Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:22:48 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 00:40:04, Peter Kappler wrote: > >I think that the 1.5 pawn threshold you guys have chosen is going to generate a >lot of false positives: No doubt. The point however, is to just screen the games looking for what appear to be simple-to-see (shallow depth at 1 sec per move) blunders. They _clearly_ have to be re-checked because many of them are not blunders at deeper depths... > > - 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.