< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Jul-22-13|| ||cimatar: <kingscrusher>I also think that we commonly hear the terms (at least in my 30+ years experience of playing chess) :
"Blundering a pawn"
"Blundering a piece"
Here in this game if the object is to be defined it would be:
"Blundering a potential game result away" because Qxa1 meant it was quite likely for White to draw with Bf3.
So the object "blundered" here was a *potential* game result....
(so this is exactly the point Qxa2 did not blunder the game away, a piece or a pawn OTB ... and by the way your comment BLUNDERED because there is no Qxa1, making a simple comment you blundered already! Give slack to OTB players)
|Jul-22-13|| ||cimatar: I just finished watching Topalov-vs. Shirov Linares 1998, where Shirov unleashed 47..bh3 and according to some comments even some chess engines did not see the move, did Topalov blunder here or is it the hard work and intuition of human Shirov and can the engines do better on this particular move? And with this I'm comparing it to this game find Topalov's blunder here, For me if I find a blunder by Topalov I will only call it weak or mistake because Topalov's play here is ok!|
|Jul-23-13|| ||kingscrusher: <cimatar: > Actually Bh3 is engine veriable at Depth 31 for Houdini 3 as being the best move.|
click for larger view
"Discovered by Hypekiller5000" -10.17 is indicated on my Chessbase Bh3 Kf2 Kf5
On depth 34 Hypekikller5000 indicates -14.89 for Bh3 Kh2 Bg4
I am not sure why you would consider Bh3 a "blunder". I never did. I even did a video about this move here:
|Jul-23-13|| ||kingscrusher: <cimatar> Returning this game, please follow the logic carefully :|
allowed the possibilty of Bf3! which all commentators give as a draw if this occured.
My point was that Bd2!! is actually a forced win against any defence. This also shows that the dynamic play of Fischer was very good and accurate in punishing materialism.
Please tell me again why you think Qxa2 in this game wasn't a blunder in terms of changing the *potential* game outcome ?!
Is it really because you worship the actual game result above all else ?! I am interested in technical analysis of games independent of the actual game result (1-0 0-1 1/2-1/2) .
If you have no respect for that kind of post-mortem analysis - fine. But I am interested in post-mortem analysis of games. You also didn't comment on Morphy's disputed immortal - why is that?! Is it because you have nothing to say about it? Karpov and Kasparov are also interested in the post-mortem analysis of games. Kasparov himself showed detailed post-mortems of some interesting games as part of his book-signing for the "My great predecessor" series in London. It demonstrates the richness of resources that games have.
|Jul-23-13|| ||cimatar: You blundered again I said find Topalov's blunder because Bh3 is Shirov's move, The argument is blunder gives the opponent the win etc.., In this case the game is almost equal until the excellent Bh3! Let your engines search the best moves for you!|
|Jul-23-13|| ||kingscrusher: Since you clarified your question, for the Topalov vs Shirov game the first indicated "blunder" is at move 26 where Bd2?! was played. Instead Rf3 was stronger from the brief analysis done. |
Veselin Topalov - Alexey Shirov, Linares Linares ESP 1998
click for larger view
Analysis by Houdini 3 x64:
1. (0.93): 26.Rf3 Qe7 27.Qe2 c5 28.f6 Bxf6 29.exf6 Qxe2 30.Nxe2 Bc6 31.Rff1 Re8 32.Bxd5 Bxd5 33.Nf4 Bc4 34.Rg1 Rab8 35.Re7 Rxe7 36.fxe7 Re8 37.Re1 f5 38.Re5 Bf7 39.Kh2
2. (0.62): 26.f6 Qxc3 27.fxg7 Qxc2 28.Nxc2 Nb4 29.Bb1 Nd3 30.Re2 Nxc1 31.Rxc1 Kxg7 32.Ne3 Ra7 33.Nc4 Re7 34.Nxa5 c5 35.Ba2 Rc7 36.Rf2 Bb5 37.Nc4 Bxc4 38.Bxc4 a3 39.Ra2 Ra7 40.Kg1
|Jul-23-13|| ||cimatar: And for your info, my point is not about the result of the game as if you are insinuating me as a fan of certain player a good game is a good game and I like post- mortem analysis of games, engine supported or not...it is about labeling normal human moves as blunder, where engines lose games also and blunder or mistake or weak move should be called as is. At least we should have some respect for OTB players playing the game live! And judge their moves correctly afterwards! If you are a serious player you should be aware of misnomer, for somebody to correct your game, for me a mistake is almost fatal a weak move you can recover a blunder kills you on the spot!|
|Jul-23-13|| ||cimatar: Oh! so you are saying 26.Bd2 is the blunder but it does not give away the game outright, you can therefore keep your idea of blunder to yourself, I'm labeling it a weak move! Because in your definition a blunder should be "Blundering a pawn" "Blundering a piece"
"Blundering the game"
It is nowhere near those!
You sir Blundered in Writing and Reading you are only good in feeding games to machines! Thanks but no thanks I'm not sold to your idea of blunder!
|Jul-23-13|| ||kingscrusher: Please try and read the Wiki reference given earlier:|
|Jul-23-13|| ||kingscrusher: <cimitar> Sorry what is your maximum ever FIDE rating just to get some context here?!|
|Jul-23-13|| ||cimatar: You don't need wiki if you are a chess player, chess players label it like I'm labeling it right now, weak move, bad move, mistake, blunder, good move, best move, excellent move! This is the way moves should be categorized. If blunder should be the very bad move, while on the contrary excellent move is the very best move!|
|Jul-23-13|| ||kingscrusher: <cimatar> I actually said "Blunder from an engine perspective" originally with regard to Qxa2. Please can you bear that in mind. |
In Chessbase you can define "Blunder" in the "Blunder-checker" as how you want. Quite a few people use Chessbase and I haven't yet seen a campaign on Facebook to change the terminology of its product feature "Blunder checker"
"The first and most basic of these functions is the “Blunder check”. This will simply analyze each move for a certain depth or time, and highlight the blunders. The user determines what is defined as a blunder, whether it be a lost piece, pawn, or some significant change in the evaluation. As a rule this is the quickest method and serves to quickly show where the biggest mistakes were. I use this regularly after a blitz game in Playchess. I realize that late in the game I may make mistakes owing to lack of time, but for the rest, it helps show me mistakes or missed opportunities. Extremely practical."
I am not really sure having an argument about the use or perceived abuse of "Blunder" is really needed given I had originally qualified it from "an engine perspective", and in particular evaluation differences - and potential game outcome.
|Jul-23-13|| ||Abdel Irada: A word about blunders: They are not always or necessarily immediately obvious as such.|
They may be objectively terrible moves, but this need not imply that they are visible to everyone except the victim; quite often, to prove a blunder is a blunder requires almost a brilliancy, which in turn raises questions as to how reasonable it is to use such terms as absolutes.
|Jul-23-13|| ||cimatar: I don't know that blunder from engines perspective? Where did you get that, I know evaluation of engines is by ply or etc...Not "this move is blunder." If you can define blunder as how you want, how can we define excellent moves then, as how we want also? those who want to know the truth in chess can't be extremes, so moves can be evaluated correctly!|
|Jul-23-13|| ||cimatar: Therefore a BLUNDER is the Excellent move that wins the game OTB! Or an Excellent move is the BLUNDER that wins the game OTB! It will be quite laughable at best! But It caters to everybody's opinion! That is 'till Megatron engines say foul! LOL|
|Jul-23-13|| ||AylerKupp: <<diceman> That <certain win> didn't pan out too well for Reshevsky did it?>|
Of course not, Reshevsky blundered. And that's my point. My definition of a blunder, FWIW, is a move that changes the likely course of the game, from a likely win to a likely draw or a likely loss, or from a likely draw to a likely loss. I say "likely" because there is no guarantee that a blunder will not be followed by another blunder (or more). After all, the adage is that the winner of a game is the player that makes the next to the last mistake.
All I was trying to point out is that defining a blunder as <harrylime> did as "A 'blunder' loses the game or hands the game on a plate to your opponent" as unduly restrictive. I would also consider a move that changes a likely win to a likely draw as a blunder, which is what happened to Reshevsky in this game.
But that's just my opinion.
|Jul-23-13|| ||AylerKupp: <Rookfile> Well, you have a definition of a "blunder" and I have mine. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that. I don't see why having a definition of a "blunder" that differs from yours constitutes a redefinition of the English language (which is constantly being redefined anyway) but maybe I am just dense.|
|Jul-23-13|| ||AylerKupp: One of the things that makes chess enjoyable to many, or at least to me, is that it can be appreciated on many levels. Every chess lover (I think) can appreciate an exciting game while it is in progress. Many (like myself) can appreciate the effort that goes into analyzing a game, particularly an exciting game, after the fact; i.e. finding "truth". Some don't care about that and that's fine also. But finding the "truth" through extensive post-game analysis, whether performed solely by humans or with computer assistance, does not (or at least should not) diminish our enjoyment of the game in progress. They are two different phases and I don't think that finding the "truth" afterwards would cause chess to lose its appeal to an aspiring player. To this "aspiring player" at least, finding "truth" adds to my enjoyment and appeal of the game, particularly if I learn something from it. If that fails to be the case for others, so be it.|
|Jul-23-13|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp: <Rookfile> Well, you have a definition of a "blunder" and I have mine.>|
I don’t see how there can be a single definition for everything.
One of the problems with clinical computer calculations is they need adjustments for the real world.
Lets say in time pressure one blunders (losing the game) because of a quick move.
While “a blunder” by the computers analysis, the real error/blunder was probably clock/time management.
By pure computer calculations certain gambits are errors because they lose material.
However, the player knows that and is typically looking for “real world” compensation.
It’s a lot like what Fischer said at the end of the famous 4 queens game.
Even though Petrosian was better at the end of the game,
after fighting so hard, he probably couldn’t make the mental adjustment to play for a win.
Thats the real world.
The “real world” is lost in computer evaluations if you don’t make adjustments.
|Jul-23-13|| ||AylerKupp: <diceman> About the only thing that we perhaps disagree on is that it is not only computers that need adjustments for the real world, it's also people. The real world is constantly changing and, if you don't adapt, you, human or machine, will likely be left behind.|
But computers can certainly determine whether, per their evaluation function, positional compensation outweighs material advantages. It's been a long, long time since computers evaluated a position solely on the basis of material.
|Jul-24-13|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp: <diceman> About the only thing that we perhaps disagree on is that it is not only computers that need adjustments for the real world, it's also people. The real world is constantly changing and, if you don't adapt, you, human or machine, will likely be left behind.>|
Well I hope you didn’t interpret my comments as,
“we shouldn’t use computers.”
That’s not the case.
Just that we should be mindful of what an evaluation means adjusted for the real world.
I don’t know about you, but in a complex position that rates equal, I would feel at a
disadvantage against a Fischer. :)
|Jul-25-13|| ||AylerKupp: <diceman> No, I didn't interpret your comment that way. And everyone should keep your caution in mind whenever they use computers. |
As far as feeling at a disadvantage against a Fischer in a complex (or for that matter, simple) position that rates equal, well, you are in large and good company.
|Jul-27-13|| ||kingscrusher: <AylerKupp> and all :|
I found another instance of a "Blunder from an engine perspecitve" here:
Geller vs Fischer, 1962
The move Kh2 allowed equality with Qc2 which was missed by Fischer.
It is fascinating to me because in a recent Carlsen game against Gelfand, Carlsen did give up a bishop to get his passed pawns going.
|Feb-01-18|| ||yurikvelo: https://pastebin.com/wkfzm5CW
|Feb-01-18|| ||perfidious: <cimatar....Let your engines search the best moves for you!>|
Let one's brain do it--that way, it is possible to improve still more and not rely on the almighty engine.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·