Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:50:46 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 03:06:40, martin fierz wrote:
>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,
Part of this can be done automatically by a computer(if the score after the
blunder is more than +3 for kramnik or the score before the blunder is more than
3 pawns against kramnik then a program that checks for blunders can decide that
the moves are not blunders.
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.