Researchers create new classification of chess openings(techxplore.com)
techxplore.com
Researchers create new classification of chess openings
https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-classification-chess.html
10 comments
They said:
>"We also only included players in our analyses that had a rating above 2,000 on the platform Lichess. Total novices could randomly play any opening games, which would skew our analyses," explains Vito D.P. Servedio of the Complexity Science Hub.
You said:
>I'm also a relative beginner, so I don't have the brain power to learn many openings...
So what is your rating?
That's a huge burn. 2000 is far above "total novice"
> So what is your rating?
Chess.com 1450-ish. I honestly probably shouldn't even be studying openings at this level, lol.
Chess.com 1450-ish. I honestly probably shouldn't even be studying openings at this level, lol.
[deleted]
Where is a Bongcloud attack in this cloud?
> Opening games that are so popular that they occur together with most others were excluded.
I’m guessing king’s pawn or e5 openings
It's not clear at all why the dots in the illustration are positioned exactly where they are.
They've defined an idea of "similarity" (based on who plays what openings), and place the dots so that similar openings map to closer dots.
That means there isn't a meaning to the exact position. It's just an attempt to show the similarity visually. Usually, you do that by laying them out randomly, and then having closer dots drift towards each other until you get something more or less stable.
You can think of it as trying to minimize the energy or stress in the graph, though there's no guarantee it will be the absolute minimum.
Their "similar" metric is "different players tend to play both of these openings". Not sure how meaningful that is.
That means there isn't a meaning to the exact position. It's just an attempt to show the similarity visually. Usually, you do that by laying them out randomly, and then having closer dots drift towards each other until you get something more or less stable.
You can think of it as trying to minimize the energy or stress in the graph, though there's no guarantee it will be the absolute minimum.
Their "similar" metric is "different players tend to play both of these openings". Not sure how meaningful that is.
That seems... like bad logic?
I can play, for example, King's Gambit and English Opening as white. These two do _NOT_ play the same at all. King's gambit is an obscure way to make sure that the game ends quickly, and is what I play when I'm somewhat impatient and/or am trying to force an error (either from myself or my opponent). While English Opening is what I play when I'm more relaxed and willing to play a longer game of positional chess.
I'm not sure if its even "Blitz" vs "Non-Blitz" chess. Its more about what I'm feeling like. I learned these two openings because they're so different. I'm also a relative beginner, so I don't have the brain power to learn many openings, so I've been mostly just sticking with these two.
---------
I think there were lots of similarities between English and Queen's opening, for example. But I don't bother with studying Queens opening because its too similar to English. When I'm only playing like 2 or 3 openings, I aim for very different openings, not similar ones.