ChessBase 18 made the whole process rather easy and converting the databases from pgn files to the ChessBase format was painless and saved a huge amount of storage space.
In the process I discovered an interesting feature in ChessBase 18...the Style Report. This report evaluates a player's statistical tendencies, breaking down how they play. In this case, the report was on a database containing 783 of my games with the following results.
Score
Points scored in the analyzed games.
Theory
Factors include the average evaluation after the opening, the average length of theoretical lines and the breadth of the repertoire. Main lines are preferred.
Decided Games
Games that were not drawn.
Tenacity
A psychological evaluation. The draw rate plays a role, but more important is the frequency of short draws. Another factor is the willingness to exchange pieces; a high score indicates a willingness to go into and endgame.
Aggressiveness
Frequency of strong attacks on the King, successful sacrifices, early Pawn sacrifices or gambits and avoidance of Queen exchanges.
Risk
Measured by sharpness and complexity in games, use of sharp openings or gambits, asymmetrical structures and asymmetrical material configurations.
Positional Play
Active piece play, strong pieces and squares, Bishop pair, avodance of Pawn weaknesses, provocation of opponent's Pawn weaknesses, play for space advantage, play on the Q-side or in the center, and siege of weaknesses. Use of a fianchettoed white Bishop and openness to closed or quiet positions are also factors.
Endgame Skill
Frequency of endgames in analyzed games, above-average success across various endgame phases, resistance in endgames with material disadvantage, and successful conversion of material advantage. No tendency to avoid exchanges.
Also included in the report with following “observations” of my play:
I am not really sure how we amateurs could use this information, but supposedly the value of the Style Report lies in its ability to map out a player’s “strategic DNA” strengths and weaknesses. It uses an algorithms to identify over 30 distinct positional and tactical themes.
Here is one of the games the report singled out as an example of a K-side attack with a sacrifice.
[Event "Golden Knights Semi-Finals (Postal)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1971.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Opponent"]
[Black "Tartajubow"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E97"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 18"]
[PlyCount "80"]
[EventDate "1971.??.??"]
{E97: King's Indian: Classical Main Line} 1. c4 Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4
d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 {This move, at the time
cutting edge and mow along wiyh 9.Ne1 standard, was introduced by Korchnoi and
at the time it discouraged top players from playing this line as black.} Nh5 {
Intending ...f5. Another frequently played move is 9///a5} 10. g3 {Evidently
the purpose of this seldom played move is a safety precaution to hinder an
eventual ...f4 by black, but it is not effective. White does better to
strengthen the e-Pawn with 10.Re1.} f5 {White now has two main lines. the
routine 11.a4 or the interesting idea of 11.Ng5 and after 11...Nf6 then
repositioning the B on g2 by 12.Bf3} 11. Nh4 {I don't like this move which
leaves the N misplaced on h4. The threat is to capture on h5 destroying
black's K-side P-formation.} (11. Nd2 Nf6 12. c5 f4 13. Nc4 Bh3 14. Re1 Nc8 15.
a4 h5 {Sosonko,G (2535)-Kavalek,L (2590) Waddinxveen 1979. White's positiion
is solid, but black has attacking potential.}) 11... Nf6 12. Qc2 {This is a
bit passive. Either 12.exf4 or returning the N to f3 would have been a bit
better.} f4 13. Ng2 {This is a poor square for the N. 13.Nf3 was better.} f3 {
The positionally correct move was 13...g5. This little tactical demonstration
does not really accomplish anything.} 14. Bxf3 Nfxd5 {The not so clever point.}
15. cxd5 {Black must now prevent Qe2.} Rxf3 {White should now commence
operations on the Q-side with 16.b5. Instead, the N returns to its favorite
square.} 16. Nh4 {Now after 16...Rf7 17.b5 black's advantage would be minimal.}
Qf8 {This is the result of a positional miscalculation, but white gets bluffed.
} 17. Kg2 (17. Nxf3 Qxf3 18. Qe2 Qxc3 19. Bg5 {Black has a B+N vs R, but
white's Rs have play whuile black's R is undeveloped and his pieces lack scope,
so white stands quite well.}) 17... Rf7 18. Bg5 {A better alternative was 18.
b5 with play on the Q-side. The text allows black to eliminate his bad B.} Bf6
19. Qd2 {This is a tactical error. Better would have been 19.Nf3 after which
black would be only slightly better,} Bxg5 20. Qxg5 h6 $1 21. Qd2 g5 {Black
has gotten his K-side Ps on a roll for free thanks to the threats to white's Q.
} 22. Nf5 Bxf5 23. exf5 Nxf5 {[%mdl 32] Thanks to white's faulty 19th move
black gas won a P and has a very strong attack.} 24. Ne2 Qe7 25. Rae1 {This is
rather pointless. Why not 25.Rac1 which at least reminds black that he has a P
on the semi-open file that may require attention?} Raf8 26. Qc2 h5 27. h3 g4
28. Nf4 {So...this was white's idea; the N is immune and the h-Pawn is
attacked. He can also plunge the N into black's position with Ne6, right?} Nh4+
$1 {[%mdl 512]} 29. Kh1 (29. gxh4 Rxf4 30. Qg6+ Qg7 31. Qxg7+ Kxg7 {leaves
black with a won ending.}) 29... Qf6 30. Ng2 Nf3 31. h4 {There was no reason
to sac the exchange just to eliminate the N, but there really was not anything
better either. White was hoping to keep the K-side blocked up.} Nxe1 32. Nxe1
Qf5 {Black now faces the problem of finding a way to mop up, but beibg the
exchange and a P up helps.} 33. Qd2 Rf6 34. Kg1 c6 {White can't afford to
trade Ps and give me mobile center Ps.} 35. Ng2 Qe4 36. Ne3 Rf3 {White is now
compelled to capture on c6.} 37. dxc6 bxc6 38. Nd1 Qf5 39. Ne3 Qf6 40. Nd1 {
The N makes one hop too many and allows a mate in 4, but the game was lost in
any case.} Rxg3+ {[%mdl 512] White resigned.} (40... Rxg3+ 41. fxg3 Qxf1+ 42.
Kh2 Qh3+ 43. Kg1 Rf1#) 0-1
No comments:
Post a Comment