Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Computer Chess / Gambit style engine
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next  
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 04:53
I am talking about wiki article who is the author, beside you have shown me 2 more pages with the same exact content, not very convincing I say.
Parent - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 07:06
Wiki mention the sources which i have found convincing. But not better than the book by Vasilev.
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 04:22
and here
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 04:28
You know this is the same sentence used by the WIKI. So maybe another reference is more appropriate.
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 04:30
That is what I am showing.
His over cautious style was unpopular. see here
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 04:41
For example: "Diversity of styles at world championship level is proof of the richness and profundity of chess. After failing to dethrone him in 1966, Spassky described Petrosian as ‘first and foremost a stupendous tactician’. Kasparov has reported, referring to a post mortem session in 1981, that ‘I found that Petrosian’s positional judgement was considerably deeper than my own"

or

" Petrosian’s amenability to an early handshake and his inexplicable (Botvinnik’s word) playing style, which never made him a favourite with those columnists or anthologists chiefly interested in printing 25 or 30 moves of glitter. Diversity of styles at world championship level is proof of the richness and profundity of chess"

There is nothing in the link that talks about waiting for opponents blundering.
In fact most of your quotations could be categorized: " Ultimately what counts, even more than sporting results, is the character and depth of a player’s talent and the quality of his best games, and in this respect Petrosian’s peers have been notably more appreciative than the chess commonalty"
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 04:46
You are side tracking. My first post was his Unpopular style or dull style. I have proved it. Regarding "waiting for blunder" is not a specific comment rather the analysis done by many annotators like Mihail Marin, Raymond Keene as he never went for tactics. If he saw draw then he went for it. He was overcautios and didn't have that courage to take risk. So he waited for the opponents to blunder or else went for draw.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 04:49
No my problem is with your original comment he just waited for opponents to blunder which after all we have studied  now we know is a fallacy. Agree or disagree?
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 04:58
It was a 99% correct statement. He himself has admitted that.
He never went for the Tactical struggles rather safe guarded his position from oponenet's tactics.
Thats was the reason of his high draws in tournaments. Always at 3 or fourth but undefeated. He was capable of playing like Alekhine, capa but didn't have the courage to take risk.
So any player who tried to win him tactically failed.No matter what he was a class player.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 05:06
So if it is a 99 percent correct statement where you leave his positional sense, his strategical masterpieces, why is so difficult for you to admit at least this statement is completely incorrect and false?
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 05:21

>So if it is a 99 percent correct statement where you leave his positional sense, his strategical masterpieces,


Where did I say I didn't admit that ?

>why is so difficult for you to admit at least this statement is completely incorrect and false?


Look.Capablanca was also a strategical player but If u look in your database you will find that he was the first player to go to play speculative sacrifices. The Bishop sac on e6 was first pioneered by Capa.
He had the guts to play it on baord. But on the contrary Petrosian learnt chess from studying capas games and was firm admirer but never went for "Speculation" as he considered it not a logical calculation rather he played like
Nimzowitch. Prepare for opponent's tactics first, wait and then attack. His Tactical ability was used in defense sensing opponent moves/attacks rather than in Attack. Just many don't like that which does not mean he is a bad player ?. He was a class player.
Nothing to admit here. Its a fact which every one knows. Can you tell me about his lots of Draws in Tournaments ? I can Tell you.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 05:29
Ok all you have said, but as I repeat for n^n the comment of him waiting for opponents to blunder is a gross misinterpretation of all you said in this post. Where you leave his sense for danger, his boa constrictor style, his strategical sense of how to play> in fact that comment is an insult to any chess player.  Agree or disagree?
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 05:51
Disagree.
Are u dumb ?. Why u dividing both things which are related ? .How many times I have to say For Tigran it is related. What do you understand by Boa Constrictor Style ?
Boa constrictors are ambush predators and as such will often lie in wait for an appropriate prey to come along at which point they will attack. Thats Petrosians Style.
There are many Strategic players in his time like Korchnoi, smyslov but they were not like petrosian. Petrosian play frustrated Even Botvinnik !!!! . His strategy was such that he forced opponents to make mistakes. That was his style.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 05:56
Again insulting, could you make a post without calling names, i thought Indians were relaxed and peaceful people.

So now you are saying his strategy forced opponents to make mistakes. Compared this with the comment that started this whole discussion, Petrosian waited for opponents to make mistakes. Are the 2 sentences the same?
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 06:10

>Again insulting, could you make a post without calling names, i thought Indians were relaxed and peaceful people.


I am like that. But your headstrong way of not accepting few simple things are making me Irritating. I am not Insulting you at any mean. I like formal discussions. If you think that them I'am Sorry for that.

>So now you are saying his strategy forced opponents to make mistakes.


Not now. I am saying from the very first post About TIGRAN"S Style specially.

>Petrosian waited for opponents to make mistakes. Are the 2 sentences the same?


Yes not literally . But related. His style forces that. If opponent doesn't blunder he waits. Even then he doesn't Then he accepts or asks draw. If Opponenet Blunders then Then opponents fate is near.He was satisfied with that. There is a lots of proof of that.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 06:22
Om you have been calling me dumb, in a couple of posts already, you have lost your temper.

In english language every sentence must have a verb. In this examples one verb is wait the other is forced, and that small difference in verbs make the meaning of the 2 sentences different. Force is and action verb, you are trying to make something happen. The other is wait is more a passive verb, you expect an outcome to happen but do not take an action to accomplish that outcome. See both sentences are different.

So if you say that Petrosian style made opponents blunder, I agree with that but not that he just waited to opponents to blunder, in the first his difficult style as quoted by Botvinik made it extremely hard for his opponents, au contrair with him just sitting in a position just waiting for opponents blunders. In this last proposition you do not take in account his style of playing that forced opponents blunders
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 06:31

>Om you have been calling me dumb, in a couple of posts already, you have lost your temper.


yes sorry for that. I am irritated by your understanding.

>So if you say that Petrosian style made opponents blunder, I agree with that but not that he just waited to opponents to blunder, in the first his difficult style as quoted by Botvinik made it extremely hard for his opponents, au contrair with him just sitting in a position just waiting for opponents blunders. In this last proposition you do not take in account his style of playing that forced opponents blunders.


Hey That doesnot mean always. But his style against Good players was like that.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 06:37

> Hey That doesnot mean always. But his style against Good players was like that


Not necessarily, he won 2 gold medals at first board on Olympics, won the interzonal, Soviet Championships (by far the strongest tournament in the world) so you are overextending the argument.
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 06:51
That was bcoz he was good . But what about this ?
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 06:56
Well the purpose was to qualify for the interzonal and he achieved it.The greater goal was to play for the world championship. As he was one of the strongest players in the world, players were happy to accept a split point as the book says.
Parent - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 07:03
I know that. Many would have done that being at top, but he was happy in minimum.
His character reflects in his play. Over cautios. As said by vasilev - For petrosian a bird in hand is better than 2 in the bush.
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 07:26
See here
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 07:29
Well I agree with the part of the statement " maybe I am in error..."
Parent - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 08:04
:mad:
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 04:54
Now you quote Marin, where did Marin wrote that Petrosian waited for opponents to blunder?
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 04:59
Read the book How to defend in chess. By the way do you understand Prohylaxis ?
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 05:07
and what prophylaxis got to do with waiting for opponents to blunder?
Parent - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 06:28

>and what prophylaxis got to do with waiting for opponents to blunder?


And are you sure u don't know this ? I don't think so.
If you stop opponent's all chances of attack what you feel opponent will do then (who is playing for a win not draw) ?What you would have done ? Try something different right ? 90% chances for oponent make a blunder definitely.

This is one thing I have taught to my students a lot to try when playing against stronger players than them.
Here is one game to show you of my student IM Anwesh Upadhaya. He Now takes Caching from GM G Timoshenko and GM Boris Avrukh. I work on his database and opening preparation now. Look at GM Surya Sekhar Ganguly (Anands 2nd )'s 42nd move.

[Event "13th Dubai Open"]
[Site "Dubai UAE"]
[Date "2011.04.11"]
[EventDate "2011.04.10"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Anwesh Upadhyaya"]
[Black "Surya Shekhar Ganguly"]
[ECO "E67"]
[WhiteElo "2432"]
[BlackElo "2643"]
[PlyCount "141"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nbd7
7. O-O e5 8. e4 exd4 9. Nxd4 Re8 10. h3 Nc5 11. Re1 Bd7
12. Kh2 h6 13. Rb1 a5 14. Ndb5 Bxb5 15. cxb5 Nfd7 16. f4 h5
17. Qc2 c6 18. bxc6 bxc6 19. Be3 Qc7 20. Rbd1 Rab8 21. Qf2 Ne6
22. Re2 Nb6 23. Rc2 Nc4 24. Bc1 Qe7 25. Na4 d5 26. exd5 cxd5
27. Bxd5 Nd6 28. Re2 Qf6 29. Nc3 Nd4 30. Rxe8+ Rxe8 31. Bg2
N6f5 32. Nd5 Qe6 33. Nc3 h4 34. g4 Ne3 35. Bxe3 Qxe3 36. Qxe3
Rxe3 37. Rd2 g5 38. Kg1 gxf4 39. Nd5 Nf3+ 40. Bxf3 Rxf3
41. Ne7+ Kh7 42. Nf5 Bxb2 43. Rxb2 Rxh3 44. Kg2 Ra3 45. Nxh4
Rg3+ 46. Kf2 Rxg4 47. Nf3 Rg6 48. Rb7 Rc6 49. Rxf7+ Kg8
50. Rd7 Rc3 51. a4 Ra3 52. Rd4 Ra2+ 53. Ke1 Kf7 54. Rxf4+ Ke7
55. Nd2 Ra3 56. Kd1 Ke6 57. Kc2 Kd5 58. Nb3 Ra2+ 59. Kc3 Rh2
60. Nxa5 Kc5 61. Nb3+ Kb6 62. Rf6+ Ka7 63. Kb4 Rb2 64. a5 Rb1
65. Rf7+ Ka6 66. Rf6+ Ka7 67. Rf2 Ka6 68. Kc4 Rh1 69. Rf6+ Ka7
70. Nc5 Rb1 71. Ra6+ 1-0
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 06:34
Nice game but prophylaxis is denying the opponents threats before he attempts them. Still do not understand what it got to do with opponents blundering could you explain the point you are trying to make.
Parent - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 06:48
I mean That when as a player you sense opponents attacks and his style, you play  precautionary moves. Now the opponent looking  for a win finds he has nothing more a draw. If the player is a top board player to maintain its top spot its hard he is going  to shake hands easily. Then He starts something different to baffle the opponent. After all its a psychological game. Most of the time the attacker fails to strong defense.

If you see my game against Stephanie you will find this. I had a draw in hand and asked him/her draw 10 times. .She/he didn't accept. I ha a chance to simplify things but I didn't went for a bad sideline just to expect he/she makes a mistake and he did and it was a draw. Aron and Tigran have Influnced me much like anything. Had I been Ignorant about him i wouldnot have argued against you as i dont like argument, makes my temper go high.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 04:57
Again "dull" style is just an incorrect statement used by people with little chess knowledge as the quotes you have given for example from Kasparov and Botvinik and the copy I found all champions praised Petrosian. Agree or disagree?
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 05:04
Disagrree.
Praising is about the good qualities. That was in him. Agree.
But he was over cautious player not a romantic player. No one likes a Overcautios player. Hence dull.
You wont see fireworks on board when petrosian plays. Thats why Boa Constricter style. Very few like him.
Find what GM Korchnoi said about Petrosian.
U feel Tolush,Korchnoi has less Knowledge ?
Interesting!!
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 05:10
do they know better than 7 world champs?
and if you are not a romantic player your game could not be praised by connoisseurs or by a general audience?

and you are wrong that no one likes ultra cautious players, because again all the world champs praised him, now you  are going to tell me wiki knows better than them...
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 05:33

>do they know better than 7 world champs?


Good players are not always good annotators. But the Vice-versa may be true .Remember this first.
Do you know about GM Alexander Tolush.
You posted something that I could't read. So I can't comment. Post a englis one or your sources.

>and if you are not a romantic player your game could not be praised by connoisseurs or by a general audience?


Yes thats the trend. If not satisfied. Go n make a poll whose style is more popular between Alekhine , Tal , Fisher and Petrosian and find it yourself. You are open to do so.
Here in the forum you will find More admirers on Thinker Passive or Rybka Dynamic than of Houdini . You can ask this any one.

>and you are wrong that no one likes ultra cautious players, because again all the world champs praised him, now you  are going to tell me wiki knows better than them...


First things first. I am not WRONG. I will showed you that and will show you and you are dumb enough to not to understand that.
Second thing is when someone praises a WORLD CHAMP they are unlikely to say negative things of a player after all he is a class world champ. Kasparov himself even said "Passive".

Here is the Texts from the book Vasilev. ( note -I have done more research on Petrosian and Morphy than any other players.)
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 05:41 Edited 2011-07-07 05:52
Again relaying to insults when you could not prove your point.
Again a poll is meaningless because his style is better understood by good chess players. That is the point, commoners will not understand Petrosian style as you have demonstrated with your comments.
So Tolush and Korchnoi comments are more valid than the ones from Botvinik, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov,Kasparov? nice to know.

Sources Ajedrez en la Cumbre by Tigran Petrosian. Foreword by Garry Kasparov (and he never used the word passive in this introduction)

Thank you for the sources, author said he doesn't need to take chances, so why he would take it, to please fans?
And what about Botvinik saying Petrosian style was difficult for opponents to meet.

It says he withstood numerous attacks and waited to seize the initiative, nothing said about waited for opponents to blunder. If that is your interpretation you need to work in your reading comprehension.
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 05:58

>It says he withstood numerous attacks and waited to seize the initiative, nothing said about waited for opponents to blunder. If that is your interpretation you need to work in your reading comprehension.


You are a real dumb guy I have ever met here. U lack common sense.

>It says he withstood numerous attacks


Thats defensive style. Rather attacking he faced them.

>waited to seize the initiative


Thats the waiting of opponents blunder.

>nothing said about waited for opponents to blunder


And thats your dumb understanding.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 06:03 Edited 2011-07-07 06:09
More insults Om, come on aren't you a yogi or something like that.

>waited to seize the initiative
>Thats the waiting of opponents blunder.


One does not imply the other. You could take the initiative without your opponent blundering you know that, don't you?
Besides in your other citation the author explained his style forced the opponents to blunder, that is not waiting in my verb definition.
Really you should back to your english reading class.

What kind of chess are you teaching kids?
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 06:16

>More insults Om, come on aren't you a yogi or something like that.


What Insults ? . I don't mean it. U r just irritating me.

>One does not imply the other. You could take the initiative without your opponent blundering you know that, don't you?


Yes I do. Yes Alekhine can. Tal Can, keres Can but not Petrosian.

>What kind of chess are you teaching kids?


Whatever but not petrosian's style. None of my students like him except me. My students are Alekhine, Anand , Morozevitch and Shirov's Fan. They hate Petrosian like anything. They ask me often why if there as a combination he could win a pawn or exchange why didn't he go for it ? Why he played a waiting Move ? and I had no answer only to say that Its Petrosian' Prophylaxis.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 06:30
When you call someone dumb you are insulting that person at least in my country, maybe in yours is a way to express love, don't know.

So Petrosian can not take the initiative without the opponents blundering, you are overextending your thin line of defense a lot here Master Om.

I will use a term you quoted the exchange sacrifice. With that sacrifice Petrosian took positional control over the board and sometimes it was a defensive resource in other a way to achieve positional supremacy. Either way after the sacrifice Petrosian took the initiative and it was not result from an opponent blundering  it was a result of the structure of the position.
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 06:34

>When you call someone dumb you are insulting that person at least in my country, maybe in yours is a way to express love, don't know.


:roll:

>So Petrosian can not take the initiative without the opponents blundering, you are overextending your thin line of defense a lot here Master Om.


Only against The Top players ,not the weaklings. Why he should wait for them ?
You need prove of that I can show you.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 06:51
What about this game 13... g5 looks like an attacking move to me.
[Event "Yugoslavia ct  Rd: 22"]
[Site "Yugoslavia ct  Rd: 22"]
[Date "1959.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Petrosian"]
[ECO "B11"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "136"]

1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 Nf6 6. d3 e6
7. g3 Bb4 8. Bd2 d4 9. Nb1 Bxd2+ 10. Nxd2 e5 11. Bg2 c5
12. O-O Nc6 13. Qe2 g5 14. Nf3 h6 15. h4 Rg8 16. a3 Qe7
17. hxg5 hxg5 18. Qd2 Nd7 19. c3 O-O-O 20. cxd4 exd4 21. b4
Kb8 22. Rfc1 Nce5 23. Nxe5 Qxe5 24. Rc4 Rc8 25. Rac1 g4
26. Qb2 Rgd8 27. a4 Qe7 28. Rb1 Ne5 29. Rxc5 Rxc5 30. bxc5
Nxd3 31. Qd2 Nxc5 32. Qf4+ Qc7 33. Qxg4 Nxa4 34. e5 Nc5
35. Qf3 d3 36. Qe3 d2 37. Bf3 Na4 38. Qe4 Nc5 39. Qe2 a6
40. Kg2 Ka7 41. Qe3 Rd3 42. Qf4 Qd7 43. Qc4 b6 44. Rd1 a5
45. Qf4 Rd4 46. Qh6 b5 47. Qe3 Kb6 48. Qh6+ Ne6 49. Qe3 Ka6
50. Be2 a4 51. Qc3 Kb6 52. Qe3 Nc5 53. Bf3 b4 54. Qh6+ Ne6
55. Qh8 Qd8 56. Qh7 Qd7 57. Qh8 b3 58. Qb8+ Ka5 59. Qa8+ Kb5
60. Qb8+ Kc4 61. Qg8 Kc3 62. Bh5 Nd8 63. Bf3 a3 64. Qf8 Kb2
65. Qh8 Ne6 66. Qa8 a2 67. Qa5 Qa4 68. Rxd2+ Ka3 0-1
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 07:00
The best ever Game. Not a attacking move but ,g5 is the best prophylactic move. Idea - Stop f4 attack or the Nf3-h4 plan. Great!! , which is why fisher played Qe2! . Comments on this game in NIC is terrific.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 07:04
There is also this exchange sacrifice in an ending just for the passed pawn. Exchange for initiative.
[Event "Yugoslavia ct  Rd: 22"]
[Site "Yugoslavia ct  Rd: 22"]
[Date "1959.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Petrosian"]
[ECO "B11"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "136"]

1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 Nf6 6. d3 e6
7. g3 Bb4 8. Bd2 d4 9. Nb1 Bxd2+ 10. Nxd2 e5 11. Bg2 c5
12. O-O Nc6 13. Qe2 g5 14. Nf3 h6 15. h4 Rg8 16. a3 Qe7
17. hxg5 hxg5 18. Qd2 Nd7 19. c3 O-O-O 20. cxd4 exd4 21. b4
Kb8 22. Rfc1 Nce5 23. Nxe5 Qxe5 24. Rc4 Rc8 25. Rac1 g4
26. Qb2 Rgd8 27. a4 Qe7 28. Rb1 Ne5 29. Rxc5 Rxc5 30. bxc5
Nxd3 31. Qd2 Nxc5 32. Qf4+ Qc7 33. Qxg4 Nxa4 34. e5 Nc5
35. Qf3 d3 36. Qe3 d2 37. Bf3 Na4 38. Qe4 Nc5 39. Qe2 a6
40. Kg2 Ka7 41. Qe3 Rd3 42. Qf4 Qd7 43. Qc4 b6 44. Rd1 a5
45. Qf4 Rd4 46. Qh6 b5 47. Qe3 Kb6 48. Qh6+ Ne6 49. Qe3 Ka6
50. Be2 a4 51. Qc3 Kb6 52. Qe3 Nc5 53. Bf3 b4 54. Qh6+ Ne6
55. Qh8 Qd8 56. Qh7 Qd7 57. Qh8 b3 58. Qb8+ Ka5 59. Qa8+ Kb5
60. Qb8+ Kc4 61. Qg8 Kc3 62. Bh5 Nd8 63. Bf3 a3 64. Qf8 Kb2
65. Qh8 Ne6 66. Qa8 a2 67. Qa5 Qa4 68. Rxd2+ Ka3 0-1
Parent - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 07:05
Thats Petrosian at the fullest.
Parent - - By TheHug (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 07:06
Petrosian was really good with the black pieces.
Parent - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 07:19
Obviously. He was a defensive player.
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 04:31
here , here he is termed as Turtle.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 04:34
Ok what this page got to do with chess?
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2011-07-07 04:35
You read it.
Go here too.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-07 04:43 Edited 2011-07-07 04:52
Again you are quoting articles that repeat the same sentence ad-verbatim. Wiki, armenia-chess at this one use the same sentence.
Wiki: " He usually won by playing consistently until his aggressive opponent made a mistake, securing the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own. "

Chesspower: "He usually won by playing consistently until his aggressive opponent made a mistake, securing the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own."

travelarmenia: "and lastly travel armenia: "He usually won by playing consistently until his aggressive opponent made a mistake, securing the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own."

Sound familiar any of them?
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Computer Chess / Gambit style engine
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill