Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 13:45:37 05/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2004 at 14:03:59, Matthew Hull wrote: >On May 25, 2004 at 13:41:34, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>On May 24, 2004 at 23:53:17, Keith Evans wrote: >> >>>On May 24, 2004 at 19:47:27, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>> >>>>On May 24, 2004 at 16:44:50, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 16:36:07, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 16:32:17, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 16:21:24, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 16:01:53, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 15:36:53, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>DIEP played two standard games against crafty yesterday on ICC with >>>>>Vincent >>>>>>himself presiding (and pontificating). DIEP lost them both. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Oh, sir. Incredible, you were not interested in the games but you read >all >>>>>>the >>>Vincent's messages.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Interesting.... Could you comment what it really happened in such >games in >>>>>>>>>detail? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I know the answer: No. :)))) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[Event "ICS Rated Standard match"] >>>>>>>>>[Site "ICC"] >>>>>>>>>[Date "2004.05.24"] >>>>>>>>>[Round "-"] >>>>>>>>>[White "DIEP"] >>>>>>>>>[Black "crafty"] >>>>>>>>>[Result "0-1"] >>>>>>>>>[WhiteElo "2540"] >>>>>>>>>[BlackElo "2740"] >>>>>>>>>[TimeControl "3600+30"] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 e6 4. O-O Be7 5. c4 O-O 6. b3 c5 7. e3 Nc6 >8. >>>>>>>>Bb2 b6 9. Nc3 Bb7 10. cxd5 Nxd5 11. Nxd5 Qxd5 12. d4 Rad8 13. Ne5 >Qd6 14. >>>>>>>>Nxc6 Bxc6 15. Qg4 cxd4 16. Bxd4 g6 17. Bxc6 Qxc6 18. Rac1 Qb7 >19. Qf4 Rd6 >>>>>>>>20. Bb2 Rfd8 21. h4 Qa6 22. a4 Qe2 23. Bd4 f6 24. Rfe1 Qa2 >25. Rc7 e5 26. >>>>>>>>Qe4 R6d7 27. Rxd7 Rxd7 28. Qc6 Rd8 29. Qe6+ Kf8 30. Bc3 >Qc2 31. Qc4 a6 32. >>>>>>>>Re2 Qd3 33. Rd2 Qxc4 34. Rxd8+ Bxd8 35. bxc4 Ke7 36. >e4 h5 37. Kf1 Kd6 38. >>>>>>>>Ke2 Kc5 39. Kd3 Bc7 40. f3 f5 41. Bd2 fxe4+ 42. >fxe4 Bd6 43. Bc3 Bc7 44. >>>>>>>>Be1 Bd8 45. Bd2 Kc6 46. Bc3 Bc7 47. Kc2 Kd7 >48. Kd2 Bd6 49. a5 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>49. a5?! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Unforced blunder, wouldn't you say? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>49. ... bxa5 50. >>>>>>>>>Bxa5 Bc5 51. Ke2 Bd4 52. Kf3 Kc6 53. Bb4 Bb6 54. Bc3 Bc7 55. Ke3 a5 56. >Kd3 >>>>>>>>a4 57. Bb2 Bd6 58. Kc2 Kd7 59. c5 Bxc5 60. Bxe5 Ke6 61. Bf4 Bd4 62. >Kc1 Ke7 >>>>>>>>63. Kc2 Ke6 64. Kc1 Kd7 65. Kb1 Kc6 66. Ka2 Bg7 67. Ka3 Kc5 68. >Kxa4 Kd4 >>>>>>>>69. Bg5 Kxe4 70. Kb3 Be5 71. Kc2 Bxg3 72. Kd1 Kf3 73. Bf6 Kg4 >74. Ke2 Bxh4 >>>>>>>>75. Bd4 Kh3 76. Kf1 g5 77. Be5 g4 0-1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Finally, you post the games... Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>However, the blunder was pointed by Vincent. Could you offer us more >>>>>details? >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Oh, you mean he told you an excuse? Why don't you enlighten us? If we >only >>>>>>knew what the excuse was, we could change the result to 1-0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>:) >>>>>> >>>>>>I understand. You are not able to post more details about the opening or >the >>>>>game itself. Again, you prove my point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Details? Are not the moves before you? Can you not identify the opening? >Can >>>>you not see the blunder? DIEP made one move that lost a drawn game. >Simple. >>>> >>>> >>>>Of course, man. The opening is a double fianchetto. Simple. >>>> >>>>There are another doubtful move by Diep in the transition to the middle >game: >>>19. Qf4?! Of course, you could not establish why. This is the hint for >you. >> >>>What's your point? >>> >>>Can you imagine what Vincent would have said if the PGN began: >>> >>>[White "crafty"] >>>[Black "DIEP"] >>> >>>Nobody can ever really beat Diep. See: >>>http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm >> >>This is not the point. I would reask you: What is your point? >> >>My point is: He (Mathew) is not able to offer details about the game. That's >>all. > > >When one hears words like, "against crafty, a win is certain", and we see two >losers in a row, the details hardly matter, unless one is searching for an >excuse as to why the prophecy did not come true. > >Neither you nor an FM need my analysis to see where DIEP stumbled. This issue >is about the braggart, the one who's talking all the trash and criticizing >other people's honest work. He'd do better to focus on his own project's >shortcomings rather than ripping other people's projects. If all the thread is about the moreal of Greenpeace, when I am interested in Chess, why I should take are of your useless comments. I have insisted of discussing about the games and you have only avoid to debate the point of view of chess. Conclusion: You are not able to detect if the games was chess or checkers or perhaps, ludo. I saw where Diep failed but you are only focus on attacking the chess author and not to discuss about the game.
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.