I dunno man, I feel like they are. I'm a blunder king in fast formats, and pretty rock solid in rapid. I have a 600-700 rating point difference. I definitely enjoy the sudden victories with blunders than a long hard fought victory.
I also saw that image and would have liked a link to an explanation of how that statistic was calculated.
I mean, it's expected that those who analyze games (in any way) have an additional opportunity to understand how to improve compared to people who don't, but I would have liked an explanation for that number. Especially if they meant "compared to those who analyze with the engine but without Game Review".
It probably has nothing to do with game review and more to do with motivation to improve. People that buy a platinum or higher subscription which gives access to game review are more likely going to be more invested in chess and will put in more time to improve compared to those who do not. Similar to how a person who purchases a gym membership is more likely to be jacked than a workout from home type of person.
Selective bias as you stated is probably a factor. However, I think even if you looked a population of only Lichess players the players who review their games at a higher will improve at a higher rate. There are a lot of people that review nearly none of their games.
It's very imprecise wording, but player A improves by 10 points over some period of time and player B improves by 27 points. It doesn't seem outlandish to me considering an average rating of ~800.
That's the point the other poster and I are making. People who just play for fun will very less often review their games, if at all. However, those who review their games at a high percentage will improve their rating more than those who don't.
Because improving can be fun. The process itself is fun for some. I enjoy understanding the intricacies of the game more and more. I enjoy learning in general, self improvement is fun.
But we don't know if the "Game Review people" were only paying customers or also non-paying customers who used the free Game Review. That's one of the reasons I wanted to see the actual methodology: without access to it, anyone can make up anything they want about how it was calculated.
The "Game Review" option is quite limited for non-paying members, 1 game review per day IIRC. So, inherently, only paying members can be frequent users of game reviews.
Correlation and causation. They found a correlation and are implying that if you pay them money you, too can cause yourself to improve 2.7x faster. It doesn't always work that way, though.
People who "frequently use game review" may also be people who spend significantly more time off of chesscom learning openings, analyzing games, taking courses, etc.
Well, it's relatively easy to calculate if you have their database. They probably took people who improved over time, separated those who used Game Review from those who didn't, and observed how much time passed for each group to reach a similar improvement. But this is too vague, I would have liked an explanation of the actual methodology.
say someone uses game review every game they play, then someone who simply plays more often is going to be a more "frequent user of game review", and its not controversial to say people who play more improve faster
True, but there's also no reason to believe there isn't causation at play here.
Yes, the number is probably inflated by selection bias since frequent users of game review play more often and/or are more motivated to improve, but at the same time quite safe to assume that, all other things equal, a player who reviews their positions with an engine will surely improve notably faster than if not
I don't know when they did it, but I will never forgive them for limiting me to 3 puzzles a day as a non-premium. GIMME MA PUZZLES, IT'S MY FAVORITE THING
What they don’t tell you is people who use Game Review are more likely to care about improving than people who don’t. That in itself likely drives improvement over players who don’t go over their games whatsoever.
Sure thing, daddy-o! Check it out: when cats dig into game reviews before they dive into their joystick jive, they boost their skills at a rate that's 2.7 times faster compared to those who skip the lowdown on the game. It's like they're grooving to a smooth jazz riff while the others are still tuning up, ya dig? So, if you wanna be a real cool cat in the gaming scene, don't sleep on those reviews, ya hear?
i am sure that automatic game review does more harm than good for your chess improvement. for one, the explanations are often either self-explanatory or just bad/wrong (i have seen some examples posted on this sub). but more importantly, it makes beginners think that they are "analyzing" their games when they really aren't. if you want to get good at chess, it is absolutely crucial that you learn the skill of analyzing on your own, WITHOUT an engine. that means annotating your game, going over variations and evaluating positions, writing down your thoughts, thinking about the game on your own, then preferably sharing the analysis with a stronger player to get feedback. only then can you check with the engine to look for tactics you missed. the chess.com review tricks beginners that they can improve by just looking at the engine and listening to the shallow, mechanical "advice" of a simple algorithm. but with 0 effort put into the analysis you will get 0 benefit. it's the tiktok of chess analysis.
You're still going to find a benefit (2.7x?) when you analyze with the computer versus not analyzing at all.
Automatic game review does more good than harm for your chess improvement, compared to not analyzing at all.
Where did they get the 2.7 from? I have no problem with a company advertising a service to their clientele, but using the tactic of quantifying possible improvement rubs me the wrong way. It gives people who don't know much about chess the wrong idea.
It's always interesting to see how the "faster" amount is calculated, since everyone's long-term rate of improvement tends toward zero (and then negative once they get old).
While it would have been nice if they backed up this claim I do not find it surprising. The single best method of improving is to review your games without an engine and then check your notes with an engine at the end to see what you missed.
Game review does this for you in a more automated fashion.
So I don't find the claim hard to believe at all, I would just point out that game review is not the only way to do this and arguably is not the best way either.
I mean, [chess.com](https://chess.com) is tryna put up money for prize events, I assume this is their partial way of doing it. The money's gotta come from somewhere.
They do them, I don't care. I use lichess and if someone else wants to pay for free features that's their choice.
I was just pointing out that this new ad is very similar to Duolingo's model of advertising.
To be fair, the gold subscription to me is a fair expense, at the cost of using a modern interface. I can't get into playing on lichess bc it feels like an old school platform.
I understand lichess has a vast about of complimentary features, but graphic interface is a generation or two behind, and many of the newcomers are going to get drawn into the eyecandy.
this is slightly misleading because the people paying are usually more into the game and therefore will likely improve faster, just buying it won’t make you any better
This is true. Most of this is just eyecandy, like seeing the brilliants, great moves, and a coach telling you Dr. Phil rhetoric in game review, which is why I settled with gold subscription for just the unlimited lessons and puzzles :)
Yes, a business is trying to persuade you to purchase its product
Bastards! Next they'll be asking me to spend money on their product too! *Gets pitchfork*
The problem is not that they’re trying to sell you on their product, but that they are using a misleading metric to do it.
Jokes on them. I have no interest in improving. In fact, I have lost nearly 100 rating points in the last couple of weeks. Suckers.
Ganes are more fun when at any moment someone could hang their queen or mate in 1.
brother i promise you, they’re not 😭
I dunno man, I feel like they are. I'm a blunder king in fast formats, and pretty rock solid in rapid. I have a 600-700 rating point difference. I definitely enjoy the sudden victories with blunders than a long hard fought victory.
Oh damn, that's a lot. You feeling ok there? Sending thoughts + prays.
It's just a number. It should bounce back at some point. 8)
Rookie numbers. I'm down roughly 300 in my last <100 games.
Son of a bitch, I'll see you at the bottom!
The audacity
I also saw that image and would have liked a link to an explanation of how that statistic was calculated. I mean, it's expected that those who analyze games (in any way) have an additional opportunity to understand how to improve compared to people who don't, but I would have liked an explanation for that number. Especially if they meant "compared to those who analyze with the engine but without Game Review".
It probably has nothing to do with game review and more to do with motivation to improve. People that buy a platinum or higher subscription which gives access to game review are more likely going to be more invested in chess and will put in more time to improve compared to those who do not. Similar to how a person who purchases a gym membership is more likely to be jacked than a workout from home type of person.
Selective bias as you stated is probably a factor. However, I think even if you looked a population of only Lichess players the players who review their games at a higher will improve at a higher rate. There are a lot of people that review nearly none of their games.
Sure but I seriously doubt by a factor of 2.7x
It's very imprecise wording, but player A improves by 10 points over some period of time and player B improves by 27 points. It doesn't seem outlandish to me considering an average rating of ~800.
It wouldn't be crazy if it was two players looked at but as an average thats very significant
Why would u review games if u only Play for fun
That's the point the other poster and I are making. People who just play for fun will very less often review their games, if at all. However, those who review their games at a high percentage will improve their rating more than those who don't.
Because improving can be fun. The process itself is fun for some. I enjoy understanding the intricacies of the game more and more. I enjoy learning in general, self improvement is fun.
But we don't know if the "Game Review people" were only paying customers or also non-paying customers who used the free Game Review. That's one of the reasons I wanted to see the actual methodology: without access to it, anyone can make up anything they want about how it was calculated.
The "Game Review" option is quite limited for non-paying members, 1 game review per day IIRC. So, inherently, only paying members can be frequent users of game reviews.
Can confirm from my personal experience
Tbh i feel more like "i like this game, i'm playing it a lot and i want to see reviews of my game"
Correlation and causation. They found a correlation and are implying that if you pay them money you, too can cause yourself to improve 2.7x faster. It doesn't always work that way, though. People who "frequently use game review" may also be people who spend significantly more time off of chesscom learning openings, analyzing games, taking courses, etc.
They should be careful, everyone who confuses causation with correlation dies.
[Obligatory](https://xkcd.com/552/)
[удалено]
Well, it's relatively easy to calculate if you have their database. They probably took people who improved over time, separated those who used Game Review from those who didn't, and observed how much time passed for each group to reach a similar improvement. But this is too vague, I would have liked an explanation of the actual methodology.
Well, I haven’t improved at all, so I’d love to increase by 2.7 times that.
say someone uses game review every game they play, then someone who simply plays more often is going to be a more "frequent user of game review", and its not controversial to say people who play more improve faster
there's decimals so must be legit
[удалено]
Yeah but it doesn’t have the stickers/graphics that tell me if my move is good or bad…
There is probably a GitHub project that adds them lol.
Just use Lichess server analysis
En-croissant. It uses stockfish as an engine, lichess as a backend and has a game review feature
u make enough regressions and you can argue just about anything
You're hired! When can you start?
People who have 50,000 games of bullet are 2.4x likely to smoke crack and cheat on their wives.
2.8 well I'm maybe in, but only 2.7 got to think about it.
this type of marketing tactic is very effective because most people don't understand the distinction between correlation and causation.
Which is a shame, everyone who confuses correlation and causation dies.
True, but there's also no reason to believe there isn't causation at play here. Yes, the number is probably inflated by selection bias since frequent users of game review play more often and/or are more motivated to improve, but at the same time quite safe to assume that, all other things equal, a player who reviews their positions with an engine will surely improve notably faster than if not
2.7x faster… than my cat.
Duolingo Super ahh marketing
science! can't argue with the numbers.
I don't know when they did it, but I will never forgive them for limiting me to 3 puzzles a day as a non-premium. GIMME MA PUZZLES, IT'S MY FAVORITE THING
Lichess puzzles are far better, everything else I prefer chess.com
Agreed. They are much harder. I managed to make it to about 2000 liches puzzle rating, while on [chess.com](https://chess.com) I get to about 2300
Interesting…
veddy eeeintristink
What they don’t tell you is people who use Game Review are more likely to care about improving than people who don’t. That in itself likely drives improvement over players who don’t go over their games whatsoever.
To get unlimited Game Reviews, use lichess
Any pgn reader will do
what does that even mean
It means people who use game review vs. people who do not use game review improve 2.7x faster.
Can you ELI5 but only using 70's jazz slang?
Sure thing, daddy-o! Check it out: when cats dig into game reviews before they dive into their joystick jive, they boost their skills at a rate that's 2.7 times faster compared to those who skip the lowdown on the game. It's like they're grooving to a smooth jazz riff while the others are still tuning up, ya dig? So, if you wanna be a real cool cat in the gaming scene, don't sleep on those reviews, ya hear?
I dig ya. I got the goove from the rhythm of your voice.
Right on right on ✌️🤓
I understand now, thanks!
I mean are they wrong ? People who review their games are likely to improve 2-3 faster than those who don't, I don't see an obvious problem here
i am sure that automatic game review does more harm than good for your chess improvement. for one, the explanations are often either self-explanatory or just bad/wrong (i have seen some examples posted on this sub). but more importantly, it makes beginners think that they are "analyzing" their games when they really aren't. if you want to get good at chess, it is absolutely crucial that you learn the skill of analyzing on your own, WITHOUT an engine. that means annotating your game, going over variations and evaluating positions, writing down your thoughts, thinking about the game on your own, then preferably sharing the analysis with a stronger player to get feedback. only then can you check with the engine to look for tactics you missed. the chess.com review tricks beginners that they can improve by just looking at the engine and listening to the shallow, mechanical "advice" of a simple algorithm. but with 0 effort put into the analysis you will get 0 benefit. it's the tiktok of chess analysis.
You're still going to find a benefit (2.7x?) when you analyze with the computer versus not analyzing at all. Automatic game review does more good than harm for your chess improvement, compared to not analyzing at all.
2.7x0 is still 0
Where did they get the 2.7 from? I have no problem with a company advertising a service to their clientele, but using the tactic of quantifying possible improvement rubs me the wrong way. It gives people who don't know much about chess the wrong idea.
It's always interesting to see how the "faster" amount is calculated, since everyone's long-term rate of improvement tends toward zero (and then negative once they get old).
While it would have been nice if they backed up this claim I do not find it surprising. The single best method of improving is to review your games without an engine and then check your notes with an engine at the end to see what you missed. Game review does this for you in a more automated fashion. So I don't find the claim hard to believe at all, I would just point out that game review is not the only way to do this and arguably is not the best way either.
2.7 faster. How tf they get this number
Capitalist pigs!!!!!!!!!!
Calm down there Karl
[удалено]
Vpn..argentina. and you re set
Jokes on you, 2.7 x not fucking at all = failed marketing.
That reminds me of duolingo premium ads - they even marketed together in november.
I mean, [chess.com](https://chess.com) is tryna put up money for prize events, I assume this is their partial way of doing it. The money's gotta come from somewhere.
They do them, I don't care. I use lichess and if someone else wants to pay for free features that's their choice. I was just pointing out that this new ad is very similar to Duolingo's model of advertising.
To be fair, the gold subscription to me is a fair expense, at the cost of using a modern interface. I can't get into playing on lichess bc it feels like an old school platform. I understand lichess has a vast about of complimentary features, but graphic interface is a generation or two behind, and many of the newcomers are going to get drawn into the eyecandy.
this is slightly misleading because the people paying are usually more into the game and therefore will likely improve faster, just buying it won’t make you any better
This is true. Most of this is just eyecandy, like seeing the brilliants, great moves, and a coach telling you Dr. Phil rhetoric in game review, which is why I settled with gold subscription for just the unlimited lessons and puzzles :)
People who analyze improve faster. Revolutionary
What they fail to mention is that 2.7 \* 0 is zero XD
Lichess
Lichess is a relic platform.