Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:25:46 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 07:09:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Can't this be said for the openings of _any_ period of time? Today's openings will be busted 50 years from now and won't be played. Does that mean that if you transplant a player from today into the future, that he can't adapt? I don't think so... > >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.