Author: Peter Berger
Date: 11:03:15 12/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2001 at 13:50:13, Marc van Hal wrote: >>>Any problem with 2. Nf3 ?! Really curious .. >>> >>>pete >I only see this as trolling these days >And I don't see any reason to respons deeper on this > My question was quite serious. Yes, I would be _very_ surprised to see something wrong with 2.Nf3 but I am always eager to learn. >Because the reasons are givven over and over and over again. >But if you want to play stuburn go ahead but don't expect any answers in the >future on this sort of questions. I haven't seen any analysis or ideas provided by you on 2. Nf3 in this forum that explained why it should be taken out of the opening book of chessprograms ( and , please, I can't know about your emails to kasparovchess you mentioned in other posts) . I for one would be interested very much to discuss your ideas here. Friendly greetings, pete
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.