Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 03:29:16 04/14/03
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 I agree that this game may not deserve a brilliancy prize, but I do not agree with your definition of brilliancy. It is ok for me if there are some mistakes, I vaguely remember a game between Capablanca and Janowsky. First Janowsky outplayed Capablanca, then Capablanca defended very well and Janowsky made some mistakes... and at the end Capablanca won. It is considered one of his masterpieces, simply a brilliant game. It should not be difficult to find, it must be one of the earliest games between those two great players. José.
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.