Author: martin fierz
Date: 21:59:33 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 23:54:40, Mike S. wrote: >On August 19, 2002 at 22:52:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>(...) >>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? > >I think things like that are very difficult to analyse if you don't are 2400+ >yourself. I doesn't help much that programs are as good, or even better than GMs >in terms of tactics. > >It may be that he actually didn't drop a pawn, but sacrificed it for positional >or dynamical reasons which are very difficult to judge upon, below that playing >strenght. Also, he may seem to have failed winning a pawn, but actually decided >to reject a pawn offer because he saw the opponents gets compensation (which a >program may never see, or only after a very long calculation time...) > >>Winning a pawn when he could win 2 or 3? > >This sounds like a more severe case (but will be much less often to find >probably). > >>failing to find a mate although the move played still wins? > >I think this is not too unusual when the game is really decided already (the GM >goes the easy & safe way then, if available). - But can be called a blunder >"objectively". > >But there's a risk of "finding blunders" which actually aren't. > >>(...) > >>>>> vincent is talking about john nunn's >>>>>excellent book on tactics, "john nunn's chess puzzles" (or something very >>>>>similar to that). he compares two tournaments, karlsbad 19-little and the biel >>>>>interzonal of about 1990. he used fritz in blundercheck mode to get some kind of >>>>>objective measure of the number of errors being commited in the two tournaments, >>>>>and the result was that 1920 they were playing abominable chess. > >I don't know that book, but I'm somewhat surprised that a *GM* would base such >analysis on a Fritz blundercheck. why? he was using it as a starting point for his analysis. he let the computer flag all positions where it thought a blunder had been commited, and went over all of these "by hand". which means he of course found the positions where fritz was wrong, too. >GMs must not be underestimated :o) Neither today's, nor the masters of the past. >Don't trust the computer... :o)) nunn with fritz should not be underestimated either :-) aloha martin
This page took 0.01 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.