Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:15:14 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 14:25:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: 'a gm i saw blundering'. Wow good from you. 80 years old and called Bronstein or something? Or a 2495 rated GM and busy telling his wife he's back home soon in his mobile phone because he is bored from this tournament as he has no chance to win prices anyway anymore? Or some kind of 'invitation group' where winning is not so important and just a show to the sponsor matters? Or getting a million dollar paid in advance to play a chessprogram instead of 700k if he wins? Such kind of examples you have? Your point is wrong. Please show me kasparov-kramnik games and how many 1b blunders they make there. Of course if they have a won position and win the position (even if there is a mate in 11 or whatever) that doesn't count. It's about blowing won positions to a draw or a loss and a drawn position to a loss. That's the key thing. I won't say i will play a russian roulette if there has been such a blunder in the kasparov-kramnik games, but i could do the bet. You won't find *any*. Even when kramnik was 16 years old... >On October 23, 2002 at 13:19:41, Vincent Diepeveen 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". >> >>Ha the 'expert' is speaking here. >> >>In important matches the only few blunders i remember are also from >>a year or 10 ago, and most definitely not from Kramnik, and always >>in *big* time trouble. > >Not in every game I have seen. I saw a GM think for 20 minutes, with plenty of >time left, and he made a move that forced him to give up his queen to avoid a >mate >the very next move. It happens, regardless of your hand-waving. > > >> >>Kramnik had 15 minutes left here... >> >>So forget your online toying. Online games aren't earning money. > > > >Vincent, I was talking about Las Palmas a few years ago. GM vs GM. Not online >vs a computer. Please read first, and then respond, rather than writing stuff >that is >unrelated to my point in any way... > > > > > >> >>You know that, and i know it. > >I know that GM players make ugly blunders in real games vs other GM players, >even >after thinking 20 minutes. Kramnik dropped a piece after a long think against >Fritz. >It happens. > > > > >> >>What i remember is something from the 80s. A match Kasparov-Karpov, >>where Karpov makes a mistake in the endgame. If i show you the position >>you will most likely call it 'every day blunder stuff'. >> >>You should realize how well these guys are playing always. > >Never said otherwise. But they _do_ make basic blunders on occasion, and not >only when in dire time trouble either... > > > >> >>They are not people who make a blunder in every game they play. > >So? Kramnik didn't make a blunder in every game he played vs Fritz either... > > > >> >>They have for years nightmares when they blunder in a game without >>major time pressure. >> >>Kramnik had no pressure here. >> >>Apart from that, what's the last game you played 40 in 2 online? >> >>I can't remember any GM playing 40 in 2 online. Do you? > >I wasn't talking about GM vs Computer, as I said. Crafty was simply giving >analysis >as ICC relayed live games from events like Los Palmas (los or las, I don't >remember)... > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>He just didn't care. He wasn't shocked after the blunder. >>>> >>>>It was 3-2. >>>> >>>>then some beginner game at round 6. he has white. No way >>>>with his default play to even draw it. He would win it >>>>without problems. So kramnik decides to put some fire in >>>>the game and plays open position. A line he has never played >>>>before. >>>> >>>>To play Bxf7 objective criteria are not there. There is just >>>>one criteria: "make the match exciting". >>>> >>>>Of course that's very hard if you play your entire life 1.Nf3, >>>>so for a change he played some other d4 c4 line and opened the >>>>position. Then give away a piece for a few checks and the >>>>crowd has something >>>> >>>>3-3 >>>> >>>>Exciting enough for the sponsor? >>>> >>>>Yes. So 2 quick draws are enough. Kramnik could have won game 8 >>>>if he wanted to. He didn't want to. he gave it draw. >>>> >>>>Of course that openings line he normally doesn't play. >>>> >>>>So i was unhappy, i had expected kramnik to just make default moves >>>>and win at least with 4.5 - 3.5 >>>> >>>>Anyway, this match drew no attention at all. No newspaper and no TV >>>>station and no one saw it. I can't speak for german newspapers, but >>>>at ARD,ZDF and WDR i didn't see anything broadcasted yet. >>>> >>>>30 seconds at CNN, and even those 30 seconds i missed. That's all that >>>>is broadcasted AFAIK. >>>> >>>>This match was not important. This match is not important. This match >>>>will never be important except for sales for chessbase and 4-4 on their >>>>box not showing a picture of kramnik, becuase no one knows the guy. >>>> >>>>I find kramnik stupid to not play 1 good game at the end. >>>> >>>>Whole match has been dominated again by games with stupid openings and >>>>many sidelines and even openings kramnik never played before his entire >>>>life. >>>> >>>>The match will be forgotten. >>>> >>>>Kasparov - Junior will draw hopefully more attention from the big crowds. >>>> >>>>Of course 'deep junior' the big crowd wil not see as a program called 'junior'. >>>> >>>>They will see it as a successor of deep blue of course. >>>> >>>>First you have 'deep blue' where they needed some old big machine, >>>>then you have 'deep junior'. Very logical. I will not even explain >>>>it too much around me. It's impossible to explain. >>>> >>>>computer = computer. Deep == Deep == Diep >>>> >>>>I stopped already long time ago explaining that Diep != Deep Blue >>>>You can't help it. You can't blame them either. >>>> >>>>If they see Diep with blue interface as Deep Blue, obviously >>>>they will see Deep Junior as the latest Deep Blue version. >>>> >>>>In some respects they are right. It's also focussed upon getting >>>>a shitload of nodes a second, it's searching deep, and it's positional >>>>play is not very good. >>>> >>>>Perhaps Kramnik will understand soon how stpuid he was. We can only >>>>hope Kasparov does by now. >>>> >>>>I guess IBM marketing department managed to inform at least 30% of >>>>the world population about Deep Blue solving chess in 1997. >>>> >>>>The only question i ask myself is: How big of a crowd will in december >>>>2002 be reached? >>>> >>>>Knowing how many TV crews are in Jerusalem, perhaps they reach some market >>>>there. >>>> >>>>>On October 22, 2002 at 11:53:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 21, 2002 at 18:24:44, martin fierz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 21, 2002 at 13:12:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On October 21, 2002 at 10:22:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On October 21, 2002 at 08:34:31, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It is not valid that they created an awful machine. They didn't >>>>>>>>>play any computerchess world championship nor did they join any >>>>>>>>>other computer chess events where the european programs could measure >>>>>>>>>themselves with deep blue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>After 1995 they quit facing european programs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>All we know is a few horrible games from both deep blue and kasparov. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It is not trivial that deep blue 1997 could show better play >>>>>>>>>than the poor level in these games. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It is for sure that kasparov is the person to blame of course. he >>>>>>>>>was not only an idiot, he was also bad for chess. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Where the 4-4 from kramnik is a sad reality, he will be able to possibly >>>>>>>>>face other programs again. Kasparov will play junior. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So kasparov made _one_ big mistake in resigning a drawn position, and mixing up >>>>>>>>an opening (if that is really what happened) sequence of moves, and he is an >>>>>>>>idiot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Kramnik resigned a drawn game, and blew a couple of openings, and he is "ok"??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>not that i want to take sides in any debate involving deep blue, but: >>>>>>>kramnik resigned a drawn game, true, but it was very hard to spot. and i don't >>>>>>>know where he "blew openings" - not even one. >>>>>> >>>>>>I was talking about anti-computer more than anything else. His first four >>>>>>openings were >>>>>>tame and nearly perfect for playing against a computer. Then he got more >>>>>>aggressive and >>>>>>left his original plan, it seems... >>>>> >>>>>actually, to me it seemed as if the fritz team changed something in the openings >>>>>after 4 games, not kramnik. kramnik did NOT play anti-fritz chess in this match. >>>>>he played "kramnik as usual", which is quite good as anti-computer-chess goes, >>>>>of course. i had this impression already after the first 4 games, that kramnik >>>>>was not playing specific anti-computer lines he discovered at home (i really >>>>>hope we'll get some insight into his preparation some day - e.g. did he know >>>>>..Bf8?? was coming), but just his usual openings. i don't think kramnik changed >>>>>anything after game 4. personally, i think his super-blunder in game 5 changed >>>>>the match completely - kramnik probably makes such a blunder once in 100 or more >>>>>games at most, and fritz just got lucky. i think that kramnik then wanted to >>>>>"make up for it" with a brilliant game 6 and that backfired too (naturally...), >>>>>and then he was only a shadow of his usual self for games 7 and 8... at least it >>>>>should teach him a good lesson if he ever has another go at the computer! >>>>>i also think your are generally right that kramnik just lost his concentration a >>>>>bit after the first 4 games when everything was going so smoothly. that is just >>>>>very human :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>Somehow your "logic" totally escapes me... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Fritz couldn't beat Kramnik in the match even after he made at _least_ one >>>>>>>>trivial-to-spot >>>>>>>>blunder that turned a dead draw into a dead loss a piece down. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>kramnik made exactly ONE trivial-to-spot blunder, Qc4??. the position was not a >>>>>>>dead draw without that blunder. i think it's a draw, but if kramnik had been >>>>>>>100% sure that this was in fact a dead draw, he could have gone into this ending >>>>>>>by force - and he didnt, which tells us something about what kramnik thought >>>>>>>about this ending - that it was not *dead* drawn. >>>>>> >>>>>>My point was that in the Kasparov vs Deep Blue match, Kasparov resigned in a >>>>>>game >>>>>>that he thought was lost. But which deep analysis showed was drawn. Kramnik >>>>>>resigned >>>>>>a game that was probably drawn, although it has not been subjected to the same >>>>>>analysis as >>>>>>the DB/GK game. But the similarity is there, he resigned _too early_. >>>>> >>>>>you can say that with the benefit of hindsight. lots of people wrote this here, >>>>>but it's just not true. if you are sitting at the board, and only see losses, >>>>>you resign. which means if you do not see the "miracle save" in that position, >>>>>you resign - there is no point in playing on if you do not see it, because every >>>>>other possible line will just lose. you cannot call resigning in that position >>>>>an "easy-to-spot-blunder", just as you cannot call kasparov's resignation an >>>>>"easy-to-spot-blunder". it was a wrong decision obviously, but not easy to >>>>>spot... >>>>> >>>>>>In the last game Kasparov made what most considered to be a blunder with h6. >>>>>>Kramnik >>>>>>_clearly_ blundered a piece and turned a probable draw into a sure loss with one >>>>>>move that >>>>>>takes most programs a few milliseconds to spot as losing. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yet Kasparov was routinely criticized as playing like a 2000 player, yet Kramnik >>>>>>has not >>>>>>gotten any such comments. >>>>>> >>>>>>Everything is the _same_ except for the opponents. One was the hated Deep Blue >>>>>>from IBM, >>>>>>the other is a popular micro program... :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nxf7 turned out to be a mistake too, but much more in the sense that you should >>>>>>>not play this way against computers, and specially not when you are leading with >>>>>>>+1. in a chess sense, it is very far from "trivial to spot"... as it turns out, >>>>>>>Nxf7 was a ?? for kramnik for the rest of the match - he couldnt recover after >>>>>>>game 6... >>>>>> >>>>>>I concsider that to be a strategic blunder, if not a tactical blunder. But that >>>>>>only >>>>>>highlights the issue here. Kramnik actually played much worse overall than >>>>>>Kasparov >>>>>>did, but was still able to draw the match. I think the first four games were >>>>>>more revealing >>>>>>to me, personally. The last 4 games seemed to be twilight-zone stuff... >>>>> >>>>>i don't know how you can say that kramnik played "much worse". i see that both >>>>>players made one big chess blunder (...h6 for kasparov in game 6, ...Qc4 for >>>>>kramnik in game 5), both resigned a drawn position where it was extremely hard >>>>>to spot that it was a draw, and apart from that i see no real blunders. >>>>>obviously, Nxf7 by kramnik is a very questionable decision, but then you can say >>>>>kramnik made 3 mistakes in 8 games and kasparov 2 in 6, which is very close to >>>>>each other. >>>>>besides, kramnik played excellent anti-computer-chess in games 1-4, and you >>>>>cannot say that kasparov played a single excellent anti-computer game in the >>>>>whole match. >>>>>on the other hand, DB played a great game (the one where kasparov resigned where >>>>>he had a perpetual), outplaying kasparov completely, something which DF never >>>>>did to kramnik in the whole match. >>>>> >>>>>aloha >>>>> martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>judging from the games, DF certainly didn't seem to be "much better than DB", >>>>>>>which at least didnt produce such ridiculous moves as DF did :-) >>>>>>>which is not to say that DB would not have been capable of playing such moves >>>>>>>too... >>>>>> >>>>>>I certainly agree. Kramnik made more bad moves than Kasparov, yet he didn't >>>>>>lose >>>>>>the match. That says something... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>aloha >>>>>>> martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>While Deep Blue >>>>>>>>_did_ >>>>>>>>beat Kasparov in a match where both made mistakes. And Fritz is much better >>>>>>>>than >>>>>>>>deep blue? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Somehow, again, your "logic" totally escapes me... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In fact, your "logic" is really just a form of envy/agenda, IMHO... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Perhaps kasparov has LEARNED a bit more than kramnik has. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If you lose once from the thing, then only when you are world champion >>>>>>>>>you can play it again. But for sure is that fritz exists as software >>>>>>>>>and you can buy it and play it, and it joins tournaments too usual. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>that's not the case with deep blue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We just know it sucked ass, based upon its play. Kasparov sucked even >>>>>>>>>more of course, but he always got away with poor chess against programs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In fact it is realistic that he didn't care for getting 2.5-2.5, just >>>>>>>>>game 6 IMHO he was imagining deep blue to be so bad, like 1980 software, >>>>>>>>>that he thought he coudl get back to a draw or something, after playing >>>>>>>>>horrible blunders like b5. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We do not know. All we know is that humans when playing computers do not >>>>>>>>>show very good play. Look to kramnik. he plays the first 4 games like >>>>>>>>>he plays rapid games. He gets 3-1 then (lucky machine) and the rest of >>>>>>>>>the games he doesn't care simply. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>But still 4-4 is acceptible from historic viewpoint. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>What we do know is that kasparov has on average played 1-1 against >>>>>>>>>deep blue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>First match easy win 4-2, second match by some poor games a loss 3.5-2.5 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Then IBM stopped. Wise decision. AFter so much marketing that deep blue >>>>>>>>>has solved chess even, they had to quit of course. Or they would look >>>>>>>>>stupid in 1998. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Bob >>>>>>>>>>Feng DO mention problems with the program by Thomas. If they were enough to >>>>>>>>>>speak of "full of.." or not it is a matter of tastes in the writting style. My >>>>>>>>>>impression was and still is that the author did have many problems and even so >>>>>>>>>>they created an awful machine. Of course this does not means the software >>>>>>>>>>problem were more or worst than the hardware problems. >>>>>>>>>>Anyway the core of my mressions is the first: DP could have been absolutely >>>>>>>>>>untouchable if worked one year more. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>My best >>>>>>>>>>Fernando
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.