Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:58:18 10/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 20:56:21, Bob Durrett wrote:
>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. :)
>>
>>(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...
>
>I have used Fritz to do overnight analyses of GM games for more games than I can
>count. [My bookcase has dozens of books with my floppy disks in the back cover
>giving that analysis.] At some point along the way, I came to the belief that
>finding what the computer calls the "second best" move is often the best move.
>In openings, the computer may not find the best move at all without some
>assistance from the human operator.
>
>It takes a lot of work to analyze GM games, even if you have the World's best
>chess engines to help. It's necessary to look at second best and sometimes
>third and fourth best. In fact, sometimes I find moves just by relying on my
>own intuition [at the USCF Class A level!] and then confirming using the
>computer. [In the opening, it's also necessary to use CB8 or it's equivalent to
>suggest candidate moves.]
>
>It has also been painfully pointed out to me that sometimes computer analyses
>give completely wrong evaluations!
>
>Chess engines have a LONG way to go before they will be sophisticated analysis
>tools.
>
>Bob D.
I don't disagree there at all. However, we are talking about finding outright
blunders,
such as dropping pawns or pieces. Computers are generally pretty capable of
doing
that although once they find a "blunder" it requires a bit more checking to be
certain
that it is a blunder...
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.