Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:37:35 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 13:54:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On October 24, 2002 at 03:50:46, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>i hope you realize bob will never do this test.
>if he would do such tests he would not write down
>such nonsense here.
I hope you realize I have _already_ done this test and put the 1 second analysis
on my ftp site?
I also hope you realize that sometimes you might stop and think before you write
as you end up looking less foolish that way...
>
>>On October 24, 2002 at 03:06:40, martin fierz wrote:
>>
>>>On October 23, 2002 at 23:56:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 23, 2002 at 23:33:43, martin fierz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 23, 2002 at 20:38:57, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On October 23, 2002 at 19:00:15, martin fierz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On October 23, 2002 at 15:16:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On October 23, 2002 at 14:54:09, martin fierz 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".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>bob, of course human players make mistakes. but GM != GM. kramnik is way beyond
>>>>>>>>>your average GM. i challenge you to find a tournament game ("normal" time
>>>>>>>>>control, not rapid chess) by kramnik in the last 5 years where he made such a
>>>>>>>>>blunder without time trouble. i'd be surprised if you found one :-)
>>>>>>>>>(but i'd really like to know the answer to that one!)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't have a large database of games to look over, so I am really not sure.
>>>>>>>>My
>>>>>>>>observation was based on actual live games being relayed from major human
>>>>>>>>tournaments
>>>>>>>>on ICC, where Crafty was giving online analysis to make spotting the blunders
>>>>>>>>much easier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I saw one game where white hung a piece, black didn't notice, and on the next
>>>>>>>>move white
>>>>>>>>"corrected" things and the game continued. Had black took it was an instant
>>>>>>>>loss for white.
>>>>>>>>In another game, white made a move that forced him to give up a queen the next
>>>>>>>>move or
>>>>>>>>get mated in 2 moves. Very simple blunder. Both were 2650+ players at the
>>>>>>>>time. I think
>>>>>>>>one might have been Leko but I am not sure... This is not nearly as uncommon as
>>>>>>>>it seems,
>>>>>>>>and many blunders go unnoticed by the opponent, making them "silent blunders"
>>>>>>>>that don't
>>>>>>>>get noticed by anybody...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>please note that i am talking about kramnik, and about non-time-trouble. i
>>>>>>>remember very clearly when karpov lost a piece against christiansen on move 10
>>>>>>>with a simple check i think - very like kramnik now. why do i remember this?
>>>>>>>because this position was published in *every* single chess magazine of the
>>>>>>>world, saying: "look, karpov is only human too".
>>>>>>>there is a HUGE difference between kasparov's blunder you qote (resigning a
>>>>>>>drawn position) and the blunder kramnik made. i know that you are *by far* good
>>>>>>>enough at chess to see that the difficulty level of these two blunders is miles
>>>>>>>apart. one is a simple 3-ply search. the other is, as you wrote recently, a day
>>>>>>>or so of analysis by a bunch of CCC members and their machines.
>>>>>>>if kramnik had made a blunder of this magnitude in the last 5 years in a
>>>>>>>tournament game, i'm pretty sure it would have been all over the chess magazines
>>>>>>>and i would have seen it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the worst blunder in a world championship match i can remember is a bad rook
>>>>>>>move (...Re8 or something like that) by karpov in one of his matches against
>>>>>>>kasparov, which lost "on the spot", but that was much more than a 3-ply search,
>>>>>>>and combined those two have probably played about 100 games.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So,
>>>>>>>>IMHO, it just
>>>>>>>>goes down as "yet another GM blunder, which _does_ happen from time to time."
>>>>>>>of course this is quite possible. but you can look at say kramnik's last 500
>>>>>>>classic tournament games and look how many times he blundered a piece that a
>>>>>>>3-ply search would find. all i'm saying is that the fritz team hit the jackpot,
>>>>>>>because normally kramnik would not make that kind of blunder even in an
>>>>>>>80-game-match...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>aloha
>>>>>>> martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think there are two issues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(1) I don't know what the probability is that he would make a major blunder in
>>>>>>an 8-game
>>>>>>span. Probably very low. So, once again, serendipity strikes, this time in
>>>>>>favor of the computer,
>>>>>>where it often strikes in favor of the human. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>yes, i guess that is true...
>>>>>
>>>>>>(2) It is more than possible that some of his mistakes have gone unnoticed,
>>>>>>since I doubt many
>>>>>>play over every game of his using a computer.
>>>>>i doubt that "many" do this, but one person per game is enough - to find 3-ply
>>>>>losers!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it would be interesting to
>>>>>>get a file of (say)
>>>>>>his last 100 games and sic a computer on them in "annotate" mode to see if it
>>>>>>finds anything
>>>>>>of interest... I have the computers to do this if someone has a set of games to
>>>>>>check out...
>>>>>
>>>>>i can get you 100 kramnik games if you like - i "only" have the big2000 database
>>>>>of chessbase, but i can get you the 100 last kramnik games in there that and
>>>>>send them to you by email - does that sound ok? i'll just take the last 100 (and
>>>>>remove anything that looks like blitz or rapid), other than that i will not
>>>>>select anything, so as not to bias the outcome of the experiment.
>>>>>
>>>>>aloha
>>>>> martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fine by me.
>>>>
>>>>For some specifics. I will run these on quad 550's using 4 processors. What
>>>>would be a
>>>>decent time per move to annotate the games? IE I probably shouldn't search too
>>>>long if we
>>>>are looking for relatively simple blunders.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe we should define "relatively simple blunders" in some precise way? IE I
>>>>need two
>>>>things: (1) time per move; (2) threshold between the move played and the best
>>>>move according
>>>>to the computer to trigger an "aha!" comment...
>>>>
>>>>suggestions???
>>>
>>>hi bob,
>>>
>>>i've sent you the pgn with 184 kramnik games from 1997-1999 - he already had a
>>>2750 rating back then. my suggestion would be 1s/move and 1.5 pawns. i don't
>>>think more time is necessary than 1 second, since we are talking about 3-ply
>>>blunders - actually 1ms would suffice for that :-)
>>>but i'd also be interested if there were a bit less obvious big errors, so 1
>>>second should be fine. it depends a bit on how long you want to bog your machine
>>>down with this - 40 moves * 200 games = 8000 positions to check, with 10s/move
>>>it would take a full day. the threshold would have to be at least a pawn, but
>>>not 3, as you can usually still get a pawn for a piece if you blunder it.
>>>
>>>once you have run the test we'll have to look at all positions which crafty
>>>pinpoints to see whether e.g. kramnik just missed a mate in 7 but won all the
>>>same with a more human approach,
>>
>>
>>Part of this can be done automatically by a computer(if the score after the
>>blunder is more than +3 for kramnik or the score before the blunder is more than
>>3 pawns against kramnik then a program that checks for blunders can decide that
>>the moves are not blunders.
>>
>>Uri
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.