Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 18:34:28 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2005 at 18:13:06, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On June 23, 2005 at 17:42:29, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On June 23, 2005 at 17:17:51, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>On June 23, 2005 at 15:33:36, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On June 23, 2005 at 14:59:17, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 14:49:21, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 14:35:33, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 14:01:41, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 12:46:37, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 11:14:06, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 09:37:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 01:32:43, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 23:33:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 21:49:25, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 16:17:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 23:00:37, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 18:36:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 16:44:21, Torstein Hall wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 15:30:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:19:44, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:11:23, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:04:37, Ted Summers wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>To sum it up " He played a drawish opening in a tactic way. " Not a good idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>when computers are able to hang with the best and proving themself as better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than humans in open tactical positions. However I still think GM Adams can pull >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it together and Win or Draw this match. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[D] r2q1rk1/1pp3pp/p2b4/nP1p1p1b/2PPn3/3B1N1P/P1QN1PP1/1RB1R1K1 b - - 0 17 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Having reached this position, we seemed to be watching the beginning of the end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for Adams in the first game but hopefully not the match. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>C4! was a killer positional shot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>c4 was a good move, but hardly a "killer". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems clear GM Adams missed this move when he played Na5. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps Adams miissed it, but it hardly seems "clear", since Black is still OK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>afterwards. His loss happened later. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-Robin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The problem here is that the kingside is already a bit open. One does _not_, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a human, allow the computer to open _both_ sides of the board in the same game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It invites a debacle such as this. Of course, he made a couple of tactical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>errors around the point where the rook on C8 was hanging, but he was already in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the wrong kind of position... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All the comps were suggesting the same moves as played by Hydra, so there was no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>real surprises from the white side, just black making an error here, an error >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there, before long he fell off the rim of the canyon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is in my view far to general. Black was at least = uptil move 23.Be6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[D]2rq1r1k/6pp/p2bB3/2p1Np1b/3Pn3/7P/P1Q2PP1/1RB1R1K1 b - - 0 23 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Define "equal". Here I am considering the important detail that white is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>computer, black is a human. In that regard, black is _not_ equal up to move 23. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>By that logic Adams was already much worse after 1.e4 no matter what he did. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Let's face it, Hydra is stronger. Adams will probably be under presure in every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>game where he has the black pieces. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I don't believe black is anywhere near equal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He is equal unless you use your "considering the important detail that white is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a computer" logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He isn't lost, but he is far from equal and is at best fighting for a draw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But in an open position. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he just has no chance in that kind of position. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He was under presure, yes. That is a far cry from "has no chance". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But I would take white anywhere along the way in that game, as a human playing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>another human. And by the way, any move after the "knight to the rim" move >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>finds white better IMHO. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your opinion is wrong, unless perhaps you mean that white had a very slight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>advantage. That is the norm in chess, by the way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Adams played 23...Rc7 while 23...cxd4 looks like it holds everything nicely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>together. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Doesn't quite hold everything nicely together. The comps were at about +1 here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>already, went to +1.5 on the Rc7 move. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe Craqfty sees +1, but the top programs don't see anything near +1 until >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>_after_ Rc7. Before Rc7 black was fine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But then the next few moves were mostly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bad by black, turning this into a debacle. But if there were not so many open >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>files, open diagonals, etc, black wouldn't have had to be worrying about tactics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all over the board. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One line could be 23...cxd4 24.Qxc8 Qf6 25.Qc4 Qxe5 26.Qa5 and black >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>looks OK to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But white looks better to me there. Maybe not "winning better" but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"significantly better". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Try "very slightly better". Adams played well until Rc7. Hydra is very strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and kept putting the presure on and finally Adams made a mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-Robin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Again, let me remind you that I qualified my response to "knowing this is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>computer vs human, black is exposing himself to difficulty." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is _not_ what you said. If that _had_ been what you said I would have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>agreed. But your original statements were stronger. Here are some actual quotes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Here is _the_ actual quote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>"efine "equal". Here I am considering the important detail that white is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>computer, black is a human. In that regard, black is _not_ equal up to move 23. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In fact, I don't believe black is anywhere near equal. He isn't lost, but he >>>>>>>>>>>>>is far from equal and is at best fighting for a draw. But in an open position. >>>>>>>>>>>>>And he just has no chance in that kind of position. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>But I would take white anywhere along the way in that game, as a human playing >>>>>>>>>>>>>another human. And by the way, any move after the "knight to the rim" move >>>>>>>>>>>>>finds white better IMHO." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I believe that shows exactly what I said I said... "the important detail". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hyatt:"black making an error here, an error there" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In chess terms he made his error on move 23, not "an error here, an error there" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>before move 23. In anti-computer terms, by your logic he should never should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>agreed to the match, since 1...e5 is the defense he knows best and no matter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>what he does he will be playing into Hydra's strength (either the "open game" or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>else openings Adams doesn't know as well as Hydra). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hyatt:"he just has no chance in that kind of position" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is silly. Of course he has a chance. The odds are against him, yes. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>odds are against him when he has black no matter _what_ opening he plays. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Adams on a good day will find a way to hold 1...e5 against Hydra, even if/when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hydra opens things up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hyatt:"Doesn't quite hold everything nicely together. The comps were at about +1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>here already, went to +1.5 on the Rc7 move." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>No. Maybe Crafty said +1, but the _top_ programs say ~=. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hyatt:"If your strength is in the same area as your opponent, but his strength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>in that area is much greater, only an idiot would stick with that plan" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're calling Adams an idiot? This is the kind of statement I find really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>offensive. What arrogance!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'd be fairly happy with either side against an equal human opponent. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>against a computer, I want things blocked, not open. e4 e5 is the wrong way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>block things up. There are multiple options after e4 that avoid many of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wide-open king-pawn type positions... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He's done the same thing again today. f4 was the move I would play as white, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>_unless_ I was playing a computer. Before I would play f4, I would have to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>_certain_ that I can win from that point. I would not want to leave the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>computer playing on both sides of the board, with a pair of bishops, pair of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rooks and a queen still on the board. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then how come he got a draw today? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Fortunate, to say the least. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>1.5 - .5 is not exactly a scintillating result?? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So again, my comments were based not on pure chess, but on the opponent for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Adams... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I believe Adams knows better than anyone else on the planet in what openings he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>does best against computers. I think it is highly arrogant when people suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise. The fact that Adams is a 1...e5 player does not help him, I agree; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>but if he starts switching openings he will also have trouble, since now he will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>be playing a computer that knows the opening better than he does. _Either_ way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>is an up-hill battle. Adams might try 1...c6, since he has played that on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>occaision, but anything else is highly unlikely and computers can put some real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>presure on in the Caro too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>-Robin >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Believe or say what you want. If you think humans ought to play open positions >>>>>>>>>>>>>against the computers, that's your right to believe so. But it is an insane way >>>>>>>>>>>>>to play the game, as has been demonstrated _countless_ times in GM vs Comp >>>>>>>>>>>>>matches over the past few years... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I notice that: >>>>>>>>>>>>1) You conveniently don't comment on the other quotes from your posts, just the >>>>>>>>>>>>first one of the 5 I mentioned. Hmmm. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I notice that you have a _real_ problem following a conversation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I have noticed you have a _real_ problem with insulting people you don't agree >>>>>>>>>>with. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I tend to not >>>>>>>>>>>repeat something over and over if avoidable. I made it clear that my comments >>>>>>>>>>>were colored by the "computer vs human" issue. Early in the thread. I didn't >>>>>>>>>>>see any need to continually repeat that over and over. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If that slipped by you, oh well... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>No, that did not slip by me. I know all about the "computer vs human" issue. >>>>>>>>>>What _has_ slipped by me is a specific response by you to some of the specific >>>>>>>>>>quotes from you that I took issue with. I guess I will never get a response to >>>>>>>>>>those (other than insults). For example in one post you called 1...e5 against a >>>>>>>>>>computer "a blunder". In another you said not playing in an anti-computer style >>>>>>>>>>is "not a blunder". Which is it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>2) You seem to claim that I "think humans ought to play open positions against >>>>>>>>>>>>the computers"; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Please learn to read, then return to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Bob, you are the one not reading here. I was talking about what you seem to >>>>>>>>>>think that _I_ said: "If you think humans ought to play open positions against >>>>>>>>>>the computers, that's your right to believe so". But I have _never_ said humans >>>>>>>>>>ought to play open positions against the computers. Why do you imply that I >>>>>>>>>>think that? What quote can you show me where I said _anything_ remotely like >>>>>>>>>>that? You can't. Instead you twist my words into something I didn't say and then >>>>>>>>>>argue against the straw man you created. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I said _exactly_ the opposite unless I had a typo somewhere. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yes, I _KNOW_. I was talking about what you were saying about _me_. Learn to >>>>>>>>>>read, then return to the discussion. :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Clearly humans should play closed positions against computers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I agree, and I have repeatedly agreed. If they can. It just isn't all that easy >>>>>>>>>>against a program such as Hydra, playing the white pieces, that has probably >>>>>>>>>>been designed to open lines in anti-human fashion rather than being tuned to >>>>>>>>>>beat other computers, as most PC programs have been. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>That is what all the "anti-computer style" posts >>>>>>>>>>>are always talking about... I didn't say that you said the above anywhere in my >>>>>>>>>>>posts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Then what is this?: "If you think humans ought to play open positions against >>>>>>>>>>the computers, that's your right to believe so." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I _never_ said anything remotely like that. Stop putting up straw men. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I simply pointed out that open positions are _bad_ when playing a >>>>>>>>>>>computer. Period. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I _KNOW_; I _AGREE_. You can stop repeating yourself now. But you have also said >>>>>>>>>>other things. Like playing 1...e5 against a computer is a "blunder". I don't >>>>>>>>>>agree with that. You have also said, in effect, that Adams should play openings >>>>>>>>>>he doesn't know. I don't agree with that either. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but I _never_ said that. In fact I agree they shouldn't as I >>>>>>>>>>>>said in my other posts. But keeping the position closed is easier said than >>>>>>>>>>>>done, just avoiding 1...e5 is not enough. Plus if it means the human must leave >>>>>>>>>>>>their known book it is out of the frying pan into the fire. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Not for a GM. They have a few more skills than that and I doubt Adams or any >>>>>>>>>>>other GM would feel that uncomfortable playing something unusual. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Some GMs have very wide opening repertoires. Others do not. Adams is one of the >>>>>>>>>>ones who does not. In another post I gave a game where Adams tried the Najdorf >>>>>>>>>>against a player rated 370 points lower. Adams lost. I don't believe he has >>>>>>>>>>played the Sicilian since. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>And he did have months to prepare, don't forget. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yes. I'm sure he did. And he probably played 1...e5 against PC's, and he >>>>>>>>>>probably did just fine. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If he didn't use that time to figure this out, what more could be said? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>What makes you think Adams didn't figure something out? And how can you be sure >>>>>>>>>>he didn't figure out that he can play 1...e5 against computers and do OK? Not >>>>>>>>>>every game that starts 1.e4 e5 ends up open and messy. Not every game that >>>>>>>>>>starts 1.e4 <insert black move that is not e5 here> ends up closed and >>>>>>>>>>positional. White has a much easier time creating and open and messy game than >>>>>>>>>>black trying to keep things quiet. Of course PC's that have been tuned to play >>>>>>>>>>PC's don't generally open things up, but I think Hydra has been tuned to >>>>>>>>>>anti-human, not PC's. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Let me sum up my position for you Bob; maybe this time you will understand :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>1) I agree that where possible, humans should avoid open positions against >>>>>>>>>>computers. You don't need to keep repeating that. Everyone already knows that. >>>>>>>>>>Believe it or not, even Adams knows that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>2) For a GM with a wide opening repertoire, avoiding 1.e4 e5 is a good idea, >>>>>>>>>>because of #1, above. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>3) For a GM with a limited opening repertoire (Adams) it is _also_ a good idea >>>>>>>>>>to play the openings you know. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Adams opted to pay attention to #3. That is not a "blunder" or any of the other >>>>>>>>>>names his decision has been called. It is opting for the fire instead of the >>>>>>>>>>frying pan. That Adams lost the game is not surprising. Hydra is stronger. Hydra >>>>>>>>>>had white. A Hydra win was the most probable outcome no matter what opening >>>>>>>>>>Adams chooses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Keep on babbling. All your arguments are refuted by reality. >>>>>>>>>Right now Adams got smashed again after 1.e4 e5. >>>>>>>>>Again he was completely lost in under 30 moves. >>>>>>>>>The game 2 clearly proved that Hydra has no clue what to do if there is nothing >>>>>>>>>to do (Bf8,Be7,Bf8,h6) etc. before Adams tried to lose the game but didn´t >>>>>>>>>succeed. Probably he dreamed about a Kingside attack. He played some unnecessary >>>>>>>>>and weak positional moves in this game >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Michael >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You're a GM huh? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Robin is making a good arguement, and explains his position clearly, but both >>>>>>>>you and Hyatt, both below expert >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You are below expert. Bob is clearly an expert regarding Man vs. Machine. >>>>>>>I don´t know anyone in the world who has more experience. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm below expert? How would you know? Well, you're wrong, I've eaten Experts for >>>>>>Breakfast! >>>>> >>>>>Well, I think we had this discussion already. >>>>>I don´t believe a word of it. >>>> >>>>We did? When? >>>> >>>>I don't give a damn what you believe, all my chess friends have master ratings >>>>(with few exceptions) and I do win a lot of games, period. >>> >>>Talk is cheap "Mr. Anonymous". >> >>I'm not anonymous. And yes Michael talk is cheap. You're getting a little >>frustrated I see. > >I certainly don´t get frustated at all. Never? That's amazing! I wish I had your self-control!-:) > >>> >>>>>>>>correspondence GM and twice US correspondence champion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There are a lot of correspondence GMs in the World with a worse OTB rating than >>>>>>>I have. >>>>>> >>>>>>Maybe? That's not the point. I also think you have a bad habit of talking >>>>>>through your hat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Michael >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He's also a published author, Modern Chess Analysis. >>>>>>>He deserves a little more respect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He doesn´t need your help. I think he can defend himself if he feels unfair >>>>>>>attacked. That was certainly not my intention. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, he doesn't, but as a member here, I find your continued disrespect pretty >>>>>>childish and annoying. >>>>> >>>>>I´m not rude at all. "Keep on babbling" is not an insult in my book. It was not >>>>>very polite. That´s all >>>>> >>>>Well you have a "book" that needs revision, as you have been crass, ill-mannered >>>>to both myself and Robin. >>> >>>If you think I have violated the charter simply make a complaint. >>>I´m sure I didn´t. You need to grow some thicker skin and not understand >>>everything as an insult. >>>I couldn´t care less about someone who is not of my opinion and states it is >>>Nonsense. >>> >>>Michael >> >>Hmmmm...who's thin-skinned? If you were in violation of the rules I'd complain, >>you haven't crossed that boundary, yet. >> >>If you don't care less what I or Robin have said, then why reply? BTW I never >>stated your opinions were nonsense > >You misunderstood me. I used the word "Nonsense" in a reply to Robin Smith. > No, I understood you, but you didn't specify;IE the 1..e5 issue and other issues you had with GM Smith. So I addressed it accordingly. >Michael > > it was/is your demeanour that I find >>inappropriate. > > > > > >> >>Terry McCracken
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.