|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-20-13
 | | kingscrusher: <AylerKupp:> In additon to what you say, I am not sure there would be much motivation to find improvements in Fischer's play by either US or Russian analysts - in a game he won. Perhaps this is my biased opinion though, but from a sporting perspective I am sure many would be just happy Fischer won, and the Russians would be happy to assign Bb5 as the outright game blunder and leave it at that. With new games being played all the time, there are lots of other games to analyse :) |
|
| Jul-20-13 | | cimatar: I don't know much about that Qxa2 as a Blunder but rather the suggested Bd2 is not without holes too because many moves are still unexplored after Bd2 24.Bf3 h5 now 25.Qd7 should be explored too..as now the king is poised to go to g2 and the Queen is keeping tab on the rooks! With pawns keeping extra tempo if black decides to take it! |
|
Jul-21-13
| | kingscrusher: <cimatar> Prepare to be amazed! This is one of the most beautiful "secret chambers" of this analysis :
click for larger viewBe3!!
click for larger viewfxe3 Rxe3
click for larger viewE.g. Qd5 Rcc3
click for larger view |
|
Jul-21-13
| | kingscrusher: This and other analysis can be found in the video annotation about Bd2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScE... |
|
Jul-21-13
| | kingscrusher: <talwnbe4:> Bd2 Bf3 h5! is apparently winning by force after Bf3 If you don't think so, please tell me what you think White can play here not to lose, after h5 ?! Qh4 loses as does Qd7 as just shown
Paul Keres - Robert James Fischer, Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates 1959
click for larger viewAnalysis by Houdini 3 x64:
1.  (-5.01): 25.Qh4 Be3
2. (-5.48): 25.Be4 Rxe4 26.Qf3 Rxd4 27.Kg2 Rd3 28.Qe2 Qc4 29.f3 Qc2 30.Rhf1 Be3 31.Qxc2 Rxc2+ 32.Kh3 Ra3 33.f4 Raxa2 34.Rh1 Kg7 35.Rde1 Ba7 36.Rc1 Re2 37.Rb1 Rg2 38.Rbc1 Bd4 39.Rcd1 Bc5 40.Rc1 Bd4 41.Rcd1 |
|
Jul-21-13
| | kingscrusher: Behold!! I will extend the candidate moves shown.
Paul Keres - Robert James Fischer, Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates 1959
click for larger viewAnalysis by Houdini 3 x64:
1. (-4.27): 25.Qh4 Be3 26.g4 hxg4 27.Bxg4
2. (-5.48): 25.Be4 Rxe4 26.Qf3 Rxd4 27.Kg2 Rd3 28.Qe2 Qc4 29.f3 Qc2 30.Rhf1 Be3 31.Qxc2 Rxc2+ 3. (-5.59): 25.Qd7 Be3 26.fxe3 Rxe3 27.Qxc8+ Qxc8 28.Kf2 Ra3 29.Rhe1 Qc2+ 30.Be2 h4 31.gxh4 Rh3 32.Rh1 Qf5+ 33.Kg2 4. (-5.85): 25.Qxc8 Rxc8 26.Kg2 Qxa2 27.Rhf1 Rc3 28.Rb1 Qc4 29.Rfd1 5. (-7.36): 25.Rxd2 Qc4+ 26.Kg2 hxg4 27.Bxg4 Ra8 28.Rb1 Ra3 29.Rf1 Qc6+ 30.Kg1 Qc3 31.Rdd1 Rxa2 32.d5 f5 33.Rc1 Qb3 34.Rb1 Qxd5 35.Rbd1 Qb3 36.Rb1 Qd3 37.Rbd1 Rd2 38.Bf3 Rxd1 39.Bxd1 Qd2 40.h4 Kg7 41.Bb3 Re2 6. (-8.19): 25.Qh3 Be1 26.Qg2 Rb8 27.Kg1 Rb2 28.h4 Bxf2+ 29.Kh2 Re3 30.Rdf1 Bxg3+ 31.Kg1 Qc3 32.Qxg3 Qxd4 33.Rf2 Re1+ 34.Kg2 Rxh1 35.Kxh1 7. (-13.66): 25.Qf4 Bxf4 26.Kg2 Rc3 27.Rhe1 Rxe1 28.Rxe1 Bd6 29.a3 Rxa3 30.Re4 Qd3 31.Re3 Qxd4 32.Re4 Qc5 33.Be2 f5 34.Rc4 Qd5+ 35.Kh3 g5 36.Rc8+ Kg7 37.Bc4 g4+ 38.Kh4 Qg2 39.Kg5 Qxf2 40.Rg8+ Kh7 |
|
| Jul-21-13 | | talwnbe4: I'm analysing it right now.. but on a core 2 duo non-multiprocessor version of Fruit 2.2.1 . Yes, you're right Bd2 seems to win with the key line being 23.. Bd2 24.Bf3 h5 25.Qd7 Be3! 2.40
mind you it takes this processor a good 10 minutes or so to find 23.. Bd2! |
|
| Jul-21-13 | | talwnbe4: edit : Fruit 2.2.1 best line 23.. Bd2! 24. Bf3 h5 25. Qd7 Be3! 26. Be2 Bxf2 27. Qb5 Be3 28. Kg2 29..Qe4+ 2.65 finds 25.. Be3! in 34 seconds analysing after 25. Qd7 |
|
Jul-21-13
| | kingscrusher: <talwnbe4> If you want much faster analysis, I recommend getting an I5 - they are quite cheap nowadays. Or an I7 if your budget can stretch. It finds this stuff fairly quickly (less than a minute for all of it really). |
|
Jul-21-13
| | kingscrusher: BTW I should say the newer type of I5 - 4 core I5. This will support greater parallelism. |
|
| Jul-21-13 | | talwnbe4: Oh sure, but you need an x64 version of the computer software with multiprocessor support. I use freeware Fruit 2.2.1 using only one of the processors ona core 2 duo. Btw, Rybka is Fruit, or so I hear. |
|
| Jul-21-13 | | cimatar: Be3 fxe3, Rxe3 Can you consider Qxc8 check! and Kf2 just stretching! My point is everybody is quick to say Qxa2 as a Blunder but using engines to explore the possible moves, although it is hopeless at least as a human being this is my fighting chance to at least understand the players analyzing the game OTB! |
|
| Jul-21-13 | | diceman: <AylerKupp:
It neither lost Reshevsky the game or catapulted him into a lost position, but it made a certain win into a draw.> …and there is the rub.
That <certain win> didn’t pan out too well for Reshevsky did it? <The same with Fischer's 23...Qxa2> Except like Reshevsy didn’t win his <certain win,>
Keres didn’t hold his <certain draw.> I think there’s a problem thinking “equality=draw.” |
|
| Jul-21-13 | | cimatar: In those engines analysis the number of possible moves corresponds to the correct move order or correct defense by varying degrees. Therefore a blunder should be categorized also because it is unfair calling a mistake a blunder or a weak move a blunder. When in fact in this case the move in question also wins the actual game. Pressure fatigue emotions and other human elements come into play in live tournaments! It is easy feeding finished games into engines! |
|
| Jul-22-13 | | cimatar: If you want the truth in chess for every exciting game, and without the element of drama and human touch errors etc..then chess would lose its appeal on aspiring players because every move will be pointless and subject to engine scrutiny, Chess then will become a Study and not a Game anymore! |
|
Jul-22-13
| | kingscrusher: <cimatar> Really I find it hard to comprehend your comments. Chess IS subject to engine scrutiny. Just pick up Kasparov's "My Great Predecessor" series and there is fantastic technical analysis done which itself is subject to continuous revision and updates. Kasparov makes use of a "1st category player analyst" - an expert with engines to help in this technical analysis. This is part of the beauty of chess that the discussions of games can go on even hundreds of years later. A classic example of this is "Morphy's disputed Immortal" where the likes of Karpov, Kasparov and others wade in for technical analysis to try and determine if one of Morphy's moves is sound. I think you are losing out a lot with your perspective and it shows actually a lack of culture in the extreme not to recognise the beauty and joy of trying to find the truth in positions, and the wide ranging debates and exchange of technical analysis and resources long after games have been completed to try and establish greater and greater "truths" in positions, etc. To get a sense of the discussions possible even for a Morphy game, I suggest you check out: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt...
which I also did a video about here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1zu... |
|
| Jul-22-13 | | 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?> Not hard to understand. The issue is that the advent of computers does not require us to redefine the English language. In chess, a blunder is when you leave your queen en prise, walk into mate, or some such. In other words, it's the type of error where everybody in the audience sees what's wrong except the poor man making the mistake. I have no problem with the use of computers to find good moves or improvements to analysis. Let's just say that Qxa2 was a mistake and leave it at that. It is over the top to call it a blunder. |
|
Jul-22-13
| | kingscrusher: Furthermore a good game annotator will not only provide technical analysis but try and minimise in my view the lack of empathy, by getting details about the game - time pressure, distractions, etc and incorporate these into the game annotation to get also a realistic sense of practical context as well. Empathy (practical) and Technical (scientific) analysis of a game when doing an annoation of it are NOT mutually exclusive. When GMs give interviews nowadays about their games, we can hear their thoughts and issues first hand. Annotators should ideally incorporate this into their analysis of the games in quetion. Morphy games like Morphy's disputed immortal can mention for example this was before the advent of Chess clocks. Maybe Morphy wanted to end his games quicker as a result so was biased towards continuations which could rapidly achieve checkmate because he didn't like 20 hour+ games. |
|
Jul-22-13
| | kingscrusher: <Rookfile> On the Chessbase "Blunder-check" it has this of relevance to the discussion : http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/... " ... 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 think this is interesting to consider - it is what the user (of a chess engine) considers to be a "blunder". I did mention I considered it a blunder "from an engine perspective". I am not sure why a generic dictionary definition should be able to dicate to you concretely your examples of "blunders" in the specific domain of chess. Isn't this something you have personally extrapolated?! And if so, do you feel you need to impose your exact Chess-domain applied definition of "Blunder" onto other kibitzers at Chessgames.com and not allow any scope for its interpretation or qualification?! A perfectionist engine checking games, might consider an evaluation difference of + or - 2 as a "Blunder" at least "from an engine perspective". I am not really sure you can claim a generic dictionary can dictate in the chess domain specific examples of what a "Blunder" is. I appreciate your extrapolations but even then can you really class blundering your queen in say a bullet game as a "blunder" or just part of the course of the game context - e.g. if the player was going to win on time anyway. At least Chessbase thinks that "Blunder" can be user-defined in their software. Maybe you think Chessbase have abused your generic dictionary?! |
|
Jul-22-13
| | 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. |
|
Jul-22-13
| | kingscrusher: Wiki has an interesting page on "Blunders":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_...
"... In chess, a blunder is a very bad move. It is usually caused by some tactical oversight, whether from time trouble, overconfidence or carelessness. While a blunder may seem like a stroke of luck for the opposing player, some chess players give their opponent plenty of opportunities to blunder.
What qualifies as a "blunder" rather than a normal mistake is somewhat subjective. A weak move from a novice player might be explained by the player's lack of skill, while the same move from a master might be called a blunder. In chess annotation, blunders are typically marked with a double question mark, "??", after the move." The statement above in Wiki:
"What qualifies as a "blunder" rather than a normal mistake is somewhat subjective" seems to align quite well with Chessbase's "blunder-check" for personal definition based on subjectivity. Because if something is "subjective" then it depends on the viewers perception which might include the expectations put on the players of the game. A blunder from Kasparov is different perhaps than a blunder from someone who just started Chess. |
|
| 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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoPG... |
|
Jul-23-13
| | kingscrusher: <cimatar> Returning this game, please follow the logic carefully : Qxa2 ?!
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. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
