Author: Arno Nickel
Date: 15:23:45 03/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
>1)...(he was lost in the 6th >game because of an unsound opening) <b>I don't know, why you spread such nonsense - almost a lie.</b> Anybody who is interested, please read my live-comments on "chessfriend.com" and check the variation. I played an unclear variation (MCO +=) and I gave good reasons for it. Pluto (C) - Nickel,A (2585) [B15] 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ exf6 6.c3 Bd6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Qc2 Re8+ 9.Ne2 g6 10.h4 Be6 11.h5 f5 12.hxg6 fxg6 13.Bh6 Qf6 14.0-0-0 Line. Following the purpose of the experiment it was completely okay. Later on, I played an inaccurate move: 14...Qf7?!, which gave White a sudden tactical opportuntity after 15.Bf4!. It was only this one move, creating problems - in case of 14...Nd7 Black's position should be playable, at least worth to be tested in practice (and by the way not so easy for computer evaluation). It's hard to believe, that someone like you speaks of an "unsound opening", critizising not only me, but indirectly <b>Jon Speelman and others</b> (who analysed this variation - as you know!), without even giving concrete arguments and variations. Your other points are more or less speculations, not even logical. And I am tired to discuss this old stuff again and again. Arno Nickel
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.