|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-11-03 | | drukenknight: ha ha. Too funny, there is a glitch in the program on move 22. Have you ever seen the leap frogging d pawn? |
|
| Jun-11-03 | | ksadler: cxd6+ likely? |
|
| Nov-20-03 | | kevin86: Of course Fischer needs another game,he analyzed the game of chess to death! lol. If a computer can't,no one can. Of all of its near-infinite possibilities,chess is safe. It won't become tic-tac-toe any time soon. |
|
| May-13-04 | | rochade18: Why is it sheer madness? It is unusual but there are so many other chess variants which are really crazy. But Fischer's variation is playable, maybe more popular someday. |
|
| Jun-08-04 | | mynameisrandy: I like it actually. I wish there were some games on the database that didn't feature players so clearly striving to get back to level ground by clearing the randomized complications as fast as they can. I think it could be very interesting. |
|
| Jun-08-04 | | acirce: This game became drawish more quickly than most real chess games. |
|
| Mar-24-05 | | Orbitkind: That was a pathetic draw. But I think the game itself was still very nice to watch because of the freshness. |
|
| Mar-24-05 | | Orbitkind: <drunkenknight: ha ha. Too funny, there is a glitch in the program on move 22. Have you ever seen the leap frogging d pawn?> Oh dear me drunkenknight. That is what we call 'en passant'. |
|
| Mar-24-05 | | Everett: <acirce> are you suggesting that the current set-up of pieces in "normal" chess is the "best" set-up for lively play? |
|
| Mar-24-05 | | azaris: <Everett> I think he was saying that despite all the hype behind Chess960, this particular game was dead boring. The unusual starting position does not always translate to an interesting game. |
|
| Apr-16-05 | | focoma: Well, there are two ways to react to Fischer Random Chess openings: one is to play safe and boring, and another is to be more creative. But it's only boring because the players are playing safe, not because they've already memorized opening moves (as in boring orthodox chess openings). The only way we'll see the true potential of Chess 960 is if players are brave enough to be creative. |
|
| Apr-16-05 | | azaris: <focoma> I think part of the problem is enforcing rapid time controls in 960. That's just stupid. The position is very complicated with neither player having prepared for the opening, they should get at least an hour if they are expected to get anywhere out of the opening without blundering horribly or playing dead boringly. |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | calman543: This game only worked in pgn form because neither side castled. |
|
| Jul-16-05 | | calman543: <azaris>, You say the time control was rapid. How fast was it? |
|
| Apr-13-06 | | technical draw: In FRC it appears that a lot of early exchanges will get you to a standard setup. I think that with FRC and early exchanges you will have a lot more draws than standard chess. Which, of course, was the reason for inventing FRC to avoids draws, right? |
|
| Apr-14-06 | | MorphyMatt: 1. e4 e5 2. ♘d3 lol |
|
| Dec-30-06 | | Pi Guy: This game was part of an 8-game match played between the two. Leko won the match 4.5-3.5 with 2 wins and 5 draws, but only the first two games of the match are on this site. |
|
| Dec-22-07 | | apple pi: I didn't even know they had Fisherandom in this database! |
|
| Dec-23-07 | | Buddy Revell: <apple pi> Me neither, actually. |
|
Dec-24-07
 | | Phony Benoni: And, just to prove that standard chess can be just as weird as FRC: K Miton vs Sadvakasov, 2000 |
|
| Jan-29-09 | | WhiteRook48: when a guy thinks this is normal chess. it's like WHAT?? 2. Nd3?! the knight can't go there- oh wait it was on e1. Ha ha ha |
|
| Feb-01-09 | | WhiteRook48: Starting position was so funny |
|
| Mar-21-09 | | WhiteRook48: "Falkbeer Countergambit, Fischerandom variation" |
|
| Jun-12-09 | | WhiteRook48: Adams gambit |
|
| Sep-14-11 | | Golden Executive: Just for fun, Rybka 4 960 suggest this opening:
1.c3 ! f5
2.f4 g6
3.g3
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 4 960 w32:
3...c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc2 Bc7 < = (0.07) Depth: 17 > 
click for larger view6.d3 d6
7.e4
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 4 960 w32 depth 15:
<1. = (0.09): 7...e5> 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.exf5 gxf5 10.d4 e4 11.Nh4 f4 12.gxf4 a5 13.Be3 a4 14.a3 Bb3 <15.Kb1> Ra5 16.Nf2 Bxc2+ <2. = (0.10): 7...fxe4> 8.dxe4 e5 9.fxe5 dxe5 <10.b3> Qa3+ 11.Kb1 Be6 12.Be3 Kb8 13.h3 Qe7 14.Nf2 Bd6 15.Qe2 Nf7 16.Bd3 Analysis by Rybka 4 w32 depth 15:
<1. = (0.11): 7...fxe4> 8.dxe4 e5 9.fxe5 dxe5 <10.Be3> Ne6 11.Qe2 b6 12.Nf2 Kb7 13.Rf1 Rd8 14.Nd3 Nxe4 15.Ndxe5 N4c5 16.Nd4 Nxd4 <2. = (0.15): 7...e5> 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.exf5 gxf5 10.d4 e4 11.Nh4 f4 12.gxf4 a5 13.Be3 a4 14.a3 Bb3 <15.Nf2> Kb8 16.Rg1 Ra5 17.Bxe4 Nxe4 18.Nxe4 Qe7 Who understand engines ?! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
