fwiw I got kind of different results, first time around 1800 fide, second time around 1900 fide, third time, the only time I managed to win, around 1500 fide.
Show HN: Noctie – A chess AI that predicts your rating
61–70 of 106 posts
Re: Show HN: Noctie – A chess AI that predicts your rating
#62Really cool! As a novice, it definitely felt approachable and fun to play against.
Re: Show HN: Noctie – A chess AI that predicts your rating
#63I wish against 1.e4 it wouldn't always play 1...c5. Right now, it's less of a test of "what is your chess rating" and more of "how much sicilian theory do you know".
Its prediction was about 300 points low compared to actual lichess rating (1800). But online chess is very different; you see a lot of unsound openings that an engine wouldn't ever play.
Re: Show HN: Noctie – A chess AI that predicts your rating
#64I wish against 1.e4 it wouldn't always play 1...c5. Right now, it's less of a test of "what is your chess rating" and more of "how much sicilian theory do you know". Its prediction was about 300 points low compared to actual lichess rating (1800). But online chess is very different; you see a lot of unsound openings that an engine wouldn't ever play.
An 1800 Lichess rating maps to 1420 FIDE or 1270 USCF. Not sure what standard is used by Noctie. (https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/)
Re: Show HN: Noctie – A chess AI that predicts your rating
#65I estimate your FIDE rating to: 1176 Ouch, I did beat the AI. I've played probably 10,000 anonymous games. My chess puzzle rating is currently around 2100, peak of 2400. Playing against stockfish 4 I can generally win every game. Stockfish 5 is hard. When I do rated games, I will crush each person in placements and usually get to 2200 or so before I lose the ? The last time I did a rating run. I won each game and pla…
On lichess? I been hovering in at 1300+-50 for the last year... I can barely beat stockfish 2. I've found stockfish at these lower levels doesn't play like humans at all. It will play a near perfect game for 25 moves and then all of a sudden make a horrible and senseless move. If your style is slow and defensive I think you probably fair better. My style is hyper aggressive and stockfish crushes me :)
Just want to point out the obvious: if you are staying at 1300 for over 1y, you are not improving and likely not understanding why you are losing. I would recommend you study rather than banging your head against the wall by playing more games.
Opening theory and tactics are a good place to start.
An easy step is make sure you know a few common openings and have at least one response prepared to each. But also a good understanding of principles. Opening principles are more important, you can wing it if you don't know the theory. There are thousands of videos on YouTube about these topics.
And obviously just don't hang pieces and take your opponent's hung pieces. At 1300 on lichess, your opponent will make a bunch of tactical mistakes which you can just take if you see them, after you can just win if you play solidly for the rest of the game. The way to study here is with puzzles.
Sorry to patronize. I have played thousands of 1300's on lichess and improved after I sat down and studied. But I can tell you, if you're actually 1300 you are not strong enough in some of these areas.
P.S. I don't believe the comment above yours. The dude went from 2200 to 1300??
Re: Show HN: Noctie – A chess AI that predicts your rating
#66Any idea why it thinks I'm so bad?
Its way off (I range around 1200-1700 ELO depending on sober I wanna be when I play). I do play relatively eccentrically with a penchant for sacrifices and a insatiable desire for tempo and exploration of lines I am unfamiliar with but its still way off with its initial assessment.
Re: Show HN: Noctie – A chess AI that predicts your rating
#67I wish against 1.e4 it wouldn't always play 1...c5. Right now, it's less of a test of "what is your chess rating" and more of "how much sicilian theory do you know". Its prediction was about 300 points low compared to actual lichess rating (1800). But online chess is very different; you see a lot of unsound openings that an engine wouldn't ever play.
I think you were just unlucky with the opening! When I'm testing it's about 60/40 1...e5 vs 1...c5. The first opening moves should be quite close to what a 1600 FIDE player plays in online blitz.
Re: Show HN: Noctie – A chess AI that predicts your rating
#68I wish against 1.e4 it wouldn't always play 1...c5. Right now, it's less of a test of "what is your chess rating" and more of "how much sicilian theory do you know". Its prediction was about 300 points low compared to actual lichess rating (1800). But online chess is very different; you see a lot of unsound openings that an engine wouldn't ever play.
An 1800 Lichess rating maps to 1420 FIDE or 1270 USCF. Not sure what standard is used by Noctie. ( https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/ )
Sure maybe the translation is wrong, but I'm saying there's bias in the test due to the fact it only plays sicilian to 1.e4. What about 1.e6 or 1.e5? Hard to estimate fide or lichess rating if you don't test those.
According to https://lichess.org/analysis#1, for blitz and rapid games played on lichess with 1.e4, 1...e5 is 33%, 1...c5 is 25% and 1...e6 is 10%. And 35% is some other nonsense.
Computer chess tournaments solve this problem by requiring the computers to play specific openings.
Re: Show HN: Noctie – A chess AI that predicts your rating
#69Was exactly correct for me, predicted Lichess within 10 points. Also agree with another poster who said they were waiting to get crushed, but managed a draw. Like it "pushed" just enough.
Re: Show HN: Noctie – A chess AI that predicts your rating
#70Any idea why it thinks I'm so bad? https://imgur.com/a/d0WES5H Its way off (I range around 1200-1700 ELO depending on sober I wanna be when I play). I do play relatively eccentrically with a penchant for sacrifices and a insatiable desire for tempo and exploration of lines I am unfamiliar with but its still way off with its initial assessment.
If the opening is rated as sufficiently bad, it would adjust its play accordingly and perhaps not challenge you sufficiently to be able to change its rating estimate. I.e. if you get a very easy, tactical game after that, the game might not be testing your abilities enough to revise the estimate from one game.