Author: John Jack
Date: 16:57:46 04/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2003 at 18:22:42, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >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 Kaparov is starting to lose is mind The end is near
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.