Most of us know that a BOOC endgame is a draw. So why do you insist in following your computer's recommendation to do so! Is the program your servant or master? The computer should suggest, not dictate. If you have looked at my sample lines you would see that the position offers certain thematic attacking possiblities...

Now let us look at your line, 33.Qc1?
Ok, how about 33.Bf6! (this shouldn't come as a shock!)

Probably was the most poignant was from a well-known author, who was going to submit his game. He told me after he saw my game, he wished me well ... and told me he was not even going to bother to submit his game to CJA!

The national magazine (CHESS LIFE) carried and listed these awards.

A more mathematical explanation of this might call to mind the idea of non transitive sets, a simple of one goes like this: A beats b, B beats C, C beats A! (suprisingly).

Think of Frazier beating Ali, Foreman beating Frazier and Ali beating Foreman in the Thrilla in Manila.

ANother one is the voting paradox, i.e. Condorcet's theorem, that no voting system is perfect. Think of how you would rate desserts on the following basis: price, healthyness, taste.

You: "Waiter, how is the apple pie tonight?"

W: "Lovely, but the cherry tastes much better, sir"

You: "Really, then I'll have blueberry!"

Get it?

To recreat that relationship (or any non transitive relationship) mathemtically requires a minimum of 3 variables.

A numerical summary, a ONE NUMBER summary, would necessarily fall short.

So it is with computer programs or anyone who tries to assign a game a single number.

I'm still laughing.

..

<This game won the CJA award for ... "Best Web-Based Analysis.">

AJ Goldsby, November 2004:

<Chess Journalists of Americal <sic> is a real institution. Their awards are very prestigious.>

Edward Winter, January 2004:

<If chess is 99% tactics, chess awards are 99% tack. The obsession with handing out tinsel crowns now seems unstaunchable, and it is time to give due recognition to those chess organizations which have made the greatest contribution to turning awards into a laughing-stock. The top three winners are announced here in reverse order.

Third prize goes to the Chess Journalists of America, a <dazzlingly undemanding body> with a track-record of dispensing hundreds of awards, <often to self-nominees with no realistic hope of an accolade from elsewhere>. The winners read like a Who’s Who of who deserves nothing. The one blot on the CJA’s copybook is that a few deserving chess writers have, just occasionally over the years, found their way onto the prize-list, and such inconsistency by the Association has dashed its chances of top honours in our contest here.>