Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 10:53:08 04/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2002 at 10:31:58, Louis Fagliano wrote: > >It's impossible to play error free chess and lose. It's the nature of the game >that, in a loss, the loser MUST have made at least one that, under intense >scrutiny, deserves a question mark. In other words, I'm saying that the opening >position is not a forced win for White! That we do not know for 100% sure! HeHe > >That's why I don't consider a game to have been annotated properly if the >annotator does not identify at least one move for the losing side in a game that >ended decisively with a question mark. To me, that means the annotator doesn't >know where the loser went wrong. And this I think is quite common not to know where a game went wrong. Sometimes for the lack of time and/or skill to analyse the game. And sometimes I think it is very difficult to pin point the error in a game. It can be a sequence of moves together that do not fit so well with the demands of the position, but its hard to give any of them a question mark as bad per se. Torstein
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.