what can programs see that 2700 GM cannot

[kgburcham]

I usually check GM tournament games posted at Chessbase.
I have been doing this for years.
I try to understand, using program analysis, why the GM lost the game.
I have found that almost every loss is because the GM does not understand a position and blunders.
Then I run the misunderstood position in the program and see if the program understands.
I have found that almost every time a 2700 GM does not understand the position, the program does.
There are thousands of these examples available.
What I find interesting is that in 2015 the Super GM still continually misunderstands positions, very often.

here is an example:
some guy on the internet called this a Kasparov immortal game when actually his opponent made a 4 point blunder, 24...cxd4.
I would not call this an immortal game.
I would call this a mickey mouse game, Kasparovs opponent didn't have a clue so Kasparov gets praise, stupid logic.
so the question is how quick do the programs evaluate this as a blunder?


[d] b2r3r/k4p1p/p2q1np1/NppP4/3R1Q2/P4PPB/1PP4P/1K2R3 b - -

Here is the info:
1. Stockfish takes 6 seconds
2. Komodo never considers it
3. Houdini takes 3 seconds to avoid capturing the Rook
4. Deep Rybka 4 seconds to avoid move 24...cxd4
5. Gaviota takes 2 minutes
6. Topalov 2700 captures the Rook and lost the game



The Super GM could not avoid capturing the Rook

after 2700 GM move 24...cxd4
Engine: Stockfish 090415 64 BMI2 (8192 MB)
by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona
37/56 0:14 +2.14++ 25.Re7+ (233.585.661) 16658
<snip>
50/93 86:45 +6.77++ 25.Re7+ (106.519.851.302) 20463
with hash clear
34/63 0:23 +4.12 25.Re7


Engine: Komodo 8 64-bit (8192 MB)
by Don Dailey, Larry Kaufman, Mark Lefler
Threads now set to 8
19.00 0:01 -0.59-- 24...Rhe8 25.Rxe8 (28.730.799) 17346
19.00 0:02 -0.23-- 24...Rhe8 25.Rxe8 (52.363.273) 17731
<snip>
28.01 1:44 -0.53 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (2.043.405.800) 19612

Engine: Houdini 4 Pro x64 (8192 MB)
by Robert Houdart

19/61 0:02 0.00 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 (57.148.460) 19884
19/61 0:03 -0.42 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (60.735.029) 19939

Engine: Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 x64 (4096 MB)
by Vasik Rajlich

14.01 0:04 0.00 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 (4.058.883) 991
14.02 0:04 -0.58 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (4.817.724) 1017

Engine: Stockfish 090415 64 BMI2 (8192 MB)
by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona

28/53 0:03 -0.66-- 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ (50.232.210) 14765
28/53 0:06 -0.48 24...Kb6 25.Nb3 Bxd5 26.Qxd6+ Rxd6 (93.651.555) 15474

Engine: Gaviota (8192 MB)
by Miguel A. Ballicora


24.00 0:55 -0.05-- 24...cxd4 (348.805.414) 6318

24.00 2:23 -0.20 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (908.443.024) 6342
24.00 5:10 -0.20 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (2.016.333.386) 6492


[Event "Hoogovens A Tournament"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "1999.01.20"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Veselin Topalov"]
[WhiteElo "2812"]
[BlackElo "2700"]
[ECO "B06"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5. Qd2 c6 6. f3 b5
7. Nge2 Nbd7 8. Bh6 Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Bb7 10. a3 e5 11. O-O-O
Qe7 12. Kb1 a6 13. Nc1 O-O-O 14. Nb3 exd4 15. Rxd4 c5
16. Rd1 Nb6 17. g3 Kb8 18. Na5 Ba8 19. Bh3 d5 20. Qf4+ Ka7
21. Rhe1 d4 22. Nd5 Nbxd5 23. exd5 Qd6 24. Rxd4 cxd4
25. Re7+ Kb6 26. Qxd4+ Kxa5 27. b4+ Ka4 28. Qc3 Qxd5
29. Ra7 Bb7 30. Rxb7 Qc4 31. Qxf6 Kxa3 32. Qxa6+ Kxb4
33. c3+ Kxc3 34. Qa1+ Kd2 35. Qb2+ Kd1 36. Bf1 Rd2 37. Rd7
Rxd7 38. Bxc4 bxc4 39. Qxh8 Rd3 40. Qa8 c3 41. Qa4+ Ke1
42. f4 f5 43. Kc1 Rd2 44. Qa7 1-0

[Dann Corbit]

I usually check GM tournament games posted at Chessbase.
I have been doing this for years.
I try to understand, using program analysis, why the GM lost the game.
I have found that almost every loss is because the GM does not understand a position and blunders.
Then I run the misunderstood position in the program and see if the program understands.
I have found that almost every time a 2700 GM does not understand the position, the program does.
There are thousands of these examples available.
What I find interesting is that in 2015 the Super GM still continually misunderstands positions, very often.

here is an example:
some guy on the internet called this a Kasparov immortal game when actually his opponent made a 4 point blunder, 24...cxd4.
I would not call this an immortal game.
I would call this a mickey mouse game, Kasparovs opponent didn't have a clue so Kasparov gets praise, stupid logic.
so the question is how quick do the programs evaluate this as a blunder?


[d] b2r3r/k4p1p/p2q1np1/NppP4/3R1Q2/P4PPB/1PP4P/1K2R3 b - -

Here is the info:
1. Stockfish takes 6 seconds
2. Komodo never considers it
3. Houdini takes 3 seconds to avoid capturing the Rook
4. Deep Rybka 4 seconds to avoid move 24...cxd4
5. Gaviota takes 2 minutes
6. Topalov 2700 captures the Rook and lost the game



The Super GM could not avoid capturing the Rook

after 2700 GM move 24...cxd4
Engine: Stockfish 090415 64 BMI2 (8192 MB)
by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona
37/56 0:14 +2.14++ 25.Re7+ (233.585.661) 16658
<snip>
50/93 86:45 +6.77++ 25.Re7+ (106.519.851.302) 20463
with hash clear
34/63 0:23 +4.12 25.Re7


Engine: Komodo 8 64-bit (8192 MB)
by Don Dailey, Larry Kaufman, Mark Lefler
Threads now set to 8
19.00 0:01 -0.59-- 24...Rhe8 25.Rxe8 (28.730.799) 17346
19.00 0:02 -0.23-- 24...Rhe8 25.Rxe8 (52.363.273) 17731
<snip>
28.01 1:44 -0.53 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (2.043.405.800) 19612

Engine: Houdini 4 Pro x64 (8192 MB)
by Robert Houdart

19/61 0:02 0.00 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 (57.148.460) 19884
19/61 0:03 -0.42 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (60.735.029) 19939

Engine: Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 x64 (4096 MB)
by Vasik Rajlich

14.01 0:04 0.00 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 (4.058.883) 991
14.02 0:04 -0.58 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (4.817.724) 1017

Engine: Stockfish 090415 64 BMI2 (8192 MB)
by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona

28/53 0:03 -0.66-- 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ (50.232.210) 14765
28/53 0:06 -0.48 24...Kb6 25.Nb3 Bxd5 26.Qxd6+ Rxd6 (93.651.555) 15474

Engine: Gaviota (8192 MB)
by Miguel A. Ballicora


24.00 0:55 -0.05-- 24...cxd4 (348.805.414) 6318

24.00 2:23 -0.20 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (908.443.024) 6342
24.00 5:10 -0.20 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (2.016.333.386) 6492


[Event "Hoogovens A Tournament"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "1999.01.20"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Veselin Topalov"]
[WhiteElo "2812"]
[BlackElo "2700"]
[ECO "B06"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5. Qd2 c6 6. f3 b5
7. Nge2 Nbd7 8. Bh6 Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Bb7 10. a3 e5 11. O-O-O
Qe7 12. Kb1 a6 13. Nc1 O-O-O 14. Nb3 exd4 15. Rxd4 c5
16. Rd1 Nb6 17. g3 Kb8 18. Na5 Ba8 19. Bh3 d5 20. Qf4+ Ka7
21. Rhe1 d4 22. Nd5 Nbxd5 23. exd5 Qd6 24. Rxd4 cxd4
25. Re7+ Kb6 26. Qxd4+ Kxa5 27. b4+ Ka4 28. Qc3 Qxd5
29. Ra7 Bb7 30. Rxb7 Qc4 31. Qxf6 Kxa3 32. Qxa6+ Kxb4
33. c3+ Kxc3 34. Qa1+ Kd2 35. Qb2+ Kd1 36. Bf1 Rd2 37. Rd7
Rxd7 38. Bxc4 bxc4 39. Qxh8 Rd3 40. Qa8 c3 41. Qa4+ Ke1
42. f4 f5 43. Kc1 Rd2 44. Qa7 1-0

I am not sure what this proves, because you will find blunders in almost every engine game where one engine loses to the other.

I would go so far as to say 99% of chess wins (human or computer) are caused by blunders.

[kgburcham]

I am not sure what this proves, because you will find blunders in almost every engine game where one engine loses to the other.
Dan Corbit

Oh really?
I check most long time control games by programs and I don't find any.
How many games were in the TCEC tournament?
Show me 1 game that had a 4 point blunder single move.
ok a 3 point
ok a 2 point

show me some of these program blunders by the top programs using strong hardware, Dan Corbit. I want to see them.

kgburcham

[kgburcham]

check out 23.Qf3, a 2600 move. another blunder from chessbase.
now show me a one move program blunder, I have shown you two but I have a thousand more


[Event "U.S. Championship 2015"]
[Site "Saint Louis"]
[Date "2015.04.12"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Gareev, Timur"]
[Black "Robson, Ray"]
[WhiteElo "2604"]
[BlackElo "2656"]
[ECO "D01"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Bg5 c5 4. Bxf6 gxf6 5. e4 dxe4
6. dxc5 Qa5 7. Bb5+ Bd7 8. a4 a6 9. Ra3 Nc6 10. Nge2 e6
11. b4 Qxb4 12. Rb3 Qa5 13. O-O axb5 14. Nxe4 Be7 15. axb5
Ne5 16. N2c3 Rc8 17. Qd4 Qc7 18. c6 bxc6 19. b6 c5
20. Nxf6+ Bxf6 21. Qf4 Qd8 22. Ne4 Ng6 23. Qf3 Be5 24. Rd1
Qe7 25. b7 Rb8 26. Rb6 O-O 27. g3 f5 28. Ng5 Bc7 29. Rxd7
Qxd7 30. Rxe6 Bd8 31. Qb3 Kh8 32. Qc3+ Qd4 33. Nf7+ 0-1

[APassionForCriminalJustic]

I am not sure what this proves, because you will find blunders in almost every engine game where one engine loses to the other.
Dan Corbit

Oh really?
I check most long time control games by programs and I don't find any.
How many games were in the TCEC tournament?
Show me 1 game that had a 4 point blunder single move.
ok a 3 point
ok a 2 point

show me some of these program blunders by the top programs using strong hardware, Dan Corbit. I want to see them.

kgburcham

Finally someone with a brain. All of this stupid crap about engines making pitiful blunders is like saying fish can talk. The point here Dan is that engines are MASSIVELY superior to our best human players. We shouldn't care about the naturally small inferior moves that engines HAVE to make in order to lose. Engines are at a level of incredible skill and ability - my friend who is a FM can speak volumes as to the strength of engines like Stockfish. In fact, Stockfish on my 20 core system plays at a level that he has NEVER seen before. And he has a lot of experience with engines both old and new.

So with a top program, and with very good hardware you essentially have the chess world right in your finger tips. You can train, analyze, and see ideas, variations that GMs might never even think of. That is stunning.

[kgburcham]

hello Adam,

another 2800 example. carlsen blunder.
my question is, how shallow can a program see this is a blunder, very quick.

[d] 6rr/1k3p2/1pb1p1np/p1p1P2R/2P3R1/2P1B3/P1BK1PP1/8 b - -

32/44 0:10 -1.37 26...Nxe5 (170.818.920) 15769
33/48 0:13 -1.44++ 26...Nxe5 (220.684.368) 16157

carlsen was up .60 before blunder then -1.4, so 2 point blunder.
there are thousands of these on the internet.
chessbase has them almost daily.

[bob]

I usually check GM tournament games posted at Chessbase.
I have been doing this for years.
I try to understand, using program analysis, why the GM lost the game.
I have found that almost every loss is because the GM does not understand a position and blunders.
Then I run the misunderstood position in the program and see if the program understands.
I have found that almost every time a 2700 GM does not understand the position, the program does.
There are thousands of these examples available.
What I find interesting is that in 2015 the Super GM still continually misunderstands positions, very often.

here is an example:
some guy on the internet called this a Kasparov immortal game when actually his opponent made a 4 point blunder, 24...cxd4.
I would not call this an immortal game.
I would call this a mickey mouse game, Kasparovs opponent didn't have a clue so Kasparov gets praise, stupid logic.
so the question is how quick do the programs evaluate this as a blunder?


[d] b2r3r/k4p1p/p2q1np1/NppP4/3R1Q2/P4PPB/1PP4P/1K2R3 b - -

Here is the info:
1. Stockfish takes 6 seconds
2. Komodo never considers it
3. Houdini takes 3 seconds to avoid capturing the Rook
4. Deep Rybka 4 seconds to avoid move 24...cxd4
5. Gaviota takes 2 minutes
6. Topalov 2700 captures the Rook and lost the game



The Super GM could not avoid capturing the Rook

after 2700 GM move 24...cxd4
Engine: Stockfish 090415 64 BMI2 (8192 MB)
by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona
37/56 0:14 +2.14++ 25.Re7+ (233.585.661) 16658
<snip>
50/93 86:45 +6.77++ 25.Re7+ (106.519.851.302) 20463
with hash clear
34/63 0:23 +4.12 25.Re7


Engine: Komodo 8 64-bit (8192 MB)
by Don Dailey, Larry Kaufman, Mark Lefler
Threads now set to 8
19.00 0:01 -0.59-- 24...Rhe8 25.Rxe8 (28.730.799) 17346
19.00 0:02 -0.23-- 24...Rhe8 25.Rxe8 (52.363.273) 17731
<snip>
28.01 1:44 -0.53 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (2.043.405.800) 19612

Engine: Houdini 4 Pro x64 (8192 MB)
by Robert Houdart

19/61 0:02 0.00 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 (57.148.460) 19884
19/61 0:03 -0.42 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (60.735.029) 19939

Engine: Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 x64 (4096 MB)
by Vasik Rajlich

14.01 0:04 0.00 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 (4.058.883) 991
14.02 0:04 -0.58 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (4.817.724) 1017

Engine: Stockfish 090415 64 BMI2 (8192 MB)
by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona

28/53 0:03 -0.66-- 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ (50.232.210) 14765
28/53 0:06 -0.48 24...Kb6 25.Nb3 Bxd5 26.Qxd6+ Rxd6 (93.651.555) 15474

Engine: Gaviota (8192 MB)
by Miguel A. Ballicora


24.00 0:55 -0.05-- 24...cxd4 (348.805.414) 6318

24.00 2:23 -0.20 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (908.443.024) 6342
24.00 5:10 -0.20 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (2.016.333.386) 6492


[Event "Hoogovens A Tournament"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "1999.01.20"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Veselin Topalov"]
[WhiteElo "2812"]
[BlackElo "2700"]
[ECO "B06"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5. Qd2 c6 6. f3 b5
7. Nge2 Nbd7 8. Bh6 Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Bb7 10. a3 e5 11. O-O-O
Qe7 12. Kb1 a6 13. Nc1 O-O-O 14. Nb3 exd4 15. Rxd4 c5
16. Rd1 Nb6 17. g3 Kb8 18. Na5 Ba8 19. Bh3 d5 20. Qf4+ Ka7
21. Rhe1 d4 22. Nd5 Nbxd5 23. exd5 Qd6 24. Rxd4 cxd4
25. Re7+ Kb6 26. Qxd4+ Kxa5 27. b4+ Ka4 28. Qc3 Qxd5
29. Ra7 Bb7 30. Rxb7 Qc4 31. Qxf6 Kxa3 32. Qxa6+ Kxb4
33. c3+ Kxc3 34. Qa1+ Kd2 35. Qb2+ Kd1 36. Bf1 Rd2 37. Rd7
Rxd7 38. Bxc4 bxc4 39. Qxh8 Rd3 40. Qa8 c3 41. Qa4+ Ke1
42. f4 f5 43. Kc1 Rd2 44. Qa7 1-0

Crafty takes 2 seconds to realize cxd4 is bad. one more second to find something better. That on my macbook. This is a pretty common theme. GMs have great positional understanding, but they still make tactical mistakes at times. Sometimes very simple ones. 15 years or so ago I watched Topolov make a move where on his next move he had to give up his queen or be mated in 2 moves. As a human I spotted it instantly.

He later explained that he had seen the threat, and spent all his time looking at another move. Just before he decided to move, he found a flaw in the new move and without thinking played the other (really bad) move. "meat makes mistakes" comes to mind.

[kgburcham]

Crafty takes 2 seconds to realize cxd4 is bad. one more second to find something better. That on my macbook. This is a pretty common theme. GMs have great positional understanding, but they still make tactical mistakes at times. Sometimes very simple ones. 15 years or so ago I watched Topolov make a move where on his next move he had to give up his queen or be mated in 2 moves. As a human I spotted it instantly.

He later explained that he had seen the threat, and spent all his time looking at another move. Just before he decided to move, he found a flaw in the new move and without thinking played the other (really bad) move. "meat makes mistakes" comes to mind.

I found a shredder blunder but it was a hash error.
also years ago Robert you told me the deep blue blunder was a bug.

[Terry McCracken]

I usually check GM tournament games posted at Chessbase.
I have been doing this for years.
I try to understand, using program analysis, why the GM lost the game.
I have found that almost every loss is because the GM does not understand a position and blunders.
Then I run the misunderstood position in the program and see if the program understands.
I have found that almost every time a 2700 GM does not understand the position, the program does.
There are thousands of these examples available.
What I find interesting is that in 2015 the Super GM still continually misunderstands positions, very often.

here is an example:
some guy on the internet called this a Kasparov immortal game when actually his opponent made a 4 point blunder, 24...cxd4.
I would not call this an immortal game.
I would call this a mickey mouse game, Kasparovs opponent didn't have a clue so Kasparov gets praise, stupid logic.
so the question is how quick do the programs evaluate this as a blunder?


[d] b2r3r/k4p1p/p2q1np1/NppP4/3R1Q2/P4PPB/1PP4P/1K2R3 b - -

Here is the info:
1. Stockfish takes 6 seconds
2. Komodo never considers it
3. Houdini takes 3 seconds to avoid capturing the Rook
4. Deep Rybka 4 seconds to avoid move 24...cxd4
5. Gaviota takes 2 minutes
6. Topalov 2700 captures the Rook and lost the game



The Super GM could not avoid capturing the Rook

after 2700 GM move 24...cxd4
Engine: Stockfish 090415 64 BMI2 (8192 MB)
by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona
37/56 0:14 +2.14++ 25.Re7+ (233.585.661) 16658
<snip>
50/93 86:45 +6.77++ 25.Re7+ (106.519.851.302) 20463
with hash clear
34/63 0:23 +4.12 25.Re7


Engine: Komodo 8 64-bit (8192 MB)
by Don Dailey, Larry Kaufman, Mark Lefler
Threads now set to 8
19.00 0:01 -0.59-- 24...Rhe8 25.Rxe8 (28.730.799) 17346
19.00 0:02 -0.23-- 24...Rhe8 25.Rxe8 (52.363.273) 17731
<snip>
28.01 1:44 -0.53 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (2.043.405.800) 19612

Engine: Houdini 4 Pro x64 (8192 MB)
by Robert Houdart

19/61 0:02 0.00 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 (57.148.460) 19884
19/61 0:03 -0.42 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (60.735.029) 19939

Engine: Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 x64 (4096 MB)
by Vasik Rajlich

14.01 0:04 0.00 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 (4.058.883) 991
14.02 0:04 -0.58 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (4.817.724) 1017

Engine: Stockfish 090415 64 BMI2 (8192 MB)
by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona

28/53 0:03 -0.66-- 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ (50.232.210) 14765
28/53 0:06 -0.48 24...Kb6 25.Nb3 Bxd5 26.Qxd6+ Rxd6 (93.651.555) 15474

Engine: Gaviota (8192 MB)
by Miguel A. Ballicora


24.00 0:55 -0.05-- 24...cxd4 (348.805.414) 6318

24.00 2:23 -0.20 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (908.443.024) 6342
24.00 5:10 -0.20 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nxd5 (2.016.333.386) 6492


[Event "Hoogovens A Tournament"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "1999.01.20"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Veselin Topalov"]
[WhiteElo "2812"]
[BlackElo "2700"]
[ECO "B06"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5. Qd2 c6 6. f3 b5
7. Nge2 Nbd7 8. Bh6 Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Bb7 10. a3 e5 11. O-O-O
Qe7 12. Kb1 a6 13. Nc1 O-O-O 14. Nb3 exd4 15. Rxd4 c5
16. Rd1 Nb6 17. g3 Kb8 18. Na5 Ba8 19. Bh3 d5 20. Qf4+ Ka7
21. Rhe1 d4 22. Nd5 Nbxd5 23. exd5 Qd6 24. Rxd4 cxd4
25. Re7+ Kb6 26. Qxd4+ Kxa5 27. b4+ Ka4 28. Qc3 Qxd5
29. Ra7 Bb7 30. Rxb7 Qc4 31. Qxf6 Kxa3 32. Qxa6+ Kxb4
33. c3+ Kxc3 34. Qa1+ Kd2 35. Qb2+ Kd1 36. Bf1 Rd2 37. Rd7
Rxd7 38. Bxc4 bxc4 39. Qxh8 Rd3 40. Qa8 c3 41. Qa4+ Ke1
42. f4 f5 43. Kc1 Rd2 44. Qa7 1-0

Comb through the very best games of the very best players of all time and you will come to a different conclusion, if you really understand chess.

[kgburcham]

Comb through the very best games of the very best players of all time and you will come to a different conclusion, if you really understand chess.

I only check 2600 to 2800 rated players.
prefer tournaments played in last ten years.
blunders have not decreased with modern study methods.
I only check very best games of very best players.

Terry name two of the very best players that you refer to and I will post the blunders.