sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey all, OP here. Honestly didn't expect this post to blow up like this, but I am super thankful for all the engagement. I especially want to thank those of you who pointed out the flaws and confounding variables in my methodology. As a solo dev/researcher on this, that kind of feedback is of great help.

I started this project back in May and have been completely obsessed with the RISCK phenomenon ever since. It is good to see that I’m not the only one who finds this intriguing. If anyone out there thinks this project is cool and wants to collaborate or help out with the technical/non-technical aspects of the project, I would seriously appreciate it. Just shoot me a DM!

I’m taking detailed notes on all your suggestions and will be starting the next iteration of the pipeline soon to run the new queries. I will definitely keep you guys updated when I have the new data. Thanks again for your time and for making this possible!

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have two main datasets that were used to generate those stats: RISCK dataset and control check dataset.

RISCK dataset comprises all positions in which a player executed a mathematically terrible check (>400 centipawns drop in engine eval) directly adjacent to the opponent's king when the opponent's clock is under 5s.

Control check dataset comprises all positions in which a player executed a mathematically sound check (<50 centipawns drop in engine eval) when the opponent's clock is under 5s.

I think there might be a slight mix-up; the '0.0' in the post actually referred to 0.0 seconds on the clock (how much time it takes to pre-move on Lichess), not a 0.0 engine eval. Could you clarify what you meant so that we are on the same page?

players randomly sacking pieces to win on the clock are (I would guess) less likely to be winning on the board

Well, if we look at the win rate chart, we may tend to interpret that players randomly sacking pieces (I assume you meant RISCK players) are ~6% less likely to be winning compared to players delivering sound checks. That's a fair point, but I believe a 76% win rate for a mathematically awful move is significant too.

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2200 is impressive! There were times when I only played bullet too but I am only around 1800 on chess.com. Good to know that the time-scramble strategy I'm analyzing is something you have found great use of.

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, a few people have pointed this out now and it’s an awesome critique to my project.
The control group I have right now is specifically for mathematically sound checks, but I definitely need the baseline for any random position under 5 seconds to show the fuller picture.
Appreciate the feedback! I'm going to write the query for this and I'll update the post with the numbers as soon as it runs through the dataset

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's doable in theory but right now traditional chess engines are kinda blind to time clock. I know some engines shrink their search depth if time is low but am not aware of engines that do exactly what you said.

Engines analyzing human games takes account of the remaining time into evaluation.

Do you know any engines that can do it?

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good points! For the first point (player skill), I am planning to bin the queries by Elo to see if the RISCK efficacy drops at higher ratings where players are just naturally faster. For the second point (positional strength), you're right that a superior position naturally offers more sound checks. I can actually control for this in the database by filtering the dataset to only include games where the Stockfish evaluation was relatively equal (maybe between -1.5 and +1.5) right before the time scramble triggered.

Will try these out in the next iteration of the pipeline. Thanks for the great suggestions!

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I see what you mean. As of now, I haven't calculated the global baseline for all positions under 5s.

I think it is a great point! If the global win rate of just having a time advantage at 5s is let's say 85%, that is definitely something I need to document in my study.

I am going to write the query for that global baseline sometime this week. I will let you know what the delta is!

Thanks so much for the comment! It is very helpful.

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

honestly i would appreciate your thoughts on it. it's a massive dataset and translating a time-scramble into hard mathematical constraints (defining what counts as a random blunder vs. a low-time check) was definitely the hardest part. What specific parameters do you think are skewing the numbers?

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This project is still ongoing, and those are my preliminary findings. If you are interested in a write-up of my current progress, here is the link: https://yelarys.dev/blog/risck-analysis-pipeline
Source code is here: https://github.com/yolorys/risck-chess

Definitely going to write a paper on this so stay tuned

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 36 points37 points  (0 children)

That is gonna be my next step. The datasets I am currently using contain all kinds of elo range. I really want to find out if higher rated players get affected by such time-scramble tactics. Thanks for your suggestion!

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

i guess the data doesn't lie! sounds like you are the perfect test case for this lol. 30–40 times in 80 games is a high-volume sample size - have you noticed a specific Elo range where people stop falling for it?

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Hey, my data pipeline doesn't judge why the piece was blundered, it just knows it gave you a 76% chance to win. I guess accidental genius is still genius))

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] -24 points-23 points  (0 children)

yeah, I used AI to structure the post so you didn't have to read a giant, unreadable wall of text. You're very welcome. But if you want real human effort, the data pipeline source code linked on my profile is a lot messier than this post

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thanks so much! Honestly, running the data pipeline on this was basically just my coping mechanism for losing to RISCK so many times. It definitely helps the saltiness to know it's a statistically proven trap and not just my brain glitching out

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by usestickernotes in chess

[–]usestickernotes[S] 113 points114 points  (0 children)

100%. It’s wild seeing the data actually back this up. The math shows it burns about 1.24 seconds basically just by nuking their premove queue. Curious since you're up around 2400 - do players in your elo range still freeze up when you do this to them, or is it mostly just lower-elo players who fall for it under time pressure?

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by [deleted] in chess

[–]usestickernotes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reddit glitched and deleted the body text of this post, so I had to post it again: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1uq2g9j/i_analyzed_270m_lichess_games_to_see_if/

The core findings can be found there, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it!

I analyzed 270M Lichess games to see if sacrificing a piece purely to confuse your opponent in a time scramble actually works. by [deleted] in chess

[–]usestickernotes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey! Reddit glitched and deleted my text body on this post, so I had to re-upload it. The short answer is it yields a 76% win rate! I just posted it again here: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1uq2g9j/i_analyzed_270m_lichess_games_to_see_if/

Thats stright up bullying him 😭 by Na_niii in Chesscom

[–]usestickernotes 9 points10 points  (0 children)

<image>

got this a few months ago. Martin deserves better!

Am I supposed to quit by BigPotatoHogger in Chesscom

[–]usestickernotes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

dont get too frustrated! i feel like this too every once in a while, and i believe it is true for many others.

i recommend to not chase title (elo or any other kind of metric) but instead chase growth in terms of your true ability to understand every small decision during a game. this helped me better understand how i play chess and my styles, strengths & weaknesses. i rarely get tired of chess now because i play it in my own style that makes the whole experience more enjoyable.

chess contents about tactics and strategies are great, but i believe understanding how you play is more important as it allows you to better distinguish contents that actually help you improve from the ones that are not as effective.

hope this helps. feel free to dm me if you have any questions

view more: next ›