Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:21:27 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 06:15:14, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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? Nope. As I said, GMs playing in events like Los Palmas, and other such super-GM invitationals... > >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? Maybe an event with most of the top 20 GMs? Including Kasparov and so forth? > >Or getting a million dollar paid in advance to play a chessprogram >instead of 700k if he wins? > >Such kind of examples you have? > Nope... that is your wild hand-waving stuff, not mine. I was _very_ specific about the errors I saw and the kind of event they were made in, and the kind of player that made them. If you choose not to read, that is your failing, not mine... >Your point is wrong. Please show me kasparov-kramnik games >and how many 1b blunders they make there. I am running a test on 180 Kramnik games right now. > >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. > Depends. If the move they make _could_ have produced a draw, then it does count... >It's about blowing won positions to a draw or a loss and a drawn position >to a loss. I agree and said that. > >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... > Better not bet. Crafty has already found a few... More after it finishes the complete set of PGN and everyone can go over the blunders to see if they are simply blunders, or they are just too deep for a one second search to understand. > > > >>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.