Find chess opening mistakes that repeat in your own games
A recurring opening mistake is more useful than a one-off engine label when it identifies a choice you actually face and repeat. This analysis looks for positions reached several times, compares the moves you chose there and reports a departure only when both moves have enough games to compare.
Use real games
Check whether your history has enough signal
Enter a public username. We read up to 80 recent standard games and show a factual sample before you create an account.
How a repeated departure is detected
Games are replayed in move order and compared only while they share the same position history. Once two games choose different moves, later moves are no longer treated as evidence about the same position.
The report looks for the earliest choice in the reviewed game that differs from the player’s most frequent move and has a materially lower historical score. Small samples and trivial score gaps are filtered out.
- Same colour only
- Same move sequence up to the decision
- Multiple games behind both choices
- Win/draw/loss score difference above the noise floor
Why silence is a valid result
Many games contain no departure that meets these conditions. In that case the report says no repeated pattern was found. It does not turn a rare experiment into a supposed weakness just to fill the page.
Frequently asked questions
Does a lower historical score prove a move is bad?
No. It shows an association in your games, not objective move quality or causation. Use it as a review prompt.
How many games do I need?
A few dozen games may produce broad colour or time-control patterns. Repeated position choices usually need a larger history; imports can include up to 200 games.
Will every game have a finding?
No. A finding appears only when the same position and both candidate moves have enough evidence.