Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: GM Nigel comments

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 11:45:52 10/07/02

Go up one level in this thread

On October 07, 2002 at 13:17:30, Matthew Barnett wrote:

>I agree.  There was still a little way to go for Kramnik.  Given that Kramnik
>was way down on time (about 3 mins) compared to Fritz, I think this alone would
>have been a legitimate reason to play on.  Your time trouble is something your
>opponent can use in their favour: it's part of the game.  Otherwise, why have
>clocks?
>
>Bests
>
>Matthew
>

I think that you underestimate kramnik if you think that he can blunder in
that pawn endgame.

The only reason to continue is to convince some people
who do not understand it.

Uri

• Re: GM Nigel comments Matthew Barnett 12:17:56 10/07/02
• Re: GM Nigel comments Ed Panek 12:14:06 10/07/02
  • Re: GM Nigel comments Uri Blass 12:26:11 10/07/02
    • Re: GM Nigel comments Marc van Hal 15:39:47 10/07/02
      • Re: GM Nigel comments Uri Blass 21:21:42 10/07/02

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.