Comments on: Receive the latest opening novelties in your mailbox…

By: JM

JM — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:42:21 +0000

@ Arne Moll
Let me stress I was merely trying to explain Harry’s criticism, as it was incorrectly interpreted in later comments. Moreover, I specifically mentioned I don’t blame Chessvibes for following other chess publications in their presentation of statistics, as it has become a norm.
However, more information doesn’t necessarily improve a decision making process. Similarly, the statistics provided might worsen the choices between moves made by chess players. Don’t get me wrong, I do not want to fuss about it. It’s only chess, so it’s not really important. I do know some fascinating real life examples of the same principle. If you’re particularly interested, let me know. I think it’s more probable you just wanted to rebuke me for procrastinating .

@Merijn van Delft
The point is that we think we can correctly estimate the value of statistics, while in reality this is actually quite difficult. Do you feel I wrongly believe that most of us unconsciously favour moves with a higher scoring percentage (in a regularing situation, not when it’s obvious something irregular is going on, e.g. 100% score, only a few games played, easy refutation)? Alas, it’s a huge discussion for a minor point. Good luck with the Chessvibes Openings.

By: xtra

xtra — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:59:33 +0000

maybe an “odd opening” or “strange” section could be interesting and fun…the most unusual opening of the week, or just a look at an odd opening/variation.

By: Merijn van Delft

Merijn van Delft — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:46:47 +0000

Statistical analyses (diagrams on page 1) should aways be looked at in combination with chess analyses (game of the week on page 2) and of course the latter is by far the most important.
We just provide the data and assume that the average ChessVibes reader is a critical independant thinker who can decide for him/herself what the value of a certain statistic is.
Anyway, all discussion on the value of statistics is appreciated, ChessVibes is happy to stay in touch with its readers on all these matters.
We will indeed evaluate the content of Chessvibes Openings (keep sending feedback!) and finetune if necessary.
Thanks for your reactions so far!

By: Arne Moll

Arne Moll — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:45:26 +0000

@JM, if I understand you correctly, you would like to see the magazine have some kind of disclaimer which reads something like: “Warning! Contains statistics. Statistics in general and averages in particular can cause damage and disappointment when treated without due consideration.” Well, perhaps this can indeed be arranged, even if it’s really stating the obvious.

@JR. It opens fine with me. Why doesn’t it open? What kind of message do you get?

By: JR

JR — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:08:04 +0000

Cannot open ChessVibes Openings n¬?0, is it possible to look anywere the starting issue? Many thanks.

By: JM

JM — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:43:38 +0000

I must thank Ruben for actually stressing my point! Statistics do somewhat reflect practical chances, and that’s exactly why they can be misleading.

If there’s a one or a few top level games that cast doubt over an entire variation, this isn’t automatically reflected in the statistics. We spot those top level games and can conclude the variation is dubious, no problem.

However, when things are less clear, we tend to judge moves on their scoring percentage. Can you honestly say that you’ve never (un)consciously favoured a move with, say, 58% score, compared to a move with, say, 55% score? I know I have. In many cases such a bias is completely unwarranted, as the 58% move is often not better than the 55% move at all. I’ll refer to Harry’s example: if you toss a coin and it’s a head, that doesn’t mean the chance you’ll toss a head next time is greater than half. But unconsciously (and maybe also consciously) we argue: “58>55, so this 58% move will give me better practical chances”. Misleading ourselves in the process…

By: Ruben

Ruben — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:49:46 +0000

Statistiscs aren’t misleading in my opinion. Statistics bring practical chances in view! Which is probably much more important at club level then an very precise and objective evaluation.

By: JM

JM — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:10:35 +0000

I think Harry means that providing scoring statistics for different moves in a position is misleading without an evaluation of the significance of the statistical difference. We may believe that we are able to use the number of games to guess accurately whether a difference is significant. In fact, we are mistaken in most cases. Thus, we’re tricked into thinking that we can be reasonable certain whether move A scores better than move B, while in fact almost all of us cannot. Disinclined to believe me? Good! Be critical, test it for yourself. If you belong to the big majority of us, you’ll be surprised.

Alas, almost all chess statistics are presented in this misleading way, so I don’t really blame Chessvibes for doing the same. As far as i know, there is only one chess database program available that calculates in its tree view whether a statistical difference is significant. It’s called ChessDB and it’s free software. I don’t use it anymore, though, as it’s a bit buggy.

By: Eiae

Eiae — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:28:35 +0000

What a good idea! Good luck with it.

By: guitarspider

guitarspider — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:58:31 +0000

Suggesting people will look at the statistics and miss the game numbers RIGHT ABOVE THEM is ridiculous in my opinion. Especially because extremely high or low percentages are always suspect and people will have a closer look.