Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 04:37:21 11/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2003 at 04:40:53, Andre van Ark wrote: >On November 14, 2003 at 02:40:15, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>On November 14, 2003 at 02:31:40, Andre van Ark wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Yes, it is true Vincent could analyse this games quite well. >>> >>>But he is banned..... >>> >>>Mainly because he called a certain person "an old idiot" >>> >>>And some people like to throw with nud on Vincent, even while he isn't able to >>>defend himself. >>> >>>Who should be banned ? >>> >>>Kind regards >>>André van Ark >> >>Either you haven't been here that long, or you just haven't read his previous >>posts. I would bet my ex-wife and a bag of chips that Vincent would indeed state >>that Kaspy played like a 2000 rated patzer. It has happened time and time again. >>In fact here is a few tells from channel 64 on ICC during the first game: >> >>Diep(C)(64): i am only here for a few minutes. this game is of no interest to >>me. >>Diep(C)(64): playing a weak opening vs a computer is stupid >>Diep(C)(64): already i can see it will be draw >>Diep(C)(64): diep can draw this blindfolded >> >>As you can see Diep should be in this match rather than Fritz... >> >>Peter > >Hi Peter, > >Uhhhmm you may keep your ex-wife but the bag of chips is welcome. :-D > >All I can say ( I am a 1875 elo patzer) that Vincent is right. > >"Diep(C)(64): playing a weak opening vs a computer is stupid >>Diep(C)(64): already i can see it will be draw >>Diep(C)(64): diep can draw this blindfolded" > >As the game has showed Vincent statements are OK. Or do I oversee something? Yes The opening choice in the first game wasn't stupid at all. Kasparovs play in Game 1 was perfect till move 25 (at the least). Michael > >Btw. Diep doesn't take the pawn on f2 in the first gane. > >Kind regards, >André
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.