Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class"

Author: Anthony Cozzie

Date: 15:22:42 04/13/03

Go up one level in this thread

Honestly, I agree with Kasparov.  That game was simply not worth of a brilliancy
prize.  Radjabov had a hopelessly lost position and got lucky.  A brilliancy is
supposed to be perfect play by the winner and almost-perfect play by the loser -
this game was poor play by the winner and a blunder by the loser.  It would have
been nice if Kasparov had stated his objections more diplomatically though.

anthony

• Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class" José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba 03:29:16 04/14/03
  • Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class" Dann Corbit 21:03:05 04/14/03
    • Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class" Dann Corbit 22:07:20 04/14/03
• Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class" John Jack 16:57:46 04/13/03
• Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class" Mike Byrne 15:28:37 04/13/03
  • Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class" andrew tanner 15:51:12 04/13/03
  • Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class" Anthony Cozzie 15:48:07 04/13/03
    • Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class" Mike Byrne 17:26:46 04/13/03
    • Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class" steven blincoe 15:53:48 04/13/03
      • Re: "Kasparov's Losing Remarks Win No Award for Class" Andreas Guettinger 00:54:13 04/14/03

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.