what can programs see that 2700 GM cannot

[carldaman]

But there are many examples of where blunders were made and it did not effect the overall score. Probably because of a newly coined term (co-blundering) ...giving a blunder back.

That's why I specified 'potentially'. Double blunders are not uncommon, and they show that some blunders are not obvious, but they should still be considered blunders, especially if the potential refutation is quick.

[Dann Corbit]

But there are many examples of where blunders were made and it did not effect the overall score. Probably because of a newly coined term (co-blundering) ...giving a blunder back.

That's why I specified 'potentially'. Double blunders are not uncommon, and they show that some blunders are not obvious, but they should still be considered blunders, especially if the potential refutation is quick.

An interesting feature of Yasser Seirawan's books (to me) is that for every tiny inaccuracy in his own play, he tends to give a ?? to the move, even though it is not one of the worst possible choices.

So maybe blunders are relative. What would be a blunder for a GM is probably a pretty good move for me.

[syzygy]

But there are many examples of where blunders were made and it did not effect the overall score. Probably because of a newly coined term (co-blundering) ...giving a blunder back.

And this is probably quite normal in the psychological game that is human chess.

I'm sure it also happens regularly in computer chess. Engine A plays a move that has a refutation too deep for the engine to see, and engine B does not play that refutation because it's too deep for that engine as well. Blunders everywhere.

[carldaman]

But there are many examples of where blunders were made and it did not effect the overall score. Probably because of a newly coined term (co-blundering) ...giving a blunder back.

That's why I specified 'potentially'. Double blunders are not uncommon, and they show that some blunders are not obvious, but they should still be considered blunders, especially if the potential refutation is quick.

An interesting feature of Yasser Seirawan's books (to me) is that for every tiny inaccuracy in his own play, he tends to give a ?? to the move, even though it is not one of the worst possible choices.

So maybe blunders are relative. What would be a blunder for a GM is probably a pretty good move for me.

Reminds me of Tartakower's, "dubious, therefore playable".

But, I think it would be wrong to lose the distinction between outright blunders (??), mere mistakes (?), and dubious moves (?!).

[Uri Blass]

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

By your definition in every game that a program lose there is a blunder assuming the opening position is a draw(if you use the perfect player to analyze).
One move change the real score from draw to mate against the losing program.

If you use programs of the future they will show you the blunder and the evaluation may be changed from draw to mate in 30 against the program in one move.

I think that definition of a blunder by the number of pawns you lose based on the engines of today on the hardware of today is clearly wrong.

For me a blunder is a move when it is easy to understand why it is wrong.
A move that lose even if it lose the queen for nothing based on engines is not a blunder if humans cannot understand fast why it lose the queen.

Uri

I like your definition, but I would add to it.
A move is a blunder if one computer sees instantly that it loses but the other computer does not see it.

A blunder should also jeopardize the outcome of a game, by (potentially) turning a win into a draw or loss, or a draw into a loss.

Regards,
CL

I can agree only if we do not talk about theoretical result.

A move that does not change the theoretical result can still be a blunder.

If my opponent has a mate in 50 by tablebases and I allow mate in 1 by a mistake then my move is a blunder because he may miss the long mate but chances that he miss mate in 1 are close to 0.

If I have a simple draw and I lose a pawn and still has a draw that is not easy to find then my move is also practically a blunder(assuming you do not need a deep calculation to see that I lose a pawn).

[Astatos]

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

You don't find because you have no idea about chess and you rely solely on silicon....
Stop playing Einstein and get some gm to teach you, may finally stop sound funny.