← French Youth Chess Championships 2026 | G20

Analyses

5 automatic angles of analysis across the entire tournament.

Approaching move 40

Time left on the clock just before playing the 40th move. Less time = more pressure at the time control.

Preparation depth (out of book)

First move where the player thought > 30s. The higher, the more moves their preparation covers.

Player	Average depth	Range (min / max)	Games
Vandervorst, Ines	move 11.0	11 – 11	1
Ines, Tinaig	move 8.3	5 – 12	4
Kosteniuk, Kristina	move 6.8	3 – 9	5
Beil, Romane	move 5.8	5 – 6	5
Saint, Laura	move 5.3	4 – 7	3
Hamm, Gabrielle	move 5.3	3 – 6	4
Pizzolante, Gladys	move 4.0	4 – 4	1
Lu, Haiming	move 3.5	3 – 4	2
Dartigues, Marie	move 3.3	1 – 6	4
Dufeux, Elia	move 3.2	1 – 5	5
Berezovsky, Fiorina	move 3.2	1 – 7	5
Couderc, Clarisse	move 2.0	2 – 2	1
Riss, Selenia	move 2.0	1 – 6	5
Gomes, Lana	move 2.0	2 – 2	1
Boghossian, Lucie	move 2.0	2 – 2	4

Evolution across the 14 rounds

Average time per move at each round. Shows fatigue / confidence settling in.

Opening time by ECO family

Which opening families make each player think earliest in the game.

Player	A Flank	B Semi-open	C Open	D Closed	E Indian
Beil, Romane	—	3m 37s 2 games	5m 39s 1 game	1m 45s 2 games	—
Berezovsky, Fiorina	—	3m 43s 2 games	—	2m 13s 3 games	—
Boghossian, Lucie	2m 41s 1 game	4 min 3 games	—	—	—
Couderc, Clarisse	—	—	5m 28s 1 game	—	—
Dartigues, Marie	—	2m 22s 1 game	3m 25s 1 game	3m 43s 1 game	1m 34s 1 game
Dufeux, Elia	—	5m 40s 2 games	—	4m 51s 1 game	2m 14s 2 games
Gomes, Lana	—	—	—	5m 58s 1 game	—
Hamm, Gabrielle	—	4m 12s 1 game	3m 28s 2 games	3m 8s 1 game	—
Ines, Tinaig	—	2m 26s 2 games	—	3m 44s 1 game	4m 39s 1 game
Kosteniuk, Kristina	5m 55s 1 game	4 min 4 games	—	—	—
Lu, Haiming	2m 18s 1 game	—	—	—	2m 55s 1 game
Pizzolante, Gladys	—	2m 49s 1 game	—	—	—
Riss, Selenia	2m 55s 1 game	3m 53s 2 games	3m 44s 1 game	—	3m 46s 1 game
Saint, Laura	—	2m 55s 1 game	—	2m 26s 2 games	—
Vandervorst, Ines	—	47s 1 game	—	—	—

Average time per move (moves 1-15) by ECO family of the game opening. Intensity = proportional to time. Hover a cell to see the number of games.

Does thinking longer help?

The cost of a move is the eval lost by the player (positive = bad move). We aggregate by think duration to see if thinking more produces cleaner moves — and who benefits most.

Player:1428 moves analyzed

Median cost by think duration

Positive = the move dropped the eval (bad move). Close to 0 = neutral move. The blunder rate is the % of moves in the bucket with a cost > 150 cp.

Who does time help? (median < 1min vs > 5min)

Difference between median quality when the player thinks fast (≤ 60s) and when they think long (> 5min). Negative = their long thinks pay off. Positive = they would have done better to move faster.

Player	Fast moves (≤ 60s)	Long moves (> 5min)	Δ
Boghossian, Lucie	+28 cp(14)	+18 cp(15)	-10 cp
Dufeux, Elia	+11 cp(41)	+8 cp(15)	-3 cp
Kosteniuk, Kristina	+9 cp(147)	+7 cp(24)	-2 cp
Ines, Tinaig	+6 cp(51)	+4 cp(14)	-2 cp
Riss, Selenia	+5 cp(119)	+5 cp(28)	0 cp
Vandervorst, Ines	+8 cp(18)	+8 cp(9)	+1 cp
Berezovsky, Fiorina	+3 cp(46)	+5 cp(22)	+2 cp
Saint, Laura	+3 cp(14)	+11 cp(7)	+9 cp
Beil, Romane	+5 cp(106)	+20 cp(26)	+15 cp
Pizzolante, Gladys	+1 cp(7)	+16 cp(4)	+15 cp
Hamm, Gabrielle	+14 cp(46)	+30 cp(14)	+17 cp
Couderc, Clarisse	+1 cp(22)	+22 cp(6)	+22 cp
Lu, Haiming	+7 cp(22)	+31 cp(11)	+25 cp
Dartigues, Marie	+7 cp(38)	+33 cp(10)	+26 cp

Worst blunders after a long think (> 5min)

The moves where the player thought the most AND lost the most eval.

#1
Lu, Haiming
Move 22 · Nxc5
10 min+500 cp
#2
Dartigues, Marie
Move 25 · Qxa2
6m 57s+494 cp
#3
Lu, Haiming
Move 21 · h4
7m 31s+352 cp
#4
Boghossian, Lucie
Move 10 · Nfd2
6m 39s+321 cp
#5
Riss, Selenia
Move 22 · h4
7m 49s+267 cp
#6
Riss, Selenia
Move 16 · Nf1
7m 53s+224 cp
#7
Dartigues, Marie
Move 13 · Qe7
5m 43s+215 cp
#8
Dufeux, Elia
Move 12 · Na5
12 min+194 cp
#9
Boghossian, Lucie
Move 9 · Qe8
5m 48s+186 cp
#10
Dufeux, Elia
Move 8 · Qb6
13 min+178 cp