Rating calculation amp categories


Back to forum

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-08)
Rating calculation & categories

Hello to all, I think it is a good time to gather feedbacks about chess (& Go) rating calculation and tournament categories. A player reported to me it was very difficult for a 2200-2400 player to reach the 2400 mark. Now we have a 2300+ rapid category, it may help but it is not very popular yet...

All feedbacks welcome :)

Best wishes, Thibault

Don Groves    (2008-05-09 07:02:53)
Go categories

Hi, Thibault -- I think the Go categories need to be looked at. We don't have enough players in the 5 Kyu to 10 Kyu range to fill the Kyu II groups, making it difficult to continue to improve after reaching 10 Kyu. Maybe combining Kyu II and Kyu III would help? One can only continue to improve by playing against stronger players.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 01:14:13)
Rating changes

Could you write a script that removes players whose rating falls below the requirements before the tournament starts? It doesn't seem fair that a 2100 player should be playing in a tournament intended for 2200-2600 players.

Don Groves    (2008-05-12 03:26:14)
Rating changes

I disagree. The rule has always been that TER (tournament entry rating) is what counts. I vote to keep it that way. Sometimes tournaments can wait weeks before starting and I don't think anyone should be penalized for losing a game while waiting.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 10:14:41)
Rating changes

1) There was never a "rule" stating that a player has carte blanche to drop as many rating points as they want and still enter a tournament for which they do not meet the rating criterion.

2) Thibault has already manually removed players from rating lists for this reason. Nobody is being "penalized" except the players who are legitimately qualified to play in that category and who must play with the lower category player. The rating average is being erroneously brought down. The player who's rating was lowered is free to enter the correct waiting list for which his rating qualifies.

3) Your "C" class rating category is hardly comparable to the "M" class category where this has been an issue, so your opinion, even if it did have a shred of merit, which I proved it doesn't, is moot anyway.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-12 11:40:20)
Rating changes

I agree with Don Groves - there is no need to make the change suggested IMO

Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 11:53:52)
Rating changes

Its predictable that someone who expects to be falling under 2200 soon would possibly like to cheat the system and stay on a waiting list they are not qualified to be on.

Garvin Gray    (2008-05-12 14:39:06)

Now seeing the last replies from Andrew and Jason, the only calculation that is really required is:

How long till Thibault either locks this thread or deletes the resulting posts from Andrew and Jason?

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-12 14:40:08)
Rating changes

"11. 1. Netiquette (...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."

Don the more I think about it the more I think your view is correct there is no need to make the drastic change that was proposed. I have a current rating of 2225 and future rating of 2247 but have no problem with a person whose rating falls after they enter a 2200 tournament I am in. However it would be good to get other players views as this proposed change would affect players of all levels.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2008-05-12 20:02:28)
Rating changes

Hello to all,

I think a player should be removed from the waiting list if his rating is out of the restriction of the tournament.

In my opinion TER means the rating at the start of the tournament not at the entry into the waiting list. If the tournament starts the current rating is used as TER.

For example in FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000015 the games with Jason (!) and Sandor were rated with 2174 and 2147 and not with >= 2200 (their ratings when they entered the waiting list).

No words in the rules about this theme?

Best, Heinz-Georg

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-12 20:39:45)

Thanks to all for helping, but please be careful about the rules :

>> "Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private." <<

Of course there was a provocation and it is enough. You noticed that I don't ban easily, provocation is a tough game that a few ones like to play here (not so well) but moderators can play with rules too, I may decide to ban a player definitively with no discussion anymore, but it is better that before everyone definitely understand that provocation is just ridiculous when alone... and when alone I can apply rules for this player only.

Best wishes, Thibault

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-12 20:43:04)
Rating changes, TER

About TER, it is fair IMO that a player who entered a waiting list with ie. a 2200+ rating can play the 2200+ tournament even if his rating decreases before it starts. There will be no change (it would have too many other bad consequences anyway).

Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 21:42:44)
Rating changes

Nice of you to quote the one single solitary "M" class tournament that I was a few points short of 2200, out of the 7 such tournaments that I've played in, Mr. Lehnhoff, But my point stands. I would have had no problem waiting one more rating cycle back then if the rules were such to maintain the integrity of the rating categories.

As for the provocation that's going on here....It's amazing the lengths someone will go to for petty "revenge" after you beat them in chess.

Also, there is no point in quoting a "future rating" if you're not taking into consideration your losing games, some of which may end before the next rating cycle begins, that may indeed put someone under 2200.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 22:10:21)
Rating changes

Thibault, I'm curious as to what the bad consequences you speak of are, with regard to removing players who's rating falls short of the category requirements?

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-12 22:43:14)
Rating changes

I think thats the right the decision Thibault to leave the TER rule as it stands. As for the issue of provocation there is no place for insults or abuse towards anybody. Everyone should feel free to express an opinion about a subject without facing ridicule or abuse. Debate can be robust but it should be courteous. As for responding - I am happy to act in the face of insults etc as if nothing has been said and leave it up to Thibault to take action. At the same time I feel completely free to agree/disagree with any view thats posted and will continue to do so. If thats not possible then its not a forum anymore

Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 23:25:56)
Rating changes

It's amusing to witness the hypocrisy of someone who is perpetually provoking, ridiculing, and abusing to speak of there being no place for such offenses. And anyone who resorts to posting links to random, off-topic internet conversations from half a decade ago that have no relevance to the thread they are posting in, in order to try to get revenge for losing a chess game to the thread starter, is the lowest form of troll. I don't doubt that Thibault is aware of the intent of such an element, or the numerous and sundry ways they continue to try to provoke. In the end, we have to look at the results on the chess board. The fair medium for settling disputes. After all, that's why we're here in the first place (no offense GO players)....to play chess. In this arena, I have soundly defeated my opposition.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-13 00:29:44)

"(...) I don't doubt that Thibault is aware of the intent of such an element"

I'm sure you realize that absolutely noone cares about that, so a moderator. Any insult may lead to be banned (applying rules, at moderator's "discretion"), it is not a place to debate personal issues.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 07:12:22)

Looking back over discussions on this I see its tough to make progress: "The one who responds, particularly with insults (even ie. "hypocrite", or "thief"), has a greater responsability IMO. This remains a judgement and this has nothing to do in this forum. Better is to warn a moderator" "Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules : No reason & no evidence will allow anyone to insult anyone in this forum anymore." I agreed with these comments of Thibault before and I agree with them now.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 08:25:55)
When will this troll stop?

This is hilarious! You've got a guy (and I use the term loosely) who goes WAY out of his way to insult, harass, and annoy, now trying to pass himself off as holier-than-thou. He's even following me around from thread to thread with the sole purpose of abuse and provocation. If I say the sky is blue, he'll say green. If I say 2+2=4, he'll say there is no proof of that. This character will not stop trying to provoke, as this thread proves.

I start an innocent thread describing an interesting game I played with someone. He immediately starts criticizing my choice of chess openings, made all the more laughable because I CRUSHED the guy in chess, and am significantly higher rated than he is. Perhaps this is what is fueling his little tirade. He then proceeds to post links to off-topic discussions that occurred 4-5 years ago as further harassment. And this is the same individual who is whining about, of all things, Netiquette? Irony to the EXTREME!

His latest tactic is to incessantly suck up to the site admin by making repeated hybrid posts which are intended to harass me while worshiping the admin. We'll see his signature phrase "I agree with Thibault" over and over again ad-nausiam. As if this somehow buys him respite for the provocative and abusive comments he CONTINUES to make towards me.

Although you're probably used to being in that position, please get off your knees and stop brown nosing Stephenson. It's pathetic. And before you start talking about Netiquette, please learn what the term means yourself. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you did.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-13 09:08:53)

Hi Jason,

If you think anyone here provokes you by posting he disagrees with you (no matter the past, everyone here can express an opinion), feel free to ignore him or just do the same... That's not a problem for us as long as it is 'transparent'.

Provocation is just ridiculous when alone.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 09:59:15)

Again I find myself in complete agreement with Thibault on this issue. Whatever differences there might have been in the past everyone should feel free to express their opinion. Often the best response is silence for example eg: starting a thread and getting no replies at all. That can be a message in itself.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 10:23:37)

"Again I find myself in complete agreement with Thibault"

No surprise here. The brown-nosing fest continues!

Thibault, please define "transparent". The troll is continuing to harass me, even going to far as to address me by name, taking liberties and condescending with statements such as: "Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules". That is clearly both abuse AND provocation.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 12:00:22)

I am sorry I thought it was clear the comments in my post Netiquette were not my comments at all - they were quotations cut and pasted from Thibault himself - they are his words not mine, they came from a previous thread on Netiquette. Specifically the comment: "Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules : No reason & no evidence will allow anyone to insult anyone in this forum anymore." This is Thibault directly addressing someone it not a comment from me. That is why I prefaced my posting with the words "Looking back over discussions on this I see its tough to make progress" I was looking back over previous discussions and it seemed to me that we were covering the same ground and progress was difficult I thought in the present discussion these words were relevant and it was fair to quote them. IMO these comments are as valid now as they were when Thibault made them. Thats is why in the posting I said: "I agreed with these comments of Thibault before and I agree with them now." My view is simple - using insulting words is not permitted under any circumstances and if I have a problem with any words used I will contact Thibault privately and I will not complain in the forum. So I will continue to post to argue my point of view in a courteous manner

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 12:32:23)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

What's clear, Stephenson, is that you're a very sad and pathetic individual. You obviously have no life whatsoever. You've been harassing me and trying to provoke me nonstop. First you start this troll behavior in the other thread....now you're doing it here as well. Is this what you do to everyone who outsmarts you and beats you in chess, as I have done?

It's one thing to follow me around from thread to thread and harass me, but the brown-nosing and whining to the admin you've been doing has made me lose all respect for you entirely. Not that I had much to begin with.

You even go so far as to obsessively comb through all of my games, just to try to find one that you think will someone embarrass or offend me. You even start a thread featuring one of my games. Obviously none of your own games are worthy of mentioning, so you focus on me and my chess games, lol. Well I have news for you Stephenson, I'm not embarrassed at all about my correspondence chess game losses (or any losses in chess for that matter). I've learned a lot more from my losses than my wins. My 6 losses on FICGS have taught me more than my 118 wins here, including the easy win against you and your chess program.

Perhaps others can benefit from my 6 losses as well. Do the FICGS community a favor and post my other five losses, not just the French Defense I played against Bucsa Ioan, that you felt warranted starting a thread to discuss.

Unlike you, I'm a real chess player. I enjoy learning and wish to take my OTB game to the next level and I believe that correspondence chess is helping me to do just that.

What is YOUR OTB chess rating? Interestingly you didn't respond to that question when it was asked of you more than once previously, lol. Big surprise!

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 13:22:56)

I am sorry I cannot respond to a lot of what you have posted as such a response would breach the rules. I have not examined all your losses - just the French games - so I do not know how instructive they are I will try to review them later but I can't promise anything. However I am a great believer in checking lines I play with the database to see whats been learnt and how the top GM's handle the particular lines. All I learnt from my loss was not to play that particular line and to cut out all dodgy openings. In fact the line you played is not the strongest and I believe black can equalise - unfortunately I found an even stronger line for white which seems to refute the entire variation. There is however a book by an english GM from 2007 which looks at sicilian side lines and claims that there is no refutation. When I have time I will stick all the analysis up and people can make up their own minds. On correspondence taking someone's OTB chess to the next level I am a bit sceptical. It definitely has a significant effect on the accuracy of opening play and this can get some valuable wins by itself. But other progress needs separate study and training. Silmans Reassess your chess for example will increase the rating of any one below FIDE 2300 if studied intensively IMO.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 13:37:50)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

It's interesting how you feel qualified to post my games for analysis, when I ALREADY BEAT YOU in chess, lol. In fact I have a perfect score against you Stephenson. I'm also higher rated than you are to boot. So what you "claim to be a great believer in" is hardly of interest to anyone.

What IS of interest is the fact that you still refuse to answer the question of what YOUR otb rating is, after being asked three times. One can only conclude that you are embarrassed about how low it is. Under 1500?

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 14:12:54)

The recommendation was freely given if it does not interest you thats fine. My point remains cc helps opening accuracy im not sure it translates into much else OTB

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 14:22:42)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

Actually, you really don't have a point Stephenson. You're a <1500 otb player with delusions of grandeur, nothing more. I've already beaten you and your chess program in correspondence chess, and I'm more than 500 elo stronger than you in otb chess, so what exactly was your "point" again?

I can't speak about what correspondence chess could do for a <1500 otb player such as yourself. But for someone with an otb rating >2000, such as myself, cc chess is valuable in many ways, not just for opening accuracy.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 14:50:21)
ELO ratings

I believe ELO ratings are used for FIDE ratings I did not know you had a FIDE rating. I must say that ELO 2000 is an average to good club player and over 2200 in my experience is a good OTB rating. But looking at some of your OTB games between 1900 - 2000 seems to be the level of chess that I can see. Its ok - but the reality is that players do not improve very much after a certain age ...... Anyway at cc people tend to have it both ways if they win its because they are better players if they lose or draw its not real chess its just computers and it does not mean anything. I am sure we will play again at cc and then you can demonstrate your skill. If I win I will not place a great emphasis on it. It not difficult to draw a cc game if you have the resources to hand.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 15:08:20)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a <1500 otb player, such as yourself Mr. Stephenson, wouldn't be able to figure out something that any normal 6 year old child would have no difficulty with. But then again, during our chess game in which I crushed you, I had the feeling I wasn't dealing with a mental heavyweight, to put it mildly. I'll hold your hand and explain it to you since there is probably no 6 year old child where you live to help you:

The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess, GO, backgammon, etc."Elo" is often written in capital letters (ELO), but it is not an acronym. It is the family name of the system's creator, Arpad Elo (19031992, born as l&#337; rpd), a Hungarian-born American physics professor. The Elo rating system has been adopted by many different organizations, including the USCF, CFC, FIDE, and others, as well as various online gaming servers.

My national elo rating is indeed over 2000, Stephenson. And yours is under 1500, as you've already confirmed.

I already beat you very easily in chess Stephenson. You're the little guy with something to prove here, not me.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 15:47:39)
Mr cfc

Frankly I have alway taken someone saying they have an ELO rating to refer to having a FIDE rating and not a national rating I understand that you need to deduct about 35 points from sub 2200 ratings to get a FIDE equivalent. Well I have never met anyone before who thought that FIDE 2000 was such a high rating I dont mean that in a bad way I am just surprised that you think this is high. As for beating me at chess I thought this was not real chess? Well like I said there is a sense in having it both ways. Look we could easily organise a money match at cc say for Euro 1000 6, 8, 10 games whatever you want, rapid time limit you can have white in every game and I can give you 3 to 1 odds. You win 1 game you get Euro 3000 you fail to win a game I get Euro 1000. All you have to do is win a game you can even lose all the other games. Well like I said it does not prove anything - its a research competition. I dont want to hustle you but you have been making a lot of statements so if you are interested ....... But please dont challenge me to bullet games on playchess......

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?

Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.

There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.

I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?

Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.

I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.

Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!

Hannes Rada    (2008-05-13 22:16:55)

Why don't you guys not use the private message feature .... instead of spamming this thread ? Is anybody else interested in this trash ?

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 22:29:00)

And what is you posting your trash here supposed to accomplish, Hannes? If this is so boring for you why are you reading it? If you have something topical to contribute, why don't you post it?

Hannes Rada    (2008-05-13 23:53:25)
childish and offtopic

After posting No. 4 this thread becomes a childish and offtopic guerilla battle .... < It doesn't seem fair that a 2100 < player should be playing in a < tournament intended for 2200-2600 < players Are you afraid of losing so important FICGS - Elos when you have to play against lower rated opponents ?? If you want to play correspondence chess at top level than you have to sign up at ICCF.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-14 00:06:15)

Hello Hannes (& all).

Let's be patient :) Jason & Andrew have many things to tell to themselves and I must say it is a quite interesting "experience". Maybe we can change the rules at the end so let's wait for the end of the storm, then we can talk about chess for sure ;)

Jason Repa    (2008-05-14 00:35:54)
Re: Hannes query

I'm not "afraid" of playing anyone, and the FICGS rating points are only a means with which to play the stronger players. As I stated earlier, and in other threads, my primary interest in correspondence chess is to do research for my otb chess. Having said that I'm interested in playing the strongest players possible.

It's simple common sense that if a rating category says 2200-2600, then it should have players who are rated 2200-2600. Lower rated players are free to sign up for the category that they qualify for.

Do you play otb chess Hannes? You don't seem to have any otb rating as far as I can tell.

Hannes Rada    (2008-05-14 20:10:41)
Jason's query

Jason, I gave up OTB chess some 20 years ago. So I have no OTB rating (anymore) Playing in my chessclub was not and ist not compatible with my working hours. CC is perfect for me. Analyzing and making move later in the evening when I am returning from work, or whenever I can find time. It's wise to play the strongest possible opponents. But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength. Too many variables may influence the players chess abilities. (Too many games at the same time, lack of motivation, ....) On the other side an ambitious 1800 Elo newcomer can sometimes more dangerous than an "old" CC-GM. FICGS is quite a nice community. Here you have the chance to raise your rating and play against the higher rated players pretty soon compared with ICCF. But your "strong opponent experience" will end here around 2500 - 2550. Raising your rating in ICCF takes much more time (because tournaments are slower) but when you've established yourselve at a certain level than you have the chance to play the > 2700 guys like van Osteroom & Co :-) But at this level correspondence chess is no fun anymore. I've talked to GM Peter Hertel from Germany several years ago and he told me that he had to analyze and work on his cc - chess positions around 10 hours per day to compete at this level .... if you are retired or jobless and a billionaire (van Osteroom) than you have the best chances of winning an ICCF championship final .... :-) Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities ? I've talked to several players regarding this issue and I received different answers. From: Yes I benefit from my cc-opening experience To: No, these are absolutely different stories. OTB requires the abilites to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours. All things which are absolutely not necessary for cc. My experience for the short time frame when I played both otb + cc is that for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb

"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."

I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.

But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.

"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"

I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.

"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"

I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.

I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.

"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."

I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.

Wayne Lowrance    (2008-05-15 19:45:42)
Rating calculation

Hello all. I have been reading the discussions here and did not intend to add my t hought. But I guess I am anyhow. Chess is about having fun, making new friends, competing with your peers, last but not least improving your skill. I am playing in several M tournaments, a couple have players whose ratings have dropped below 2200. This not a problem for me. I think they should be allowed to play. With respect Wayne

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-16 18:19:42)
Beating FM's

If you have beaten more than 1 FM in a classical time control ie not rapid or blitz or bullet that is good on the other hand in short time controls it doesn't mean much at all I agree. Its tough to improve or learn about chess from blitz or bullet unless you go over the game ie for opening accuracy or tactical shots missed and make notes.