|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 32 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-11-06 | | PaulLovric: ¡Ç§«ތކޡީީ< |
|
| Dec-11-06 | | alicefujimori: It's pretty funny to see how those people that always pretended to be "objective" and "neutral" bring up Topalov almost everytime the blunder of this game was mentioned. But I guess this is just a clash between fans of different players... :) Anyway, it's interesting to see again the comparison between the blunder of this game and Topalov's in the last game of the tie-break. But I think everything is pretty obvious if we compare the impact that the two respective blunders had on chess fans and the public. How big of a deal did the public made from Topalov's blunder? How big of a deal did the public made from Kramnik's blunder in this game? The answer to these questions are enough to suggest which blunder was really the worse. |
|
| Dec-11-06 | | chessmoron: No <alicefujimori>, the question is which blunder(s) cost the most. Losing the World Championship and losing ELO points or winning $660,000 but losing a chance to win $1.32 million without a rating drop. So I'm wondering how much is the World Championship worth. |
|
| Dec-11-06 | | setebos: Its worth plenty when you make all that dough even when you lose,guaranteed :) |
|
| Dec-11-06 | | alicefujimori: <chessmoron>The WC title certainly worth more, but the outside consequences of a blunder has nothing to do with the "badness" of the blunder itself. If you consider Topalov's blunder in that game to be worse than Kramnik's in this game, then you have to consider every little tiny mistake that was taken advantaged of (whether it led to a loss of advantage or loss of equality) in the Topalov-Kramnik match to be worse than Kramnik's blunder in this game. You do consider them to be? |
|
| Dec-11-06 | | square dance: <If you consider Topalov's blunder in that game to be worse than Kramnik's in this game, then you have to consider every little tiny mistake that was taken advantaged of (whether it led to a loss of advantage or loss of equality) in the Topalov-Kramnik match to be worse than Kramnik's blunder in this game.> you certainly dont since the discussion is about blunders, and especially blunder that immediately end the game. everything else aside, kramnik's blunder is technically worse because it immediately ends the game. topalov's move "only" loses a rook and he could play on until the inevitable mate if he were so inclined. of course at that level there is almost no difference between being mated and losing a rook, which is why topalov immediately resigned. |
|
Dec-11-06
 | | chancho: Getting mated in one move (in an exhibition match)is terrible. But Vesko missing a mate in three moves in a crucial game for the world championship, is much worse. By losing the Fritz match, Kramnik lost a chance at more money, that's all. Of course it was a historic blunder, no doubt about it. |
|
| Dec-11-06 | | alicefujimori: <sqaure dance><you certainly dont since the discussion is about blunders, and especially blunder that immediately end the game.>But would you consider them to be worse? :) <kramnik's blunder is technically worse because it immediately ends the game. topalov's move "only" loses a rook and he could play on until the inevitable mate if he were so inclined. of course at that level there is almost no difference between being mated and losing a rook, which is why topalov immediately resigned.>Of course, losing a rook at that level is almost (not 100% because we all know how Kasparov saved a draw during one of his games in the 2000 match with a piece down) no different to being immediately mated, but there were obvious reasons why Kramnik's blunder in this game was objectively regarded by chess fans and public as worse than any other blunders made so far this century. Let's just keep it simple and point out that the situation in which both players had committed the blunder in plays a key role in assessing which blunders was worse. |
|
| Dec-11-06 | | alicefujimori: <chancho><But Vesko missing a mate in three moves in a crucial game for the world championship, is much worse.>...and Kramnik allowing the mate in that game is much worse...and Kramnik's 37.f3 in game 8 is much worse...and Kramnik's overall play in the middlegame of game 9 is much worse...and Topalov's 24...f6 in game 10 is much worse...and the list goes on and on as long as it is a tiny mistake or blunder committed in a crucial game. |
|
Dec-12-06
| | chancho: <alicefujimori> Yes, Kramnik made some mistakes in those games, but he did win the match. Topalov's mistakes in a world championship match cost him the title. Losing an exhibition match is not comparable. |
|
| Dec-12-06 | | alicefujimori: <chancho>Ok, so that's one person who regards any tiny mistake and blunder in any crucial game to be worse than Kramnik's "blunder of the century" in this game. Anybody else? |
|
Dec-12-06
| | chancho: <alicefujimori> The blunder by Kramnik was terrible, but it was in an exhibition match. At least that's how I see it. The match in Elista was full of mistakes by both players, yes, the only difference being that Kramnik took full advantage of Topa's mistakes and won, while Topa failed to do so. |
|
| Dec-12-06 | | chessmoron: <alicefujimori> I really don't care about Kramnik missed a mate in one rather than this game that lead Kramnik into the history books of modern chess: Kasparov vs Kramnik, 1996 . |
|
| Dec-12-06 | | Lt. Col. Majid: <Topalov is the hardest working man in chess and people respect that.> If this is true which I do not dispute, then not being able to defend his title (which the true chess greats did many times) says a lot about his talent and natural ability. |
|
Dec-12-06
 | | Peligroso Patzer: For the record, here is a game from the 2002 Olympiad where an almost-2500 and an almost-2600 both missed the same mating pattern (Qh7# supported by a Knight on the atypical f8-square): F Bellini vs V Gashimov, 2002
After 50. Qe4, White threatened 51. Qh7#. Black's 50. ... Qf7?? did nothing to prevent it, but White played 51. Ne6??, and the game eventually ended in a draw. |
|
| Dec-12-06 | | TIMER: How come the lines are so much bolder between the posts on this page? It gives it quite a different appearance! |
|
| Dec-12-06 | | square dance: this is the same gashimov who was rated 3357 on playchess last time i looked. i believe his fide rating is 2644 as well. im not sure what it was then. |
|
| Dec-12-06 | | notyetagm: <Peligroso Patzer: For the record, here is a game from the 2002 Olympiad where an almost-2500 and an almost-2600 both missed the same mating pattern (Qh7# supported by a Knight on the atypical f8-square):
F Bellini vs V Gashimov, 2002
After 50. Qe4, White threatened 51. Qh7#. Black's 50. ... Qf7?? did nothing to prevent it, but White played 51. Ne6??, and the game eventually ended in a draw.> These ??-blunders with the ♘f8-♕h7# mating pattern show you that chess is much more pattern recognition than intelligence. These strong players (Kramnik, Gashimov, Bellini) did not see something obvious because it was not a pattern that was stored in their chess knowledge, like the Lucena position. |
|
| Dec-13-06 | | notyetagm: <KKDEREK: ... Uaull..Ten years..What ten years can do to a men..Fantastic game like that there (He was roughless!) , mate in 1 here.> You said it, not me. :-)
|
|
| Dec-13-06 | | micartouse: The game also shows that at the highest level, players sometimes stop asking routine questions. Simple questions like "Are there any checks, forks, pins, captures, unprotected pieces?" need to be asked each move. Kramnik was at the end of a sequence he forced and I'm guessing he didn't ask those questions (or maybe he did!). |
|
Dec-13-06
 | | alexmagnus: Surely he didn't. Someone who asks this question spots the mate threat within a microsecond. |
|
| Jan-13-07 | | Tactic101: Must have been too focused on one side of the board to realize that there was something on the other side. At least it is nice to know that even GMs make horrible moves.
Bet you that next time Kramnik sees a knight on f8 he will take a second look. |
|
| Jan-30-07 | | acerbiter: Regarding the 'Blunder' read this: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail..., also I wouldn't call it the 'Blunder' of year, century, history, as i has happened before and will again - tho I bet this pattern will stick in memory of most chess players forever from now on. I didnt have anything against Topalov as a player, and prob still dont, but i really didn't like the entire bs around the bathrooms, omg, he could have at least come up with a normal reason for losing the first two games. What's worse, is that I believe, being the situation reserved, Topalov would have not lost the game for not showing up... Even if Topalov didnt miss the mate in 1 in game 2, I personally believe that he would NOT have reached a won position in game 1 and would NOT be able to hold draw in game 4, the end game is just something that Kramnik dominates in the world of chess p.s.:
ALT+0128 -> € (Euro)
ALT+0163 -> £ (Pound)
ALT+0153 -> ™ (TM) |
|
Jan-30-07
 | | OhioChessFan: Timer: <How come the lines are so much bolder between the posts on this page? It gives it quite a different appearance!> I was wondering the same thing. I think it's when <Wannabe> made his post using that strange font. Every page after that has the thick lines. |
|
| Feb-05-07 | | IMDONE4: Im too lazy to read the other comments, so ill just ask it right here: Was Kramnik in severe time pressure? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 32 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
