It would be interesting to know how many of these mates in X are found in game.
A lot for mate in 1, and very few for mate in 2 and above?
A lot for mate in 1, and very few for mate in 2 and above?
It's possible that the entry-level knowledge of Lichess platform is high for this article, but your terminology and phrasing did not make a lot of sense to me as an intermediate player / analyst by work (I use Lichess regularly but not familiar with the Analysis features). I would recommend more background section at the beginning of the article to broaden your audience, e.g. explaining the meaning of the evaluation terms.
material imbalance question because it is something apparently more tangible to consider? or a first step.
Or that people resign their games based on that fast evaluation of their odds. I never play fast time controls, but i am curious about your data analysis using bullet as your first database. I am not familiar with common sense assumptions that one would consider in analysis data from there. I do have some imagination, and second hand impressions about it. I can watch on the lobby. (or are these blitz games, i confuse all fast time controls beyond my pace....). The intuition test part is rather something i would assume to be agreeable to many , the blundering frequency and perhaps amplitude (or even depth to material consequences going shorter, so that it might be hard to differentiate positional blunder which might have delayed visiible material imbalance conversions down the line, from short term blundrers.
I guess that might be a question, across time controls, on the depth to visibile imablance for blunders. .
or games decided by blunder and their types.. things like that.
Or that people resign their games based on that fast evaluation of their odds. I never play fast time controls, but i am curious about your data analysis using bullet as your first database. I am not familiar with common sense assumptions that one would consider in analysis data from there. I do have some imagination, and second hand impressions about it. I can watch on the lobby. (or are these blitz games, i confuse all fast time controls beyond my pace....). The intuition test part is rather something i would assume to be agreeable to many , the blundering frequency and perhaps amplitude (or even depth to material consequences going shorter, so that it might be hard to differentiate positional blunder which might have delayed visiible material imbalance conversions down the line, from short term blundrers.
I guess that might be a question, across time controls, on the depth to visibile imablance for blunders. .
or games decided by blunder and their types.. things like that.