Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: first possible example of a Blunder by Kramnik

Author: Peter Kappler

Date: 21:40:04 10/24/02

Go up one level in this thread



I think that the 1.5 pawn threshold you guys have chosen is going to generate a
lot of false positives:

 - sacrifices that Crafty (or any computer) can't understand
 - Kramnik choosing to win a rook instead of mating in 9
 - sacrifices that probably aren't completely sound, but
   are perfectly reasonable in human vs human play

If you're looking for blunders on the same level as Qc4, you should use at least
a 2.5 pawn threshold, but I'll be shocked if you find anything.  Kramnik's games
are scrutinized by players all over the world.  If he had made a blunder of that
magnitude (missing a 1-ply tactic when not in time trouble) it would have
already been published.

Qc4?? is a once in a lifetime blunder for a 2800 player.

-Peter




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.