(Michael Sayers) wrote in message om...

While there is no time stipulation in our game, I won't wait
indefinitely for your reply in the 1. e4 e5 position, as there is no
TN in that position worthy of such detailed analysis as to require so
many days for an examination.

You're not paying attention then, yesterday I sent this message. It's
still there. It's your move.

Goran

================================================== ==
From: Goran Fischer )
Subject: message for Goran Tomic
View: Complete Thread (10 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: 2004-05-16 08:42:08 PST


Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3

Richerby is right, we are in a chess forum therefore he should be able
to participate in the discussion. I don't have any problems with that.

Goran

..
Hmmm...the idiot, Micheal Sayers, rants on and on about the dreaded evils of
time-limited moves, then quickly loses patience with Goran "Fischer" Tomic, and
demands that he reply by some arbitrary deadline, not realizing that GT had
already made his reply! LOL



It is apparent from his arrogant comment that the idiot, MS, disdains anyone
who might consider various different approaches to the position after 1.e4 e5.
For example, Goran "Spassky" Tomic might toy with the idea of venturing a
King's Gambit here, instead of the hackneyed Ruy Lopez. In essence, MS insists
that you must play by rote, having already decided which opening to play and
responding quickly like an automaton, at least until after the "long variation"
nears its end.

We are already beginning to favor GT's winning chances, barring any computer
cheating, that is. Not because the black side of the RL is tough to defend,
but because MS is so incoherent, arrogant, and for that matter, not
particularly alert. Perhaps it would be wise for GT to make sure he announces
any checks and for good measure, gives the fair warning: "guarde le Dame!"







You're not paying attention then, yesterday I sent this message. It's
still there. It's your move.


Don't rush him! He's thinking up a TN. Hmmm...f5? ...d5? ...Bd6?
....Qe7?
....f6?!!

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...

It is apparent from his arrogant comment that the idiot,
MS, disdains anyone who might consider various different
approaches to the position after 1.e4 e5. For example,
Goran "Spassky" Tomic might toy with the idea of venturing
a King's Gambit here, instead of the hackneyed Ruy Lopez.
In essence, MS insists that you must play by rote, having
already decided which opening to play and responding
quickly like an automaton, at least until after the
"long variation" nears its end.

Goran Fischer used the traditional 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 path. It should
not be beaten even with computers. We'll see in a couple of MS replies
and find out if he's beaten and adjudicate this game.

..
In one famous game in this line (1e4 e5 2Nf3), Garry Kasparov, unable to
defend as Black, resigned to Deeper- Blue, not realizing that the
monster-computer had carelessly left its King open to a "deep perp."

Goran Fischer used the traditional 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 path. It should
not be beaten even with computers.


Agreed. 1e4 e5 2Nf3 cannot be beaten even with computers. It is the moves
which follow that worry me. :-)

(Goran Fischer) wrote in message . com...
Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3

Richerby is right, we are in a chess forum therefore he should be able
to participate in the discussion. I don't have any problems with that.

Goran

I am sorry about the mistake in not having seen your post. Also, I
have no objection to any group discussion of the game.

Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers

1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6

Over to you.....


Michael

Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers

1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6

As long as group discussion is invited....

There is a convention of providing IF .... THEN..... conditional moves in
order to speed up the opening play.

So, something like:

2..Nc6
if 3.Bb5 then (pick a move)
if 3.Bc4 then (pick a move)

etc.

Back to my cave.

David

--
without the block

"David" wrote in message ...

There is a convention of providing IF .... THEN..... conditional moves in
order to speed up the opening play.

So, something like:

2..Nc6
if 3.Bb5 then (pick a move)
if 3.Bc4 then (pick a move)

etc.

Back to my cave.

David

Greetings,

This may make sense for forced lines in which the opponent has a
single legal response, but not otherwise.

The moves so far in Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6


Michael

(Michael Sayers) wrote in
message . com...
"David" wrote in
message ...
There is a convention of providing IF .... THEN.....
conditional moves in order to speed up the opening play.
...

This may make sense for forced lines in which the opponent has a
single legal response, but not otherwise....

Mr Sayers, David is correct. There *is* a common (though not universal)
convention among experienced correspondence chess players of specifying
conditional moves even when the opponent has more than one possible
legal move in response.

--Nick

(Michael Sayers) wrote in message . com...
"David" wrote in message ...

There is a convention of providing IF .... THEN..... conditional moves in
order to speed up the opening play.

So, something like:

2..Nc6
if 3.Bb5 then (pick a move)
if 3.Bc4 then (pick a move)

etc.

Back to my cave.

David

Greetings,

This may make sense for forced lines in which the opponent has a
single legal response, but not otherwise.

The moves so far in Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6

Michael

Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4

I'll follow David's advice and post IF moves as follows:

IF 3...Bc5 THEN 4.b4
The Evans Gambit. Black is a pawn up. If you check the analysis
of Fritz, Junior, or Shredder, they're saying that Black is
winning.

IF 3...Nf6 THEN 4.Ng5
The Two Knights. Black is favored to win as published in most books
and in the analysis of chessplayers in the Correspondence World.

OR if you like, we can play both variations.

Regards, Goran

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...

Agreed. 1e4 e5 2Nf3 cannot be beaten even with computers.
It is the moves which follow that worry me. :-)

I don't, because all of the moves that follow lead to Black's loss.