Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:23:19 02/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 1999 at 00:53:00, James B. Shearer wrote: >On February 01, 1999 at 01:37:46, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On January 31, 1999 at 16:54:47, James B. Shearer wrote: > > <snip> > >>> Except in this case the "entire game" contained just 4 nonbook moves the >>>last 2 of which were pretty easy. >> >>Yes, and who was Kasparov's opponent? What was his rating? BTW, just because 24 >>moves are in the book does not mean that both opponents knew the book to that >>level. > > Kasparov's opponent was Ivan Sokolov (FIDE 2610). It doesn't really >matter whether the players knew they were in book, Kasparov played a (stated to >be inferior in MCO 10) book line for 23 moves and then blundered on moves 24 and >25 after which he was dead lost. So to beat Kasparov on this day you just had >to know 24 book moves (within the capacity of an 1800 player) and then find two >good moves (also within the capacity of a 1800 player on a good day). Most 1800 players know book to 15 moves at best. And I'm sure they do not take the time out to know a line that is considered inferior. It seems more likely that Kasparov only knew the book to 12 or 18 moves and thought he was playing ok and fell into trouble. If it was a known inferior line, it is probable that Kasparov did not know it (and possibly even Sokolov did not know the book to move 24). > It >appears Kasparov was overconfident and did not start thinking until after he was >lost. If Kasparov gets careless against 2600 GMs one can just imagine what >lemons he would occasionally produce against 1800 players. The difference is that the 1800 player would normally be out of book by move 15 or 18 and would not be in a position to even set up the possibility that Kasparov could blunder into a lost game. > > <snip> >> >>The point that I'm trying to make is that GMs have very few weaknesses. It takes >>other GMs to spot them (and no, using your computer doesn't count since you >>would never have found the weakness without it being pointed out to you). They >>have studied for years and understand a position to a much greater degree than >>even regular masters, let alone Class A players. A superGM to a class A player >>is like a class A player to someone who just learned how to move the pieces. >>Even if a class A player did study a given superGM's games and prepared for him >>and found a trap, the superGM would most likely take losing a minor piece in >>stride and still whup up on the class A player. Odds of 1 in 317 are just >>blatantly incorrect for a 1000 point rating difference. Maybe odds of 1 in >>31,700 would be more accurate, it would be hard to say without the data. > > GMs make gross blunders occasionally and it does not take a GM to spot a >hung piece or simple mating combination. Also it's kind of difficult to take >getting mated in stride (which was what was about to happen to Kasparov). > James B. Shearer I do not doubt that gross blunders can be made. The problem is that when you compare the performance of a 2610 player against Kasparov vs. a 1800 player against Kasparov, you can make justifications and speculations all you want, however, Sokolov is much better prepared to win against Kasparov and the ELO prediction formula states that he should do it about 1 time in 4.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.