cheaters or other issues and not "wahhhh mommy i mean mooods someone said i cheated when i didnt boohoo".
There are bigger issues than crying over being accused of cheating or cutting out ideas because it would lead to an alleged witch hunt. I guess people here routinely track others down in real life for cheating or something to warrant that response. Otherwise it's just to avoid "people said stuff i dont like". This isn't reddit. It's a site for playing chess. I really don't think mods should be concerned about accusations of cheating at all. Because nobody cares and if they do they're massive crybabies. Handle the actual problems. Not have moderators sitting around coddling people because some 12 year old couldn't handle being accused of cheating. There comes a time when ya gotta man up a little. Growing up and maybe not having mods on a chess website acting as arbiters of hurt feelings.
>
By this logic they shouldn't have anything. And why would mods need to deal with "public shaming"? If someone accuses you of cheating and you didn't just get over it. Maybe the mods should worry about the actual cheaters or other issues and not "wahhhh mommy i mean mooods someone said i cheated when i didnt boohoo".
There are bigger issues than crying over being accused of cheating or cutting out ideas because it would lead to an alleged witch hunt. I guess people here routinely track others down in real life for cheating or something to warrant that response. Otherwise it's just to avoid "people said stuff i dont like". This isn't reddit. It's a site for playing chess. I really don't think mods should be concerned about accusations of cheating at all. Because nobody cares and if they do they're massive crybabies. Handle the actual problems. Not have moderators sitting around coddling people because some 12 year old couldn't handle being accused of cheating. There comes a time when ya gotta man up a little. Growing up and maybe not having mods on a chess website acting as arbiters of hurt feelings.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.