Even the best are human are human - evidence?

[guyhaw]

I am looking for the clearest evidence that even the best human chessplayers (starting with THE best and working down) are fallible - blunders that are extremely unusual.

I think I'd rather log blunders from Classical Chess (rather than Rapid, Blitz, Blindfold etc.) made when not under clear time-pressure, or under unusual circumstances (like Bronstein waking up and touching his King inadvertently).

Kasparov -v- Deep Blue (Match 2, Game 6), and Kramnik -v- FRITZ (missing the mate in 1) would do for starters. Of course, in most cases, the opponent would be human too.

So, what are the clearest blunders by the best?

g

[Mike S.]

[d]8/8/4pk2/3b1p2/1R6/r4PK1/4R1P1/8 b - - 0 63

This is from one of Anand's few losses. The position in itself, after 63.Kg3 isn't particularly interesting, with the exception that it was already there twice before! Instead of 63...Ra8, Anand could have claimed a repetition draw.

(Being down a full exchange, I am sure that he did not see the draw and discard it.)

[Event "Corus A"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2008.01.12"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Radjabov, T."]
[Black "Anand, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D43"]
[WhiteElo "2735"]
[BlackElo "2799"]
[PlyCount "169"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. Bg3 b5
9. Be2 Bb7 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Ne5 Bg7 12. Nxd7 Nxd7 13. Bd6 a6 14. Re1 Bf8 15.
Bg3 Bg7 16. Bd6 Bf8 17. Bxf8 Rxf8 18. b3 b4 19. Na4 c3 20. a3 a5 21. d5 Qe7 22.
d6 Qf6 23. e5 Qf4 24. Bd3 bxa3 25. Qe2 Qd2 26. Rxa3 Qxe2 27. Rxe2 g4 28. Nxc3
Rg8 29. Ne4 Kd8 30. Nd2 c5 31. Bb5 Bd5 32. Nc4 Rg5 33. Rea2 Nxe5 34. Nb6 Rb8
35. Rxa5 Be4 36. Ra7 f6 37. R2a6 Rg8 38. Rc7 Rf8 39. Rxc5 Rf7 40. d7 Nxd7 41.
Nxd7 Rxd7 42. Bxd7 Kxd7 43. Rc3 f5 44. Ra7+ Kd6 45. Rh7 Bd5 46. Rxh6 Bxb3 47.
h3 gxh3 48. Rhxh3 Bd5 49. Rc2 Ke5 50. f3 Kf6 51. Kf2 Rb4 52. Re2 Kg6 53. Kg3
Ra4 54. Rh4 Ra7 55. Rb2 Kf6 56. Rhb4 Ke5 57. Re2+ Kf6 {1st} 58. Rd2 Ke5 59.
Re2+ Kf6 {2nd} 60. Kf4 Ra3 61. Rd2 Ra5 62. Re2 Ra3 63. Kg3 Ra8 (63... Ra7 $11 {
3fold repetition}) 64. Rc2 Ke5 65. Rh4 Rg8+ 66. Kh2 Ra8 67. Re2+ Kf6 68. f4 Ke7
69. Rh7+ Kd6 70. Kg3 Rg8+ 71. Kh3 Rg4 72. g3 Rg8 73. Rd2 Rc8 74. Kh4 Rc3 75.
Rg7 Ra3 76. Rc2 Bc6 77. Rc1 Rb3 78. Rg1 Bd5 79. Kg5 Kc5 80. Kf6 Kd4 81. Re1 Rb6
82. Rd7 Rc6 83. Ke7 Ra6 84. Rd6 Ra7+ 85. Kf6 1-0

[adams161]

hi,

the first game of the fischer spassky candidate match i think it was, was often regarded as a game fischer blundered, i believe he was under time pressure becuase he started play late do to the camera controversy.

He took a pawn with a bishop that left the bishop trapped. Most regarded it as a blunder. I got the pgn from icc, its one of a portion of icc libraries uploaded prior to say 99 that has the pgn tags wrong though in terms of listing year of play for example. but it is the game and here it is

[Event "ICC 2 12"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2008.03.28"]
[Round "-"]
[White "*Spassky"]
[Black "*Fischer"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
[Opening "Nimzo-Indian: 4.e3, main line with 7...Nc6"]
[ECO "E56"]
[NIC "NI.02"]
[Time "02:07:53"]
[TimeControl "120+12"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. e3 O-O 6. Bd3 c5 7. O-O Nc6 8. a3
Ba5 9. Ne2 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Bb6 11. dxc5 Qxd1 12. Rxd1 Bxc5 13. b4 Be7 14. Bb2
Bd7 15. Rac1 Rfd8 16. Ned4 Nxd4 17. Nxd4 Ba4 18. Bb3 Bxb3 19. Nxb3 Rxd1+ 20.
Rxd1 Rc8 21. Kf1 Kf8 22. Ke2 Ne4 23. Rc1 Rxc1 24. Bxc1 f6 25. Na5 Nd6 26.
Kd3 Bd8 27. Nc4 Bc7 28. Nxd6 Bxd6 29. b5 Bxh2 30. g3 h5 31. Ke2 h4 32. Kf3
Ke7 33. Kg2 hxg3 34. fxg3 Bxg3 35. Kxg3 Kd6 36. a4 Kd5 37. Ba3 Ke4 38. Bc5
a6 39. b6 f5 40. Kh4 f4 41. exf4 Kxf4 42. Kh5 Kf5 43. Be3 Ke4 44. Bf2 Kf5
45. Bh4 e5 46. Bg5 e4 47. Be3 Kf6 48. Kg4 Ke5 49. Kg5 Kd5 50. Kf5 a5 51. Bf2
g5 52. Kxg5 Kc4 53. Kf5 Kb4 54. Kxe4 Kxa4 55. Kd5 Kb5 56. Kd6 {Black
resigns} 1-0


[d]


Mike

[Mike S.]

Only stupid chess players think that 29...Bxh2 was a big blunder. Of course Fischer saw 30.g3. The problem is much deeper!
You can see this after this variation:

[Event "Wch28"]
[Site "(Variation to game 1)"]
[Date "1972.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Spassky, Boris V"]
[Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E56"]
[WhiteElo "2660"]
[BlackElo "2785"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5k2/pp4pp/3bpp2/1P6/8/P2KP3/5PPP/2B5 b - - 0 29"]
[PlyCount "12"]

29... Bxh2 30. g3 h5 31. Ke2 h4 32. Kf3 h3 33. Kg4 Bg1 34. Kxh3 Bxf2 35. Bd2 $1
1-0

So, only after 35 Bd2 the g2 bishop is trapped, not yet after 30.g3. In other words, to avoid 29...Bxh2 it is not sufficient to see the primitive 30.g3 (I hope we agree that we don't assume that Fischer was so stupid not to see g3? OK), but to see TWELVE plies ahead whereafter 35.Bd2 traps the bishop, finally. That is something even a world champion level player can miss.

[Karmazen & Oliver]

Only stupid chess players think that 29...Bxh2 was a big...

excuse, HERE ( in this forum) there are not stupid persons/chess/players coments.... and all coments for ALL level chess players are aceptable... a heap of chess-journalists has affirmed those imprecise comments...

the certain thing is that fischer wins that match, and therefore all excused all that small lacks.

But it was not necessary to assume similar risks in a play that at least, and having to play with a lot of precision, it only reported 0.5 points and a lot of posibilitys of LOST the full point...

on the other hand. many expert chess players and big teachers think (GM too) that spassky lost the party psychologically for the ficher petitions.

and THAT if that is a stupidity...

in other theme: ...the move 30.g3 is not more or less primitive, it WAS necessary... the simple solutions are sometimes the best way to win the full point. (all pression is for black in that situation)

Bye, from Spain. Oliver

[GeorgeLyapko]

I think one of the clearest ones was in Steinitz-Chigorin World Championship Rematch (Havana,1892) game Nr.23, which decided about match outcome. I don't think taht even 1700 ELO rated engine could make such blunder (32. Bb4??)!

[d] 8/pp2R2p/3BNkb1/3P1p2/7p/8/PP1rr2P/5R1K w - - 1 32

Here is the whole game:

[Event "Havana"]
[Date "1892.02.28"]
[Round "23"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Mikhail Chigorin"]
[Black "Wilhelm Steinitz"]
[ECO "C34"]
[PlyCount "64"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e5 Nh5 5. Be2 g6 6. d4 Bg7
7. O-O d6 8. Nc3 O-O 9. Ne1 dxe5 10. Bxh5 gxh5 11. dxe5 Qxd1
12. Nxd1 Nc6 13. Bxf4 Bf5 14. Ne3 Be4 15. Nf3 Rfe8 16. Ng5 Bg6
17. Nd5 Bxe5 18. Nxc7 Bxc7 19. Bxc7 Rac8 20. Bg3 Nd4 21. c3
Ne2+ 22. Kf2 h4 23. Bd6 Nd4 24. cxd4 Rc2+ 25. Kg1 Ree2
26. Rae1 Rxg2+ 27. Kh1 Kg7 28. Re8 f5 29. Ne6+ Kf6 30. Re7
Rge2 31. d5 Rcd2 32. Bb4 Rxh2+ 0-1

[BBauer]

Hi,
my impression always was that Fischer played for a win.
The only way to do so is creating a position with material imbalance.
Of course Fischer took a risk, but as has been explained, he got wrong later.
So the capture was not a blunder.
kind regards
Bernhard

[guyhaw]

My thanks to George Lyapko for the Chigorin example from the 4th World Championship (Game 23, pos./move 32w).
This gets '??' in GK's 'My Predecessors'. There are quite a few other moves in those books that get a '??', not all as clear-cut as Chigorin's blunder though.
Guy

[tmokonen]

How about the normally super solid Petrosian simply forgetting that his queen was attacked in his game versus Bronstein at the 1956 Candidate's Tournament?

[d] 1rb2r1k/1p1n2q1/p2Q2p1/P2Npn1p/2P1N2P/6P1/1R3PB1/1R5K w - - 0 1

Here, Petrosian played Ng5?? Tigran was moving rapidly to try and exploit Bronstein's time trouble, but it backfired on him.

Tony

[guyhaw]

Thanks Tony ... one to you, though that one is also in Wikipedia under 'Chess Blunders'.
Tim Krabbe also has a set of cases where one player resigned rather than play the winning move - incredible but true.
Third source is the '??' in GK's 'My Predecessors' - though these are not always drop-dead-obvious [to me] blunders.
g