Author: martin fierz
Date: 20:33:43 10/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 20:38:57, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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. :)
yes, i guess that is true...
>(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.
i doubt that "many" do this, but one person per game is enough - to find 3-ply
losers!
> 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...
i can get you 100 kramnik games if you like - i "only" have the big2000 database
of chessbase, but i can get you the 100 last kramnik games in there that and
send them to you by email - does that sound ok? i'll just take the last 100 (and
remove anything that looks like blitz or rapid), other than that i will not
select anything, so as not to bias the outcome of the experiment.
aloha
martin
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.