• About \ Suunnilleen

Thinking Metrics

Thinking Metrics

Category Archives: chess

CHESS ANALYTICS 04: Kasparov vs. Karpov matches of 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, plus comparison from 1970s to 1990s

30 Saturday May 2026

Posted by Ripsu-sama in chess, chess analytics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

chess, chess analytics, chess history, engine analysis, Karpov, Kasparov, performance metrics, Stockfish, WDL evaluation, world championship

  • CHESS ANALYTICS 00: Methods: Measuring World-Championship Roads with Stockfish 18 WDL
  • CHESS ANALYTICS 00.0: List of Other Chess Analytics Articles
  1. 1. CHESS ANALYTICS 04 part 1/2: the Kasparov-Karpov matches between 1985-90
    1. 1.1. Short verdict
    2. 1.2. Overall run table
    3. 1.3. Match-by-match comparison
    4. 1.4. 1985 match: Kasparov’s clearest technical victory
    5. 1.5. 1986 match: a near-equal match decided by conversion
    6. 1.6. 1987 match: Karpov’s statistical counterpunch
    7. 1.7. 1990 match: Kasparov reasserts the edge
    8. 1.8. Game Accuracy and Mutual Accuracy
    9. 1.9. Game-by-game metric edge
    10. 1.10. Correlations with score
    11. 1.11. Which metric families explain the overall 50–46 result?
      1. 1.11.1. Expected Score and Dominance
      2. 1.11.2. Accuracy and PQ
      3. 1.11.3. Mean ES Loss and RMS ES Loss
      4. 1.11.4. Volatility
      5. 1.11.5. Conversion
      6. 1.11.6. Error Concentration
    12. 1.12. Overall chess interpretation
    13. 1.13. Article-style thesis
  2. 2. CHESS ANALYTICS 04 part 2/2: comparisons between 1970s to 1990s player metrics
    1. 2.1. Compact chronological table
    2. 2.2. Is there a quality trend?
      1. Yes, especially from Fischer 1971–72 to Karpov 1974 and the 1980s
    3. 2.3. The strongest trend: Mutual Accuracy and PQ rise
    4. 2.4. Mean ES Loss and RMS ES Loss show the trend even better
    5. 2.5. Volatility also drops strongly
    6. 2.6. Standard deviations: later play is usually more stable, but not always
      1. WDL Accuracy SD
      2. Game Accuracy SD
      3. Mutual Accuracy SD
    7. 2.7. Error Concentration does not show a simple historical trend
    8. 2.8. The major exceptions to the trend
      1. Exception 1: Fischer–Spassky 1972 was cleaner than Fischer’s Candidates matches
      2. Exception 2: Karpov–Korchnoi 1978 was unusually rough
      3. Exception 3: Kasparov–Karpov 1990 was rougher than 1984–1987
    9. 2.9. Peak-quality matches by metric
      1. Best WDL Accuracy
      2. Best Game Accuracy
      3. Best Mutual Accuracy / PQ
      4. Lowest Mean ES Loss
      5. Lowest RMS ES Loss
      6. Lowest Volatility
    10. 2.10. Final conclusion
      1. Best formulation
Continue reading →

CHESS ANALYTICS 03: Karpov vs. Kasparov 1984/85 match

28 Thursday May 2026

Posted by Ripsu-sama in chess, chess analytics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

chess, chess analytics, chess history, engine analysis, expected score, Karpov, Kasparov, Stockfish, WDL evaluation, world championship

  • CHESS ANALYTICS 00: Methods: Measuring World-Championship Roads with Stockfish 18 WDL
  • CHESS ANALYTICS 00.0: List of Other Chess Analytics Articles
  1. 1. Short verdict
  2. 2. Overall metric table
  3. 3. Accuracy, PQ, and dominance
  4. 4. Loss metrics: Karpov slightly cleaner
  5. 5. Standard deviations and stability
  6. 6. Game Accuracy and Mutual Accuracy
  7. 7. Game-by-game metric edge
  8. 8. Phase-by-phase interpretation
    1. Games 1–9: Karpov builds the match
    2. Games 1–27: Karpov’s lead phase
    3. Games 28–48: Kasparov takes over
    4. Games 47–48: the collapse/reversal endpoint
  9. 9. Correlations with game score
  10. 10. Which metric families explain the 25–23 result?
    1. 1. Conversion explains most of the final margin
    2. 2. Expected Score and Dominance explain the underlying edge
    3. 3. Volatility explains Karpov’s stable advantage
    4. 4. RMS ES Loss is more favorable than raw accuracy counts
    5. 5. Error Concentration is almost irrelevant here
  11. 11. Chess interpretation
  12. 12. Final article-style thesis
Continue reading →

CHESS ANALYTICS 00.0: List of Other Chess Analytics Articles

27 Wednesday May 2026

Posted by Ripsu-sama in chess, chess analytics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

chess, chess analytics, chess history, engine analysis, expected score, performance analysis, performance metrics, Stockfish, WDL evaluation, world championship

  • CHESS ANALYTICS 00: Methods: Measuring World-Championship Roads with Stockfish 18 WDL
  • CHESS ANALYTICS 01: Fischer 1971-72 compared with Karpov 1974
  • CHESS ANALYTICS 02: Karpov vs. Korchnoi 1978 + 1981
  • CHESS ANALYTICS 03: Karpov vs. Kasparov 1984/85 match

more to come

CHESS ANALYTICS 02: Karpov vs. Korchnoi 1978 + 1981

27 Wednesday May 2026

Posted by Ripsu-sama in chess, chess analytics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

chess, chess analytics, chess history, engine analysis, Fischer, Karpov, Korchnoi, performance analysis, Stockfish, world championship

  • CHESS ANALYTICS 00: Methods: Measuring World-Championship Roads with Stockfish 18 WDL
  • CHESS ANALYTICS 00.0: List of Other Chess Analytics Articles
  1. 1. CHESS ANALYTICS 02 part 1/2: Karpov 1978 + 1981 vs. Korchnoi
    1. 1.1. Overall verdict
    2. 1.2. The two matches are very different
    3. 1.3. Karpov–Korchnoi 1978: nearly level
    4. 1.4. Karpov–Korchnoi 1981: clear Karpov superiority
    5. 1.5. Game Accuracy and Mutual Accuracy
    6. 1.6. Overall game-by-game edge
    7. 1.7. Which metrics best explain the scores?
    8. 1.8. Metric-family interpretation
    9. 1.9. Chess-style interpretation
    10. 1.10. Final conclusion
  2. 2. CHESS ANALYTICS 02 part 2/2: Karpov 1981 vs. Fischer 1971-72
    1. 2.1. Why Karpov 1981 improves the forecast
    2. 2.2. Why Fischer still retains a small statistical edge
    3. 2.3. The key change: Karpov becomes a much better anti-Fischer candidate
    4. 2.4. Revised estimate
    5. 2.5. Final answer
Continue reading →

CHESS ANALYTICS 01: Fischer 1971-72 compared with Karpov 1974

26 Tuesday May 2026

Posted by Ripsu-sama in chess, chess analytics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

championship runs, chess, chess analytics, chess history, chess metrics, engine analysis, Fischer, Karpov, Stockfish, world championship

  1. 0. CHESS ANALYTICS 00: Methods: Measuring World-Championship Roads with Stockfish 18 WDL
  2. CHESS ANALYTICS 00.0: List of Other Chess Analytics Articles
  1. 1. CHESS ANALYTICS 01 part 1/3: the 11th World-Champion, Robert Fischer
    1. 1.1. Overall verdict
    2. 1.2. Match-by-match headline
    3. 1.3. Fischer–Taimanov, 6–0
    4. 1.4. Fischer–Larsen, 6–0
    5. 1.5. Fischer–Petrosian, 6.5–2.5
    6. 1.6. Fischer–Spassky, 12.5–7.5 in played games
    7. 1.7. Game-level findings
    8. 1.8. What most strongly explains the scores?
      1. 1.8.A. Expected-score advantage explains the base result
      2. 1.8.B. Conversion explains why the result became historically crushing
      3. 1.8.C. Loss and volatility metrics explain the engine edge
      4. 1.8.D. Error Concentration is not a primary explanation
      5. 1.8.E. RAP metrics mostly encode score + quality dominance
    9. 1.9. Overall chess interpretation
  2. 2. CHESS ANALYTICS 01 part 2/3: the 12th World-Champion, Anatoly Karpov
    1. 2.1. Overall verdict
    2. 2.2. Overall stability and SD reading
    3. 2.3. Match-by-match summary
    4. 2.4. Karpov–Polugaevsky, 5.5–2.5
    5. 2.5. Karpov–Spassky, 7–4
    6. 2.6. Karpov–Korchnoi, 12.5–11.5
    7. 2.7. Game Accuracy and Mutual Accuracy
    8. 2.8. Game-by-game relative edge
    9. 2.9. Which metric families best explain the run?
      1. 2.9.1. Expected Score and Dominance
      2. 2.9.2. Conversion
      3. 2.9.3. Mean ES Loss, RMS ES Loss, and Volatility
      4. 2.9.4. Error Concentration
      5. 2.9.5. RAP metrics
    10. 2.10. Chess interpretation
  3. 3. CHESS ANALYTICS 01 part 3/3: 11th vs. 12th World-Championship run
    1. Fischer 1971–72 compared with Karpov 1974
    2. Fischer
    3. Karpov
    4. Fischer’s volatility profile
    5. Karpov’s volatility profile
    6. WDL Accuracy SD
    7. PQ SD
    8. Volatility SD
    9. Fischer’s route
    10. Karpov’s route
    11. Fischer–Spassky 1972
    12. Karpov–Spassky 1974
    13. What changed in Spassky?
    14. Fischer vs Karpov through Spassky
    15. Metric-based favorite: Fischer, narrowly to moderately
    16. Rough match estimate
    17. Fischer’s statistical weapons
    18. Karpov’s statistical weapons
    19. 3.12.1. Fischer’s result dominance is far larger
    20. 3.12.2. Karpov’s technical cleanliness is higher
    21. 3.12.3. Fischer’s relative separation is higher
    22. 3.12.4. Karpov’s run is lower-volatility
    23. 3.12.5. Fischer’s conversion is historically extreme
    24. 3.13.1. Both were more accurate than their opponents
    25. 3.13.2. Both had lower expected-score loss
    26. 3.13.3. Both had lower volatility than their opponents
    27. 3.13.4. Both scored above expectation
    28. 3.13.5. Both beat Spassky by similar relative WDL margins
Continue reading →

CHESS ANALYTICS 00: Methods: Measuring World-Championship Roads with Stockfish 18 WDL

25 Monday May 2026

Posted by Ripsu-sama in chess, chess analytics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

chess, chess analytics, chess history, engine analysis, expected score, performance metrics, Stockfish 18, WDL evaluation, world championship

  1. CHESS ANALYTICS 00.0: List of Other Chess Analytics Articles
  1. 1. The Basic Units of the Analysis
  2. 2. Expected Score
  3. 3. Expected-Score Loss
  4. 4. WDL Accuracy
  5. 5. Game Accuracy
  6. 6. Mutual Accuracy
  7. 7. Performance Quality
  8. 8. Dominance
  9. 9. Volatility
  10. 10. RMS Expected-Score Loss
  11. 11. Error Concentration
  12. 12. Score, Expected Score, and Conversion
  13. 13. HardRAP and SoftRAP
  14. 14. How the Metrics Form One Whole
  15. 15. Why WDL Is Preferable Here to Pawn Evaluation
  16. 16. Why This Series Is Worth Doing

This article series studies World-Championship matches and World-Championship qualification runs with a modern engine-based method.

The basic idea is simple:

Put every move of great historical matches under Stockfish 18, translate each position into win/draw/loss chances, and then ask: who preserved winning chances better, who lost chances more often, who created volatility, who converted chances into points, and who stayed more consistent?

Stockfish 18 is far stronger than any human player. Its strength is so far above human World Champions that comparing it to humans by normal Elo becomes difficult. This makes it useful as a reference point: not because it “understands chess like a human,” but because it gives a very strong, consistent measuring stick.

The purpose is not to reduce chess greatness to one number. The purpose is to create a performance profile:

Continue reading →

CHESS: Branchy, Decisive, Free: A Framework for Understanding High-Class Moves

11 Thursday Jan 2024

Posted by Ripsu-sama in chess, chess theory

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

chess decision-making, chess strategy, complexity in chess, forcing moves, game tree, high-class moves, move quality, sharp vs calm positions, strategic freedom, winning routes

The Game Tree is a fundamental concept for explaining high-class moves.

I presume you already know about Game Trees.

The moves in a Game Tree create the structure of the Game Tree.

The excellence of a move is shaped by the future structure of the Game Tree.

The moves and the (future) structure of a Game Tree can be measured with the following concept pairs:

  • Decisive <–> Harmless (a.k.a. Sharp <–> Calm),
  • Branchy <–> Straight (a.k.a. Complicated <–> Simple),
  • Free <–> Deadendy,
  • Winning <–> Losing.

These concept pairs are measured as follows:

Continue reading →

CHESS: The Essence of Strategy: Tactics toward Visions

04 Thursday Jan 2024

Posted by Ripsu-sama in chess, chess theory

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

chess decision-making, chess strategy, chess tactics, game-tree thinking, long-term planning, move selection, reverse calculation, strategic vision, tactical calculation, TAV algorithm

Search for the essences of Tactical and Strategic thought patterns in chess games:

  • 1. Short-term vs. Long-term: Tactical thinking addresses immediate or near-future moves, contrasting with the long-term perspective of moves inherent in strategic planning.
  • 2. Concrete vs. Abstract: Tactics involve concrete moves on the board, while strategy encompasses more abstract plans guiding the tactical flow of the game.
  • 3. Local vs. Global: Tactical thinking is local to specific squares on the board, whereas strategy takes into account the global interaction of different squares.
  • 4. Reactive vs. Proactive: Tactics react to the opponent’s moves in turns, while strategy involves proactively shaping the flow of moves according to preplanned strategies.
  • 5. Provability vs. Vision: Tactical thinking is related to more immediate attempts at winning on the board, while strategic thinking involves a longer-term vision for achieving success.

You can unite these thought patterns with the following:

  • The Essence of Strategy: Visualizing Moves and Tactically Advancing Towards Them:
  • In strategy, the key is to envision a change in the arrangement of pieces on the board and tactically work towards such.

In algorithmic form:

Continue reading →

CHESS: Comprehensive Style – a Classification of Styles by ChatGPT3.5.

01 Monday Jan 2024

Posted by Ripsu-sama in chess, chess theory

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

chess, chess styles


1. Comprehensive Style


1. Comprehensive Style

  • 1.1. Calculative Style
  • 1.2. Resourceful Style
  • 1.3. Holistic Style

Continue reading →

CHESS: Optionful Nearness: Counting Possible Moves for Evaluation: Compression of Chess Principles

25 Saturday Nov 2023

Posted by Ripsu-sama in chess, chess theory

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

chess engine ideas, chess evaluation, chess principles, development and activity, dynamic piece values, mobility-based evaluation, move counting, optionful nearness, piece mobility, space advantage

  • On the road to checkmate, it can be said, that capturing your opponent’s pieces is good, and avoiding the captures of your own pieces is good. Capturing a piece removes all its moves from the board permanently.
  • Queening pawns is good, because a Queen gives you a lot more moves than a pawn gives.
  • Developing pieces is good, because it gives your pieces more moves, and gives them shorter turn numbers to captures.
  • Space advantage is a good, because you have more moves available than the opponent has.
  • An inactive piece is less valuable, and an active piece is more valuable.

It can be said, that the road to checkmate increases your own moves (development and queening) and reduces your opponent’s moves (restraining and captures), until the opponent has no moves to avoid your checkmating moves.

  • As checkmate ends the game, and as chess is a game of reducing your opponent’s moves until checkmate, it can be said that the checkmate’s value is: reducing all the mated player’s moves to 0.
  • Hence the goal in chess is to maximize the ratio of “own moves / (own moves + opponent’s moves)” to 1, and avoid the ratio 0. The game starts from a ratio of 0.5, plus minus the effects of calculation and actual play.
  • The best moves are those, whose futures nett the highest number of moves, the opponent’s losses netting plus.
Continue reading →

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • May 2026
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • June 2020
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • August 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018

Categories

  • AI theory
    • cognitive modeling
      • imagination engineering
  • chess
    • chess analytics
    • chess theory
  • cognitive architecture
    • thought operations
  • mathematics
    • physics
      • applied physics
  • mnemonics
  • philosophy
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Thinking Metrics
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Thinking Metrics
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar