Blunders in Databases

Geoff Chandler · Post by **Geoff Chandler** » Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:47 pm

There is a thread on the go about fake games appearing in DataBases and some nifty shifty goings on.

Here I am looking at innocent blunders where the lad who entered the moveis was tired, clumsy (or both.)
So the bogus move creates a position that never happened.

This is one in which it appears a good player missed a once in a lifetime combo....

http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandle ... handID=378

.....the missed combo actually made it to a national newspaper.

Anybody know of any other good and innocent ones.

John Clarke · Post by **John Clarke** » Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:40 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:There is a thread on the go about fake games appearing in DataBases and some nifty shifty goings on.

Here I am looking at innocent blunders where the lad who entered the moveis was tired, clumsy (or both.)
So the bogus move creates a position that never happened.

This is one in which it appears a good player missed a once in a lifetime combo....

http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandle ... handID=378

.....the missed combo actually made it to a national newspaper.

Anybody know of any other good and innocent ones.

Don't know of any of those. But Forumites who've followed the link to your article might be amused by this prophetic quote from Harry Golombek's Instructions to Young Chess Players (published 1958):

"The algebraic is clearer .... it also occupies much less space .... On the other hand, when writing down a score it is very easy to confuse the c and the e." (My italics.)

As for the mating pattern in that piece of yours, Geoff: having seen all those examples (and at the risk of taking this thread a little off-topic), I can't resist including this position from one of my own games, with my opponent (Black) to move, in which the possibility of that type of mate helped me secure an ill-deserved draw.

London League Div II, February 1976

Geoff Chandler · Post by **Geoff Chandler** » Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:08 pm

Hi John.

I've always had a soft spot for Rook and Knight mating patterns (especially Hook Mates).

"...an ill-deserved draw."

No such thing.
You must have blundered somewhere allowing your opponent the winning position
he blundered back by allowing you the draw.

A lot of players seem to play better when they have a so called lost position.
(or is it because their opponents play badly in so called won positions?)

I know I do, so I strive to get a lost position as quickly as possible.
Infact I'd say I'm a Master at obtaining lost positions, I can find and play
losing moves in the most tepid of positions. It's a gift.

The mixing up of 'c' and 'e' in score sheets is legendary.
Plenty of times I've had to re-set the board after discovering 1.e4 e5 was in fact 1.e4 c5.
That is what happened in the case above.

J.Stevenson - I.Galic, European Team Ch.2009. Scotland v Bosnia.

White to play.

The Rook on c7 was actually on e7 (a mis-reading of the score sheet. The 'c' for 'e' syndrome.)
So the following brilliant combination was not on

John Clarke · Post by **John Clarke** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:46 am

John Clarke wrote: Don't know of any of those.

Actually, I was too quick to make that remark. Not only do I know of an instance, I've even referred to it in a recent post on another thread in this forum!! Can only plead to being still rather discomknockerated after that 6.6 'quake gave the whole of central NZ a nasty jolt yesterday afternoon (our time).

Anyway ... The example I mean is an error that's persisted for almost 80 years, and concerns Golombek's game against Popa (Romania) in the 1935 Olympiad.

Here's how it went according to ChessGames:

Fast-forward almost 30 years, and Golombek is brave enough to cite this game as his worst error, in a talk on the "Chess" programme on what later became BBC's Radio Three. (It appeared in printed form some years afterwards in Chess Treasury of the Air.)

He points out that someone on the BCM staff at the time misread his ninth move, which was actually Qa4, not Qd4 (so you can get a/d confusion, as well c/e). Some subsequent moves in the game must then have been jiggered by the editors in order to reach the right position for the denouement. This incorrect score made it into the magazine, was subsequently picked up by Fred Reinfeld for the tournament book of the event, and has had a Frankenstein life of its own ever since, including on the ChessGames site as already stated.

So here now is the real score of the game.

As I've said elsewhere, I notified the error to ChessGames, via the proper channels, but the wrong version of the game is still up there.

Stewart Reuben · Post by **Stewart Reuben** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:53 pm

There are several other reasons for errors on databases. Whether they can be described as blunders is quite another matter.
1. It becomes impossible to play through a game at a certain point. The scoresheets become indecipherable. So it concludes 1-0, etc. possibly 20 moves before its actual conclusion. That can be diminished by requesting the players to help indicate what actually happened.
2. Playing on a digital board, the players start analysing BEFORE saving the game. This is very common. Then some spurious moves reach the database.
3. On occasion Ke4 might appear as a move, but it wasn't played at all. It was legal and is the start of an attempt to record the result.

In case there is anybody unfamiliar with the use of DGT boards and the end of the game.
a. Make an illegal move, such as removing a pawn from the board.
b. Place the kings in the manner required to indicate the result. White wins: white and black kings on separate central white squarse. Black wins: both kings on central black squares. A draw: one king on a central white square and the other on black. This should also be done particularly in matches, even without digital boards. It helps team-mates know what is going on. (I must remember to get that into the FIDE Tournment Regulations when they are revised next.)

I have asked Frederic Friedel of Chessbase to include where draws have been offered. This doesn't matter much when it is agreed drawn, but when refused it is part of the history of the game. The Laws require draw offers to be recorded as (=), but people often forget (including me).

Roger de Coverly · Post by **Roger de Coverly** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:38 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote: b. Place the kings in the manner required to indicate the result. White wins: white and black kings on separate central white squarse. Black wins: both kings on central black squares. A draw: one king on a central white square and the other on black. This should also be done particularly in matches, even without digital boards. It helps team-mates know what is going on. (I must remember to get that into the FIDE Tournment Regulations when they are revised next.).

4NCL players have a somewhat simpler convention, which also has the advantage that you can see the result from a distance. White wins - White King in centre of board. Black wins - Black King in centre. Draw - both kings.

Christopher Kreuzer · Post by **Christopher Kreuzer** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:55 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Stewart Reuben wrote: b. Place the kings in the manner required to indicate the result. White wins: white and black kings on separate central white squarse. Black wins: both kings on central black squares. A draw: one king on a central white square and the other on black. This should also be done particularly in matches, even without digital boards. It helps team-mates know what is going on. (I must remember to get that into the FIDE Tournment Regulations when they are revised next.).
4NCL players have a somewhat simpler convention, which also has the advantage that you can see the result from a distance. White wins - White King in centre of board. Black wins - Black King in centre. Draw - both kings.

That is not a 4NCL-specific convention (as far as I know). It is used much more widely. I'd be interested in the older members of this forum being able to say when they first saw this convention in use and the earliest point to which it can be reliably dated. Also, is it an international convention? Maybe it started abroad and spread here? The other convention I've seen is the use of crossed index fingers to offer a draw. I had thought this was original to various forms of sign language used by the deaf, but I've seen hearing people use this sign abroad and elsewhere and I suspect it originated in international competitions where people spoke different languages. Again, can any of the older forum members say when they first observed this sign (or others 'international' chess signs) in use? It makes me wonder what the conventions and etiquette of 19th-century chess were like. They probably revolved around what was and was not acceptable with regards to pipes, cigars and cigarettes...

Roger de Coverly · Post by **Roger de Coverly** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:30 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: That is not a 4NCL-specific convention (as far as I know). It is used much more widely. I'd be interested in the older members of this forum being able to say when they first saw this convention in use and the earliest point to which it can be reliably dated.

It seemed to come in alongside the digital boards and spread via the 4NCL. That's not a particularly reliable witness, if the only International chess you play is in the 4NCL. Digital Boards were in use at the 2000 Olympiad, because I recall that they got so messed up that one round had to be restarted with players repeating the moves made earlier. Checking with OimpBase implies they were in use also in Elista in 1998. Sensory Boards had existed for dedicated chess computers since 1980.

Christopher Kreuzer · Post by **Christopher Kreuzer** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:45 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote: That is not a 4NCL-specific convention (as far as I know). It is used much more widely. I'd be interested in the older members of this forum being able to say when they first saw this convention in use and the earliest point to which it can be reliably dated.
It seemed to come in alongside the digital boards and spread via the 4NCL. That's not a particularly reliable witness, if the only International chess you play is in the 4NCL. Digital Boards were in use at the 2000 Olympiad, because I recall that they got so messed up that one round had to be restarted with players repeating the moves made earlier. Checking with OimpBase implies they were in use also in Elista in 1998. Sensory Boards had existed for dedicated chess computers since 1980.

We are still talking about the convention you mentioned? What I've observed as the convention is putting the White king on e4 for a White win, or the Black king on e5 for a Black win (with all other pieces re-set to the starting position), and both kings on e4 and e5 for a draw. This is more specific than just "in the centre". But maybe different people do things slightly differently? I've seen kings sloppily placed in the centre of the board with no particular care where they are placed, and I suppose it doesn't really matter. What matters is the first time you see this done, as that is how you will 'learn' and do it ever after. It seems so natural (especially in something like a county match) that I'm sure it must have pre-dated sensory boards. The more specific sensory board procedure that Stewart described obviously would only date from the time of sensory boards being used to record results, as someone obviously programmed the boards to recognise that behaviour.

Geoff Chandler · Post by **Geoff Chandler** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:54 pm

Of course all this could be taken a few steps further.
We just need the White King to be placed on one any of 6 squares

C4 = White win
C5 = Black Win
D4 = White won with a Checkmate
D5 = Black won with a Checkmate
E4 = Game Agreed Drawn
E5 = Stalemate

Then by removing some other pieces we can add further information.

For example this final set-up in the 2013 British Championship game between G.Lane and P.Shaw...

...tells me right away White checkmated the Black King on f4
and because there is only one piece on the b-file (b7) the opening was a B07. (A Pirc)

Correctly thought out we could replace entire game collections with just one diagram.

Again from the 2013 British Championship. J.Stephens v B.Ananthanarayanan.

This game ended in a Stalemate. The c-file is clear except for pieces on c7 and c8 so the opening was a C78 (a Ruy Lopez)

Christopher Kreuzer · Post by **Christopher Kreuzer** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:58 pm

It is surprisingly difficult to find stuff about this elsewhere on the internet (as the search terms are so common).

I did find this:

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/200 ... ment-18847

"At the end of the game, players return the pieces to the initial position, then place a white king on e4 (if white won) or a black king on e5 (if black won) -- this serves as a visual reminder to the observers. It's a common practice in tournaments."

However, the very next reply shows how some remember what was done on demo boards:

"the final position being left on the board, with a reversed king to show the loser (or both kings tipped to indicate a draw [...]"

I remember seeing this on magnetic (or velcro) demo boards! The losing king would be turned 180 degrees. For a draw, both kings would be rotated 90 degrees so they were on their sides. But in most situations, the convention would be to use some commonly known way to indicate the result in a match after resetting the pieces. This would be hopefully in addition to recording the result on the match sheet. Tournaments, you usually have a results slip to hand in.

(Careful Geoff, you will be accused of using board set-ups to tell team-mates that are still playing what moves to play!)

Geoff Chandler · Post by **Geoff Chandler** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 3:19 pm

Hi Chris.

Do you mean something like this....

Take the Draw.

Or

Sac on f7

Stewart Reuben · Post by **Stewart Reuben** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 5:30 pm

Christopher will be amused that the convention of crossed index fingers offering a draw led to an argument in the Olympiad.
A Muslim thought he was being insulted.

I don't remember when the convention of placing just the white King in the centre for a white win, etc. started.

I did suggest to Albert Vasse (Mr DGT) that there be 3 blocks, one marked 1-0. one 0-1 and one 0.5-0-5 and then the appropriate one be placed on the board at the end of the game. He said that would be quite easy, but never did anything about it. It would still be easy to pick up the wrong block.

For one Hastings I did have cardboard 'huts' marked with the three different results. That can only be used where there is only one game per table. The draw card was also used to offer a draw by some. In 2000 in the Kasparov Kramnik match they had light that the player put o when offering a draw. That was for the benefit of the spectators.

Christopher Kreuzer · Post by **Christopher Kreuzer** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:02 pm

To add to those, wasn't there some piece of card showing the result that was hung on the table after each game in the recent Candidates Tournament in London? I remember it not being very hi-tech, but still looking OK.

PS. Stewart, even if you can't remember precisely the convention of placing just the white King in the centre for a white win, etc. started, can you shed any light on it? Was there a time you remember when this didn't happen or wasn't common?

Stewart Reuben · Post by **Stewart Reuben** » Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:19 pm

There was a time when the convention did not exist for placing the white king in the centre, but when it started to take hold, I can't remember. I guess with the introduction of DGT boards. But it may have exist with the Levy -O'Connell boards as well.
After all, you will seldom see it done even today in the London League. I doubt it was done at the British where DGT boards weren't used, other than probably in the actual championships.
It aslo provides a useful check on whether the right result has been recorded.

English Chess Forum

Blunders in Databases

Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databses

Re: Blunders in Databses

Re: Blunders in Databses

Re: Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databases

Re: Blunders in Databases