@Anant06 said in #35:
>
@GambitQA I already know that it is not a blunder.
Good.
@Sarg0n said in #36:
> Ok, let’s call it BULLSHIT.
Calm down.
@mortmann said in #37:
> lets take a step back. in your first post you said "That move was not even an inacuracy." do you still think this is true? now let me clarify, what i mean by "quick". the evaluation of the position is going down with depth. but as others pointed out, stockfish sees the blunder early on. i dunno how you define a blunder exactly, and what "quick" means for you exactly, but let me show raw data and some timings:
>
> Stockfish 311221 by the Stockfish developers (see AUTHORS file)
> info string NNUE evaluation using nn-ac07bd334b62.nnue enabled
> [...]
> position fen 5k2/pp4pp/4pp2/1P6/8/P2KP3/5PPb/2B5 w - - 0 30
> [...]
> info depth 16 seldepth 21 multipv 1 score cp 81 nodes 904100 nps 12733802 tbhits 0 time 71 pv g2g3 f8e7 c1d2 f6f5 d2c3 e7d6 d3e2 d6c5 c3g7 c5b5 e2f3
>
> this means, after 71 millisecs, at deph 16 stockfish shows a centipawn loss of 81. there may be different metrics about blunder checking. but this already looks like a candidate, so let the calculation continue for a moment:
>
> info depth 30 seldepth 42 multipv 1 score cp 128 nodes 26111063 nps 20272564 hashfull 2 tbhits 0 time 1288 pv g2g3 h7h5 d3e4 h5h4 e4f3 h4g3 f2g3 f8e7 a3a4 e7d6 f3g2 h2g3 c1a3 d6d5 g2g3 g7g6 a3e7 d5e4 e7c5 a7a6 b5b6 e6e5 g3g4 a6a5 g4g3 f6f5 g3h4 e4d5
>
> so, depth 30 is reached after 1 second, and we are down 128 centipawns.
>
> info depth 44 seldepth 66 multipv 1 score cp 214 nodes 968700790 nps 25065355 hashfull 163 tbhits 0 time 38647 pv g2g3 a7a6 b5b6 f8e7 a3a4 e7d6 d3e2 d6c6 a4a5 g7g5 e2f3 c6b5 c1d2 b5c4 f3g2 h2g3 f2g3 c4d3 d2b4 d3e3 b4e7 g5g4 e7f6 e3e2 f6c3 e2d3 c3e5 d3e2 e5c7 e2e1 c7d6 e1e2 d6a3 e2e1 a3c5 e1e2 c5f2 e6e5 f2c5 e5e4 c5b4 e4e3 b4c3 e2d3 c3e1 d3c2 g2f1 c2d1 e1b4 e3e2 f1f2 h7h5 b4c3
>
> after 38 secs we reach depth 44 and we are 214 centipawns down
>
> maybe you want to argue, that there are slower computers out there, so i explicitely used a consumer 65W cpu to do the calculation here.
>
> some people argue one could still draw technically, but this is a game between 2 chess gods with a time limit. the big difference before and after the blunder is: before, it is easy to draw, after: it is hard. and fischer (please learn, that he is written with "sch"), as one of the very best couldnt draw it. and it was this blunder move Bxh2 that made him loose.
There is no need for a "step back" at least not on my part. That bishop move is not a blunder and engine also shows that. Why do you insist calling it a blunder when facts prove you wrong is related to the question I asked you (the one you are still avoiding).
@Rookitiki said in #38:
> It’s not about the position, it’s about saying Magnus and Nepo are bad compared to Fischer and they’d lose to a scholars mate. Insinuating they would probably cheat with an engine if the setting is handled like current championships (not sure if that goes against current players or FIDE or the computer age in general). Sending a „shut up“ out instead backing up the own opinion or refuting the other. Posing as Fischers biggest fanboy, but spelling his name wrong. Suggesting recommended courses of action with maximum disrespect towards anyone who would read them. That’s why some people don’t focus on the game (and also because they already know it).
>
> Looks like you haven’t even read the OP tbh. It’s just incoherent rambling. I thought for a moment that it may be some form of art that’s supposed to make me think about mental illness, as Fischer is the poster boy of a mad chess player, but it’s just a troll.
Get help.
@Arckai said in #39:
> It doesn't take a fortuneteller to say that move is a blunder
That makes no sense. The game was already played. So it does not make sense plus it is not funny.
@SD_2709 said in #40:
> It was a bad move but if stockfish was playing as black the position could still be drawn because max level stockfish hardly makes mistakes while Fischer's opponent is still human and might make several inaccuracies leading to a draw. With perfect play it might have still been a draw if Fischer hadn't played h5. That bishop cannot be saved and instead developing the king would be better. Now it is losing if the opponent has perfect play. After f5, Fischer has completely lost the game. So the first move was a bad move, h5 was a mistake, and f5 was a blunder.
> This is what I understood from a video on youtube and also (@)Provisionalrating's study. I'll post the link so check out the video is awesome! Personally I don't know if it was a blunder.
>
>
> Check game 2 here hanging pawns has explained it.
You do not know if it is a blunder?! You see , that is a problem, how can you not know that? You have the analysis of the game posted in my first post on this topic and you can see it is not a blunder. You do not need someone else to "explain" it to you when you can see it your self.
