On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:41:34 GMT, EZoto wrote:

How about when Petrosian beat Karpov in a game and Karpov begged
Petrosian to show him his mistake. Karpov thought he played a near
perfect game and still lost.

Don't tell Houlsby about this. It will break his heart.

EZoto wrote:
How about when Petrosian beat Karpov in a game and Karpov begged
Petrosian to show him his mistake. Karpov thought he played a near
perfect game and still lost.

How about Kasparov when he played Petrosian and Kasparov had an
irresistable attack that would win against anyone but Petrosian
defended well and won the game. Kasparov was dumbfounded.


maybe more info about these games?
pgn...

Mike Murray wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:41:34 GMT, EZoto wrote:

How about when Petrosian beat Karpov in a game and Karpov begged
Petrosian to show him his mistake. Karpov thought he played a near
perfect game and still lost.

Don't tell Houlsby about this. It will break his heart.

Why would the fact that it supports my argument and counters yours
"break [my] heart"?

Notice:

"mistake", "*near* perfect", "lost".

Perfect (no mistake)=draw
"mistake" "near perfect"="lost"

Exactly what I am arguing. It's true, too.

Seems you've made an idiot of yourself again, troll.

Go away.

On 29 Nov 2003 06:20:11 -0800, (Mark
Houlsby) wrote:

Mike Murray wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:41:34 GMT, EZoto wrote:

How about when Petrosian beat Karpov in a game and Karpov begged
Petrosian to show him his mistake. Karpov thought he played a near
perfect game and still lost.

Don't tell Houlsby about this. It will break his heart.

Why would the fact that it supports my argument and counters yours
"break [my] heart"?

Notice:

"mistake", "*near* perfect", "lost".

Perfect (no mistake)=draw
"mistake" "near perfect"="lost"

Houlsby, you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Here's the point you
missed: After all your jabber about "go read Informant" for evidence
that decisive games are *lost*, not *won* (and therefore, the perfect
game is a draw), we now see that even Karpov couldn't tell where he
went wrong in one of his own games. As Watson points out, moves
deemed *the* critical mistake in one era of annotation often become
more than playable in another. The idea that an average player can
identify a mistake in a non-trivial GM game, i.e., decided by
something other than an obvious blunder, is naive, indeed. (Now, what
is an"obvious blunder"? Operationally, something that an average
player can spot, of course).

Mike Murray wrote in
message . ..
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:41:34 GMT, EZoto wrote:
How about when Petrosian beat Karpov in a game and Karpov begged
Petrosian to show him his mistake. Karpov thought he played a
near perfect game and still lost.

That Petrosian-Karpov game (if I recall it accurately) took place in the
early 1970s, before Karpov became the FIDE World Champion.

Don't tell Houlsby about this. It will break his heart.

I doubt it. Actually, it might reinforce his evident position.

1) Karpov played a game without, as he supposed, any significant error(s).
2) Karpov lost the game.
3) Karpov concluded that, notwithstanding his inability to recognise his own
significant error(s), such error(s) must have taken place in order for
him to have lost the game.

Hence, Karpov evidently believed that if he truly had not committed any
significant error(s), then (even as Black) he should not have lost the game.

As far as I know, Karpov did *not* say to Petrosian:
"I am certain that I made no errors in the game that I just lost to you.
Hence, that's evidence that chess should be a forced win for White."

Can Mike Murray recognise any distinction between a '*near* perfect game'
(to quote EZoto) and a 'perfect game'?

'To err is human, to forgive divine.'
--Alexander Pope (Essay on Criticism)

--Nick

As far as I know, Karpov did *not* say to Petrosian:
"I am certain that I made no errors in the game that I just lost to you.
Hence, that's evidence that chess should be a forced win for White."

Karpov asked ( begged ) Petrosian to show him his mistake. He didn't
know what he did wrong. What is so unusual about that?

Can Mike Murray recognise any distinction between a '*near* perfect game'
(to quote EZoto) and a 'perfect game'?

Someone told me that the most perfect game played was Lasker (white)
against Capablanca. From what was written Lasker had to win that game
at all costs to catch Capa in the tournament and instead stunned Capa
by playing a drawish variation. Psychology at its best and Lasker
went on to win that game.

EZoto

'To err is human, to forgive divine.'
--Alexander Pope (Essay on Criticism)

--Nick

Alan O'Brien wrote in message ...

Also, as the Oxford Companion to Chess points out, he was the first
champion
to successfully defend his title to his strongest challenger.

Since Steinitz.

His score in chess olympics is quite superb; I think it's something like
+97
=12 -1. That's from memory.


Not quite that good: +79=50-1. (For comparison: Keres +53=32-3; Tal
+59=31-2: all according to the OCC).
His loss (against Huebner) was on time.

On 29 Nov 2003 12:41:26 -0800, (Nick) wrote:

Don't tell Houlsby about this. It will break his heart.

I doubt it. Actually, it might reinforce his evident position.

I see where my point was obscure. I clarified it in a reply to
Houlsby.

Can Mike Murray recognise any distinction between a '*near* perfect game'
(to quote EZoto) and a 'perfect game'?

No, Mike Murray would be frustrated by the distinction between a
"good" game and an "excellent" game.

I mentioned some time ago that distinguishing between perfect and
near-perfect will be problematic for testing or validating any
computer program, several millennia from now, that claims to play "the
perfect game".

'To err is human,'

But to really screw things up requires a computer.

Mike Murray wrote in
message . ..
(Mark Houlsby) wrote:
Mike Murray wrote in
message . ..
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:41:34 GMT, EZoto wrote:
How about when Petrosian beat Karpov in a game and Karpov begged
Petrosian to show him his mistake. Karpov thought he played a
near perfect game and still lost.

Don't tell Houlsby about this. It will break his heart.

Why would the fact that it supports my argument and counters yours
"break [my] heart"?

Notice: "mistake", "*near* perfect", "lost".
Perfect (no mistake) = draw
"mistake" "near perfect" = "lost"

Houlsby, you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Here's the point you missed:
After all your jabber about "go read Informant" for evidence that decisive
games are *lost*, not *won* (and therefore, the perfect game is a draw),
we now see that even Karpov couldn't tell where he went wrong in one of
his own games....

How astonishing! A losing player (Karpov) has admitted that he was unable to
recognise his error(s) in his lost game. Surely, that must be unprecedented.

Did Mike Murray presume that Karpov (who lost that game before he became
the FIDE World Champion) already was supposed to be omniscient about chess?

"We Never Make Mistakes"
--the title (in English translation) of a book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn

--Nick

any
computer program, several millennia from now, that claims to play "the
perfect game".

I probably will not live to see it myself, but I'm quite sure it won't take
several millennia for computers to solve chess. We already have indications
that quantum computers are possible, and they should exist in a matter of
centuries at most, not millennia.