Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:59:13 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 23:52:52, martin fierz wrote: >On August 19, 2002 at 22:52:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 19, 2002 at 18:39:34, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On August 19, 2002 at 11:24:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 18, 2002 at 23:39:45, martin fierz wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 22:30:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 12:41:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 11:31:54, Chris Taylor wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 09:06:02, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kasparov proved that he can defeat programs at fast time controls when he >>>>>>>>>defeated Deep Thought in a game/90 two games match in 1989. This program was >>>>>>>>>weaker than Deep Junior is today, as it searched well over 2,000,000 NPS, but >>>>>>>>>didn't have as much chess knowledge as Deep Junior. He also defeated Deep Blue >>>>>>>>>in 1996. This program is obviously much faster than Deep Junior is today, but in >>>>>>>>>my opinion Deep Junior still has more chess knowledge than Deep Blue had back in >>>>>>>>>1996. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>PS: It is hard to compare Deep Blue of 1997 vs Deep Junior of today, but in my >>>>>>>>>opinion Deep Junior Chess Knowledge could make up for the difference of Deep >>>>>>>>>Blue super calculating power of 1997. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Pichard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>One way would be to play some games with Deep Blue and Deep Junior. Guess that >>>>>>>>would settle once and for all who is the strongest. Or would it just pour fuel >>>>>>>>on the **whos** best fire. Put together the blue box and match it up. After >>>>>>>>all it did beat the best player in the world at that time! The advert could be >>>>>>>>quite powerful. The machine that beat Kaspy goes for Junior. Methinks there >>>>>>>>could be some money to be made here? So this may not happen, shame? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>that will of course never happen. Just like fischer still is world >>>>>>>champion, deep blue will be world champion in some scientist eyes forever >>>>>>>too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>To be clear. I feel that any 2650+ player of todaywill wipe out fischer >>>>>>>if he plays like he played in 1970. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>New theory, better tactics, more insight in strategies, better training. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>A 2650 player of today is going to crush any world champ from before Karpov >>>>>>>of course. No doubts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Robert J Fischer when the rating list started had 2780 or something. that was >>>>>>>superb compared to anyone in those days. He was the best back then. No one >>>>>>>was as good. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But the level has improved a lot. Many will say now: "this is not a fair >>>>>>>compare a modern 2650 player against someone who had only an old >>>>>>>book from capablanca and tarrasch, if he could read german anyway". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In fact a grandmaster did this comparision. He compared a top tournament >>>>>>>in 1991 with a top tournament from 1920. The grandmaster was called Nunn >>>>>>>if i remember well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The last few players in that tournament around the start of the 20th >>>>>>>century, they simply blundered away piece >>>>>>>after piece. Would be rated at most 1500 nowadays. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The 'better players' in the tournament, considered *clear world top* >>>>>>>back then, they blundered on average 5 times a game. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>*no modern topgrandmaster is doing that*., >>>>>> >>>>>>That is absurd. I have watched hundreds of GM games as they were relayed >>>>>>on ICC from various super-GM events around the world. I have seen "top >>>>>>GM players" overlook a mate in 2, hang pieces, you-name-it. >>>>> >>>>>nope, it is not absurd. the top GM players hang pieces in time trouble mostly, >>>>>and you can't blame them for that. >>>> >>>>Sorry, but it _is_ absurd. I watched Topolov miss a mate in 2 and have to give >>>>up a queen. He only had 75 minutes left on his clock and had thought for about >>>>10 minutes prior to making the error. >>>> >>>>Other examples include Kasparov resigning in a drawn position, with _plenty_ >>>>of time left on his clock. >>>> >>>>It happens _every_ tournament. >>> >>>of course it happens. but if you read vincent's statement, he is saying >>>"blundered on average 5 times in one game". >>>your examples are both *one* big mistake in a game. not 5 mistakes in every game >>>they play in a tournament! >>>read that book - it's really interesting. >>> >>>aloha >>> martin >>> >> >>So you don't think a top-10 GM makes 5 blunders in a game? >> >>I'll bite. >> >>First, how to define "blunder"? >> >>Major positional error? >> >>Dropping a pawn? >> >>Failing to win a pawn? >> >>Winning a pawn when he could win 2 or 3? >> >>failing to find a mate although the move played still wins? >> >>I don't think even players of Fischer's time made 5 horrible blunders in a >>game very often. Again, I watched many and used Blitz/Cray Blitz to analyze >>some of them. I saw them make errors. I see players today make errors. I >>don't think there is a lot of difference, at the top, in terms of mistakes made >>per game... > >let me quote nunn's book to you. > >"one of the perennial questions in chess is: how do the great masters of the >past compare with the leading players of today? ... [he goes on to explain why >trying to extrapolate elo backwards is NOT a good idea, and that he is going to >compare blunders in karlsbad 1911 and biel 1993] ... i used the automatic >analysis feature of fritz 5 to look at the games without human intervention. it >was set in 'blundercheck' mode, which fitted in with my objective of looking for >serious errors. ... i was quite surprised by the results. to summarize, the old >players were much worse than i expected. " > >he goes on to give the following example of a player called süchting, who >finished with 11.5/25 in karlsbad: > >[D] r3kbnr/1p1b1ppp/pqn1p3/1B6/Q2PN3/5N2/PP3PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - 0 1 > >black, alekhine, has just moved 9...a6. what would you play as white, bob? >surely not O-O?? Qxb5 and white can resign, as süchting did. he actually played >20 more moves before resigning... this is by no means a once-in-a-lifetime >blunder by süchting, his whole tournament is full of that kind of stuff. so how >did he manage to get 11.5/25? the others were just not that much better! > >i continue to quote nunn: >"based on the above, readers will not be surprised when i say that my general >impression of the play at karlsbad was quite poor, but the main flaws did not >show up in the areas i expected" ... [some discussion about opening theory] ... >"on the whole, the main deficiencies revealed at karlsbad fell into 3 >categories: first, serious oversights. it is quite clear that the karlsbad >players were far more prone to severe errors than contemporary players. even the >leading players made fairly frequent blunders. rubinstein, for example, who was >then at virtually the peak of his carrer, failed to win with a clear extra rook >against tartakower. he also allowed a knight fork of king and rook in an ending >against kostic, but his opponent did not notice it". > >so much for the blunders. but there is worse to come: > >"the second problem was an inclination to adopt totally the wrong plan" > >example: tartakower - leonhardt >[D] r4k1r/pbp3p1/2p2q1p/5Q2/4p3/1BP5/PPP2PPP/R3K2R w KQ - 0 1 > >"it would not be at all out of place for black to resign. he is a pawn down, his >pawn structure has been completely demolished, his b7 bishop is totally inactive >and his king is stuck on f8, blocking in the h8 rook". > >tartakower is quite a famous player, yet he managed to draw this game with the >absolutely horrible Qxf6+?? in one move, he has improved black's pawn structure, >and removed the serious weakness of the black king. absolutely awful! >i am sure that even i would never play that move! > >i'll spare you the third section, on endgames. >i can guarantee you that you will not find this type of blunders in GM games >today *in this frequency*. of course you will find the odd game where a GM >misses a mate in two. but the olde players were really quite bad! > >the players of fischer's age are a whole different story. chess was being taught >in the soviet union, and players were professionals who could devote their life >to the game, instead of coffee-house-players who had to worry about their income >and play blitz games and odds-games against amateurs to make a buck or two. > >aloha > martin I thought this was about players of Fischer's era? Vincent specifically mentioned his name... I've not seen him make more blunders than today's top players, although I certainly don't claim to have gone over all his games. But I have been thru some, of course..
This page took 0.03 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.