lichess.org
Donate

6 centipawn loss per move 2+1 Game?!

Hi LiChess,

I played the following game, and my opponent made a fair amount of errors.

http://en.lichess.org/YuGx68Ih/white#83

I analyzed it to find the average margin of error was 6 centipawns per move. It raises the question in general, or whether we sometimes play well at all, or if our opponents just play worse. My quandary is to look at a game like this and wonder if I played well? As in, how high were the quality of the moves found, regardless of how well or poor my opponent made. How difficult were the moves to find?

I wish there were some way to plug this information and know my opponent rated X, actually played at Y level. And myself rated P actually played at Q level during the game.

We have tournament rating performances, but can we evaluate a performance in a single game based on these relative centipawn differences?

I realize this is a meandering question, and feel free to ignore it if it seems silly.

Cheers, - WARGOD
after the opening your opponent quickly blundered and the result was a relatively dry technical position.
you did well, but the opponent didn't really defend with tenacity or gave you any tough decisions - which begs the question, did the opponent play badly it was just not his game or because you played well? (it's hard to get to demonstrate your skill against stronger players)
that's up to you to decide. :p

i don't think any meaningful conclusions regarding performance can be taken from a single game and if you wanna go that route, average centipawn loss is not the way to go. i mean, we can argue about tidbits of technique, such as i don't like 18 a3 on principle (my reflex is b3, there is no reason to give the bishop a few squares) but that doesn't really change the evaluation of the position very much and you were always winning, specially as far as the computer is concerned.
LM Lightsss,

Thanks for sharing your insights.

If you, or another strong player wouldn't mind explaining one of the tidbits of technique mentioned I'd be grateful.

I played 18. a3 with the idea that his bishop will have no pawns to attack. 18. b3 while cutting off two squares from the bishop also gives black a target to attack with a5 followed by a4. Yet it is a stronger move, I believe that.

Why is limiting the scope of the bishop here more important than giving Black no targets? (or is this even the right way of assessing the move)

Lastly, while I realize this was a fast game, I would have still played 18. a3 in a long game, so any deep insight would be much appreciated. I sense there is something to learn here. Thank you
Can any strong players answer my a3 / b3 quandary above?
i don't consider myself that good :p but you have such strong control of the open files and the 4th rank that i don't see a5-a4 as being a threat anytime soon.
the most important square weakened by a3 is c4, which is indirectly weakened as it's much harder to play b3 after a3.

black should probably have proceeded with Rfc8.
while the c4-square might be useful in some lines, the most important feature for him is clearly the c-file (which, in all fairness, is also an issue for white after b3) and the threats of Rc2 and Rc1 (if R1d2) are pretty annoying.

so all that said, the best move is stockfish's 18 Bd5!
it clears the back rank (so Rc1+ isn't nearly as disruptive as in the a3/b3 lines) and if black doesn't trade then white can force an invasion down the seventh, like in 18 Bd5 Rfc8 (intending Rc7 to defend the seventh) 19 Bxe6 fxe6 20 Rg4+! followed by Rd7 and white is clearly in charge.
I can see now how the C4 square is lost, and while it doesn't matter strongly in this game, as C2 and C1 are the squares black should fight for, I will be able to apply this to a future game.

One additional problem, practically speaking I identified with my a3, is this leaves the option of black proceeding Rbc8!? temporarily sacrificing a pawn, with b2 being weak.

I think my of a3 would have been stronger had the rooks been off the board (preparing b4), hoping to fix a black pawn on b5 and win that endgame.

8. Bd5! indeed! I did see this, but for all the wrong reasons. I rejected it because I dogmatically didn't want to undouble blacks kingside pawns, and was somehow tied to this idea of winning an endgame with the bare kings and bishops with a better structure. After the exchange on e6, and 20. Rg4+! white elegantly trades his structural advantage, for rook mobility. Additionally I see now that blacks bishop is superior to Whites, in view of white having no targets (as b7 is of no consequence.)

Thank Lightsss, much appreciated friend.
... and your analysis certainly is *that good.* Cheers :--)

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.