But if Black had found 32...Rde8! instead of retreating the Queen ...? Hard to say what White should do next. There's the Mickey Adams approach: 33.Qxe8 Qxg3+ 34.hxg3 Rxe8 35.Rc6 and White has a superior ending.

Otherwise, White has no easy way to maintain pressure. 33.Qd5+ Qe6 looks equal. Black might come out better if White tries anything else.

That Ng4 move is a perfect example. I liked it, because based on analysis by Ceri and others it looked like there were real attacking prospects. Then the engines refuted them, and there was ongoing friction between 'purist' engine analysts and those who aim to use engine analysis to refine human ideas.

Ideal would be to pick a team of say 12-15 team-members who share a similar philosophy and approach accompanying the optimal implementation.

In other words there's only so much a team of 300 voters with 90% anonymous can do. Even at 3 days per move, although the prospects improve significantly, of course.

I certainly did - that's the move I was afraid of. ;p But I gambled he would miss it, as he was focusing on hitting f2, and he did. I did say I was providing the game as a comic centerpiece, dinni? ;)

I'd reach something like this - where White has a firm grip and Black can't do anything without dropping pawns:

click for larger view

Then I'd spend ages trying to find a win, while Black instantly moves Ra7-a8-a7.

I don't know how to escape that.

<Dom again: That Ng4 move is a perfect example. I liked it, because based on analysis by Ceri and others it looked like there were real attacking prospects.>

I don't happen to think much of <Ceri> anyway, so that I wasn't very open to the idea from the getgo.

I am not sure if that means I will never listen to him again or what. I recall a team FRC game where I made a lukewarm endorsement of a move that was pretty much losing. Maybe I won't listen to me again.

<achieve: Ideal would be to pick a team of say 12-15 team-members who share a similar philosophy and approach accompanying the optimal implementation. >

Not gonna happen. I think two prominent kibitzers are net detriments to the World team. Most people are enthralled with their ideas. I'm sure they'd be acclaimed as senior analysts, though they surely don't speak for me. I guess there's a lot of people who have widely differing opinions of various analysts. Not sure how you could agree on who the top analysts are any more than you can agree on the top move.

All this stuff may actually be bad for chess. Engines already allow amateurs to scoff at the efforts of top human players, often without much grasp of the mental pressure involved.

In his book 'The Cult of the Amateur', Andrew Keen writes that Web 2.0 - the world of google, Youchoob, various kinds of social networking - is killing off expertise. Traditional media, including newspapers and the music industry, are in freefall. Mainstream cinema and TV may not be far behind. In a world of amateur content it becomes harder for an 'expert' musician, writer or chessplayer to get paid for what they do.

Keen helped to invent Web 2.0. So did I, in a small way, just by imagining it about 30 years ago and writing some stories and articles.

I remember, maybe about move 8 in GMAN-1, when chaos still ruled, somebody made a plea for 'strong players' to step forward, naming me among others. I replied, in effect "Not me, I'm on the B-list at best", and I mentioned Honza as somebody I knew to be a strong player.

Then twinlark got the forum system underway, and organizational leadership became the priority. Which I think we did pretty well, though we were also lucky that Thorsson was there for analytic leadership.

My #1 comp collapsed a few hours ago - I think it caught something nasty from a Russian website. Comp #2 is also down. I've had to go back and dig this ancient one out just to get online. It works, but only just.

A computer made of "Stone knives and bearskins", as Mr Spock said.

And I'm stuck somewhere in the middle of nowhere right now because I stayed at work so late I missed the last bus, so I was aiming to catch a train, that was then half an hour late, and has since stopped several times in open country...

I'll get home sometime, I suppose.

Not our day, eh? ;s

We had a semi-troll recurring solipsist for a while. Kinda amusing, as I recall ... insisting that nobody else was real. Not nasty like lemmings or tar-babies ... or the one who kept telling us that the GM would "crush [us] lol".

BTW, I'm afraid my email is down. Might take a coupla days to return. I can access CG on this relic, but many other websites overwhelm it. Don't have Fritz either ... Winboard and GNU 5.0, which I used to beat pretty easily. Sigh.

Think I've been through eight computers since this was last activated.

'Dom' is perhaps the easiest such. I think I was first to suggest 'Deffi' for Open Defence, though Ohio's 'Odie' is good. Speaking of, some people prefer the acronym 'OCF' which always makes me think of a diagnostic list.

Only one long-handled participant objected to short forms: it was 'Gufeld_Student', who found 'Guff' and 'Guffy' quite undignified.

Ohio also had a stalker for a while. It is only now that I really understand how utterly unpleasant that is. And it's even worse when it seems funny to onlookers.

Very good point.

Just got in... and only a <little> frozen. ;)

OK. Mebbe I'll ask Jess for your Hotmail address.

One thing worth trying re. Gmail, if you manage to get in even once, is to scroll straight to the bottom of the page and click the "basic HTML" link.

This one is relatively old, but that's not really its main problem. After a big crash, a few years back, it wouldn't reboot, and I eventually managed to cobble something half-functional out of it. It's never been repaired by a pro, and probably shoulda been.

At least I can mouth off (and ear on) here.

Did I tell you about the local radio reporter? I did, didn't I? I'm not much more than a mile from the airport here, where a small commuter plane crashed earlier, landing in fog.

<Assuming, as you say, that winning is the sole objective (ie, no 'learning', no 'team spirit', etc)> _winning_ being *the* as in 'main', overriding objective, and of course you cannot disgard learning and team-spirit, essential elements/ingredients, without which the performance level by definition will decrease, plummet.

<then I'd go for a slightly bigger team, maybe 25 or 30. Both to have a range of human inputs and a widespread of computing power.> I tend to agree: eg 4 analysis units of 4 persons each, plus an overview unit, also considering the need to deal with and conquer different timezones in which the units operate, etc. ... which indeed will add up to 20-25, perhaps a few more, total, in such a 'team'.

<But then it becomes harder to maintain the kind of cohesion and solidarity you talk about.> I think it could be possible, but quite a strain on indeed team-spirit, organization, not obsessively draining energy from oneself and eachother... All rather utopian, I agree, but worth the term <"CHALLENGE"> ;-)

I'd highlight two points in a game: the first and second crisis. First crisis comes when you leave theory behind (move 10 or move 25) and try to adapt your knowledge of generic plans with the specifics of the situation. GM games typically consume a lot of time here, jostling for advantage, looking for plans, calculating.