Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:54:25 10/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 16:29:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 14:31:29, Uri Blass wrote: > >> >>I think that by this definition kasparov made at least 4 bad moves. >> >>1)Resignining in a draw position in game 2 >>2)losing game 6(I do not think that h6 was the losing blunder but he did a >>mistake that lost the game) >>3)doing mistakes in game 2 before resigning that gave deeper blue the >>opportunity to win the game with Kh1 and not Kf1(I did not analyze to try to >>find the exact bad moves) > >Which move? IE white may simply have a forced win, at least in that >opening, for all we know. And note that Kh1 vs Kf1 is not a closed issue >yet. Hsu claimed to have done some analysis with DB2 that suggested that >Kf1 is perfectly ok, but that a later rook move (Ra6 I think) actually allowed >the perpetual to occur. > > >>4)Missing a win in game 4 when Kasparov got a winning position in the endgame >>after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6(I read analysis that suggested a win for kasparov but it >>was not simple win and I believe that it is not something that the programs of >>today can see,I remember that I could win programs by following the moves of >>black in the analysis few years ago but programs(at least at that time saw that >>kasparov is winning only many plies after the relevant position). > >I don't buy that one. Until someone shows a move he missed that would have >resulted in >a forced win, or a move he played that resulted in a forced loss while he had a >drawing or >winning move elsewhere... > >I am not sure you have to make a mistake to lose with black. To paraphrase one of the recent [but obscure] US Presidents, "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'mistake' is." If a move is played which is not the absolute best move, but if also no human could reasonably be expected to see that the move played is not the absolute best, then the move played should not be regarded as a "mistake," IMHO. As a chess amateur playing in a formal over-the-board tournament, I would have been delighted to play a game free of moves which I regarded [after post-mortem analyses] as being "mistakes." But that same game might have been seen by a GM to contain many inaccuracies. The same principle must apply to a top GM, and even to a chess engine. If a person plays moves consistent with their rating, then the moves are good enough. They should not be labeled as "bad" or as "mistakes." But, even if I were to play as good as I possibly could, I would be crushed by a GM. In the same way, Kramnik perhaps could have crushed Fritz, or visa versa. In the limiting process, as performance increases beyond all bounds, then maybe absolutely perfect moves would be played. What would be the outcome of such a game? I don't know, and doubt anybody else does either. Bob D. >Particularly if >you choose an >opening and had other choices. Based on that Kramnik certainly made more >mistakes as well, >as one of the first two draws looked winnable, and the two losses were in the >same category. > > > >> >>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.