|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 21 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-21-07 | | ianD: User: Plato He never missed a mate in 1!
I would put Kramnik's error in this class:
Tarrasch vs Alapin, 1889
Here is agreat collection of blunders by well known players:
Fischer does feature...I guess nobody is perfect...but mate in 1. Come on!
Enjoy:
Game Collection: Funny games |
 |
| Feb-21-07 | | ughaibu: IanD: You're missing the point, according to Fischer, Kramnik had to fullfil the arrangement, Kramnik is so strong that blundering a mate in one was the only recourse. Compare this with losses by previous "Russians". |
|
| Feb-21-07 | | ughaibu: Bxh2; so it wasn't a blunder but Fischer's endgame technique was sub-par. RookFile, the guy lost a completely drawn game. |
|
| Feb-21-07 | | RookFile: Sure, Fischer made some mistakes in that endgame. I'm not aware of anybody who didn't do the same at least once. The fact remains that to classify ....Bxh2 as a blunder that loses the game is simply wrong. |
|
| Feb-21-07 | | RookFile: You know something... I was playing Fritz 10 last night in blitz chess (6 minutes for the whole game, plus 1 second per move). Fritz had an extra pawn, but I had a good knight against Fritz's bad bishop, and there were 4 rooks on the board. All the rooks came off, and Fritz starting talking smack about how it was winning the game. What it didn't realize was, I had set up a fortress position that prevented a breakthrough. Fritz went on to lose the game on time, all along the way assuring me it was winning. It was pretty funny. |
|
| Feb-22-07 | | Plato: <RookFile> Yes, that is very funny. Almost as funny as it is relevant. I guess you're trying to impress us. Out of curiosity, how exactly does Fritz 10 manage to lose on time with increment time controls (<"6 minutes for the whole game, plus 1 second per move">)? |
|
Feb-22-07
 | | JointheArmy: <Plato> You can premove about 10 moves in advance or more on playchess.com. I've seen computers lose to TigerTad or some other masters that way. |
|
| Feb-22-07 | | Plato: <JTA> I know about premove, I use it myself, but with increment time controls, there is no way that a computer should lose on time. Anyway, as far as I know Fritz only lets you premove one move in advance. |
|
| Apr-24-07 | | object16: LifeMasterAJ was kind enough to annotate
this game on his website.
http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-...
I am posting this link because the previous one given doesn't work
anymore. LifeMaster states several GM's have personally told him this
is one of the most beautiful games of chess of the last 50-75 years!!
I also understand LifeMaster's wife is ill and I wish for her to be comforted. |
|
| Apr-24-07 | | RookFile: Plato, I didn't see your question. The simple reality is, at 6 minutes for the game, plus 1 second per move, Fritz can and has lost numerous games to me on time. They tend to be 80+ move endgames, and the thing simply has a bug in it that causes it to exceed the time limit. By the way, the relevency is, we were discussing blunders that allowed one to lose a completely drawn endgame. |
|
| Apr-24-07 | | Plato: Fritz losing on time in 6+1 time controls? Strange... I guess my version doesn't have that bug, because my Fritz has never lost on time with a 1 second increment, neither in games against me nor in engine "shootout" games. <Relevancy>: what was its blunder that turned the drawn endgame into a losing one? Losing on time? |
|
| Apr-24-07 | | RookFile: Well, I'm a very quick player Plato, especially in endgames. The strange thing about it is, you can even offer Fritz a draw, when it has 1 second on its clock, and if it evaluates the position as +0.01 it will reject your draw, and lose on time instead. Indeed yes, that is what I see as the blunder - that it would rather lose the game on time than accept a draw offer. |
|
| Apr-24-07 | | Plato: It wouldn't "rather" lose the game on time, it just has a bug. I don't think of such bugs as chess blunders (but rather as poor programming), so I just don't see the relevance to the earlier discussion... Anyway, it's not really a question of how fast you are but how buggy the program is. If a computer is down to just a couple of seconds, it shouldn't make any difference how much time you think about *your* move -- whether you take a long time or play instantaneously, the computer should respond right away. And with increments its unheard of for a well-running engine to lose on time... But your program definitely seems to have a bug; that's all there is to it. |
|
| Jun-18-07 | | utssb: 18...Qf8 seems unnecessary.
Fritz offers 18...Nf6 19.Nb3 c4
20. Qxe7 Rxe7 as a superior alternative. |
|
| Jun-18-07 | | MaxxLange: <RookFile> isn't this behavior a function of the "contempt factor" paramater? |
|
| Jun-18-07 | | RookFile: Hmm, I don't know, I'm sure you're right, I just run the thing with default settings. Don't have time to read anything more than that. |
|
| Jul-01-07 | | crimsontide: <BishopofBlunder:While I would rate Fischer ahead of Kramnik, he had his share of blunders. Look at game one of this championship for a good example. Fischer turned a draw into a loss by grabbing a pawn.> I would equate this as a "go for the win" type deal,where, take for instance two golfers are tied for the tournament lead heading to the final hole(For Fischer every game he felt like he had to win).One of the players plays it safe and lays his shot up in front of the water hazard,while the other pulls his 3 wood out and goes for the green.In game one Bobby's ball landed in the drink when he could have just laid up.(draw) I have never read anything about how Fischer felt about draws but I believe he liked them only if it saved a losing position or it benefited him in some way. Now, if game one were the last game and he was up a half a point on Spassky I believe he would have kept piddling around moving pieces around until Boris offered him a draw and the championship. In the 1957 U.S.Open he took a draw in the final round because he knew he would be given the title and trophy over Bisguier on tiebreaks. |
|
| Jul-01-07 | | Petrosianic: >>I have never read anything about how Fischer felt about draws but I believe he liked them only if it saved a losing position or it benefited him in some way.>> Fischer did have a number of short, bloodless draws, though fewer than the average GM. And unlike somebody like Larsen, Fischer definitely preferred draws to losses. Robert Byrne wrote that when analyzing adjourned positions, Fischer abhorred obscure speculation, and regarded unclear continuations as barely a cut better than ones that lost by force. He'd try very hard to win, but not in ways that would risk defeat. |
|
| Jul-12-07 | | sanyas: Spassky made some opening inaccuracies and Fischer got in 20.e4, the rest was just technique. |
|
Jul-12-07
 | | talisman: <rookfile> one of the 1st chessbooks i ever read...great book!. one of those books that opened up a whole new world for me.gligorich was a great player too...came close to a WC match. |
|
| Jul-12-07 | | RookFile: <sanyas: Spassky made some opening inaccuracies and Fischer got in 20.e4, the rest was just technique.> If you say so. The moves 21 to 41 are awesome, like a Mozart concert or something. How many of us would play with this precision? |
|
| Jul-15-07 | | sanyas: <Rookfile> Well, the switch to the kingside was cool, I must admit; and there were tactics to be considered as Fischer continued his winning onslaught. It was mostly advancing pawns and carefully grabbing space, leaving Black tied up; and the last few moves actually weren't very precise at all. There is one obvious repetition in there too, to gain time on the clock, as if Mozart's tape recorder was stuck in a loop. |
|
| Jul-22-07 | | ttr2121: Thank you, Sanyas, for your jester's point of view. Why don't you annotate the upcoming games in Mexico? That should kepp us all in stitches for months! |
|
| Jul-25-07 | | sanyas: <ttr2121> Nope, not jesting. Okay, I should put my comment in perspective, I saw this game on the list of most voted for games in game collections and didn't think it was quite that good. Very great play by Fischer, but there wasn't much of a struggle, Spassky just collapsed, there wasn't much for him to do. |
|
| Jul-25-07 | | RookFile: Well, this is nothing new. Capablanca had the same criticism levelled against him. His games are so simple, so easy to play. That is, until we try to independently come up with the same moves ourselves. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 21 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 38.Rxf6
