I’m going to take it and guess I’m like a 1250.
Please at least be higher than 1000
If you approach it seriously, it will take a while. I suggest taking some breaks.
Took me about an hour.
The test was kinda crap imo. Too tactics based. I tried really hard not to guess what the right move was, but instead do what I would do in a real game, but I felt like 85% of the boards there was a clear piece win.
It guessed my ELO is about 1776, with a 95% confidence interval over 1650. Considering my current rating on chess.com is about 1350, and I think even that is bolstered by a couple high ranks quitting midgame, I’m gonna go ahead and say their guesstimate is a shade high.
More than a shade for me. But I think questions are based on previous answers. To me it felt generally harder as I went. I’m impressed you could go through it that quickly.
For the most part they got harder, but there were a couple times late where I got a question that I’d expect a 1000 rating player to get. That plus their questionnaire at the end suggested to me that it got harder as you got questions right and easier as you got them wrong.
It was a fine test for tactics training, but I definitely think it missed the mark on what actually makes a player good. As I said, 85% of the questions there was a piece won, but on the majority of moves in a real game, there’s no piece to be won but rather being structurally sound and that’s where I am incredibly weak.
Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 1759 , with a 95% confidence interval of [1627…1892]
didn’t take it too seriously, finished in about 25 min got 1759. i’m 1400 blitz so yeah id say its a couple hundred points high
1 Like
I found Rosen’s video interesting for his thought process and how quickly he calculates. He seemed to be presented with more positional questions, and earlier, than I saw.
Maybe you feel that way not because you’re bad at it but because it’s harder to evaluate moves that don’t win material? I mean even Rosen wasn’t always confident.
I did it, screwed up a really obvious one and it estimated 2079, which is also several hundred points too high. I thought it was too tactical as well.
1 Like
I had this one which I thought was kind of cute, I usually hate these contrived endgame studies but this one is a principled answer (bit of a hint there).
Answer:
Kh1 draws, every other move loses. It’s necessary to maintain the opposition to keep from getting muscled off your pawn, but this has to start with distant opposition. If you try to go for direct opposition with Kf1, then after … Kd2 Kf2, Kd3 you cannot maintain opposition and the Black king will take opposition (if Kf1 then … Ke3 Kg2 (else you lose the pawn) and … Ke2.
2 Likes
This problem is from Dvoretsky’s endgame manual.
I now have a draw and five losses in my last six correspondence (24 hrs/move) games. All against people with ratings if 1250-1400
My areas of opportunity are:
Allowing my king to get trapped in the corner after castling with no concrete ideas on how to defend it.
Ignoring an opponents potential threats because they aren’t immediately threatening me. Only to lose a piece or structural stability because I either forgot about the threat 2/3 moves (and sometimes days) later or because my opponent brings a second threat and I can’t deal with them both.
Not hanging pieces because I am tunneling on one area of the board. You have 24 hours. Feel free to look at the entire board you colossal idiot.
On the bright side I’m like 10-1-1 against my friend who continues to play with me. He’s a good friend.
1 Like
Wanna post some examples of this? If your king is castled it should be easier to defend.
Actually I reanalyzed this and I was fine until I moved my king to the f.
d5 sticks out as a very bad move. Like it just hangs a pawn, so there’s that, but I’m more worried about the positional consequences.
-
Trading your dark squared bishop is a very bad idea, Black doesn’t have one so it’s an unopposed piece which will at some point come alive on a monster diagonal. Your bishop pair is a huge asset in this position. While trading does double your opponent’s pawns, it’s not clear at all that opening the g-file is a plus for you, as we saw in the game. Overall trading is very bad.
-
You have dominant central pawn control (which Black is helpless to do anything about) and d5 gives up your control of the d5 and e5 squares. In the position before you play d5, Black’s f6 knight literally has no moves. After the central exchanges, Black ends up planting a knight on d5 which becomes a monster piece later in the game. The knight’s access to the d5 square was afforded by playing d5.
-
d5 also allows Black to move his pawn on e6, which is currently limiting the scope of both his bishop and his rook. Opening up the light squared bishop onto h3 in particular is very dangerous.
-
You are dangerously underdeveloped to be heading for an open center. Black’s queen is out and about, seeing the world, and his rooks are connected with one in the center. Your queen is very poorly placed, your rooks are unconnected and passive.
Instead of e5, the two moves which look standout to me are Qd2, improving the scope of your queen and connecting rooks/preparing Rd1 to strengthen d4, or Re1, giving your rook scope and really clamping down on the e5 square, which is important. You want Black’s pawn staying on e6!
I assume your thinking was that you wanted to open up your bishop, or maybe you felt you were better and wanted to make things happen, but before making a pawn thrust like this try to make a list of all the structural consequences that will ensue. If you’re not confident they’re good for you, don’t do it. It’s also important to see that Black is not doing anything in this position. In the position before d5, try to come up with a plan for Black. What is Black even doing? Ng6 to f4? You’ll just play Qd2, or even just Kh2 and be like “and?”. If Black can’t move that d6 pawn, he’s totally unable to bring any other resources to the K-side. Trying to flank attack when your opponent controls a fluid center is suicide. If I’m Black , I’m playing something like Rd8, Bc8 and maybe like b6 and Bb7 to try to get some central control and open my pieces. I’m also considering c5, but that’s going to open up White’s bishop without solving my d6 problem, so I’d be wary.
Sorry about the essay, I think it’s a really instructive position though, very good example of how a single pawn move can transform the structure and radically change the position.
Oh also h3 looked bad, like yeah Black can play Ng4, but if he does you just play h3 then and he lost a tempo. There’s no danger and h3 just weakens the king position and wastes time. a3 was also a waste of time. Again, you should be developing the queen and rooks. (Edit: although I guess the point was that the a1 rook can’t move because a2 hangs, but I’d wait until d1 is available for the rook before worrying about that)
Yes. Computer agrees with you 100%. It’s been over a week since I played it so I’m not entirely positive but I do believe my thought process was to break open his g-file. I do understand good bishops/bad bishops but in the moment I thought weakening his king’s defense was a good move. I totally missed that I’d leave a pawn hanging though, and I clearly didn’t recognize the structural advantage I had in there moment
a3 was an attempt to attack his queen while also get some pawns forward.
Re1 is probably the most common “no you should have played this instead” move that I get from the computer. That’s what the computer liked best here.
Thanks a ton for the essay. I think I have a very tangential understanding of all the concepts you mentioned, but I’m still very unsure of how to play them in game. I think you were probably very on the nose when you mentioned “wanting to make something happen” and I could probably benefit from a little more patience and trying to figure out my opponent’s gameplay as opposed to trying to mate in three
2 Likes
Playing with the analyzer is frustrating sometimes. Just had one where I tried a move and it said Nd7 was best. So I went back and tried Nd7 to see where things might develop next and it told me Nd7 was an inaccuracy.
Default analysis is relatively shallow. I have diamond membership and sometimes analyse games on depth 30 (which takes a few minutes) and it often changes accuracy ratings quite a bit.