Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 02:05:49 12/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2001 at 17:39:16, Peter Berger wrote: >On December 10, 2001 at 16:17:18, Marc van Hal wrote: > >>Ok here a quick hint a because of indeed the Grunfeld defense it was only that >>Kasparov did play the same position like he did before but I already posted why >>it was not good Building up the presure on the centre with eventualy a Rd8 gives >>black a small advantage >>But the postings of the Grunfeld also where made on icd >>It is not my fold that you can't find them again. > >Yes, I have read them in fact. I don't see the slightest connection to 2. Nf3 at >all. > >Also I do remember a post of yours about a Kaspy dream you had in the other >forum - I think that one was straight to the point . With his pale face he >simply drove away in his limousine .. > > >>The Junior6 book can help you out if you look carefuly > >Sorry, this is too little information for me to even bother to check. > >> >>but the second reason is that after d4,d5 2.Nf3,e6 >>The knight also stands wrongly placed to hold the advantage >>if you want to contineu with the idea of Nc3 and Bg5 > >Hmm, it definitely stands wrongly if you want to continue with Nc3 . But why the >heck would you even want to ?? I disagree when it is about Bg5 and would need >more information and proof to believe you do have a point here. > >>And other idea after Nf3 then could be >>Not playing Bg5 and Nc3 but Nd2 b3 Bb2 > >Huh ? OK - you offer _another_ idea _after_ Nf3 without even giving the >slightest idea why it would be needed at all. > >>But if black plays it corectly White will loose the advantage here too > >The "too" is the problem . You didn't provide any idea why White should head for >such a strange setup in the first place. > >>And I don't make postings anymore I rather sell them. > >:-) > >>So atleast my work gets the credit it deserves >>Also maybe I am now blowing a litle high from the tower but I do not think you >>are qualefied to make deep going anelyzes > >OK, this is probably true. But isn't it you who always keeps suggesting he has >some valueable contributions to computerchess opening theory to make ? If you >only do that as an advertisement to sell your analysis this is against the >charta of this board IMHO . If you really have something to discuss : give it a >try . > >>Curently I am working on this but it will take at least 1 more year when I am >>finished. > >Marc, I really think you live in a kind of dreamworld or play some strange kind >of mindgame. Wake up, guy ! > >Regards, >pete Who is this lost soul from the pit of dispear? Trying to eat your hart out making you hear
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.