Quite an interesting way to define an opening repertoire. I used chessbook which does leverage the Lichess DB based on whatever rating range you’d like to see and then adjust depth based on number of games it might be seen. I wonder if they leverage a similar function as you have stated here. Wonderful stuff Martin.
Could be somehow useful in apps like chessbook- but in real Life - if id to prune the move myself as a 150/1600/1700/1800 player - im wasting time to learn proper positional play (solid main Lines) - as grandmaster say "as amateur you learn openings to learn the game - not to win" gms are desperate to find and edge after the opening to avoid endless draws....we dont
I see... Yeah, that would be a good improvement, because 3. d4 is quite a serious move against Petroff, it was even played in WC match Carlsen-Nepo :) And it's 18% on master level.
It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to create a repertoire, say for white, by using Lichess to find black's most common moves at my level, and then using a combination (as you say) of Lichess and Stockfish to find white's best response. If you want to add a complexity variable, fine. However, you end up with lines to be memorized, but no explanation as to why they're good, other than "Stockfish says so" (reminds me of my mother; I love and miss her, but "Because I said so" was not my favorite of her sayings). Is there a good method for discovering the reason for a move's being good (or bad)? My memory lags behind my analytical skills, which in itself is becoming less impressive as I age. Rote memorization of lines is not easy for me. Thanks.
I agree that these lines need an explanation to be really valuable in order to understand why they perform better compared to other moves. So annotations would be quite important to add. On idea could be to generate a file and annotate it yourself, which might help the learning of the lines since it is an active form of learning.
My approach to figuring out why a move is good (if I don’t understand it) is to play around with the position. Try different moves or maybe play some of my own moves against it and see how the engine beats me. Then you will often see why a move was useful :)
Quite an interesting way to define an opening repertoire. I used chessbook which does leverage the Lichess DB based on whatever rating range you’d like to see and then adjust depth based on number of games it might be seen. I wonder if they leverage a similar function as you have stated here. Wonderful stuff Martin.
Could be somehow useful in apps like chessbook- but in real Life - if id to prune the move myself as a 150/1600/1700/1800 player - im wasting time to learn proper positional play (solid main Lines) - as grandmaster say "as amateur you learn openings to learn the game - not to win" gms are desperate to find and edge after the opening to avoid endless draws....we dont
True, but hard to practice the lines if they never turn up on the board during play
Hm, there is no 3. d4 which I (and other 7%) play against Petroff and that scores the best actually in Lichess DB. Am I missing something?
I made the cutoff at 12% I think.. I think an improvement would be to make the cutoff lower at low depth and then increase it at deeper depths
I see... Yeah, that would be a good improvement, because 3. d4 is quite a serious move against Petroff, it was even played in WC match Carlsen-Nepo :) And it's 18% on master level.
It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to create a repertoire, say for white, by using Lichess to find black's most common moves at my level, and then using a combination (as you say) of Lichess and Stockfish to find white's best response. If you want to add a complexity variable, fine. However, you end up with lines to be memorized, but no explanation as to why they're good, other than "Stockfish says so" (reminds me of my mother; I love and miss her, but "Because I said so" was not my favorite of her sayings). Is there a good method for discovering the reason for a move's being good (or bad)? My memory lags behind my analytical skills, which in itself is becoming less impressive as I age. Rote memorization of lines is not easy for me. Thanks.
I agree that these lines need an explanation to be really valuable in order to understand why they perform better compared to other moves. So annotations would be quite important to add. On idea could be to generate a file and annotate it yourself, which might help the learning of the lines since it is an active form of learning.
Agreed...the discovery itself would certainly aid the learning. But I'm asking for a method for making the discovery. Any ideas?
My approach to figuring out why a move is good (if I don’t understand it) is to play around with the position. Try different moves or maybe play some of my own moves against it and see how the engine beats me. Then you will often see why a move was useful :)