Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:22:55 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 15:16:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
The proof is obvious. 8 bad games. Of course Fritz was even
worse in a few games than Kramnik's play. That's obvious.
It is not so hard to see the level to be low. See which openings
lines were played. No 'world class' openings. Qf6 in the scotch even :)
Bxf7 give away check. Amazingly still with unclear chances.
Qc4 give away check. Obviously with direct zero as a result.
8 bad games. The first few games he just played default moves. No 2800
level.
What is the CHANCE that he plays 8 bad games in a row?
I DO NOT HEAR YOU?
0.01% ?
0.000001%
0%
It is like kasparov-deepblue. Play for 2.5-2.5 and then kasparov played
such a horrible opening again as 'anything works against these dumb
machines'.
Obviously Kasparov made the mistake to lose that game. We can't proof
kasparov deliberately lost that 6th game. We can't proof he deliberatly
played beginners level game1, we can't proof he deliberately plays
like 6 very bad moves in game2 against the bad IBM machine which day
before that even lost a game where kasparov did except giving
away pieces to lose.
We can however say something statistically about the games.
Kasparov games - 1800 level in openings and 2000 level further but
of course not giving away direct pieces let's it look
like better usually. On average 5 mistakes a game
from both sides. That's really horrible.
Kramnik games - very bad openings and default moves and 1 blunder
the mistakes from Fritz were bad, but not trivial to
identify to any level under national master level, except
when using positional better software.
Anyway, the pressure is on kasparov now. Because Kramnik has done something
great for his sponsor and opponent. 4-4. How is kasparov going to let
junior look like better now?
>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...
>
>
>
>>
>>i'm not going to say he threw the game. but i am going to say that the DF team
>>was *extremely* lucky to get this kind of present by kramnik - i'd say this kind
>>of mistake happens to him once in 800 games rather than once in 8 on average...
>>
>>aloha
>> martin
>
>
>
>I would hope he didn't "throw the game" but of course _anything_ is possible
>when there
>is lots of money floating around a match. He might have lost accidentally,
>pressed too hard
>the next game and lost again, and then chickened out and went for a drawn match
>to be sure
>he didn't lose. Too many possibilities. Absolutely no proof of anything. So,
>IMHO, it just
>goes down as "yet another GM blunder, which _does_ happen from time to time."
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.