user12646: im posting this from my blog: http://chessratios.altervista.org/
Surprisingly engines like Stockfish and Houdini (the top 2!), Are not very close in this table ordered by Captures.
Carlsen is 1 point under the other humans.

What do you think about this?
Edit:
The Following data analysis of chess games where made by me, the Engines games where extracted from de CCRL page in the category of “40 moves in 4 minutes” , also known as “404”.
The analysis was made game by game, and move by move… so the information, I think, is very precise.
All the analyzes and indicators presented here do not mean that one engine or person is better than another, they are only characteristics of their personality.
Captures: This are amount of captures that the engine or player made in proportion to the other moves.
Checks: This are amount of checks that the engine or player made in proportion to the other moves.
Other: Represents all the other moves that are not Captures or Checks.
Rank: The Rank column is the rank in CCRL of the engine at the moment when the data was downloaded.
All calculations are averaged with the number of games of each engine/player.
I add 4 human players to see the difference against the Engines analysis of these factors. And also added a ‘middle strength’ engine name Zotron (Ranked 441), also for the same cause, to see how these factors behave in different Engines.

user-1: I don't think the human-engine comparison is fair, because the engine data is restricted to 40 moves in 4 minutes, whereas the human data is, as far as I know, not restricted in the same way.
Given this limitation, I will address the possible differences between the human-computer data:

Threefold repetition: the computer data has more checks, which may imply that more games end in threefold repetition
Endgame bias: three of the human players you've included are famous endgame players, therefore their games are likely to include a lot of captures. Maybe a player like Tal would have fewer captures but more checks?
Maintaining the tension: computers are better at maintaining the tension than humans. They just don't have the need to simplify the position with a capture to alleviate the strain of calculating many variations like humans have.


12646: <p>im posting this from my blog: <a href="http://chessratios.altervista.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://chessratios.altervista.org/</a></p>

<p>Surprisingly engines like Stockfish and Houdini (the top 2!), Are not very close in this table ordered by Captures.</p>

<p>Carlsen is 1 point under the other humans.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/kvUkM.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/kvUkM.jpg" alt="captures and checks"></a></p>

<p>What do you think about this?</p>

<p>Edit:</p>

<p>The Following data analysis of chess games where made by me, the Engines games where extracted from de <strong>CCRL page</strong> in the category of “40 moves in 4 minutes” , also known as “404”.</p>

<p>The analysis was made game by game, and move by move… so the information, I think, is very precise.</p>

<p>All the analyzes and indicators presented here do not mean that one engine or person is better than another, they are only characteristics of their personality.</p>

<p><strong>Captures:</strong> This are amount of captures that the engine or player made in proportion to the other moves.</p>

<p><strong>Checks:</strong> This are amount of checks that the engine or player made in proportion to the other moves.</p>

<p>Other: Represents all the other moves that are not Captures or Checks.</p>

<p><strong>Rank:</strong> The Rank column is the rank in CCRL of the engine at the moment when the data was downloaded.</p>

<p>All calculations are averaged with the number of games of each engine/player.</p>

<p>I add 4 human players to see the difference against the Engines analysis of these factors. And also added a ‘middle strength’ engine name Zotron (Ranked 441), also for the same cause, to see how these factors behave in different Engines.</p>
 -1: <p>I don't think the human-engine comparison is fair, because the engine data is restricted to 40 moves in 4 minutes, whereas the human data is, as far as I know, not restricted in the same way.</p>

<p>Given this limitation, I will address the possible differences between the human-computer data:</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Threefold repetition</strong>: the computer data has more checks, which may imply that more games end in threefold repetition</li>
<li><strong>Endgame bias</strong>: three of the human players you've included are famous endgame players, therefore their games are likely to include a lot of captures. Maybe a player like Tal would have fewer captures but more checks?</li>
<li><strong>Maintaining the tension</strong>: computers are better at maintaining the tension than humans. They just don't have the need to simplify the position with a capture to alleviate the strain of calculating many variations like humans have.</li>
</ul>
