Author: Vladimir Xern
Date: 16:51:04 12/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
And here's a draw (mainly a draw out of book) against Fruit 2.1 I played a while
ago:
[Event "Computer Chess Game"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2005.07.25"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Me"]
[Black "Fruit 2.1"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C56"]
[Opening "Two Knights"]
[Variation "Classical, Canal Variation"]
[TimeControl "300+1"]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 Nc6 4. Nf3 exd4 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Re1 d5 7. Nc3 dxc3
8. Bxd5 f5 9. Ng5 cxb2 10. Nxe4 fxe4 11. Rxe4+ Ne7 12. Bxb2 Bf5 13. Qf3 c6
14. Bxc6+ bxc6 15. Qxf5 Qd5 16. Qg4 h5 17. Qe2 Kf7 18. Re1 Ng6 19. Rd4 Qxa2
20. Ra4 Qd5 21. Rd4 Qa2 22. Ra4 Qd5 23. Rd4 Qa2
{3-fold repetition} 1/2-1/2
Of course posting such games doesn't 'prove' much. I think Pablo does an
excellent job. I've only gone through one of his games (I got the gist of his
strategy), but I appreciate what he does. I don't think he deserves half the
flak he receives here from people like you, because he made no claims in the
first place. "Well he should play something that isn't boring!" or "play real
chess" = apples to oranges, and ignorance is the only reason I can see to keep
making these arguments.
I think these baseless ad hominem attacks against Pablo, and now Uri and K.
Burcham should stop. No one appreciates the cries for attention or obvious
arrogance.
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.