Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:38:57 10/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 19:00:15, martin fierz wrote:
>On October 23, 2002 at 15:16:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On October 23, 2002 at 14:54:09, martin fierz wrote:
>>
>>>On October 23, 2002 at 11:26:38, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 23, 2002 at 05:08:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 22, 2002 at 17:29:53, martin fierz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>let's be clear. the kramnik guy was happy to receive
>>>>>a million dollar in advance. Without much effort he played
>>>>>a few moves and it was 3-1. Then everyone started complaining
>>>>>that the match got no publicity and got no excitement.
>>>>>
>>>>>He then gives away a piece in a clear drawn position with
>>>>>a 1b trick (1 check in between). That's bullet blunder level.
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact i don't make such mistakes that much at bullet and
>>>>>last time i made such a mistake at slow level was a year or
>>>>>10 ago. Kramnik had plenty of time.
>>>>>
>>>>>0% chance he didn't deliberately blunder there.
>>>>
>>>>I think that is a totally stupid statement to make. I can point out GM blunders
>>>>in _every_ tournament I have watched online. I have seen them overlook a mate
>>>>in 2. A hanging queen. You-name-it. Human GMs _do_ make mistakes. Not as
>>>>often as non-GM players, but also far more often than "never".
>>>
>>>bob, of course human players make mistakes. but GM != GM. kramnik is way beyond
>>>your average GM. i challenge you to find a tournament game ("normal" time
>>>control, not rapid chess) by kramnik in the last 5 years where he made such a
>>>blunder without time trouble. i'd be surprised if you found one :-)
>>>(but i'd really like to know the answer to that one!)
>>
>>I don't have a large database of games to look over, so I am really not sure.
>>My
>>observation was based on actual live games being relayed from major human
>>tournaments
>>on ICC, where Crafty was giving online analysis to make spotting the blunders
>>much easier.
>>
>>I saw one game where white hung a piece, black didn't notice, and on the next
>>move white
>>"corrected" things and the game continued. Had black took it was an instant
>>loss for white.
>>In another game, white made a move that forced him to give up a queen the next
>>move or
>>get mated in 2 moves. Very simple blunder. Both were 2650+ players at the
>>time. I think
>>one might have been Leko but I am not sure... This is not nearly as uncommon as
>>it seems,
>>and many blunders go unnoticed by the opponent, making them "silent blunders"
>>that don't
>>get noticed by anybody...
>
>please note that i am talking about kramnik, and about non-time-trouble. i
>remember very clearly when karpov lost a piece against christiansen on move 10
>with a simple check i think - very like kramnik now. why do i remember this?
>because this position was published in *every* single chess magazine of the
>world, saying: "look, karpov is only human too".
>there is a HUGE difference between kasparov's blunder you qote (resigning a
>drawn position) and the blunder kramnik made. i know that you are *by far* good
>enough at chess to see that the difficulty level of these two blunders is miles
>apart. one is a simple 3-ply search. the other is, as you wrote recently, a day
>or so of analysis by a bunch of CCC members and their machines.
>if kramnik had made a blunder of this magnitude in the last 5 years in a
>tournament game, i'm pretty sure it would have been all over the chess magazines
>and i would have seen it...
>
>the worst blunder in a world championship match i can remember is a bad rook
>move (...Re8 or something like that) by karpov in one of his matches against
>kasparov, which lost "on the spot", but that was much more than a 3-ply search,
>and combined those two have probably played about 100 games.
>
>>So,
>>IMHO, it just
>>goes down as "yet another GM blunder, which _does_ happen from time to time."
>of course this is quite possible. but you can look at say kramnik's last 500
>classic tournament games and look how many times he blundered a piece that a
>3-ply search would find. all i'm saying is that the fritz team hit the jackpot,
>because normally kramnik would not make that kind of blunder even in an
>80-game-match...
>
>aloha
> martin
I think there are two issues:
(1) I don't know what the probability is that he would make a major blunder in
an 8-game
span. Probably very low. So, once again, serendipity strikes, this time in
favor of the computer,
where it often strikes in favor of the human. :)
(2) It is more than possible that some of his mistakes have gone unnoticed,
since I doubt many
play over every game of his using a computer. But it would be interesting to
get a file of (say)
his last 100 games and sic a computer on them in "annotate" mode to see if it
finds anything
of interest... I have the computers to do this if someone has a set of games to
check out...
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.