Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:36:35 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 13:53:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. > I saw these blunders within the last 3 years, from the major tournaments that were relayed live on ICC. As I have said for about a dozen times now... > > >>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.