Corus Chess 2009 .....

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Not to Short was it .... 😕

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=12181&kpage=233

He says that he saw the N underpromotion line but that he could not count the pieces at the end.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
".... very easy to calculate win" ... if you don't forget the underpromotion to knight that is needed in order to not give the advantage to white.

Ahhh, that answers my question then - I'm guessing Short didn't see it either then?!

Originally posted by streetfighter
I wish people would stop quoting Wikipedia stuff! These are generally not written by experts, but by people like us : )

A blunder to me is a move which changes the assessment of a position from winning to drawn or to lost. It doesn't have to be 'quickly recognised'.

In Short's game I immediately thought 47...Nxh4+ looks wrong, but that 47...cxd2 is a very easy to calculate win.

I wish people would stop quoting Wikipedia stuff! These are generally not written by experts, but by people like us : )

Do you want to say that everything in Wikipedia is wrong? Or should I quote only sources which match with your opinion?

A blunder to me is a move which changes the assessment of a position from winning to drawn or to lost.

Very original understanding of this term. According to your definition:
1) its impossible to make blunders in equal or worse positions
2) all mistakes which changes the assessment of a position from winning to drawn or to lost are blunders independently how obvious is refutation of mistake.

In Short's game I immediately thought 47...Nxh4+ looks wrong, but that 47...cxd2 is a very easy to calculate win.

Its much easier to choose right moves when you are only watching the game.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]I wish people would stop quoting Wikipedia stuff! These are generally not written by experts, but by people like us : )

Do you want to say that everything in Wikipedia is wrong? Or should I quote only sources which match with your opinion?

A blunder to me is a move which changes the assessment of a position from winning to drawn or to lost. ...[text shortened]... alculate win.[/b]

Its much easier to choose right moves when you are only watching the game.[/b]

How many edits do you want?

Firstly, I didn't say everything in Wikipedia is wrong, I said i wish people would stop quoting the bloody thing (I should have added, without checking it first). Quote whatever sources you want - i don't have to agree with it, (and if I don't I certainly won't be keeping quiet just to suit you.)

Secondly, I didn't type out a full definition - it's pretty obvious blunders can be made in drawn positions, changing the assessment from drawn to lost. A blunder in a lost position theoretically doesn't change the assessment, so i don't think it matters much.

Most commentators yesterday were saying Carlsen blundered allowing f6, but it wasn't 'instantly recognisable' to me at least (and i'm a reasonably good player). It was still a blunder though because it changed the assessment from drawn to lost, so i'm not the only one using that definition.

Thirdly, of course it's often easier to choose moves when you're not playing the game yourself. What's your point? That I can't give my view on this??

I realise your command of English is quite poor, so I will excuse you this time for coming across as rude in your post. If you don't know what 'rude' means, feel free to look it up in Wikipedia.

Originally posted by streetfighter
How many edits do you want?

Firstly, I didn't say everything in Wikipedia is wrong, I said i wish people would stop quoting the bloody thing (I should have added, without checking it first). Quote whatever sources you want - i don't have to agree with it, (and if I don't I certainly won't be keeping quiet just to suit you.)

Secondly, I didn't typ ...[text shortened]... . If you don't know what 'rude' means, feel free to look it up in Wikipedia.

How many edits do you want?

Remark beside the point.

Firstly, I didn't say everything in Wikipedia is wrong, I said i wish people would stop quoting the bloody thing

If you dont think that Wikipedia is wrong then its not understandable why do you want others stop to quote it. Or do you want others to quote sources which you agree?

Quote whatever sources you want - i don't have to agree with it, (and if I don't I certainly won't be keeping quiet just to suit you.)

Of course you are not obliged to agree with sources I`m quoting. and you are not obliged to keep quiet. Have I stated contrary?

I didn't type out a full definition

To understand your position - could you try to disclose a full definition of "blunder" which suits you.

Most commentators yesterday were saying Carlsen blundered allowing f6, but it wasn't 'instantly recognisable' to me at least (and i'm a reasonably good player). It was still a blunder though because it changed the assessment from drawn to lost, so i'm not the only one using that definition.

So in your opinion each move changing the assessment from win to draw/win to lost/draw to lost is blunder?

Thirdly, of course it's often easier to choose moves when you're not playing the game yourself. What's your point? That I can't give my view on this??

My point is that people who watch the game tend to be too harsh when they criticizing their moves.

I realise your command of English is quite poor, so I will excuse you this time for coming across as rude in your post. If you don't know what 'rude' means, feel free to look it up in Wikipedia.

Criticizing other person for rudeness in such arrogant and unpolite manner and criticizing my English posting text with errors is laughable.

1) How many edits do you want?

Remark beside the point.

Beside what point? It was a simple question -every time I tried to reply to your post, it kept changing.

2) Firstly, I didn't say everything in Wikipedia is wrong, I said i wish people would stop quoting the bloody thing

If you dont think that Wikipedia is wrong then its not understandable why do you want others stop to quote it. Or do you want others to quote sources which you agree?

It's not a reliable source-simple as that. The site itself has a disclaimer of this type on almost every page

3) Quote whatever sources you want - i don't have to agree with it, (and if I don't I certainly won't be keeping quiet just to suit you.)

Of course you are not obliged to agree with sources I`m quoting. and you are not obliged to keep quiet. Have I stated contrary?

Your tone suggests otherwise

4) I didn't type out a full definition

To understand your position - could you try to disclose a full definition of "blunder" which suits you.

I've already remedied this in my earlier post. It's 'your' definition of blunder (taken from Wikipedia] which I consider to be faulty

5) Most commentators yesterday were saying Carlsen blundered allowing f6, but it wasn't 'instantly recognisable' to me at least (and i'm a reasonably good player). It was still a blunder though because it changed the assessment from drawn to lost, so i'm not the only one using that definition.

So in your opinion each move changing the assessment from win to draw/win to lost/draw to lost is blunder?

What else would it be! I have a winning position, then play a move which turns it to a loss or a draw - should I describe it as a great move? A slight error? To my mind this is a blunder. A move like leaving my queen en prise I would consider a gross blunder. A move which gives away a slight advantage, for example, would be an error. Naturally this can be considered be relative to the strengths of the players involved, or those watching/annotating. This is why the definition you gave isn't correct in my opinion.

6) Thirdly, of course it's often easier to choose moves when you're not playing the game yourself. What's your point? That I can't give my view on this??

My point is that people who watch the game tend to be too harsh when they criticizing their moves.

That's true, but if something is obvious to me, rated some 400 or more points lower than Short, then I believe it's justifiable criticism. He went for a very complex 'winning' idea, instead of a simple 3 move win which barely amounted to more than 'counting the pieces'.

7) I realise your command of English is quite poor, so I will excuse you this time for coming across as rude in your post. If you don't know what 'rude' means, feel free to look it up in Wikipedia.

Criticizing other person for rudeness in such arrogant and unpolite manner and criticizing my English posting text with errors is laughable.

If you are going to be rude to me, then I'm perfectly within my rights to be rude in return. Next time I'll try politely pointing out that you're being an obnoxious, arrogant arse and see if that has any effect on you. Now i'm going to check what errors you're talking about in my posts - there had better be some...

Hmmm, while relaxing in the bath this evening, I realised that my definiton doesn't cover everything (for example, chucking a pawn when winning, but still being in a won position after the mistake/blunder).

I had considered this to be much the same as 'blundering' in a lost position, in that it doesn't really make a difference, but perhaps it does?! I shall have to have a rethink (but Korch is still wrong anyway 😛)

How fine is the path between a blunder and a brillant move.

Short's 47...Nh4+ is classic example. He knew what he was doing.

47...Nh4+ 48.gxh4 Rg6+ 49.Kh3!

The King is forced onto h3 - if it goes to h1 then one of the
Rooks will drop will check.

Then the idea behind the Knight sac. 49...Qd7



Unpins the Queen so the pawn can fork the two Rooks and in
turn threatens to win the White Queen with ...fxe4+.

He most likely expected 50.e5 when cxd2 is winning.
He missed the resource 50. Qh5.

So this beautiful move 47...Nh4+ has a flaw. Shame.

I wish I had come up with an idea like that during a game of mine.

A blunder....a harsh clumsy word to drop on such a move.
Try oversight, a piece of mis-calculation, an error.
Call it what you want. The idea behind it was brilliant.

After 50.Qh5! Shorts confidence and spirit was shattered, more
typical blunders were bound to follow.

Good Chess.

Originally posted by streetfighter
1) [b] How many edits do you want?

Remark beside the point.

Beside what point? It was a simple question -every time I tried to reply to your post, it kept changing.

2) Firstly, I didn't say everything in Wikipedia is wrong, I said i wish people would stop quoting the bloody thing

If you dont think that Wikipedia is talking about in my posts - there had better be some... [/b][/b]

It's not a reliable source-simple as that. The site itself has a disclaimer of this type on almost every page

Does it mean that all quotes from Wikipedia are wrong? I really don`t see your point to turn against this source.

Your tone suggests otherwise

Just your imagination.

What else would it be! I have a winning position, then play a move which turns it to a loss or a draw - should I describe it as a great move? A slight error? To my mind this is a blunder.

What about such term as "error" or "mistake"? Or your evaluation consist only of terms like "slight error" and "blunder" ?
According to your definition in each game with results 1-0 or 0-1 at least one blunder is made. And if you missing very strong reply of your opponent. (which refute your mistake made a few moves before) then its also blunder.

That's true, but if something is obvious to me, rated some 400 or more points lower than Short, then I believe it's justifiable criticism. He went for a very complex 'winning' idea, instead of a simple 3 move win which barely amounted to more than 'counting the pieces'.

Why do you think that Short missed the simplest way? Its very possible that he saw it, but considered it very long way to win (it could take some time for black to exploit their advantage) and then found very complex move which seemed to achieve win faster (typical mistake of many chess artists). And I`m not sure if in OTB game someone of us would refute this idea.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
How fine is the path between a blunder and a brillant move.

Short's 47...Nh4+ is classic example. He knew what he was doing.

[b]47...Nh4+ 48.gxh4 Rg6+ 49.Kh3!

The King is forced onto h3 - if it goes to h1 then one of the
Rooks will drop will check.

Then the idea behind the Knight sac. 49...Qd7

[fen]8/3q2k1/p5r1/5p2/3bPP1P/2p ...[text shortened]... nfidence and spirit was shattered, more
typical blunders were bound to follow.

Good Chess.[/b]

A blunder....a harsh clumsy word to drop on such a move.

Exactly!

Originally posted by Korch
[b]A blunder....a harsh clumsy word to drop on such a move.

Exactly![/b]

Short's idea had a huge hole in it. He avoided what is a pretty simple win because he 'couldn't count the pieces' (!) yet he trusted a (very, very pretty) but extremely difficult (and wrong!) sacrificial line when his entire tournament was at stake.

In my view it was a blunder, a huge error of judgement and calculation for a player of his class. And yes, the refutation is reasonably easy to find at the end - it's not like white had any real choice in his previous moves?

I understand very well that pressure can be enormous in these games, and mistakes can and do happen - I just feel that this one is deserving of blunder status.

I won't respond to all your other points Korch - life is too short and i don't have enough time or energy - but I will say that if a source is unreliable, then that's a good enough reason to avoid it or at the very least check it before using it. The original source for Wikipedia's 'blunder definition' you quoted is a good one, but if you read the paragraph beneath it you'll see that there isn't agreement on that definition anyway.

Also, apologies if I was rude - I didn't like the tone of your original post but I'm willing to accept you didn't mean to come across that way.

Originally posted by streetfighter
Short's idea had a huge hole in it. He avoided what is a pretty simple win because he 'couldn't count the pieces' (!) yet he trusted a (very, very pretty) but extremely difficult (and wrong!) sacrificial line when his entire tournament was at stake.

In my view it was a blunder, a huge error of judgement and calculation for a player of his class. An ...[text shortened]... original post but I'm willing to accept you didn't mean to come across that way.

Ok. Then lets stay each on his own understanding of this term. Its subjective anyway 🙂

My point in looking at the Short blunder/error of judgement -
call it what you want - it was not the best move in the position.

I'm was hintingat the fact if Short had played the mundane win.
Then the game would have lain in cold old databases unplayed.

If the shot had worked then it would have found it's way into
various books under the chapter Winning a Won Game.

A good example of how a player with his back to wall WILL see
the only move that does not lose on the spot.

('Could not count the pieces' sounds like an excuse for losing that
we all blurt out just after a game. One could start a whole new
thread on excuses for losing a game of chess).