Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:53:05 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 13:21:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: You won't find such 1b blunders there. obviously you don't follow the chess scene for 20 years now or so. >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.