Paul Ojuri

Leaks

Ranked by frequency × severity × recency over 1277 analysed games (weighted 415.2: over-the-board counts fully, blitz a fifth, bullet almost nothing). Confirmed needs 12 or more occurrences; provisional 5 to 11; fewer is a watch. Only confirmed leaks may drive more than a fifth of a week's training. Tactical motifs shown here passed validation against the Lichess puzzle database at 70% precision or better; the rest are tracked but hidden until they do.

01Mistakes and blunders with no tactical shape (judgement, not calculation)

confirmed
76.5 per 100 games (95% CI 4252 of games)severity 31% win chance per occurrencen = 1006 in 618 games (weighted 317.7)score 605.1trend: not enough data (432 recent / 1 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Mistakes and blunders with no tactical shape (judgement, not calculation)
2017-10-18 · classical · move 21
played f1c1, best c3d4, 44% · no tactical shape detected
Evidence position 2 for Mistakes and blunders with no tactical shape (judgement, not calculation)
2017-08-30 · classical · move 35
played f3g4, best g1g2, 41% · no tactical shape detected
Evidence position 3 for Mistakes and blunders with no tactical shape (judgement, not calculation)
2026-02-17 · rapid · move 30
played h5g4, best b3c5, 73% · no tactical shape detected
All 8 strongest examples

02Slow eval slides over several quiet moves with no single big error

confirmed
90.1 per 100 games (95% CI 5867 of games)severity 19% win chance per occurrencen = 1197 in 815 games (weighted 374.1)score 440.0trend: not enough data (520 recent / 3 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Slow eval slides over several quiet moves with no single big error
2014-08-04 · rapid · move 2
33%
Evidence position 2 for Slow eval slides over several quiet moves with no single big error
2015-12-07 · correspondence · move 3
57%
Evidence position 3 for Slow eval slides over several quiet moves with no single big error
2022-09-02 · rapid · move 17
52%
All 8 strongest examples

03Errors made with under 30 seconds on the clock

confirmed
12.6 per 100 games (95% CI 49 of games)severity 37% win chance per occurrencen = 254 in 117 games (weighted 52.2)score 320.3trend: not enough data (229 recent / 0 prior)
All 8 strongest examples

04Reached a clearly winning position (≥ +2) and did not win

confirmed
23.2 per 100 games (95% CI 1927 of games)severity 50% win chance per occurrencen = 312 in 312 games (weighted 96.2)score 300.6trend: not enough data (142 recent / 0 prior)
All 8 strongest examples

05Errors in critical positions after thinking under 5 seconds

confirmed
20.4 per 100 games (95% CI 1321 of games)severity 20% win chance per occurrencen = 284 in 229 games (weighted 84.9)score 123.9trend: not enough data (142 recent / 0 prior)
All 8 strongest examples

06Mistakes and blunders once the game reached an endgame

confirmed
12.7 per 100 games (95% CI 612 of games)severity 36% win chance per occurrencen = 167 in 114 games (weighted 52.6)score 110.7trend: not enough data (73 recent / 1 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Mistakes and blunders once the game reached an endgame
2014-08-04 · rapid · move 54
85%
Evidence position 2 for Mistakes and blunders once the game reached an endgame
2026-02-17 · rapid · move 50
85%
Evidence position 3 for Mistakes and blunders once the game reached an endgame
2014-08-04 · rapid · move 48
38%
All 8 strongest examples

07Allowed the opponent a fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)

confirmed
10.3 per 100 games (95% CI 712 of games)severity 41% win chance per occurrencen = 129 in 115 games (weighted 42.9)score 84.3trend: not enough data (45 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Allowed the opponent a fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2023-03-03 · rapid · move 46
played f5e4, best g5c1, 91% · rook forks a5, g5
Evidence position 2 for Allowed the opponent a fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2025-05-20 · rapid · move 24
played d8e7, best d4e3, 89% · rook forks d4, e7; captures the defender of d4
Evidence position 3 for Allowed the opponent a fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2016-10-07 · rapid · move 25
played d2h6, best f5e6, 88% · queen forks b2, d4, a5
All 8 strongest examples

08Allowed the opponent a royal fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)

confirmed
5.5 per 100 games (95% CI 38 of games)severity 43% win chance per occurrencen = 69 in 65 games (weighted 22.7)score 49.9trend: not enough data (26 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Allowed the opponent a royal fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2023-03-03 · rapid · move 46
played f5e4, best g5c1, 91% · rook forks a5, g5
Evidence position 2 for Allowed the opponent a royal fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2025-07-31 · rapid · move 30
played g4g5, best a1c3, 84% · queen forks c1, g2, f4
Evidence position 3 for Allowed the opponent a royal fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2019-04-29 · rapid · move 20
played e6e4, best d8e8, 46% · knight forks e4, d7, g8; captures the defender of e4
All 8 strongest examples

09Mistakes and blunders inside the first 10 moves

confirmed
9.0 per 100 games (95% CI 511 of games)severity 32% win chance per occurrencen = 109 in 94 games (weighted 37.2)score 44.1trend: not enough data (32 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Mistakes and blunders inside the first 10 moves
2012-06-04 · rapid · move 9
85%
Evidence position 2 for Mistakes and blunders inside the first 10 moves
2016-11-16 · rapid · move 5
73%
Evidence position 3 for Mistakes and blunders inside the first 10 moves
2024-12-11 · correspondence · move 6
61%
All 8 strongest examples

10Allowed the opponent a mate in n (blunder-check / prophylaxis)

confirmed
2.9 per 100 games (95% CI 25 of games)severity 51% win chance per occurrencen = 41 in 40 games (weighted 11.9)score 41.7trend: not enough data (21 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Allowed the opponent a mate in n (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2025-05-13 · rapid · move 34
played e8e1, best g3h3, 95% · mate in 1
Evidence position 2 for Allowed the opponent a mate in n (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2010-12-24 · rapid · move 19
played g5g6, best d4e6, 92% · mate in 1
Evidence position 3 for Allowed the opponent a mate in n (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2026-03-06 · rapid · move 33
played f4g5, best f1f3, 91% · mate in 2
All 8 strongest examples

11Missed your own fork (calculation / board vision)

confirmed
4.2 per 100 games (95% CI 26 of games)severity 39% win chance per occurrencen = 56 in 51 games (weighted 17.4)score 40.3trend: not enough data (24 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Missed your own fork (calculation / board vision)
2025-05-20 · rapid · move 24
played d8e7, best d4e3, 89% · bishop forks d2, f4; defender of f4 dragged away
Evidence position 2 for Missed your own fork (calculation / board vision)
2026-01-31 · rapid · move 25
played a4a6, best c6e7, 79% · knight forks f5, c8
Evidence position 3 for Missed your own fork (calculation / board vision)
2012-10-04 · rapid · move 22
played d3e3, best d3b5, 78% · knight forks a3, c7
All 8 strongest examples

12Missed your own mate in n (calculation / board vision)

confirmed
1.2 per 100 games (95% CI 03 of games)severity 55% win chance per occurrencen = 20 in 18 games (weighted 4.8)score 35.9trend: not enough data (16 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Missed your own mate in n (calculation / board vision)
2025-05-13 · rapid · move 34
played e8e1, best g3h3, 95% · mate in 1
Evidence position 2 for Missed your own mate in n (calculation / board vision)
2025-05-05 · rapid · move 42
played f2f1, best f2h2, 93% · mate in 1
Evidence position 3 for Missed your own mate in n (calculation / board vision)
2017-01-08 · rapid · move 26
played g7g6, best e4h1, 52% · mate in 1
All 8 strongest examples

13Allowed the opponent a sacrifice (blunder-check / prophylaxis)

confirmed
4.4 per 100 games (95% CI 37 of games)severity 37% win chance per occurrencen = 55 in 54 games (weighted 18.4)score 33.4trend: not enough data (18 recent / 1 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Allowed the opponent a sacrifice (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2022-09-02 · rapid · move 30
played a7a4, best b6c6, 83% · gives up 3 before winning it back
Evidence position 2 for Allowed the opponent a sacrifice (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2025-05-05 · rapid · move 25
played e6e1, best e6e3, 76% · gives up 6 before winning it back
Evidence position 3 for Allowed the opponent a sacrifice (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2025-05-08 · rapid · move 30
played f5d4, best f5h4, 71% · gives up 2 before winning it back
All 8 strongest examples

14Allowed the opponent a queen fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)

confirmed
3.1 per 100 games (95% CI 25 of games)severity 43% win chance per occurrencen = 41 in 38 games (weighted 13.0)score 32.9trend: not enough data (17 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Allowed the opponent a queen fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2016-10-07 · rapid · move 25
played d2h6, best f5e6, 88% · queen forks b2, d4, a5
Evidence position 2 for Allowed the opponent a queen fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2025-07-31 · rapid · move 30
played g4g5, best a1c3, 84% · queen forks c1, g2, f4
Evidence position 3 for Allowed the opponent a queen fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2026-02-09 · rapid · move 18
played h2g3, best f2g3, 79% · queen forks g1, e3
All 8 strongest examples

15Missed your own sacrifice (calculation / board vision)

confirmed
3.5 per 100 games (95% CI 26 of games)severity 34% win chance per occurrencen = 48 in 47 games (weighted 14.7)score 32.0trend: not enough data (22 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Missed your own sacrifice (calculation / board vision)
2017-07-11 · correspondence · move 17
played g7e8, best c5d4, 64% · gives up 2 before winning it back
Evidence position 2 for Missed your own sacrifice (calculation / board vision)
2022-09-02 · rapid · move 39
played g2f1, best a7f2, 48% · gives up 9 before winning it back
Evidence position 3 for Missed your own sacrifice (calculation / board vision)
2025-06-11 · rapid · move 50
played a3a2, best c2c5, 47% · gives up 2 before winning it back
All 8 strongest examples

16Missed your own royal fork (calculation / board vision)

confirmed
1.9 per 100 games (95% CI 13 of games)severity 41% win chance per occurrencen = 27 in 23 games (weighted 8.0)score 25.3trend: not enough data (14 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Missed your own royal fork (calculation / board vision)
2026-01-31 · rapid · move 25
played a4a6, best c6e7, 79% · knight forks f5, c8
Evidence position 2 for Missed your own royal fork (calculation / board vision)
2011-08-08 · correspondence · move 13
played d7d6, best g2g3, 71% · queen forks e1, h4; captures the defender of h4
Evidence position 3 for Missed your own royal fork (calculation / board vision)
2026-01-31 · rapid · move 24
played f2f4, best c6e7, 70% · knight forks f5, c8
All 8 strongest examples

17Allowed the opponent a knight fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)

confirmed
4.3 per 100 games (95% CI 36 of games)severity 41% win chance per occurrencen = 50 in 47 games (weighted 17.7)score 25.1trend: not enough data (13 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Allowed the opponent a knight fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2016-05-03 · rapid · move 11
played f5e6, best e7e6, 83% · knight forks g7, d8; defender of e6 dragged away
Evidence position 2 for Allowed the opponent a knight fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2016-01-03 · rapid · move 26
played f7d6, best d3b1, 82% · knight forks e1, f4
Evidence position 3 for Allowed the opponent a knight fork (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2019-04-29 · rapid · move 20
played e6e4, best d8e8, 46% · knight forks e4, d7, g8; captures the defender of e4
All 8 strongest examples

18Allowed the opponent a discovered attack (blunder-check / prophylaxis)

confirmed
1.4 per 100 games (95% CI 13 of games)severity 35% win chance per occurrencen = 21 in 19 games (weighted 5.8)score 19.2trend: not enough data (13 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Allowed the opponent a discovered attack (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2023-11-28 · correspondence · move 37
played e5e6, best g3f3, 78% · rook forks g3, e6; pinned queen on g6 attacked and won; discovered attack on g6
Evidence position 2 for Allowed the opponent a discovered attack (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2025-05-31 · rapid · move 23
played d3e4, best d3b3, 37% · discovered attack on f2
Evidence position 3 for Allowed the opponent a discovered attack (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2025-05-31 · rapid · move 22
played f1f2, best f1c1, 36% · discovered attack on f2
All 8 strongest examples

19Missed your own knight fork (calculation / board vision)

confirmed
1.7 per 100 games (95% CI 13 of games)severity 41% win chance per occurrencen = 22 in 18 games (weighted 7.2)score 13.9trend: not enough data (8 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Missed your own knight fork (calculation / board vision)
2026-01-31 · rapid · move 25
played a4a6, best c6e7, 79% · knight forks f5, c8
Evidence position 2 for Missed your own knight fork (calculation / board vision)
2012-10-04 · rapid · move 22
played d3e3, best d3b5, 78% · knight forks a3, c7
Evidence position 3 for Missed your own knight fork (calculation / board vision)
2026-01-31 · rapid · move 24
played f2f4, best c6e7, 70% · knight forks f5, c8
All 8 strongest examples

20Allowed the opponent a promotion (blunder-check / prophylaxis)

confirmed
1.2 per 100 games (95% CI 03 of games)severity 54% win chance per occurrencen = 14 in 13 games (weighted 4.9)score 13.5trend: not enough data (5 recent / 0 prior)
Evidence position 1 for Allowed the opponent a promotion (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2014-08-04 · rapid · move 54
played f6g6, best e3f4, 85% · discovered check
Evidence position 2 for Allowed the opponent a promotion (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2016-01-03 · rapid · move 26
played f7d6, best d3b1, 82% · knight forks e1, f4
Evidence position 3 for Allowed the opponent a promotion (blunder-check / prophylaxis)
2021-12-09 · rapid · move 61
played h2h3, best g5e3, 73%
All 8 strongest examples

Game data from Chess.com (Published-Data API) and Lichess (open API and CC0 database). Engine analysis by Stockfish. Ratings from FIDE. Board design is our own. Data generated 2026-09-21 07:02 UTC.