Your chess.com profile
Official record in rapid
Puzzles vs. games
A puzzle rating well above your game rating means the calculation is there — it just isn't surviving real games yet.
Your rating, game by game
Your ACPL went from 62 to 58 and your blunders from 1.9 to 1.6: the accuracy goals from your previous report are on track. Time pressure is also better handled, with a marked drop in ACPL under time trouble from 140 to 96. However, the early-castling goal is still missed: 37 games still show a central king at move 15, and 5 losses allowed a direct mate. Your king safety and tactical vigilance remain your top priorities. The second problem is converting your advantages: only 25 out of 53 winning games were turned into a win, all of it undercut by a silent drift in the middlegame of 25 cp per quiet move.
Phase Breakdown
| Phase | Blunders | Mistakes | Inaccuracies | Moves |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opening | 15 | 40 | 65 | 1446 |
| Middlegame | 90 | 103 | 161 | 1599 |
| Endgame | 54 | 45 | 52 | 1038 |
Costliest Moments
The exact moves that threw away the most — your biggest single leaks.
The move that flipped the game
For each lost game, the exact move after which the eval never recovered — not always the biggest blunder. This is the move to understand.
What each move gives away
Distribution of your moves by centipawns lost — the tall left bars are your solid moves, the right tail is what reports like this one exist for.
The clock effect
3.5% of your moves were played with under 30 s on the clock.
Your clock
How long you actually think, move by move — rebuilt from the clock timestamps of your games. A blunder played in 3 seconds and a blunder played after 2 minutes are two different problems.
Where your clock goes
Share of your total thinking time spent in each phase. Burning the clock in the opening means playing the moves that decide the game on fumes.
Your opponents' gifts
Every time an opponent's mistake handed you 1.5+ pawns of eval — and whether you kept the gift or gave it back within three moves.
Games Analyzed
White vs Black
The same player is often two different players depending on the color. Your score, accuracy and blunders with each color.
Against stronger and weaker players
Your results split by opponent strength (from the game headers). Playing scared against stronger players and relaxing against weaker ones are both measurable — and fixable.
| Opponents | Games | W/D/L | ACPL | Blunders/game |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stronger (+50 Elo) | 2 | 1/0/1 | 60 | 1.5 |
| Similar (±50) | 95 | 45/4/46 | 59 | 1.6 |
| Weaker (−50 Elo) | 3 | 3/0/0 | 40 | 0.7 |
Your openings
The openings from this sample, with your score in each.
Where you leave theory
For each opening you repeat, the first move that loses 50+ centipawns — the point where your knowledge ends and the bleeding starts.
| Opening | Games deviating | Median move | Avg cost (cp) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scandinavian Defense Mieses Kotrc Main Line | 5/11 | 9 | 110 | game 2, move 10 · game 28, move 11 |
| Queens Pawn Opening Zukertort Variation | 3/6 | 8 | 137 | game 1, move 8 · game 10, move 11 |
| London System | 2/6 | 10 | 92 | game 21, move 11 · game 45, move 8 |
| Queens Pawn Opening Krause Variation | 4/6 | 9 | 86 | game 19, move 9 · game 48, move 11 |
| Englund Gambit | 2/5 | 9 | 266 | game 80, move 7 · game 85, move 11 |
How your games end
The way a game ends is a diagnosis of its own — losses on time and losses by checkmate call for different work.
Streaks and tilt
How your results chain together. If your win rate collapses right after a loss, the problem isn't your chess — it's clicking "new game" too soon.
Your sessions
Games starting less than an hour apart count as one session. If your play collapses from game 3 of a session onward, the cheapest rating points are in a stop rule, not in more study.
Your endgames
The endgames you actually reached, typed by material — with your accuracy in each. "Work on endgames" is vague; "work on rook endings" is a plan. 63 games reached an endgame.
| Type | Games | W/D/L | ACPL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Queen endings | 34 | 11/2/21 | 130 |
| Mixed material | 21 | 9/1/11 | 96 |
| Rook endings | 5 | 3/1/1 | 102 |
| Minor-piece endings | 2 | 1/0/1 | 114 |
| Pawn endings | 1 | 1/0/0 | 0 |
Your tactical stats are excellent (2007) but they don't transfer enough into your games. The #1 flagged weakness is leaving pieces undefended, but the real cost comes from allowed mates: four moves among the worst examples concede a direct or forced mate, including a mate in 1 (Game 92, move 32) and a mate in 4 (Game 84, move 24). With 48 blunders played in under 5 seconds across the sample, the main cause isn't a lack of calculation but a discipline failure: you play before checking the opponent's threats. The turning-point moves are telling: Game 1, move 8 (played in 5s) and Game 4, move 19 (played in 9s) sealed your losses on instant blunders. The top priority is reinstating a pre-move checking routine to stop giving away material or missing checkmates.
An allowed mate means you didn't evaluate the opponent's forcing threats before playing your move. At club level, allowing a mate in 1 or in 4 isn't a calculation-depth problem, it's a lapse in attention: your focus stays on your own plan and ignores what the opponent can do. The move looks logical because it pursues your initiative, but it's objectively insufficient because it neglects a direct threat to your king.
How to spot it: Before every move, systematically ask yourself: 'If I play this, what's my opponent's most aggressive reply?' Start by listing all his checks and captures. If his next move can touch your king, calculate that line before committing to your move.
Game 92, move 32: you play Rc4 instead of Kh7, allowing a mate in 1. ↗The report flags this as your most frequent tactical problem. A piece left undefended isn't always capturable right away, but it becomes a target as soon as the opponent creates a double threat or opens a line. The move looks logical because you're activating a piece or attacking a point, but it's insufficient if that piece is no longer protected once the move is played.
How to spot it: After picking your move, scan all your pieces: is each one still protected by a pawn or piece? If a piece becomes hanging or exposed to a fork, look for another square or add a defender before committing.
Game 84, move 24: you play Rc5 instead of Ree8, and the opponent capitalizes with a mate in 4. ↗48 of your 159 blunders are played in under 5 seconds. These moves look logical because they follow an immediate instinct, but they're insufficient because no check was done. This isn't a calculation-ability problem, it's a method problem: you play on autopilot on positions that needed a pause.
How to spot it: If your first reflex is to play an immediate move, force yourself to wait 3 extra seconds to check your piece safety and the opponent's threats. This micro-pause is enough to eliminate most snap blunders.
Game 1, move 8: you play Ng6 in 5s, the eval drops from +1.0 to -1.6 and the loss is sealed. ↗Measured strategic profile
Board features measured across your middlegames — you against your opponents, each row on its own scale. The gaps here are the strategic story behind the eval swings.
The silent leak
Centipawns bled per quiet move, blunders excluded. High bleed with few blunders means the plan — not the calculation — is what costs you.
Your measured profile shows that your average mobility (26.2) and space (9.7) are nearly identical to your opponents' (26.2 and 9.5). The most notable strategic imbalance isn't there, it's in castling timing and a silent positional drift. You castled in 92 of 100 games, which is fine, but 37 times your king was still central at move 15. Your middlegame positional drift is 25 cp per quiet move: that's not a blunder, it's a slow leak, a sign you don't have a clear plan once theory ends. The anchor games confirm it: game 1 (mobility -15), game 2 (mobility -16), game 6 (mobility -11) show that as soon as you leave theory, your pieces lose coordination against a better-organized opponent.
37 games with a king still central at move 15 means 37 times you exposed your king to tactical attacks and limited your rooks' activity. Your average pawn shield of 2.3 is good, but it's worthless if the king isn't tucked away. This imbalance costs points because it invites the opponent to open the center or launch an attack while your king is exposed.
The plan: Set an absolute rule: castle before move 12, except in rare cases where a tactic forces another priority. If you play 1.d4, make sure you've castled before pushing your central pawns or launching queenside maneuvers.
Game 21: never castled, king central at move 15, mobility -4. ↗You lose 25 cp per quiet move in the middlegame, without blundering. This indicates you don't have a plan once theory ends. Your openings show where the problem starts: in the Scandinavian Mieses-Kotrc, you leave theory at move 9 on average and lose 110 cp. In the Zukertort, deviation at move 8 for 137 cp. You know how to play the first moves, but you don't know what to do once the position demands an idea.
The plan: After move 8, before playing, identify an imbalance in the position (more space, the bishop pair, a semi-open file) and pick a move that exploits it. Don't play a 'useful' move: play a move that improves your worst piece or targets a specific opponent weakness.
Game 1: king central at move 15, mobility -15 vs the opponent. The drift starts as soon as theory ends. ↗Your profile shows 0.8 pawn weaknesses (isolated + doubled) against 0.7 for your opponents. The gap is small on average, but anchor games show costly spikes: +3.7 weaknesses (game 74), +3.6 (game 19), +3.0 (game 44). These spikes happen when you push pawns without a plan or under pressure, creating permanent targets for the opponent.
The plan: Before pushing a pawn out of the structure, ask: 'Could this pawn become isolated or doubled after the exchange?' If so, only push it if you get an immediate tactical or spatial gain that offsets the long-term weakness.
Game 19: +3.6 pawn weaknesses vs the opponent, king central at move 15. ↗Your data shows clear improvement under time pressure (ACPL 96 vs 140 previously), proving you've internalized better clock management. However, 48% of your moves are played in under 5 seconds, and these snap moves generate 48 blunders. This isn't emotional tilt: the split between your results after a win (51%) and after a loss (48%) is nearly identical, a sign of genuine emotional stability. The problem is concentration: you play on reflex before you've thought it through. The turning-point moments confirm it: Game 1, move 8 in 5s; Game 4, move 19 in 9s. These losses don't come from hard positions, they come from moves played without questioning them. Your sessions show another signal: your ACPL goes from 64 (games 1-2) to 52 (games 3+), so fatigue isn't the problem — but your first two games are less accurate than the rest. These are probably warm-up games where discipline is looser. Apply the same checking routine from the very first move of the session.
- Before every move, list the opponent's checks, captures, and threats. This isn't optional — it's the condition for playing real chess, not hope chess. Apply this routine even on moves that seem obvious.
- Castle before move 12. A king still central past move 15 is a direct invitation to attack and limits your rooks' activity. King safety comes before any other positional consideration.
- When you leave theory (around move 8-9), don't play out of habit. Identify an imbalance and choose a move that exploits it. The 25 cp per quiet move drift in the middlegame comes from having no plan.
- Never play a move in under 5 seconds without checking your piece safety. The 3-second micro-pause is enough to eliminate most snap blunders.
- When you're winning (+2), simplify: trade pieces, not pawns, and look for the safest path to the endgame. Your 72% conversion rate needs to climb to 85% by cutting out unnecessary complications.
A solid, improving club player with a proven tactical base (rating 2007) and good emotional stability. Tends toward passivity in the middlegame once theory ends, with a positional drift that reflects a lack of a plan. Playing discipline loosens up on fast moves.
Strengths
Working on
- Eliminate allowed mates by checking all the opponent's checks and threats before every move.
- Reduce snap blunders to under 30 over your next 100 games by applying the pre-move routine.
- Castle before move 12 in at least 95 out of your next 100 games.
- Keep your ACPL under 55 over your next 100 games.