You mentioned about buying a computer and memory stick. Keep in mind, the more memory you have, the bigger hashtable for your chess software to perform its calculation (therefore, faster, because it don't have to re-calculate).

My computer at work is 1 Gig RAM, and the one at home is 3/4 Gig. The one at work is hyper-threading, while the one at home is only Celeron-M chip.

I find the one at work much better/faster and be able to do more (compiling, debugging, web-surfing, running Shredder, checking e-mail, etc... all at once.) than the one at home. (my fan comes on full blast, my CPU usage goes off the wall, etc...)

I am fairly happy with my laptop at home, which I take on my (chess) trips, to analyze my games, and download my pictures taken, and I really don't see a need to quite replace it yet. (I bought it about 3.5 years ago at a price of under $750.00 American.)

But when I do, I think I'll try to keep it under $1,000 American, but try to get a duo-core.

And yes, I've added more RAMs to my original purchase, it came only with 256 RAMs. Post your questions on PCs or just computers on your forum. We'll all try to answer them for ya.

All I need is the minimum to run a Fritz, really. And at my playing level, it certainly doesn't have to calculate "fast."

Anyways. I happened to idly mention the notorious Wannabe Gambit on the Timmerperson page... just a practice shot, really, to see if I can still cut it as a Freelance Nuisance. So questions were asked, naturally. And then this happened:

<<Waitaka: <Domdaniel: Is there any new theory on the Wannabe Gambit?> Oh, please, what is the WannaBe Gambit?> 1.e4 2.Ke2

Generally, theory recommends 1.e4 e5 2.Ke2 Qh4 3.Nf3! and now if Qxe5#?? white's advantage in development compensates for the checkmate and pawn.>

This brilliant contribution by <who> - any relation to the Doctor of that ilk? - deserves your consideration. Should be up there with the great witticisms of our time, you ask me.

BTW, I have independent confirmation that this so-called <Timmerman> chap is a <Jan Timman sock puppet>.

Just ask <Bill>.

So I think the lack of research into <Timman's> games bespeaks a WOEFUL lack of forsight on behalf of the team so far.

I'd undertake the research myself if I weren't so bone idle.

Regards,
Batchimeg Tuvshingtug (I lost 200 chessbucks betting her to win in her last game, which she drew).

So I doubled up betting 200 on <Harikrishna> to win over <Kurtz> in the 8th race at <Ascot Downs>.

In this month's Chess Life they have an interview with J Kraai. The interviewer asks him how he made the leap up from low 2400 to GM and 2500+. He said it was when he stopped studying openings and began studying games--especially his own (and, if I recall correctly, his own losses). I'm sure, though, that he knows openings well enough!

Off to Bamphooee tomorrow. Big thunderstorm here now--must shut off computer temporarily!

but studying end game theory IMHO is the most important.. this part of the game has not really changed for 100s of years .. only the very best e.g. Lasker .. created new end game theory...

<Gata Kamsky: nigel
Gata Kamsky: <<i don't want to talk about it, but if you want to do something about this, we can settle this like real men, outside. I'll be waiting>>

Nigel Short: Yes. That is exactly how your Dad wanted to settle it too.

I won 1,200 chessbucks yesterday betting him to LOSE against <harikrishna>.

whahahahaayee

Either way, though, these days he's <Old Yeller> anyways.

<Secretariat> had a heart half the size of a normal horse and he won the <Triple Crown>!!

Plus, remember the <Grinch> too. He had a little heart and then it got REALLY BIG and he saved Christmas.