Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:16:54 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 06:22:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>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?
You won't "hear" me because I don't believe he played 8 bad games in a row.
The first four were well-played.
>
>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.