|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-14-13 | | RookFile: If 23.... Qxa2 is an inaccuracy, it is not a blunder. On the other hand, as you said some years ago, this really isn't a great game. I think Fischer made the right choice leaving this one out. Certainly the draw between Keres and Fischer that is in My 60 Memorable Games is a better game than this one is. |
|
Jul-15-13
 | | perfidious: <RookFile:.....Certainly the draw between Keres and Fischer that is in My 60 Memorable Games is a better game than this one is.> Agreed-that was a tremendous battle. |
|
Jul-16-13
 | | kingscrusher: <Rookfile> From an engine perspective Qxa2 is an absolute blunder. Bd2 is actually winning against any defence technically. Whilst Qxa2 allows White to draw comfortably with Bf3. I am not really sure I can agree with your terminlogy which I guess is in some particular context - maybe that of human post-mortem comments or analysis. I am talking about from an objective engine technical perspective - the likes of which is used extensively even by Kasparov to critique games in the "My great predecessor" series where he used a very strong engine analyst to verify all analysis. |
|
Jul-16-13
 | | keypusher: <kingscrusher> Thanks, very interesting. But I am a little puzzled by your comment: <Fischer is the player who blundered first in this game [by not playing 23...Bd2.]> If Fischer had a clear win at move 23, Keres must have blundered, or made a clear error before, right? |
|
Jul-16-13
| | kingscrusher: <keypusher> yes I believe the first major blunder in this game was the materialistic Bxb8 and the reason for this was a psychological motive to put Fischer into the role of having to handle materialism. Fischer has demonstrated before in the tournament a materialistic tendency as well as a weakness in the Caro-kann two knights variation. |
|
| Jul-16-13 | | Gypsy: Definition of BLUNDER
1
: to move unsteadily or confusedly
2
: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness
transitive verb
1
: to utter stupidly, confusedly, or thoughtlessly
2
: to make a stupid, careless, or thoughtless mistake ... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...
---------
To me, <blunder> is only a certain type of a mistake; it needs to be
(i) serious, and (ii) reasonably obvious.
The term <howler> also comes to mind. Indeed, looking at the definition howl·er
/ˈhoulər/
Noun
A stupid or glaring mistake, esp. an amusing one. Synonyms
blunder |
|
Jul-16-13
| | kingscrusher: <gypsy> From an engine perspective a difference of 2 can be considered technically a blunder - sone sites use this for colour coding blunders eg chessbomb. |
|
| Jul-16-13 | | RookFile: Well, check back in 20 years, if any of us are even still interested in chess then. Somebody will be talking about how some move yields a difference of 0.25 on their super fast computers, and how something is a blunder. Probably the only people playing chess then will be those who like to count beans. |
|
Jul-16-13
| | kingscrusher: <rookfile> one of the points for me is that Paul Keres actually did play this game like a 1980 style materialistic computer - and the impression is given from the comments up until this point and in literature that Fischer got lucky because if the disaster move Bb5. Computers in this case prove the dynamic play of Fischer was actually winning against best possible defence if bd2 instead of qxa2 was played. There is a purpose to technical analysis - for example Kasparov amusingly put Karpov games under great scrutiny to show how Karpov could have been beaten as part of his London book signing tour. This is why also I wanted to know if technically white really could play the way he did and theoretically get away with it. The technical truth in this case provides comfort to optimistic dynamic play as a punishment for materialism. |
|
| Jul-18-13 | | Gypsy: <kingscrusher> It's not a really big point. But what is wrong with the terms like mistake, error, and such? To me, the connotation of the chess term 'blunder' is that of a silly mistake, goof, ... (Btw, I do like Bd2 your analysis of it.) |
|
Jul-18-13
| | kingscrusher: <Gypsy:> From an engine perspective checking this game Qxa2 would be classed a "blunder" - it is a different of more than 2 units blown and also allows an easy draw. This compares with Bd2 which is technically completely winning. From a human perspective, if it is correspondence chess, Qxa2 would also be classed as a "blunder" because it might be possible to research Bd2 and its complications. So I would argue that the context and the notion of "blunder" cannot be separated. |
|
| Jul-19-13 | | Gypsy: <So I would argue that the context and the notion of "blunder" cannot be separated.> Indeed, context is essential for 'my' notion of meaning of 'blunder' -- an error, of fairly serious consequences, where I should have seen things though, but did not. I think we are in a full agreement on these points. |
|
Jul-19-13
 | | AylerKupp: I would think that if a player makes a move, or fails to make a move, that changes the most likely outcome of a game (from a win to a loss or draw, or from a draw to a loss) then that move should be considered a "blunder". And whether that "blunder" is made by a human or computer, or in blitz or classical time controls, doesn't make it any less of a "blunder", just more understandable. So in this case, given that 23...Bb2 would have allowed Fischer to achieve a winning advantage (at least according to Houdini 3) and that by playing 23...Qxa2 Fischer allowed Keres to play 24.Bf3 which (according to Houdini 1.5, d=26) reduced Fischer's advantage to a very small amount (eval=[-0.13]), I would say that, yes, 23...Qxa2 was a "blunder". And that by playing 24.Bb5, Keres "blundered" right back just as badly or worse (per Houdini 1.5, eval=[-5.13]), d=26 after 24...Qd5 as Fischer played). Now that reasonably cheap computers and engines are available it is instructive to see how often even the very best players "blunder" <IF> (and a very big <IF>) the engines' position evaluations are actually correct (engines "blunder" surprisingly often also, but that's another issue). And I for one find nothing wrong with that, it just reinforces what a difficult game chess is and how impossible it is for either human or computer to consistently play perfectly. So those of us who are interested in finding "truth" in chess, no mater what the source, will still be interested 20 years from now to find that one move results in a position evaluation [0.25] points better than another move. Whether that is meaningful or not is, once again, another issue. |
|
Jul-19-13
 | | harrylime: Well if Bobby's 23..Qa2 is a 'blunder' then all the great games and players of the past need re evaluating lol. Fischer was only 16/17 when this game was played.It's easy to forget just how young he was then when competing with the very best.I imagine the Fischer of 1970 would've seen/played 23..Bd2 |
|
Jul-19-13
| | kingscrusher: <harrylime> there are two pills really you can take - yiu can take the blue pill and everything in your reality about the quality and accuracy of GM otb chess can remain intact. However if you take the red pill and step into the world of correspondence quality chess then start to consider most GM OTB games as full of blunders. Like the bullets of the matrix slowing down each apparent amazing move in otb chess when put under huge scrutiny might have offered the opponent amazing resources. The crushing Rxe6 of anand vs Gelfand starts to creak relating to a slight weakness of the last move and it is discovered Gelfand didn't need to lose .... And most games start turning into trash under this level of scrutiny - the relentless powerful engine perspective. However an engine perspective of post Mortem detached from what threats the players perceived is one lacking in human empathy. It becomes quite cold and clinical. |
|
Jul-19-13
| | harrylime: ^^^
Yes I think you're correct re this. And that's without taking the red pill lol Whats' more.. I think Fischer may still have played 23..Qa2 in 1970.. being concerned about his pawn deficit.Certain traits just stay with a player. But I do feel a new term other than 'blunder' should be used for these type of moves and positions. |
|
| Jul-19-13 | | diceman: Maybe a blunder is a blunder.
..but Id rather play blunders that take me from advantage/winning to equal
vs. equal to losing. |
|
Jul-19-13
| | harrylime: <diceman: Maybe a blunder is a blunder.
..but Id rather play blunders that take me from advantage/winning to equal vs. equal to losing.> Well then it's not a 'blunder' ...
A 'blunder' loses the game or hands the game on a plate to your opponent .. Fischer's Qa2 did neither .. So in respect of <Kingcrusher> I'm seeking a new label for these moves. |
|
| Jul-19-13 | | diceman: <harrylime:
Well then it's not a 'blunder' …>
You need to talk to Ayler. :)
<AylerKupp:
So in this case, given that 23...Bb2 would have allowed Fischer to achieve a winning advantage (at least according to Houdini 3) and that by playing 23...Qxa2 Fischer allowed Keres to play 24.Bf3 which (according to Houdini 1.5, d=26) reduced Fischer's advantage to a very small amount (eval=[-0.13]), I would say that, yes, 23...Qxa2 was a "blunder".> |
|
Jul-19-13
| | harrylime: <Kingcrusher> has an agenda regarding 'engine' and 'silicon' chess .. and he's right. I think the 'sporting' and 'human' element in chess is paramount. As regards a 'blunder' .. well a 'blunder' historically lost you the game or at best catapulted you into a lost position ... Bobby's 23.. Qa2 .. jeez i wish he was around to defend this move lol |
|
Jul-19-13
| | harrylime: <diceman: <harrylime:
Well then it's not a 'blunder' …>
You need to talk to Ayler. :) >
LOL |
|
Jul-19-13
| | AylerKupp: <<harrylime> Well if Bobby's 23..Qa2 is a 'blunder' then all the great games and players of the past need re evaluating> Well, yes. That's what the availability of good chess engines allows almost anyone to do these days. It's not meant to criticize the players any more than if human analysts after the fact, with much more time on their hands than the players had during the game, find better moves. <<harrylime> Fischer was only 16/17 when this game was played. It's easy to forget just how young he was then when competing with the very best. I imagine the Fischer of 1970 would've seen/played 23..Bd2> IMO neither age nor quality of the opponent has anything to do with it, a blunder is a blunder however you define it. If a player makes a blunder then the younger the player is the more understandable the blunder. But it is still a blunder. Only IMO, of course. <<harrylime> I imagine the Fischer of 1970 would've seen/played 23...Bd2> Quite possibly. We will never know.
<<harrylime> I think Fischer may still have played 23..Qa2 in 1970.. being concerned about his pawn deficit. Certain traits just stay with a player.> That is quite possible also. Again, we'll never know. <<harrylime> A 'blunder' loses the game or hands the game on a plate to your opponent ..> That's one quite acceptable and narrower definition of a blunder. I happen to have a broader one, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. I accept that. <<harrylime> Fischer's Qa2 did neither .. So in respect of <Kingcrusher> I'm seeking a new label for these moves.> Sounds good to me. Let me know what you come up with. <<harrylime> I think the 'sporting' and 'human' element in chess is paramount.> And I think that finding the "truth" in chess; i.e. finding the best move in each position is paramount, and we're both entitled to our opinion. And I think that your opinion is quite reasonable and shared by many others. Hopefully others will not think that my opinion is all that unreasonable. <<harrylime> As regards a 'blunder' .. well a 'blunder' historically lost you the game or at best catapulted you into a lost position ...> A move that does that would certainly classify as a blunder. But I think that definition of a blunder is unnecessarily narrow. For example, would you categorize Reshevsky's 48...Qxg3 in Larry Evans vs Reshevsky, 1963 as a blunder? It neither lost Reshevsky the game or catapulted him into a lost position, but it made a certain win into a draw. The same with Fischer's 23...Qxa2, it made a certain win into a likely draw if Keres had played 24.Bf3. Much less dramatically of course. <<harrylime> LOL> Good for you. Glad to be of help in that. Not that you need much help in this area, of course. :-) |
|
| Jul-20-13 | | RookFile: Any move that went decades without somebody noticing it was a mistake is not a blunder. Just because computers are much more powerful today does not force us to redefine the English language. |
|
Jul-20-13
| | kingscrusher: <Rookfile> I really don't think "Blunders" should necessarily be expressed for the context the game was played. The perspective of "post-mortem" analysis can legitimately be an engine perspective - and as such with increasing technology, the scrutiny this provides us, is ever increasing. Albeit also at an ever-decreasing amount of empathy for the emotions, fears, and threats on the board, time restrictions and other pressures the players themselves had. For example, examine a bullet game and there are loads of "blunders" technically. Does that mean from the view of "post-mortem" we should not consider an objective analysis or rather instead extend our empathy to say "Well they didn't have enough time to analyse their moves, so there are no blunders really here". The same with even GM OTB chess games - most of them when checked with Engines have "blunders" in a technical sense. But equally someone with a lot of analytical time could also potentially pick up technical flaws. It would just take a lot more time and research. This idea of technical analysis goes to the time of Alexander Alekhine - before he was a great player, he was also one of the finest most detailed annotators in search of the "Truth". He did very detailed technical analysis of the games of his peers at the time. With the "Truth" about chess one finds useful exceptions. It is the finding of useful exceptions which paves ways of playing positions which previously may have been thought too difficult and also finds innovations and entirely new strategies and ways of playing. Sometimes it can even revitalise old styles of playing. For example with the help of engines, Nigel Short actually revitalised some old Romantic era lines thought too dangerous (and materialistic) with some success. A post-mortem technical analysis can use all the resources available. We are for example legally able if not even using an engine to set up an analysis board, and move the pieces around. The restrictions on Playing chess are not in force. The use of engines is legitamte for post-mortem. Most books now usually engine check everything. The books of the past are limited because they did not have the engines we have nowadays. So this game in "The Russians vs Fischer" has no special note about Qxa2. All it indicates is Qxa2 Bb5?? When in fact, the greater truth here is black had a forced with with Bd2. |
|
Jul-20-13
| | AylerKupp: <Rookfile> I guess I don't understand. It might have been a difficult blunder to detect and that might have been the reason why it was not detected for a long time. Or it may have occurred in a minor game that did not receive much attention and therefore overlooked. But how do these situations not make it a blunder? Is there a statute of limitations for detecting blunders that I am not aware of? And what do computers have to do with it? Are you saying that if after decades a computer detects a substantial mistake then it is not a blunder but if after the same length of time a human detects the same mistake then it is a blunder? That doesn't make sense to me. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 