Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:09:39 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 23:59:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: Bob i know your own active chess was in the 70s. Fischer's openings in the 70s get completely annihilated now. It doesn't matter how good you are, if you get dead lost out of opening, you can go home against todays world top 30. Best regards, Vincent >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 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.