Author: Daniel Jackson
Date: 21:09:29 10/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2004 at 23:24:29, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 04, 2004 at 23:00:29, Daniel Jackson wrote: > >>On October 04, 2004 at 19:04:04, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 04, 2004 at 13:54:46, Daniel Jackson wrote: >>> >>>>On October 04, 2004 at 10:33:00, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 04, 2004 at 09:28:28, Daniel Jackson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 04, 2004 at 02:07:12, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 04, 2004 at 01:12:58, Daniel Jackson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>CM10 Default on a slow PIII 500 can't hold Black's position, even before Kramnik >>>>>>>>made errors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't trust CM10 to handle this endgame, still it does show that 15..a6 >>>>>>>>followed by 16.Bxa6 is better for White and is difficult to defend. >>>>>>>>BTW CM10 couldn't find 16.Bxa6, I had to manually input the moves, then set it >>>>>>>>to autoplay. If there is a draw, I'll have to start at 24.gxf3 or even earlier. >>>>>>>>This exchange to the endgame isn't particularly good. It may be down right >>>>>>>>terrible!? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Can you show the way that chessmaster beat itself after 62...Be1 >>>>>>>People claimed in another thread that Kramnik could save a draw by 62...Be1 and >>>>>>>I saw no contradiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>>The point is the line is a bit risky...what's the point to say this move draws, >>>>>>when it is a position no one in their right mind would want to defend? >>>>> >>>>>Why do you say noone? >>>>> >>>>>If a player is strong in endgames he may prefer to defend inferior endgame and >>>>>not play the middlegame. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>That's not the point....the point is Don't Play Inferior Lines and Chess, >>>>period! Kramnik must have known the dangers, that is arrogance if he believes he >>>>can win the match with his endgame technique alone. >>>> >>>>He risks losing match! >>> >>>It seems that Kramnik simply does not know to play endgames well enough but if a >>>player knows to play endgames well enough then there is no danger. >> >>Huh? That is Kramnik's strength. > >It seems that he is not strong enough in the endgames based on the game. Based on one game? You're joking right? > >>> >>>The fact that kramnik may lose the match is a good thing because I have reasons >>>not to like kramnik. >>>Uri >> >>I don't follow you here? What does liking or disliking have to do with it? >> >>I think Kramnik should play Kasparov....he owes Kasparov a re-match, that's how >>it was done before chess became corrupt! > >No YES! That is How it is Done!! > >I think shirov should play kasparov Too Late....Kramnik played Kasparov, End of Story! Shirov is no match for Kasparov anyway...I'll only concede that Shirov should have played Kasporov first....but Kasparov wanted a match and it was setteled, but I understand your point. > >Shirov beated kramnik so kramnik did not deserve to play kasparov in the first >place so he does not deserve a rematch. Maybe so...actually I agree but that's not what happened. The best we can hope for is Kramnik wins and after Kasparov regains the FIDE WCC then he can redeem himself by beating Kramnik, leaving no room for doubt Who is the WCC!! > >Uri That would not only make history, it may save chess on the international level!
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.