Author: martin fierz
Date: 00:06:40 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 23:56:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On October 23, 2002 at 23:33:43, martin fierz 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. :)
>>
>>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
>
>
>Fine by me.
>
>For some specifics. I will run these on quad 550's using 4 processors. What
>would be a
>decent time per move to annotate the games? IE I probably shouldn't search too
>long if we
>are looking for relatively simple blunders.
>
>Maybe we should define "relatively simple blunders" in some precise way? IE I
>need two
>things: (1) time per move; (2) threshold between the move played and the best
>move according
>to the computer to trigger an "aha!" comment...
>
>suggestions???
hi bob,
i've sent you the pgn with 184 kramnik games from 1997-1999 - he already had a
2750 rating back then. my suggestion would be 1s/move and 1.5 pawns. i don't
think more time is necessary than 1 second, since we are talking about 3-ply
blunders - actually 1ms would suffice for that :-)
but i'd also be interested if there were a bit less obvious big errors, so 1
second should be fine. it depends a bit on how long you want to bog your machine
down with this - 40 moves * 200 games = 8000 positions to check, with 10s/move
it would take a full day. the threshold would have to be at least a pawn, but
not 3, as you can usually still get a pawn for a piece if you blunder it.
once you have run the test we'll have to look at all positions which crafty
pinpoints to see whether e.g. kramnik just missed a mate in 7 but won all the
same with a more human approach, or to see if he sacced something somewhere or
whatever. i don't expect too many positions to come up from these games, so we
should be able to check them manually - but you never know, perhaps i'm in for a
surprise :-)
aloha
martin
>
>Meanwhile send me the PGN and I will get things ready...
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.