Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 17:26:46 04/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2003 at 18:48:07, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On April 13, 2003 at 18:28:37, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>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 >> >> >>I don't think that's the issue - I think it is the way he conducted himself >>aftewards with his totally classless comments. > >and, if you had read more than the first 4 words of my post . . . Sorry, your last sentance appeared more as an after thought to me. I read the first 3 sentences as your main point. That was my mistake.
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.