Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: with text, this time :-)

Author: martin fierz

Date: 02:11:12 08/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


On August 20, 2002 at 01:29:38, Uri Blass wrote:

>On August 20, 2002 at 01:03:48, martin fierz wrote:
>
>>
>>>I thought this was about players of Fischer's era?  Vincent specifically
>>>mentioned his name...
>>
>>here's vincent's o-tone, where he is referring to nunn's book which is about
>>this karlsbad tournament:
>>
>>>>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*.,
>>
>>he mentioned fischer's name before that, and then went on to the real olde time
>>players. who played much worse. fischer was a great player and vincent's claim
>>that any 2650 of today would whip him is ridiculous IMO.
>>
>>what i found really interesting about nunn's comparison is things like
>>tartakower's Qxf6+??, which i would not have expected. the problem is, of these
>>guys there are only very little games published, of course only their best. the
>>rest has been forgotten, and rightly so :-)
>>
>>aloha
>>  martin
>
>I think that it may be interesting to have some comparison.
>
>Number of blunders may be misleading because it depends on
>the style of the player.

i guess in principle you are right. a player who plays chess like mikhail tal
probably makes more mistakes than one who plays like karpov. it works, because
his opponents make more mistakes too.
but if you look at the two examples i posted, then you cannot argue that it is a
question of style :-)

aloha
  martin

>
>It is better to start by analyzing a lot of games
>120/40 time control and find all the positions
>when Yace makes a tactical blunder after 1 second of search
>but not after 1 minute of search.
>
>The question about these positions is what is
>the proportion of cases when humans with rating 2500-2600 blunder.
>
>Do humans learn to reduce the proportion of these blunders?
>
>Uri



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.