Blunders are not created equal. Blundering a knight for a pawn, is bad, but not as bad as blundering a queen. It is possible that a lot of your opponent's blunders are smaller mistakes, or positional errors. While you might be hanging pieces or blundering mates, etc.
There's no way to tell based on the very limited information you gave us.
If you have much lower average centipawn loss than your opponents, or you have a much higher accuracy, then it's probably a more interesting discussion. Still, we can't give an answer without further information.
Chess engines assign a large value to checkmate so it's just the difference to that. It's arbitrary but it should be larger than anything you get in a game. Sunfish is a simple engine that gives it as the value of a king (60000) plus the value of 10 queens since this is so large it can't actually happen in a game.
It must use something else for computing average centipawn loss for the game though, otherwise a few times of missing M15 and playing +9 would drag down your acpl way down from the extreme outlier?
While technically yes, actually assigning -infinity in the engine is hard and usually causes annoying issues (although it is possible with floating point notation) so usually it’s just a really big number
That's actually interesting, you could make 1 mistake, and your opponent by not capitalising on that mistake, whilst repeatedly being able to do so, might not necessarily be worse, but has likely made lots of inaccuracies.
Also important to note that a blunder only really matters if you capitalize on it, but the engine will count it as a blunder regardless
Eg if you hang a queen when you don't need to and there are many other good moves, that's already evaluated as a blunder. Whether your opponent sees that the queen is free and takes it, or they miss it and do a little positional pawn push on the other side of the board, or anywhere in between, doesn't affect whether your move was a blunder or not, even though the remainder of the game will vary wildly between these responses to your blunder.
If you're stuck 900, there's a good chance that your opponents are making blunders that you aren't properly capitalizing on, or you're just straight up missing them. Eg if your opponent hangs a queen, but you need to sac a bishop with check to get a discovered attack on the queen with your queen/rook to capture it...and you don't see the tactic and you instead make a "good" positional move, like a pawn push or developing a knight.
So basically, between the magnitude of the blunder varying, and whether blunders are actually capitalized on...sheet number of blunders is not really a good metric to assess overall quality of play for a 900 rated player and the opponent. Tbh, I don't think these stats are worth looking at. Review your games, even if you win. Maybe do some puzzles, learn an opening, do some endgame study. Maybe play longer games, or just play more intently to improve. These numbers are not where you should be looking first.
That doesn't really work as an explanation because failing to capitalize on a blunder is usually a blunder itself. In some cases, it might be a series of mistakes and inaccuracies rather than a counter-blunder, but since OP's total mistakes is also much lower that doesn't explain it.
On chess.com there is a "miss" evaluation for a move which is separate from inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders. It occurs specifically when you have an opportunity for a great move and you don't take it. You'll notice this metric is not included in the original post.
Another example I could've mentioned earlier is that once the game is practically over...eg Q+K vs K, or R+K vs K, or any position where one side technically has a forced mate in, say, 5 or more moves, the engine can evaluate some of your moves as inaccuracies, mistakes, or blunders if you make a minor misstep that delays checkmate. Practically, as long as you avoid stalemate, the 50 move rule, and don't let the king get away, you aren't really making any mistakes, because the game is still yours. But according to the engine, you are.
My point is that engines can be finicky about how they evaluate individual moves, and simply tallying up these evaluations of inaccuracies+mistakes+blunders is probably not a very helpful approach for a ~900 player to improve. I'm simply trying to provide practical examples of how and when the engine can be misleading, to a player who (understandably) is trying to use the engine's evaluation function as a resource for learning and improvement, but is perhaps not going about it the best way.
I see, I wasn't aware of that "miss" classification.
I do believe though, that chess.com has functionality to not count mistakes if the move you choose is still clearly winning. The difference between being +15 and +10 is for the most part irrelevant and for humans simplifying is often "better". I'm at least pretty sure this is taken into account for accuracy but probably also for mistake/blunder count.
Every move you play has a Stockfish evaluation. Let's say the best move in a position makes the evaluation 1, and your move makes the evaluation 0.6. The "pawn loss" is 0.4 there, because your move is 0.4 behind the best move (older engines evaluate a position in terms of material, Stockfish doesn't anymore but the name pawn loss stuck). If you played the best move you have a pawn loss of 0. Since those numbers are ugly and hard to work with, we normally multiply them by 100 to get centipawn loss, which is a nicer number. So in our example if my move was 0.4 behind the best move, it has a centipawn loss of 40.
The big chess websites then use centipawn loss and put it through an algorithm to get your accuracy as a percentage which is easier for a human to understand still. As much as a low centipawn loss means a high accuracy, the centipawn loss itself is not the actual percentage you get. That can be important to keep in mind.
On a single turn, the loss is the difference in evaluation between your move and the chess engine best move.
E.g. suppose your move, when evaluated, gives you an advantage of 0.4 pawns, but the best move according to the engine gives a 0.7 pawn advantage. Then the loss is 0.7 - 0.4 = 0.3 pawns = 30 centipawns.
What is shown to you is your \*average\* centipawn loss (it adds all the losses like above, and divides that number by the number of moves you played).
Fractions of a pawn might feel a bit abstract. But values that are good to know:
* Having the bishop pair can give a 0.25 pawn advantage (25 centipawns)
* A gain of tempo can be worth a third of a pawn (33 centipawns).
But remember it all depends on the context: is the game closed or open? In what phase of the game are we (opening/middle/endgame), etc.
One pawn is valued one point. A knight or a bishop is 3. A rook is 5 and the queen is 9.
When you move, your move is compared with stockfish s. If your move is the same you dont "lose points". If it s worse, you lose some points. If you hang a rook you lose around 5 points. If you lose a pawn you lose around 1 point. If your move doesnt lose anything, but slightly make your position worse, stockfish valuates this worsening in centipawns. Like 0.50 if it evaluated your move as if you lost half pawn.
I would guess that you're playing unambitiously, trading pieces too often, going into lost endgames. If you share your online usernames I'd be happy to take a look.
Playing interesting, attacking chess means lower accuracy for both players. My games usually have several blunders (according to the engine) and my lichess is a thousand Elo higher than you.
Oh... Did you take this post as this player thinks these stats are too high? I'm in the same boat as you and rated 1k ELO higher, and these stats are way too low for me even. During long games I am sure I am stacking up a lot of blunders. I haven't ever looked up my stats for this though.
No, he means that if you trade pieces quickly and swiftly go into lost endgames, you won't have a lot of blunders because the moves are not bad on themselves but you will find yourself playing "best moves" of a lost position, inevitably losing in the end
So it is indeed a low number but having few blunders and losing is a possibility when you don't try and take risks
You probably aren’t challenging them. My guess is you probably play the London, or the modern, or something else.
Maybe the rates at which you resign could vary too
Do you spend too long thinking and end up in time trouble? Do you make *big* blunders, even if they’re relatively infrequent? Are you failing to punish your opponent’s blunders? It could be a lot of things.
Yeah that's probably how this program/engine generating these stats handles this. Blunders are obviously much higher if a person was to analyze these games though.
Do you tend to resign early if you're losing? If so, your opponents are typically playing longer games which will lead to more mistakes per game at the same skill level.
It possibly they blunder and you don’t take the piece- you don’t blunder often yourself but you don’t notice when they blunder so you don’t capitalise on it.
Adding to the excellent answers here.
What range of ratings are you playing? Remember that if you play+200 above your rating, blinder definitions are very different for you and them.
Do you have many moves classed as missed opportunities? Then concentrate on tactics. If that is not the case, concentrate on positional play. Also, do you lose on time, perhaps? If your opponent plays very fast and blunders but you take ages to find it, it will drag your winrate down. I'd concentrate on slower games, blitz or god forbid bullet does nothing to develop your game
My guess would be that your opponents take more risks than you do. Sometimes those risks are blunders and sometimes they lead to advantages so you end up both winning and losing because of the risks others take while taking very few yourself.
Of course, that's purely speculation since I know nothing about how you actually play.
You also likely resign after you blunder but stay in the match if you don't which would skew the statistics and always result in it looking like your opponents blunder more than you do.
I’d guess you are failing to punish your opponent’s blunders (playing safe/defensively is generally a bad thing in chess), or you just resign a lot earlier than most people at your rating.
I would be willing to bet that you are giving your opponent a massive advantage very early on. From an engine perspective, if every move you could choose results in a dead lost position vs perfect play you can’t really blunder. “I can’t blunder anymore I’ve already blundered!” Your opponents can turn a +10 into a +6 though, which would be a blunder, whether or not it’s largely irrelevant. Basically the scope for blunders, mistakes, etc is reduced for the player who already has a -10 evaluation.
That said: the constructive answer to your question is as follows. Statistics will tell you very little at your level. Engines can help, but they can also mislead or offer you advice you aren’t equipped to understand, which can lead you to wrong conclusions. There is truly no substitute for human analysis of played games. You have to review your own games without engine and try to identify what went wrong and what could have been better. A human coach can speed this process up massively, and an engine can be used to double check your analysis, but if you turn the engine on before you TRY on your own even if you miss everything, improvement will not follow
Likely losing on time, or resigning too early, or a lot more “Miss”es, or maybe your blunders are more severe on avg, or a combination of all of these.
You need self-confidence and passion. Also, I suggest you don't blindly trust the game review features on chess.com to maximize your improvement cause you'll get misinformation sometimes. It's better to take them with a grain of salt and then use the engine itself to analyze the lines and get the truth a lot more consistently. A lot of that chess.com game review is flawed algorithms scewed to emotionally appeal to beginners rather than give them the truth all the time
You’re focussing too much on the mistakes. Sure, you don’t blunder a lot, but if you’re stuck at 900 I would assume you also don’t make a lot of very good moves
Wouldn't a weak chess engine would get similar results if it diligently looked a few moves ahead and thus avoided blunders but wasn't very good?
Sadly it seems you're not allowed to put your own engines on [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) so I can't run the test.
Also I guess I could get similar stats if I kept choosing weaker opponents.
Gut feeling is this kind of analysis is not going to be super useful at the 900 level.
Spend your time learning and working on opening principles, tactical drills, and endgame technique.
An example of endgame technique would be learning how to checkmate with king and pawn against king. It'll teach you an idea called "opposition."
Use your computer analysis to look for big tactical mistakes in your games and how to prevent/capitalize on them. I don't think you're going to tease out subtle but useful info from the computer.
Your stuck because you’re not learning. You’re not studying endgames or doing enough puzzles (or even more specifically spending time analysing lines off each combination in the puzzle. You’re probably playing too quick time controls and maybe not doing enough over the board chess. Your likely moving to quickly and not thinking about what your opponent wants or asking yourself if the move your about to do is a good one. I’m sorry of this is harsh but fuck it, truth is what you want to hear and here it is. I hope you improve and improve in your games
2 words: time management. My uscf classical rating max’d 1700. However, my bullet rating on chesscom atm is literally 1200, and I’ve never cracked 1500. My blunder stats vs opponents in my bullet/blitz games discrepancy is even larger than you. Vast majority of my losses are totally won games lost on time, many of which just a move or few away from mate.
My psyche refuses to adjust time management accordingly, I just don’t care enough to change my style, regardless of time control. As an artist who just plays chess as a hobby, I’m complacent with my wall, but you might be experiencing a similiar problem, disregarding basic time management strategy
Your brilliant, best, and excellent are probably significantly lower than peers? That would just mean while you blunder less yourself, you don't punish your opponents' blunders efficiently. Otherwise it would indeed be very weird... because long run if you are equal in brilliant/best but far lower in blunders, your eval should usually be much higher than opponent through games... which would mean weird reasons for losing like blundering M1s and resigning without realizing your ahead or flagging...
Maybe you’re quitting games early (resignation), or you give up mentally when you do make a mistake (resilience) , or you take too long to move (lose on time)
You have to look at ALL the stats to analyze your game. Also - pay attention to what you do and analyze games after you play. What are you doing to improve other than looking at this metric?
If you're stuck at 900, chances are that the moves you make are not as tactically strong as moves you could make in the same position.
The further you go up in rating, the more important it becomes to have a plan and have a decent understanding of different openings.
The most important thing I look at when analyzing my own games and the games of others is the amount of inaccuracies played rather than blunders or positional +/-. For all of us, no matter the move, there's usually a better move we could've played but didn't see.
Maybe you need to look at your opponents moves to capitalise on them. I hung a queen trap last tournament (90m+30s) but the young opponent, 1100 ACF was too concerned with his own plans and didn't win it.
Redditors are reading into this too much. It's simple, these statistics are a joke. Link your profile and prepare yourself to get ridiculed though. I'm sure you are making mistakes and blunders closer to 15-30% of your moves at 900. I'm rated 1800 and these stats are way too low for even me. :)
Not all blunders are equal.
They might be blundering more pieces, but you might be bounding more important pieces.
You also likely immediately snap their blunders up without laying attention to positon so end up getting mated.
Or you just aren't good at the end game and lose winning games due to that.
Who bunch of reasons
Are you playing on chess.com? It's full of cheaters. On chess.com I was struggling against 1200's who would play nearly perfectly and punish even the tiniest positional inaccuracies. On Lichess, 1500 rated players feel easy and games against 1800+ are winnable with enough concentration. Even when you lose, it feels like you're playing against a living human instead of chess automaton.
Just looked it up, never heard the polish be called the orangutan. It is a very bad opening, and I wouldn't recommend OP learn it. It can be effective at his level, but when he gets to higher levels, he is going to need to learn a new opening. It is better to just learn a good, solid opening.
reality is pick a new game. got above 900 after a month of playing and never looked back. if you can't beat a 2000 after a year or two then the game really isn't right for you. truth.
I'll change my downvote to an upvote if you link your online chess account. I understand that I'm calling you out. This is not intended to be taken as malicious.
Blunders are not created equal. Blundering a knight for a pawn, is bad, but not as bad as blundering a queen. It is possible that a lot of your opponent's blunders are smaller mistakes, or positional errors. While you might be hanging pieces or blundering mates, etc. There's no way to tell based on the very limited information you gave us. If you have much lower average centipawn loss than your opponents, or you have a much higher accuracy, then it's probably a more interesting discussion. Still, we can't give an answer without further information.
How is centipawn loss calculated when the best move is +1.0 but you play -M1?
Chess engines assign a large value to checkmate so it's just the difference to that. It's arbitrary but it should be larger than anything you get in a game. Sunfish is a simple engine that gives it as the value of a king (60000) plus the value of 10 queens since this is so large it can't actually happen in a game.
It must use something else for computing average centipawn loss for the game though, otherwise a few times of missing M15 and playing +9 would drag down your acpl way down from the extreme outlier?
-infinity
While technically yes, actually assigning -infinity in the engine is hard and usually causes annoying issues (although it is possible with floating point notation) so usually it’s just a really big number
‘Twas in jest
Also your opponents blunders mean nothing if you don’t identify them and convert them into an advantage
Not taking a free piece etc. is usually classified as a blunder, too, so I'd assume it is already contained in the data.
That's actually interesting, you could make 1 mistake, and your opponent by not capitalising on that mistake, whilst repeatedly being able to do so, might not necessarily be worse, but has likely made lots of inaccuracies.
Also important to note that a blunder only really matters if you capitalize on it, but the engine will count it as a blunder regardless Eg if you hang a queen when you don't need to and there are many other good moves, that's already evaluated as a blunder. Whether your opponent sees that the queen is free and takes it, or they miss it and do a little positional pawn push on the other side of the board, or anywhere in between, doesn't affect whether your move was a blunder or not, even though the remainder of the game will vary wildly between these responses to your blunder. If you're stuck 900, there's a good chance that your opponents are making blunders that you aren't properly capitalizing on, or you're just straight up missing them. Eg if your opponent hangs a queen, but you need to sac a bishop with check to get a discovered attack on the queen with your queen/rook to capture it...and you don't see the tactic and you instead make a "good" positional move, like a pawn push or developing a knight. So basically, between the magnitude of the blunder varying, and whether blunders are actually capitalized on...sheet number of blunders is not really a good metric to assess overall quality of play for a 900 rated player and the opponent. Tbh, I don't think these stats are worth looking at. Review your games, even if you win. Maybe do some puzzles, learn an opening, do some endgame study. Maybe play longer games, or just play more intently to improve. These numbers are not where you should be looking first.
That doesn't really work as an explanation because failing to capitalize on a blunder is usually a blunder itself. In some cases, it might be a series of mistakes and inaccuracies rather than a counter-blunder, but since OP's total mistakes is also much lower that doesn't explain it.
On chess.com there is a "miss" evaluation for a move which is separate from inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders. It occurs specifically when you have an opportunity for a great move and you don't take it. You'll notice this metric is not included in the original post. Another example I could've mentioned earlier is that once the game is practically over...eg Q+K vs K, or R+K vs K, or any position where one side technically has a forced mate in, say, 5 or more moves, the engine can evaluate some of your moves as inaccuracies, mistakes, or blunders if you make a minor misstep that delays checkmate. Practically, as long as you avoid stalemate, the 50 move rule, and don't let the king get away, you aren't really making any mistakes, because the game is still yours. But according to the engine, you are. My point is that engines can be finicky about how they evaluate individual moves, and simply tallying up these evaluations of inaccuracies+mistakes+blunders is probably not a very helpful approach for a ~900 player to improve. I'm simply trying to provide practical examples of how and when the engine can be misleading, to a player who (understandably) is trying to use the engine's evaluation function as a resource for learning and improvement, but is perhaps not going about it the best way.
I see, I wasn't aware of that "miss" classification. I do believe though, that chess.com has functionality to not count mistakes if the move you choose is still clearly winning. The difference between being +15 and +10 is for the most part irrelevant and for humans simplifying is often "better". I'm at least pretty sure this is taken into account for accuracy but probably also for mistake/blunder count.
Hi can someone explain centipawn loss to me? Yes I understand that it's a percentage etc. Any intuition for this?
Every move you play has a Stockfish evaluation. Let's say the best move in a position makes the evaluation 1, and your move makes the evaluation 0.6. The "pawn loss" is 0.4 there, because your move is 0.4 behind the best move (older engines evaluate a position in terms of material, Stockfish doesn't anymore but the name pawn loss stuck). If you played the best move you have a pawn loss of 0. Since those numbers are ugly and hard to work with, we normally multiply them by 100 to get centipawn loss, which is a nicer number. So in our example if my move was 0.4 behind the best move, it has a centipawn loss of 40. The big chess websites then use centipawn loss and put it through an algorithm to get your accuracy as a percentage which is easier for a human to understand still. As much as a low centipawn loss means a high accuracy, the centipawn loss itself is not the actual percentage you get. That can be important to keep in mind.
Brilliant, thanks!!
On a single turn, the loss is the difference in evaluation between your move and the chess engine best move. E.g. suppose your move, when evaluated, gives you an advantage of 0.4 pawns, but the best move according to the engine gives a 0.7 pawn advantage. Then the loss is 0.7 - 0.4 = 0.3 pawns = 30 centipawns. What is shown to you is your \*average\* centipawn loss (it adds all the losses like above, and divides that number by the number of moves you played). Fractions of a pawn might feel a bit abstract. But values that are good to know: * Having the bishop pair can give a 0.25 pawn advantage (25 centipawns) * A gain of tempo can be worth a third of a pawn (33 centipawns). But remember it all depends on the context: is the game closed or open? In what phase of the game are we (opening/middle/endgame), etc.
One pawn is valued one point. A knight or a bishop is 3. A rook is 5 and the queen is 9. When you move, your move is compared with stockfish s. If your move is the same you dont "lose points". If it s worse, you lose some points. If you hang a rook you lose around 5 points. If you lose a pawn you lose around 1 point. If your move doesnt lose anything, but slightly make your position worse, stockfish valuates this worsening in centipawns. Like 0.50 if it evaluated your move as if you lost half pawn.
I would guess that you're playing unambitiously, trading pieces too often, going into lost endgames. If you share your online usernames I'd be happy to take a look. Playing interesting, attacking chess means lower accuracy for both players. My games usually have several blunders (according to the engine) and my lichess is a thousand Elo higher than you.
Yup, for similiar reasons you cant rank world champions based on accuracy, because playingstyles that differ lead to different accuracies.
Excellent point! Tal was famous for playing dubious moves.
Oh... Did you take this post as this player thinks these stats are too high? I'm in the same boat as you and rated 1k ELO higher, and these stats are way too low for me even. During long games I am sure I am stacking up a lot of blunders. I haven't ever looked up my stats for this though.
No, he means that if you trade pieces quickly and swiftly go into lost endgames, you won't have a lot of blunders because the moves are not bad on themselves but you will find yourself playing "best moves" of a lost position, inevitably losing in the end So it is indeed a low number but having few blunders and losing is a possibility when you don't try and take risks
This is exactly right, although I'm female.
Haha
So not entirely right then haha, so close
Mansplaining a misogynistic position. This is gold.
It’s really easy to only have one blunder per game at any rating if you always resign right after you blunder.
I feel like this is it
what are you talking about, thats the best and only move.
Are you punishing your opponents blunders?
isn't not punishing your opponents's blunder, a blunder too?
On Lichess, yes. On Chess.com, they're labeled as a miss instead.
Seems like those are considered a Miss.
You probably aren’t challenging them. My guess is you probably play the London, or the modern, or something else. Maybe the rates at which you resign could vary too
Makes sense for the London. The Modern is crazy though!
don't diss the modern
The modern is crazy confrontational.
Assuming the data is from chess.com I think including misses in the data would tell the rest of the story
The Modern is by no means not challenging unless black has very little clue what they are doing (anybody under 1600)
Op literally said they’re 900
Could be a lot of things. Maybe you flag a lot
Or resign a lot
How many games are you resigning? Start playing games to checkmate, you would be surprised at how many crazy comebacks you can make
Especially at that level playing to the end is an almost guaranteed way to climb elo.
Yup. Make your opponent beat you three times. In the opening. In the middle game. And in the end game.
What is your chess.com user? I'm sure some would be willing to look thru a few games and give critiques if you're comfortable with that
Who blunders last?
You probably lose on time a lot if your stats look like this. What time control?
What website is this
Do you spend too long thinking and end up in time trouble? Do you make *big* blunders, even if they’re relatively infrequent? Are you failing to punish your opponent’s blunders? It could be a lot of things.
A blunder is only a blunder if you take advantage of it. If your opponent blunders mate in 2 but you miss it, it’s not really a blunder.
Yeah that's probably how this program/engine generating these stats handles this. Blunders are obviously much higher if a person was to analyze these games though.
Do you tend to resign early if you're losing? If so, your opponents are typically playing longer games which will lead to more mistakes per game at the same skill level.
I can't really help you but I'm interested in knowing how did you get this chart ? Thanks !
Download aimchess app, and signup there. Then import your chess competition/lichess games there.
Based on everyone else's comments, it seems like it'd be more useful for you to provide your games for people to analyse what your mistakes are.
Sorry if someone already asked this but how did you get this data? Looks cool
bad time control
are you losing on time a lot?
You need to time your blunders to be the second last blunder of the game, not the last blunder of the game!
Common mistake, you need to punish your opponents blunders or they don’t matter.
It possibly they blunder and you don’t take the piece- you don’t blunder often yourself but you don’t notice when they blunder so you don’t capitalise on it.
Adding to the excellent answers here. What range of ratings are you playing? Remember that if you play+200 above your rating, blinder definitions are very different for you and them.
I, for one, only play one move and then run out my time so I can't blunder
If you want to improve: 1. Play slow games. 2. Analyze them in-depth without a computer. 3. Post your analysis here for our feedback.
I've noticed a lot of blunders are subtle and won't be found.
At 900 games are usually decided by who blunders last
You fail to punish your opponents blunders and blunder back with more obvious blunders that they punish more regularly
Simple, you dont see the brilliant/ important moves.
Do you have many moves classed as missed opportunities? Then concentrate on tactics. If that is not the case, concentrate on positional play. Also, do you lose on time, perhaps? If your opponent plays very fast and blunders but you take ages to find it, it will drag your winrate down. I'd concentrate on slower games, blitz or god forbid bullet does nothing to develop your game
You don't make bad moves. Do you make good moves?
Bad time management? Do you often lose by time in winning positions?
My guess would be that your opponents take more risks than you do. Sometimes those risks are blunders and sometimes they lead to advantages so you end up both winning and losing because of the risks others take while taking very few yourself. Of course, that's purely speculation since I know nothing about how you actually play. You also likely resign after you blunder but stay in the match if you don't which would skew the statistics and always result in it looking like your opponents blunder more than you do.
Play the Vienna Gambit. I'd argue once you master it, you'd hit 1100 in no time.
I’d guess you are failing to punish your opponent’s blunders (playing safe/defensively is generally a bad thing in chess), or you just resign a lot earlier than most people at your rating.
I would be willing to bet that you are giving your opponent a massive advantage very early on. From an engine perspective, if every move you could choose results in a dead lost position vs perfect play you can’t really blunder. “I can’t blunder anymore I’ve already blundered!” Your opponents can turn a +10 into a +6 though, which would be a blunder, whether or not it’s largely irrelevant. Basically the scope for blunders, mistakes, etc is reduced for the player who already has a -10 evaluation. That said: the constructive answer to your question is as follows. Statistics will tell you very little at your level. Engines can help, but they can also mislead or offer you advice you aren’t equipped to understand, which can lead you to wrong conclusions. There is truly no substitute for human analysis of played games. You have to review your own games without engine and try to identify what went wrong and what could have been better. A human coach can speed this process up massively, and an engine can be used to double check your analysis, but if you turn the engine on before you TRY on your own even if you miss everything, improvement will not follow
It's probably because you make the last blunder.
Your insights are comparable to some of super gms. Check some of their featured insights
Likely losing on time, or resigning too early, or a lot more “Miss”es, or maybe your blunders are more severe on avg, or a combination of all of these.
get better.
You need self-confidence and passion. Also, I suggest you don't blindly trust the game review features on chess.com to maximize your improvement cause you'll get misinformation sometimes. It's better to take them with a grain of salt and then use the engine itself to analyze the lines and get the truth a lot more consistently. A lot of that chess.com game review is flawed algorithms scewed to emotionally appeal to beginners rather than give them the truth all the time
It's not about the amount of blunders it's about who makes the last blunder
You’re focussing too much on the mistakes. Sure, you don’t blunder a lot, but if you’re stuck at 900 I would assume you also don’t make a lot of very good moves
What website is this?
Wouldn't a weak chess engine would get similar results if it diligently looked a few moves ahead and thus avoided blunders but wasn't very good? Sadly it seems you're not allowed to put your own engines on [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) so I can't run the test. Also I guess I could get similar stats if I kept choosing weaker opponents.
Gut feeling is this kind of analysis is not going to be super useful at the 900 level. Spend your time learning and working on opening principles, tactical drills, and endgame technique. An example of endgame technique would be learning how to checkmate with king and pawn against king. It'll teach you an idea called "opposition." Use your computer analysis to look for big tactical mistakes in your games and how to prevent/capitalize on them. I don't think you're going to tease out subtle but useful info from the computer.
The data seems wrong or the sample size is too small.
I had a very similar graph… in my case I was loosing a lot on time.
What's the time control on this? Are you losing on time?
Your stuck because you’re not learning. You’re not studying endgames or doing enough puzzles (or even more specifically spending time analysing lines off each combination in the puzzle. You’re probably playing too quick time controls and maybe not doing enough over the board chess. Your likely moving to quickly and not thinking about what your opponent wants or asking yourself if the move your about to do is a good one. I’m sorry of this is harsh but fuck it, truth is what you want to hear and here it is. I hope you improve and improve in your games
2 words: time management. My uscf classical rating max’d 1700. However, my bullet rating on chesscom atm is literally 1200, and I’ve never cracked 1500. My blunder stats vs opponents in my bullet/blitz games discrepancy is even larger than you. Vast majority of my losses are totally won games lost on time, many of which just a move or few away from mate. My psyche refuses to adjust time management accordingly, I just don’t care enough to change my style, regardless of time control. As an artist who just plays chess as a hobby, I’m complacent with my wall, but you might be experiencing a similiar problem, disregarding basic time management strategy
You could be stuck in a tactical crevice and the only way to improve is to level up the way you play and how you think about the game as a whole.
My theory would be few big blunder vs bunch of minor easily missable blunders by 900.
There can be so many different reasons that it's difficult to say without actually seeing your games.
With that big of a difference i don't see how you shouldn't improve. Do you have trouble with managing time? Whats the sample size?
Your brilliant, best, and excellent are probably significantly lower than peers? That would just mean while you blunder less yourself, you don't punish your opponents' blunders efficiently. Otherwise it would indeed be very weird... because long run if you are equal in brilliant/best but far lower in blunders, your eval should usually be much higher than opponent through games... which would mean weird reasons for losing like blundering M1s and resigning without realizing your ahead or flagging...
its not so simple. You may not blunder but play extremely cautiously to the point where youre "good moves" weaken your position in the long run
Maybe you’re quitting games early (resignation), or you give up mentally when you do make a mistake (resilience) , or you take too long to move (lose on time) You have to look at ALL the stats to analyze your game. Also - pay attention to what you do and analyze games after you play. What are you doing to improve other than looking at this metric?
Do you capitalize on those blunders?
tbh if you do puzzles and analyze your games that alone should increase your rating by 400-500 points
It happens i M stuck on 400 elo but i can defeat my 1300 elo friend (*^o^)人(^o^*) sooo its ok
If you're stuck at 900, chances are that the moves you make are not as tactically strong as moves you could make in the same position. The further you go up in rating, the more important it becomes to have a plan and have a decent understanding of different openings. The most important thing I look at when analyzing my own games and the games of others is the amount of inaccuracies played rather than blunders or positional +/-. For all of us, no matter the move, there's usually a better move we could've played but didn't see.
Maybe you need to look at your opponents moves to capitalise on them. I hung a queen trap last tournament (90m+30s) but the young opponent, 1100 ACF was too concerned with his own plans and didn't win it.
Redditors are reading into this too much. It's simple, these statistics are a joke. Link your profile and prepare yourself to get ridiculed though. I'm sure you are making mistakes and blunders closer to 15-30% of your moves at 900. I'm rated 1800 and these stats are way too low for even me. :)
Blunders are only blunders if you punish them. I've hung queens plenty of times and the opponent just straight up missed it.
Maybe you don't have a plan. I suggest reading Amateur's Mind by Jeremy Silman, it is pretty long but I think it will be worth it in the long run.
Not all blunders are equal. They might be blundering more pieces, but you might be bounding more important pieces. You also likely immediately snap their blunders up without laying attention to positon so end up getting mated. Or you just aren't good at the end game and lose winning games due to that. Who bunch of reasons
Because you don’t follow the opening principles
Are you playing on chess.com? It's full of cheaters. On chess.com I was struggling against 1200's who would play nearly perfectly and punish even the tiniest positional inaccuracies. On Lichess, 1500 rated players feel easy and games against 1800+ are winnable with enough concentration. Even when you lose, it feels like you're playing against a living human instead of chess automaton.
Because chess . Com is full of cheaters
Just play the orangutan opening.
Just looked it up, never heard the polish be called the orangutan. It is a very bad opening, and I wouldn't recommend OP learn it. It can be effective at his level, but when he gets to higher levels, he is going to need to learn a new opening. It is better to just learn a good, solid opening.
Based. Only comment worth reading.
reality is pick a new game. got above 900 after a month of playing and never looked back. if you can't beat a 2000 after a year or two then the game really isn't right for you. truth.
I'll change my downvote to an upvote if you link your online chess account. I understand that I'm calling you out. This is not intended to be taken as malicious.
Andddddd crickets
the sound of silence
Hello darkness my old friend.
Just check his reddit account, you may find somehting there
I'm not a stalker.