"Michael Sayers" wrote in message

If the outcome of our games is going to be usurped by arbitrary public
consensus at any time, rather than being settled by the final result
of the moves and the abilities of the players, then I am no longer
interested in participating.


mdamien wrote:

There's a nice little finesse. I apologize if I've spoken out of turn, but
with his last move and comments, I thought it was clear that White had
already investigated these lines. I think the kibitzers here would have
deviated at White's 15th or 16th move, so this was certainly GF's game.


You haven't spoken out of turn. He didn't mind when you and I were
discussing the opening less than ten moves into the game. In fact, in
his challenge to Lance Smith/Goran Fischer, he actually wrote:

"For my part, I plan to ignore the kibbitzers."

When David Richerby, in message 8 of the thread, said, "If you don't
want the participation of the group, please take this to E-mail", Sayers
responded:

"As I infer from his email, Goran Fischer may support group
participation. Feel free to offer advice to him as the game proceeds."

Apparently he's changed his mind now that Smith is putting the squeeze
on him.

This post is a clarification that not only do I not feel Black has a
losing (lost) position, but also that the decision of when to resign
from a lost game is a personal choice. Even if I were losing, so long
as there were still plenty of material on the board, and plenty of
chance that my opponent would slip up and allow a draw (if not a win),
I would fight on.

It is important that we have a moratorium on appeals to the public to
decide the fate of our games. You may prefer to feel destined to win
either - or both - games. This feeling can not be used to override my
involvement with the progress of the games - and, frankly, judging
from prior moves in the game, I don't think you really know what to do
from the White side of the position in the Evans Gambit game. If
White does have a forced checkmate in that position (which is
equivalent to saying that White has a won position), then it must be a
checkmate that runs many, many moves deep - to deep for detection.
Therefore, the game is still going to primarily be decided by the
difference in our playing strengths and weaknesses - not by whether or
not a forced checkmate for either side does, in fact, reside in the
position.

I should remind you again that I am ahead in material in the Evans
Gambit game, and add that you have (according to my examination) the
option to, at most, lessen my material advantage by one pawn.

The Black side is winning, and likely shall win.


Regards,
Michael Sayers

I would like to see the game played out without interference.

David Bohm

"Michael Sayers" wrote in message
om...
This post is a clarification that not only do I not feel Black has a
losing (lost) position, but also that the decision of when to resign
from a lost game is a personal choice. Even if I were losing, so long
as there were still plenty of material on the board, and plenty of
chance that my opponent would slip up and allow a draw (if not a win),
I would fight on.

It is important that we have a moratorium on appeals to the public to
decide the fate of our games. You may prefer to feel destined to win
either - or both - games. This feeling can not be used to override my
involvement with the progress of the games - and, frankly, judging
from prior moves in the game, I don't think you really know what to do
from the White side of the position in the Evans Gambit game. If
White does have a forced checkmate in that position (which is
equivalent to saying that White has a won position), then it must be a
checkmate that runs many, many moves deep - to deep for detection.
Therefore, the game is still going to primarily be decided by the
difference in our playing strengths and weaknesses - not by whether or
not a forced checkmate for either side does, in fact, reside in the
position.

I should remind you again that I am ahead in material in the Evans
Gambit game, and add that you have (according to my examination) the
option to, at most, lessen my material advantage by one pawn.

The Black side is winning, and likely shall win.


Regards,
Michael Sayers

"Michael Sayers" wrote in message
om...
This post is a clarification that not only do I not feel Black has a
losing (lost) position, but also that the decision of when to resign
from a lost game is a personal choice. Even if I were losing, so long
as there were still plenty of material on the board, and plenty of
chance that my opponent would slip up and allow a draw (if not a win),
I would fight on.

It is important that we have a moratorium on appeals to the public to
decide the fate of our games. You may prefer to feel destined to win
either - or both - games. This feeling can not be used to override my
involvement with the progress of the games - and, frankly, judging
from prior moves in the game, I don't think you really know what to do
from the White side of the position in the Evans Gambit game. If
White does have a forced checkmate in that position (which is
equivalent to saying that White has a won position), then it must be a
checkmate that runs many, many moves deep - to deep for detection.
Therefore, the game is still going to primarily be decided by the
difference in our playing strengths and weaknesses - not by whether or
not a forced checkmate for either side does, in fact, reside in the
position.

I should remind you again that I am ahead in material in the Evans
Gambit game, and add that you have (according to my examination) the
option to, at most, lessen my material advantage by one pawn.

The Black side is winning, and likely shall win.


Regards,
Michael Sayers


I, for one, will refrain from any further comments on the game. I completely
agree that a game is not lost until checkmate or resignation.

Matt

Michael Sayers vs. Goran Fischer

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be7
8.0-0 0-0 9.Be3 Be6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Bf5 12.f4 exf4

Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3
8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 h6
14.Rac1 Bb6 15.Rfd1 g5 16.Qb2 Rg8 17.Bc5 Ra8 18.Qa3 Bxc5 19.Rxc5 Qg6
20.Nd2 Ne7 21.Be4 Qe6 22.Rxc7

FYI, I've been playing the Evans Gambit for lots of years now, therefore
I should know what to do from either side of the board. I also have a lot
of books about it as I already manifested in our earlier discussions.

As I said before, there's no immediate mate because Balck can give up
pawns and pieces to ward off the threats, but White definitely get
compensation for the 2 pawns. IMO, White will eventually win the game
barring major blunder.

All the best, GF

Michael Sayers vs. Goran Fischer

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be7
8.0-0 0-0 9.Be3 Be6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Bf5 12.f4 exf4 13.Bxf4

Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3
8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 h6
14.Rac1 Bb6 15.Rfd1 g5 16.Qb2 Rg8 17.Bc5 Ra8 18.Qa3 Bxc5 19.Rxc5 Qg6
20.Nd2 Ne7 21.Be4 Qe6 22.Rxc7 Qxe5


MS

"Michael Sayers" wrote:
.... the decision of when to resign
from a lost game is a personal choice. Even if I were losing, so long
as there were still plenty of material on the board, and plenty of
chance that my opponent would slip up and allow a draw (if not a win),
I would fight on. ....

This is a good attitude for OTB players as well -- it's a reasonable
compromise between playing on even after it's clear the opponent will win,
and resigning just because the opponent is "theoretically" winning but may
lack the expertise to win.

When to resign should also be a function of the (perceived) playing strength
of the opponent.

Bill Smythe

"mdamien" wrote in message . ..
I, for one, will refrain from any further comments on the game. I completely
agree that a game is not lost until checkmate or resignation.


I don't want to discourage free discussion of the game. I just want
to retain the option of deciding when and if to resign (not that the
position of the Evans Gambit game in anway suggests that Black is not
winning). It seemed like the outcome of the game was about to be
decided by voting, rather than just lettings the rest of the moves
play themselves out.


Regards,
Michael Sayers

Michael Sayers vs. Goran Fischer

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be7
8.0-0 0-0 9.Be3 Be6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Bf5 12.f4 exf4 13.Bxf4 Nd7

Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3
8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 h6
14.Rac1 Bb6 15.Rfd1 g5 16.Qb2 Rg8 17.Bc5 Ra8 18.Qa3 Bxc5 19.Rxc5 Qg6
20.Nd2 Ne7 21.Be4 Qe6 22.Rxc7 Qxe5 23.Rc5

Regards, GF

Michael Sayers vs. Goran Fischer

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be7
8.0-0 0-0 9.Be3 Be6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Bf5 12.f4 exf4 13.Bxf4 Nd7

I'll post my fourteenth move shortly.

Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3
8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 h6
14.Rac1 Bb6 15.Rfd1 g5 16.Qb2 Rg8 17.Bc5 Ra8 18.Qa3 Bxc5 19.Rxc5 Qg6
20.Nd2 Ne7 21.Be4 Qe6 22.Rxc7 Qxe5 23.Rc5 Qd4


Regards,
Michael Sayers