chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Computer
  
Number of games in database: 40
Years covered: 1987 to 1999
Overall record: +6 -16 =18 (37.5%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
C47 Four Knights (2 games)

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Computer
Search Google for Computer


 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 40  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Kasparov vs Computer 1-0281987RotterdamD15 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
2. Alburt vs Computer  ½-½561989Harvard (USA)A40 Queen's Pawn Game
3. Silman vs Computer ½-½431991It Chicago (USA)D27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
4. Computer vs Zsofia Polgar  ½-½661993It (active), Oviedo (Spain)D47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
5. Computer vs W Schmidt 1-0511993Katowice mB84 Sicilian, Scheveningen
6. Anand vs Computer  1-0751993It (active)B19 Caro-Kann, Classical
7. Joel Benjamin vs Computer  ½-½47199401, Boston Harvard CupD00 Queen's Pawn Game
8. K Burger vs Computer  1-0411995ICC 2 12 08/26/95 Internet Chess ClubD90 Grunfeld
9. Computer vs Bisguier  ½-½331995It Chicago (USA) (01)C67 Ruy Lopez
10. Computer vs K Burger  0-1531995ICC 2 12 08/26/95 Internet Chess ClubD52 Queen's Gambit Declined
11. Joel Benjamin vs Computer 0-161199502, Cup Harvard New York USAA11 English, Caro-Kann Defensive System
12. Zsofia Polgar vs Computer  ½-½611995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)C00 French Defense
13. L Christiansen vs Computer 1-0241995Tournament (computerD02 Queen's Pawn Game
14. Computer vs Zsuzsa Polgar ½-½411995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)C12 French, McCutcheon
15. Computer vs Zsofia Polgar  0-1721995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)D05 Queen's Pawn Game
16. L Christiansen vs Computer 0-1941995Tournament (computerD32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
17. Computer vs Zsofia Polgar  ½-½451995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)B48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
18. Computer vs Zsuzsa Polgar 1-0571995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)B22 Sicilian, Alapin
19. Zsuzsa Polgar vs Computer  1-0541995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)A46 Queen's Pawn Game
20. Zsofia Polgar vs Computer  ½-½231995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)C47 Four Knights
21. Computer vs Zsofia Polgar  ½-½541995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)B23 Sicilian, Closed
22. Computer vs Zsuzsa Polgar 0-1261995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)C44 King's Pawn Game
23. Computer vs Zsuzsa Polgar 1-0481995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)B32 Sicilian
24. Zsofia Polgar vs Computer  1-0321995Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands)C26 Vienna
25. K Burger vs Computer  1-0891996BR 3 12 03/13E32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 40  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Computer wins | Computer loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Aug-13-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Giraffe vs. Ziggurat, Match 2 (40 moves / 2 hrs> (part 2 of 2)

[Event "Giraffe vs. Ziggurat, Match 2"]
[Date "2016.08.12"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Giraffe_w64"]
[Black "Ziggurat_x64"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2440"]
[BlackElo "1550"]
[Opening "Scandinavian"]
[Variation "2...Qxd5 3.Nf3"]
[ECO "B01"]
[TimeControl "40/7200:40/7200:40/7200"]

1.e4 [+0.03/18 181] d5 [0.00/9 17] 2.exd5 [+0.51/19 236] Qxd5 [-0.03/8 15] 3.Nf3 [+0.49/18 226] Bf5 [-0.03/9 15] 4.Be2 [+0.79/17 211] Nc6 [+0.14/9 15] 5.d4 [+0.61/17 168] O-O-O [+0.14/8 15] 6.Nc3 [+0.57/17 156] Qa5 [+0.20/8 15] 7.Bd2 [+0.67/17 151] Nb4 [+0.17/9 15] 8.Rc1 [+1.15/17 293] Nxa2 [+0.01/8 15] 9.Nb5 [+2.59/19 256] Qb6 [+0.78/8 15] 10.Ra1 [+2.99/19 265] c6 [+0.76/8 15] 11.Na3 [+3.32/20 226] Nb4 [+0.66/8 15] 12.Nc4 [+3.44/19 197] Nxc2+ [+0.04/10 15] 13.Kf1 [+3.21/19 203] Qc7 [+0.16/8 15] 14.Rxa7 [+3.67/19 215] Kb8 [-0.32/9 15] 15.Ba5 [+3.75/18 137] Qf4 [-0.33/9 15] 16.Rxb7+ [+3.85/18 169] Kxb7 [-0.56/8 15] 17.Bxd8 [+3.72/18 185] Be4 [-0.26/8 15] 18.Nfe5 [+3.99/16 132] Nxd4 [-0.11/8 15] 19.g3 [+8.18/17 98] Qh6 [-3.33/9 15] 20.Qxd4 [+9.07/18 153] Qc1+ [-6.46/8 15] 21.Bd1 [+9.22/17 166] Ka8 [-12.46/9 15] 22.Qxe4 [+9.72/19 144] Qxd1+ [-18.31/10 15 Black resigns] 1-0

[Event "Giraffe vs. Ziggurat, Match 2"]
[Date "2016.08.12"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Ziggurat_x64"]
[Black "Giraffe_w64"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1550"]
[BlackElo "2440"]
[Opening "Reti Opening"]
[Variation "1...Nf6 2.e3"]
[ECO "A05"]
[TimeControl "40/7200:40/7200:40/7200"]

1.Nf3 [0.00/10 17] Nf6 [+0.14/19 254] 2.e3 [0.00/10 15] d5 [+0.06/19 284] 3.Bb5+ [+0.06/8 15] c6 [+0.28/18 233] 4.Be2 [+0.08/9 15] Bg4 [+0.34/18 291] 5.O-O [+0.05/9 15] e6 [+0.36/19 271] 6.Nc3 [+0.10/9 15] Nbd7 [+0.63/18 191] 7.h3 [+0.05/9 15] Bxf3 [+1.21/20 227] 8.Bxf3 [-0.03/9 15] h5 [+0.96/19 272] 9.b3 [+0.03/8 15] g5 [+2.44/19 206] 10.Bb2 [+0.11/8 15] Bd6 [+3.08/19 147] 11.Qe2 [+0.09/8 15] g4 [+3.72/20 145] 12.hxg4 [-0.74/11 15] hxg4 [+4.13/19 233] 13.Bxg4 [-0.74/9 15] Qe7 [+4.01/18 222] 14.Bh3 [+1.04/9 15] O-O-O [+3.92/17 210] 15.Rad1 [+1.01/8 15] Rdg8 [+4.39/17 200] 16.Kh1 [+1.13/9 15] Rg4 [+4.25/16 190] 17.Na4 [+1.20/8 15] b5 [+4.52/17 130] 18.Nc3 [+1.17/8 15] Kb7 [+4.26/16 136] 19.a4 [+1.19/8 15] b4 [+4.48/17 91] 20.Na2 [+1.13/8 15] e5 [+4.41/16 108] 21.f3 [+1.12/8 15] Nh5 [+5.61/17 157] 22.Kg1 [+1.06/9 15] Ng3 [+5.63/17 82] 23.Qe1 [+1.09/9 15] Rgg8 [+5.67/17 80] 24.Rf2 [+1.09/8 15] Ne4 [+6.06/18 99] 25.fxe4 [+0.24/9 15] Rxh3 [+6.66/17 76] 26.Re2 [-0.14/8 15] Rgg3 [+8.50/18 71] 27.exd5 [-4.08/9 15] Qh4 [+8.68/18 93] 28.Qxg3 [-4.12/10 15] Qxg3 [+8.95/17 96] 29.dxc6+ [-4.60/9 15] Kxc6 [+9.09/17 71] 30.c3 [-4.52/8 15] e4 [+29.99/21 113] 31.Nxb4+ [-M4/7 0 White resigns] 0-1

So this once again shows that basing an engine on human-like playing reasonable both from the viewpoint of capability and computational efficiency. Too bad that its developer, Matthew Lai, decided to stop his work on it because of possible conflicts with his job. But the Giraffe code is open source so maybe someone else will be willing to continue its development.

Aug-13-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <alexmagnus> I picked the Zsofia Polgar vs Computer, 1995 game at random and saw that it was played in Tournament (computers), Hague (Netherlands) (1995). A Google search indicated that Z. Polgar's opponent was Dappet and led me to the game on this site (Zsuzsa Polgar vs Dappet, 1995). A search on Dappet let me to this site: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.... So I suspect that the information is out there and it is likely that if one was sufficiently motivated(I'm certainly not!) one could find out the chess engines involved and something about them. But nobody really cares much in either case anymore. The most notable exception, of course, were the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue where description of both the computer hardware and software has been described in detail.

I think that the reason that these human vs. computer games are rare is that prior to 1990 the result of a human top player vs. computer game was usually pretty much a foregone conclusion and after 2000 the result was also pretty much a foregone conclusion – but the other way! So I think that only during the 1990s, when the outcome was possibly somewhat in doubt were these type of games played and publicized.

Aug-16-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Who was the greatest chess player of all time?> (part 1 of 2)

My concern with the Truechess.com paper, http://www.truechess.com/web/champs..., and the others are two:

1. The search depth used to determine the reference best move is laughably inadequate to provide much confidence in the accuracy of the computer's evaluation, particularly in close positions. Bratko et. al. in their original papers limited the search depth to fixed 12 ply or less (not even search extensions were used), and the Truechess.com study refers to an average search of 17.4 "iterations" which I assume to be ply. And that average search was conducted for an initial "full six minutes", also laughably inadequate to provide much confidence in the accuracy of the computer's evaluation. Later studies used early versions of Houdini at higher search depths, but the articles did not address the fact that Houdini needs a greater search depth than Rybka (which the authors used once they abandoned Crafty) in order for one to have comparable confidence in its evaluation. So, while the greater search depth used with Houdini might seem on the surface to be a significant improvement over the search depth used with Rybka, it is effectively not much more accurate in determining the "best" move in a given position.

I'm not trying to disparage the authors. The affordable technology at the time that they made their studies was primitive compared to what's available today. And they probably had a limited amount of time to devote to their projects. So they were caught between a rock and a hard place; they needed to analyze a sufficiently large number of games and positions in order for their results to be statistically significant but, given that the time to achieve greater search depths increases exponentially, they just didn't have the time available to devote to their projects.

The limited search depth was defended by claiming that the computer move rankings did not change much as the search depth was increased, so the results obtained by low search depths was adequate. Well, I know from personal experience that this is false; depending on the position an engine's top ranked move can change several times as the search depth increases.

So I think that the authors have compiled a flawed database of positions and evaluations which would take much time to correct, and have used this flawed database to arrive at questionable conclusions. I therefore do no have much faith in the accuracy of their results.

Aug-16-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Who was the greatest chess player of all time?> (part 2 of 2)

2. The authors used only one engine at any one time. I again know from personal experience that different engines produce different move evaluations and rankings, so who’s to say that one engine's top ranked move is better than another engine's top ranked move? No only that but, because of the non-determinism of chess engines, particularly multi-core engines, the same engine running on the same computer, when used to analyze the same position and run to the same search depth, will give different evaluations and rankings. Not MAY, WILL. Guaranteed. Again, this aspect of computer position analysis has never been addressed to my knowledge by any of the authors, and might not even have been appreciated at the time that they did their research.

So determining a reference move to be used to grade the player's choice of move is not easy and would be very time consuming. Imagine having to run an analysis of <each> position multiple times by multiple engines, each analysis at a much greater depth. Such an analysis would require much greater computing resources and much more time. And in the end there is no good known (at least to me) to determine the confidence level in one or several engines' evaluation of a position, so we don't really know how good the agreed upon reference move is.

<Sally Simpson> If you have gotten this far you might remember the discussion we recently have about ways to assess the complexity of a position with regards to including within an engine ways to determine that a position might be difficult for a human to analyze. The http://www.truechess.com/web/champs... article provides one possibility to attempt to do this.

Aug-16-16  Sally Simpson: Hi Alerkupp,

I followed the link...

Glad to hear you are out on parole.

I doubt if anybody (or thing) can answer the question 'who was/is the greatest chess player'.

But no harm done in setting a top of the range computer onto it. Just don't expect everyone to agree.

If God almighty himself appeared and stated who the greatest player there would always be someone (especially on here) to argue with him and in some cases make a valid point.

(The rows would get that bitter some would end up on God's ignore list)

Regarding a computer knowing what is and what is not a difficult position for a human is nigh impossible. It all depends on who they are playing.

How can you tell a machine that does not even know it is playing a game that it's opponent is a GM or a beginner.

When to start setting cheapo's tricks and traps in a lost position is beyond the top computers. They are too powerful, they cannot anticipate a bad move.

Yes what is the point, they can beat humans so why the need to cheapo humans, which I have no doubt they could do.

I bet in some famous lost games they could have muddied the waters if only we could let them - it must be frustrating for them. It can see a shot that turns the game into turmoil. No problem for it to thread it way through but impossible for a human. And yet it cannot play it. It has to follow the 'play the best move' routine.

See:

Van der Wiel vs Short, 1990 (kibitz #2)

Sep-06-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <Bill Gates wants you to send him your resume if you can finish this insanely difficult book>

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/...

<In the world of Silicon Valley, there are few books held in higher esteem than "The Art of Computer Programming," a multi-volume set by Stanford professor emiritus Donald Knuth.

"If you think you're a really good programmer... read (Knuth's) Art of Computer Programming... You should definitely send me a résumé if you can read the whole thing," read a quote from Bill Gates on the cover of the third edition of the first volume.>

Sep-06-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: (<OhioChessFan: <Bill Gates wants you to send him your resume if you can finish this insanely difficult book>

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/...

<In the world of Silicon Valley, there are few books held in higher esteem than "The Art of Computer Programming," a multi-volume set by Stanford professor emiritus Donald Knuth.

"If you think you're a really good programmer... read (Knuth's) Art of Computer Programming... You should definitely send me a résumé if you can read the whole thing," read a quote from Bill Gates on the cover of the third edition of the first volume.>>

If you were that good, you would have created something better than "Windows" and Bill would be sending you his resume.

Sep-06-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: Tried that (volumn I) e-book, think I got to page 8 before I decide to switch to Angry Bird.
Sep-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: I wonder if Ken Thompson or Dennis Ritchie read that book through, cover to cover?
Sep-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <• Everyone spoke highly of Knuth’s The Art of Computer Programming, and plenty of people owned copies that they dipped into from time to time, but only one person had actually read it all the way through. (I don’t remember who, sorry).

• Everyone agrees that Knuth’s “literate programming” seemed like a pretty neat idea, but no-one had ever actually done it. (Er, except Knuth.)>

https://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/0...

Sep-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: <zanzibar> that is the fate of outstanding books:

Everybody agrees they are a must read,
many pretend to have read them and very few actually did.

(I am not alluding to the pseudo-intellectuals on Rogoff)

Sep-07-16  Absentee: <diceman: If you were that good, you would have created something better than "Windows" and Bill would be sending you his resume.>

Linux and BSD are better than Windows.

<only one person had actually read it all the way through. (I don’t remember who, sorry).>

That's Knuth himself, although I'd bet good money that even he can't remember every plot twist and minor character with their patronymic.

Sep-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: Windows did not succeed because it was/is the better operating system but by IBM accepting it and giving Bill Gates the happiest moment in his life.

I admire Knuth already for Latex (not for condoms)and "Insel der Zahlen".

Sep-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Appaz: <<Absentee> Linux and BSD are better than Windows.>

That depends on what you are going to use it for. As a desktop OS the different GNU/Linux distributions suck big time compared to OSX and Windows. The different GUI options are unstable, too heavy and even sometimes introduces stupid security issues.

For low level work like programming, processing data or as a server OS it's magnificent.

Sep-07-16  Absentee: <Appaz: <<Absentee> Linux and BSD are better than Windows.>

That depends on what you are going to use it for. As a desktop OS the different GNU/Linux distributions suck big time compared to OSX and Windows. The different GUI options are unstable, too heavy and even sometimes introduces stupid security issues.>

The only reason I can think of for running Windows is if you want to play games. Videogame development is almost exclusively Windows-centric. For everything else I'd still pick GNU/Linux (personally, I use Funtoo for both the usual desktop stuff and programming). Incidentally, OSX, too, is based on BSD, ie it runs a proprietary interface on top of a BSD kernel.

I'm curious as to which GUIs you found unstable. There are a dozen, more if you count plain window managers, and in my experience (all GNOMEs, LXDE, XFCE, Cinnamon, brief stints on KDE, Unity and E17) they're rock-solid. Practically all of them, except KDE the Unholy Mammoth and maybe Unity, are considerably lighter, faster and less resource-hungry than Windows. Can you elaborate on the security issues? The X server doesn't run with administrative privileges unless you explicitly make it, so it should be impossible to compromise a machine through the GUI.

Sep-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Appaz: I wouldn't recommend GNU/Linux for the typical computer illiterate secretary or home user. I once installed Ubuntu instead of Windows for my ex-gf, hoping this would result in less free support from me, but I was wrong. She was less able to troubleshoot issues herself and I also found myself searching a lot for the right drivers for some peripherals.

The GNOME interface I've used on Mint and Ubuntu (on several different computers) sometimes crashes for no obvious reason. The kernel is still running, but all input devices dies so the only fix is a hard reset (pressing the power button for several seconds). This occasionally happens on Windows too, but in 9 out of 10 times, Windows is able to detect this and restart the Explorer GUI automatically.

At my previous work we also experienced several problems setting up a stable development environment with Ubuntu on some old but powerful Dell boxes.

Windows also has much more functionality built into the GUI and things like drag&drop and keyboard shortcuts are more advanced.

The security issue I was thinking about is not of a technical nature, but the stupid habit my Mint and Ubuntu boxes have after a boot. Usually it automatically fills in the user name of the last logged in user, so all I have to do is to give the password, but suddenly it "forgets" this and wants to have my user name too. When I don't recognize this, I type in my password visible for anyone to see. Not what you want in an open working environment. If this happened every time it wouldn't be an issue, but it's the random behavior that makes it a security issue.

I've worked on all three major desktop OS'es (and even some old mainframe systems) but I'm not locked into a particular environment. I pick my tools, whether it being the OS or a programming language, depending on what kind of work I have to do (if I'm allowed of course).

Fanbois stuck in an environment or to a certain programming language, exclaiming "<this> is the best for anything", just aren't very professional in my eyes.

Sep-08-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: For the record, Knuth invented TeX, Leslie Lamport invented LaTeX (an elaborate set of macros built on top of TeX):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesli...

It's funny how little Lamport's wiki page talks about LaTeX.

Here's a link to Amazon's version of the TeX manual:

https://www.amazon.com/TeXbook-Dona...

I think LaTeX and TeX both used the same illustrator.

Backslashes are oh so \special aren't they?

Sep-11-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: One of the unsung heroes of the early days of Linux...

Alan Cox, recently recognized with an honorary degree by his old Alma mater, Swansea University:

http://www.swansea.ac.uk/graduation...

(Didn't realize alma should always be capitalized in Alma mater)

Sep-11-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: I think it is even Alma Mater. at least in German.
Sep-11-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: Yes, I was wondering about that, but there's this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_...

And, of course, I'm just a humble supplicant of my overlord, Spellcheck - the ultimate arbiter in these matters.

Sep-11-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: <zanzibar> the article has all three - alma mater, Alma mater and Alma Mater. I guess we have to wait for the master linguist <Abdel> to clarify. <Abdel> does not have an Alma Mater but probably can teach us about the spelling hahaha
Sep-12-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  cro777: If you use the more general noun rather than the proper noun, this should not be capitalised.

The same rule applies for the Latin phrase "alma mater" - it should not be capitalised if it is not specific. ("My alma mater was books, a good library.")

Of course, in German all nouns are capitalized!

Sep-14-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: ∞

<If you were that good, you would have created something better than "Windows" and Bill would be sending you his resume.>

As with Betamax/VHS, it isn't always the better version of anything that triumphs in the market. Sometimes aggressive selling and even dumb luck become more decisive factors than quality.

(If this were not so, do you think Microsoft's bloatware OSs would dominate?)

Sep-14-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Appaz: All you Windoze haters can't rest easily, in a few years it will be marginalized.

Already it has lost it's dominating position because of Android and *nix (including iOS/OSX). Gaming and other applications are moving to OS independent Internet technology. Consoles have taken large share of the gaming market. Data storage is moving to the cloud.

Very soon, the only computer we will have is our mobile phone. At home we will dock it get access to a keyboard and a bigger screen.

"Mobile phone" is already an outdated term: most the time we use it for other things than phone calls. It has now become the <real> Personal Computer, the new PC.

Sep-14-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Appaz: I have a head start on you here, as I <HATE> both Android and iOS (and WinPhone of course).

If Microsoft have courage, they could find a niche with a phone OS that put the user in the center and protects his privacy instead of selling his whole personal life on the market, as Google and Apple do.

It's shocking that we accept NO control over our most important computer which have access to a lot of our personal life like mail, friends, Internet habits, real-time location or real-time audio recording. Applications are starting up at will, multiple times if killed, and there are no way of stopping them - except with some specialized third party software - and they have free access to the all the data and all the functionality of the phone.

People are of course becoming very sloppy when installing well known software and doesn't hesitate to give it access to irrelevant data and functionality. Then there are all the pre-installed bloatware from Google and Apple themselves, for which you have no control at all.

On a desktop computer such behavior from software would be labeled Trojan and not accepted, so I wonder why we accept it on our new, even more PC.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC