| |
Main
Date: 11 Dec 2007 00:49:50
From: Mark
Subject: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
People are encouraged to think of chess players as st. On the contrary,
chess players are merely monomaniacal. Anyone who spends their life
staring at a game when they could be getting laid isn't very st in my
book.
Chess players claim that the game teaches strategy. It does not. It
teaches memorization. No rational person would claim that memorizing pi
out to a thousand places increases your grasp of strategy, but chess
players will make that claim about a game which is nothing more than a
memorization exercise. If there was some overarching 'strategy' that would
lead to success in the game of chess, there would be no need for opening
books.
Chess players who fancy themselves historians claim that chess originated
somewhere in China. This is, of course, completely false. It was
fashionable, in the 19th century, to ascribe mystical and exotic origins to
the game of chess, in an attempt to romanticize what is, at its heart, a
rather poor way to pass the time. In fact, chess was developed by Muslim
scholars who wanted a simple way to pacify Christian prisoners that were
captured during the Crusades. The game only found its way to China later,
carried by merchants along the silk road.
If you have any specific questions about chess, and you would like me to
give you the unadulterated truth about the game, rather than the propaganda
that is typically spewed about haphazardly by the folks here in this
newsgroup, don't hesitate to ask.
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 12:31:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
k <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess players claim that the game teaches strategy. It does not.
> It teaches memorization. No rational person would claim that
> memorizing pi out to a thousand places increases your grasp of
> strategy, but chess players will make that claim about a game which
> is nothing more than a memorization exercise. If there was some
> overarching 'strategy' that would lead to success in the game of
> chess, there would be no need for opening books.
This is, indeed, a common misconception about chess.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Perforated Unholy Cheese (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a lump of cheese but it's
also a crime against nature and full
of holes!
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 01:18:25
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
On Dec 10, 4:49 pm, TROLL k <[email protected] > wrote:
> People are encouraged to think of chess players as st.
People tend to think that trolls are stupid.
And your post shows that they are right.
========
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 12:35:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
On Dec 10, 7:49 pm, k <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Chess players who fancy themselves historians claim that chess originated
> somewhere in China.
Some hold that view, yes, but it is a minority viewpoint.
> This is, of course, completely false. It was
> fashionable, in the 19th century, to ascribe mystical and exotic origins to
> the game of chess, in an attempt to romanticize what is, at its heart, a
> rather poor way to pass the time. In fact, chess was developed by Muslim
> scholars who wanted a simple way to pacify Christian prisoners that were
> captured during the Crusades.
That hypothesis is refuted by the fact that references to chess are
found in Sanskrit literature from India, written around 500-600 AD.
This antedates the First Crusade by at least nearly 500 years. See
H.J.R. Murray's "A History of Chess" (Oxford University Press, 1913)
for details.
Your claim is also refuted by the fact that chess was well known in
the Muslim world before the arrival of the first Crusaders in 1096.
The game was introduced there from Persia, no later than about 650 AD,
again centuries before the Crusades.
> The game only found its way to China later,
> carried by merchants along the silk road.
Perhaps, but if so it was more likely to have come from India, not
the east Mediterranean. And the fact that references to a Xiangqui-
like game are found in Chinese literature as early as the Beizhou
period (557-581 AD) again knocks the air out of your Crusades
hypothesis.
> If you have any specific questions about chess, and you would like me to
> give you the unadulterated truth about the game, rather than the propaganda
> that is typically spewed about haphazardly by the folks here in this
> newsgroup, don't hesitate to ask.
Thanks, but I think I'll stick with better-researched scholarly
sources. Besides Murray, I would recommend that you look into "The
Anatomy of Chess" edited by Dr. Hans Ellinger (Promos-Verlag GmbH
2003).
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 01:26:05
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
On Dec 11, 1:45 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Some people couldn't spot a "troll" post if it jumped up
> and introduced itself. My comments were priily
> directed at improving the troll's form,
Oh, you should always present yourself as
an example for others to follow because
you are sooo uniquely intelligent, wise,
and modest. (For those who wonder: Ligent is
a bug in the Intel's chip).
> while the ones
> above take the poor fellow to task for not having read
> "Murray" and others. Give the poor troll a break... .
>
> -- help bot
Even a troll's post is a good pretext to
share literature and some historical facts,
claims, conjectures...
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 13:45:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
On Dec 11, 3:35 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Chess players who fancy themselves historians claim that chess originated
> > somewhere in China.
>
> Some hold that view, yes, but it is a minority viewpoint.
>
> > This is, of course, completely false. It was
> > fashionable, in the 19th century, to ascribe mystical and exotic origins to
> > the game of chess, in an attempt to romanticize what is, at its heart, a
> > rather poor way to pass the time. In fact, chess was developed by Muslim
> > scholars who wanted a simple way to pacify Christian prisoners that were
> > captured during the Crusades.
>
> That hypothesis is refuted by the fact that references to chess are
> found in Sanskrit literature from India, written around 500-600 AD.
> This antedates the First Crusade by at least nearly 500 years. See
> H.J.R. Murray's "A History of Chess" (Oxford University Press, 1913)
> for details.
> Your claim is also refuted by the fact that chess was well known in
> the Muslim world before the arrival of the first Crusaders in 1096.
> The game was introduced there from Persia, no later than about 650 AD,
> again centuries before the Crusades.
>
> > The game only found its way to China later,
> > carried by merchants along the silk road.
>
> Perhaps, but if so it was more likely to have come from India, not
> the east Mediterranean. And the fact that references to a Xiangqui-
> like game are found in Chinese literature as early as the Beizhou
> period (557-581 AD) again knocks the air out of your Crusades
> hypothesis.
>
> > If you have any specific questions about chess, and you would like me to
> > give you the unadulterated truth about the game, rather than the propaganda
> > that is typically spewed about haphazardly by the folks here in this
> > newsgroup, don't hesitate to ask.
>
> Thanks, but I think I'll stick with better-researched scholarly
> sources. Besides Murray, I would recommend that you look into "The
> Anatomy of Chess" edited by Dr. Hans Ellinger (Promos-Verlag GmbH
> 2003).
Some people couldn't spot a "troll" post if it jumped up
and introduced itself. My comments were priily
directed at improving the troll's form, while the ones
above take the poor fellow to task for not having read
"Murray" and others. Give the poor troll a break... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 02:46:45
From: Chuckychess
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
'k[_2_ Wrote:
> ;252376']People are encouraged to think of chess players as st. O
> the contrary,
> chess players are merely monomaniacal. Anyone who spends their life
> staring at a game when they could be getting laid isn't very st i
> my
> book.
>
> Chess players claim that the game teaches strategy. It does not. It
> teaches memorization. No rational person would claim that memorizin
> pi
> out to a thousand places increases your grasp of strategy, but chess
> players will make that claim about a game which is nothing more than
>
> memorization exercise. If there was some overarching 'strategy' tha
> would
> lead to success in the game of chess, there would be no need fo
> opening
> books.
>
> Chess players who fancy themselves historians claim that ches
> originated
> somewhere in China. This is, of course, completely false. It was
> fashionable, in the 19th century, to ascribe mystical and exoti
> origins to
> the game of chess, in an attempt to romanticize what is, at its heart
> a
> rather poor way to pass the time. In fact, chess was developed b
> Muslim
> scholars who wanted a simple way to pacify Christian prisoners tha
> were
> captured during the Crusades. The game only found its way to Chin
> later,
> carried by merchants along the silk road.
>
> If you have any specific questions about chess, and you would like m
> to
> give you the unadulterated truth about the game, rather than th
> propaganda
> that is typically spewed about haphazardly by the folks here in this
> newsgroup, don't hesitate to ask.
Fact: Being a chessplayer and getting laid are not incompatible. Yo
couldn't figure that out on your own?
Fact: Only a small portion (and sometimes practically none at all) o
a typical game of chess is based on memorization. An average game
lasts about forty moves or so, and the average tournament player migh
know an opening ten-moves-deep at the most if his opponent is oblidgin
enough to play into it. Sometimes even Grandmasters are "out of book
by move six!
You seem to have several misconceptions about chess, yourself
--
Chuckychess
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 17:30:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
On Dec 10, 7:49 pm, k <[email protected] > wrote:
> People are encouraged to think of chess players as st. On the contrary,
> chess players are merely monomaniacal. Anyone who spends their life
> staring at a game when they could be getting laid isn't very st in my
> book.
>
> Chess players claim that the game teaches strategy. It does not. It
> teaches memorization. No rational person would claim that memorizing pi
> out to a thousand places increases your grasp of strategy, but chess
> players will make that claim about a game which is nothing more than a
> memorization exercise. If there was some overarching 'strategy' that would
> lead to success in the game of chess, there would be no need for opening
> books.
>
> Chess players who fancy themselves historians claim that chess originated
> somewhere in China. This is, of course, completely false. It was
> fashionable, in the 19th century, to ascribe mystical and exotic origins to
> the game of chess, in an attempt to romanticize what is, at its heart, a
> rather poor way to pass the time. In fact, chess was developed by Muslim
> scholars who wanted a simple way to pacify Christian prisoners that were
> captured during the Crusades. The game only found its way to China later,
> carried by merchants along the silk road.
>
> If you have any specific questions about chess, and you would like me to
> give you the unadulterated truth about the game, rather than the propaganda
> that is typically spewed about haphazardly by the folks here in this
> newsgroup, don't hesitate to ask.
Q: Why is it that Sanny's GetClub program has "suddenly"
gapped up in strength?
---
There is a problem with rote-memorization of opening
moves, but chess does teach you that your every "move"
can have dire consequences. Playing computers teaches
us humility, and in fact the occasional rescue of dead lost
positions by these same opponents refutes the nonsense
above about "memorizing pi" and a mere "memorization
exercise". Also note that you have crafted a classic
fallacy with your either/or dilemma: play chess, or get laid;
obviously, one can play chess -- even mono-maniacally --
and "get laid", just not both (skillfully) at precisely the same
time (admittedly, I am guessing here). That sort of thinking
is typical of people who can't think logically; if only you and
other thinking-impaired folks had been taught chess at an
early age, it's possible that such thinking problems could
have been eradicated.
Anyway, I think it was good to throw in the bit about
Muslims, but you might have added some politics to go
with your religion "troll" stew. Not to mention that attacks
on Bobby Fischer trump even those ideas, here in these
newsgroups; the "American idol" has claimed that Gary
Kasparov is akin to an idiot savant, but we all know who
the real idiot (and savant) was. Look, people don't seem
to have strong feelings/emotions) about where chess may
have originated, so you're barking up a wrong tree; "trolls"
are supposed to engender a powerful emotional response,
so you have to aim low. Also note how attacking chess
historians is not exactly going to arouse the masses; we
chess players don't care about them; they are boring,
low-rated pedants who can't get laid. Try attacking
people we chess players respect and admire, like say,
Humphrey Bogart or Errol Flynn. Not to suggest that I
am any expert on the art of trolling, but these errors just
"leaped out" at me, like a Greco sac' (1. Bxh7+ Kxh7,
2. Ng5+ Kg8, 3. Qh5 Re8, 4. Qxf7+ Kh8, 5. Qh5+
Kf8, 6. Qh8+ Ke7, 7. Qxg7+, etc.).
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 23:31:35
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
> Another reason the GetClub program is viewed
> with disdain is that unlike other programs, it has
> no "protective shield" in the openings. What I mean
> is simply that other programs circumvent their huge
> inherent weakness in the opening phase via the rote
> fetching of moves from a large database of chess
> positions; what does GetClub have, maybe a couple
> hundred "moves" which must be played in a set
> order or it will kick out of its book? There really is
> no comparison, and I often find myself up a piece
> because of tactics involving the King exposed on
> the open e-file-- a virtual *impossibility* with most
> other chess programs because they stay in book
> well beyond castling! So you see, this alone -- as
> nearly-Innes likes to point out -- might well cost
> the GetClub program *hundreds* of rating points in
> strength. Face it: give me a piece (for a pawn) and
> I will win 95% of the time, even against a computer.
Today Stinky Garlnoot Beat Master Level again in Just 31 Moves. I do
not understand while you are facing Beginner as tough and take arround
50-60 Moves to win Beginner. Other Players are able to beat Master
Level in just 24-30 Moves.
Here is the Game between Stinky Garlnoot and Master Level
White: Master Level {at GetClub}
Black: Stinky Garlnoot
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM13225&game=Chess
1. b3 e5
2. B-b2 N-c6
3. e3 d6
4. c4 N-f6
5. N-f3 g6
6. N-c3 B-g7
7. d4 B-f5
8. N-b5 0-0
9. N-g5 a6
10. N-c3 exd4
11. exd4 N-b4
12. B-e2 N-c2
13. K-f1 Nxa1
And Black wins a Rook for Knight.
Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM13225&game=Chess
Please analyze above game and tell me mistake made by White in above
game that it lost its Rook. Can white save its Rook?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 23:29:24
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
> Another reason the GetClub program is viewed
> with disdain is that unlike other programs, it has
> no "protective shield" in the openings. What I mean
> is simply that other programs circumvent their huge
> inherent weakness in the opening phase via the rote
> fetching of moves from a large database of chess
> positions; what does GetClub have, maybe a couple
> hundred "moves" which must be played in a set
> order or it will kick out of its book? There really is
> no comparison, and I often find myself up a piece
> because of tactics involving the King exposed on
> the open e-file-- a virtual *impossibility* with most
> other chess programs because they stay in book
> well beyond castling! So you see, this alone -- as
> nearly-Innes likes to point out -- might well cost
> the GetClub program *hundreds* of rating points in
> strength. Face it: give me a piece (for a pawn) and
> I will win 95% of the time, even against a computer.
>
Today Stinky Garlnoot Beat Master Level again in Just 31 Moves. I do
not understand while you are facing Beginner as tough and take arround
50-60 Moves to win Beginner. Other Players are able to beat Master
Level in just 24-30 Moves.
Here is the Game between Stinky Garlnoot and Master Level
White: Master Level {at GetClub}
Black: Stinky Garlnoot
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Recorded Game:http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?
id=DM13225&game=Chess
1. b3 e5
2. B-b2 N-c6
3. e3 d6
4. c4 N-f6
5. N-f3 g6
6. N-c3 B-g7
7. d4 B-f5
8. N-b5 0-0
9. N-g5 a6
10. N-c3 exd4
11. exd4 N-b4
12. B-e2 N-c2
13. K-f1 Nxa1
And Black wins a Rook for Knight.
Recorded Game:http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?
id=DM13225&game=Chess
Please analyze above game and tell me mistake made by White in above
game that it lost its Rook. Can white save its Rook?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 23:25:46
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
On Dec 12, 12:30 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 11, 11:31 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Q: Why is it that Sanny'sGetClubprogram has "suddenly"
> > > gapped up in strength?
>
> > 2 Bugs were Removed. That made the game play much stronger that you
> > lost 4 games out of 18 played in last 2 days. I suppose try playing
> > with Easy & Normal Level. Yes think a lot before each move and beat
> > them. Zebediah beat Master Level in just 24 moves yesterday by
> > trapping its Queen. Lets see if you can still beat Normal/ Master
> > Level now? Can you Accept the Challenge with Normal/ Master Level?
>
> > PlayChessat:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> > They give lot of points. and only way to beat Zebediah scores. Last 5
> > months Zebediah has been playing only with Master Level and always
> > winning the Game. Looks like he uses some st computer or he is
> > highly rated player.
>
> He's probably using a computer, so there is no fear
> of a 150-move struggle which lasts a month -- even
> against your Master level. I suspect that Fritz 5.32
> could beat up on your program very easily, and he
> could be using one of the more recent programs which
> are rated over 2800. Note that when I go over the
> published games between grandmasters, *many*
> mistakes are uncovered, even by my old Fritz 5.32.
> I haven't studied Zeb's games, but I played over a
> couple where odd-looking moves sprang from out of
> nowhere; the same type of moves which are the very
> hallk of computers.
>
> Let's say that I play a week-long battle versus your
> Master level, only to lose or draw; I get zero points,
> and a week has been wasted! Now, if I mess up
> against the Beginner or Easy level, it's no big deal
> because I have time to try again. The only downside
> is that I don't really have time to switch back and forth
> to other "tabs", because I seem to get nowhere that
> way, and it hurts my play.
>
> In some of the recent games where I beat the
> Beginner level, I was dead lost but the program
> seemed unable to make headway. One issue is
> that the program can't figure out where the action
> is, and it keeps its King in the wrong sector; this
> allows me to hold a position where I ought to have
> been simply "outnumbered". For instance, if the
> pawns are all on one side of the board in an
> endgame, the King should not just "hang out" on
> the opposite wing like a passive observer. This
> weakness in the endgame is hurting your program's
> results; in fact, I could adopt a strategy of steering
> for drawish endings if I wanted to improve my
> results, but that could become a bad habit which
> might cost me dearly against decent human players.
>
> Another reason theGetClubprogram is viewed
> with disdain is that unlike other programs, it has
> no "protective shield" in the openings. What I mean
> is simply that other programs circumvent their huge
> inherent weakness in the opening phase via the rote
> fetching of moves from a large database ofchess
> positions; what doesGetClubhave, maybe a couple
> hundred "moves" which must be played in a set
> order or it will kick out of its book? There really is
> no comparison, and I often find myself up a piece
> because of tactics involving the King exposed on
> the open e-file-- a virtual *impossibility* with most
> otherchessprograms because they stay in book
> well beyond castling! So you see, this alone -- as
> nearly-Innes likes to point out -- might well cost
> theGetClubprogram *hundreds* of rating points in
> strength. Face it: give me a piece (for a pawn) and
> I will win 95% of the time, even against a computer.
>
> TheGetClubprogram is definitely getting stronger,
> but how do you propose to get more players to the
> site? You need to work your Web site up the
> ladder to near the top in Google searches; for that
> I suggest putting phrases like "free ice cream",
> "Paris Hilton" and "get rich fast" on there, at least
> a hundred times apiece. ;>D
>
> -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Today Stinky Garlnoot Beat Master Level again in Just 31 Moves. I do
not understand while you are facing Beginner as tough and take arround
50-60 Moves to win Beginner. Other Players are able to beat Master
Level in just 24-30 Moves.
Here is the Game between Stinky Garlnoot and Master Level
White: Master Level {at GetClub}
Black: Stinky Garlnoot
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Recorded Game:http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?
id=DM13225&game=Chess
1. b3 e5
2. B-b2 N-c6
3. e3 d6
4. c4 N-f6
5. N-f3 g6
6. N-c3 B-g7
7. d4 B-f5
8. N-b5 0-0
9. N-g5 a6
10. N-c3 exd4
11. exd4 N-b4
12. B-e2 N-c2
13. K-f1 Nxa1
And Black wins a Rook for Knight.
Recorded Game:http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?
id=DM13225&game=Chess
Please analyze above game and tell me mistake made by White in above
game that it lost its Rook. Can white save its Rook?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 11:30:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
On Dec 11, 11:31 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Q: Why is it that Sanny's GetClub program has "suddenly"
> > gapped up in strength?
>
> 2 Bugs were Removed. That made the game play much stronger that you
> lost 4 games out of 18 played in last 2 days. I suppose try playing
> with Easy & Normal Level. Yes think a lot before each move and beat
> them. Zebediah beat Master Level in just 24 moves yesterday by
> trapping its Queen. Lets see if you can still beat Normal/ Master
> Level now? Can you Accept the Challenge with Normal/ Master Level?
>
> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> They give lot of points. and only way to beat Zebediah scores. Last 5
> months Zebediah has been playing only with Master Level and always
> winning the Game. Looks like he uses some st computer or he is
> highly rated player.
He's probably using a computer, so there is no fear
of a 150-move struggle which lasts a month -- even
against your Master level. I suspect that Fritz 5.32
could beat up on your program very easily, and he
could be using one of the more recent programs which
are rated over 2800. Note that when I go over the
published games between grandmasters, *many*
mistakes are uncovered, even by my old Fritz 5.32.
I haven't studied Zeb's games, but I played over a
couple where odd-looking moves sprang from out of
nowhere; the same type of moves which are the very
hallk of computers.
Let's say that I play a week-long battle versus your
Master level, only to lose or draw; I get zero points,
and a week has been wasted! Now, if I mess up
against the Beginner or Easy level, it's no big deal
because I have time to try again. The only downside
is that I don't really have time to switch back and forth
to other "tabs", because I seem to get nowhere that
way, and it hurts my play.
In some of the recent games where I beat the
Beginner level, I was dead lost but the program
seemed unable to make headway. One issue is
that the program can't figure out where the action
is, and it keeps its King in the wrong sector; this
allows me to hold a position where I ought to have
been simply "outnumbered". For instance, if the
pawns are all on one side of the board in an
endgame, the King should not just "hang out" on
the opposite wing like a passive observer. This
weakness in the endgame is hurting your program's
results; in fact, I could adopt a strategy of steering
for drawish endings if I wanted to improve my
results, but that could become a bad habit which
might cost me dearly against decent human players.
Another reason the GetClub program is viewed
with disdain is that unlike other programs, it has
no "protective shield" in the openings. What I mean
is simply that other programs circumvent their huge
inherent weakness in the opening phase via the rote
fetching of moves from a large database of chess
positions; what does GetClub have, maybe a couple
hundred "moves" which must be played in a set
order or it will kick out of its book? There really is
no comparison, and I often find myself up a piece
because of tactics involving the King exposed on
the open e-file-- a virtual *impossibility* with most
other chess programs because they stay in book
well beyond castling! So you see, this alone -- as
nearly-Innes likes to point out -- might well cost
the GetClub program *hundreds* of rating points in
strength. Face it: give me a piece (for a pawn) and
I will win 95% of the time, even against a computer.
The GetClub program is definitely getting stronger,
but how do you propose to get more players to the
site? You need to work your Web site up the
ladder to near the top in Google searches; for that
I suggest putting phrases like "free ice cream",
"Paris Hilton" and "get rich fast" on there, at least
a hundred times apiece. ; >D
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 08:31:28
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: rgcm - common misconceptions about chess
|
> Q: Why is it that Sanny's GetClub program has "suddenly"
> gapped up in strength?
>
2 Bugs were Removed. That made the game play much stronger that you
lost 4 games out of 18 played in last 2 days. I suppose try playing
with Easy & Normal Level. Yes think a lot before each move and beat
them. Zebediah beat Master Level in just 24 moves yesterday by
trapping its Queen. Lets see if you can still beat Normal/ Master
Level now? Can you Accept the Challenge with Normal/ Master Level?
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
They give lot of points. and only way to beat Zebediah scores. Last 5
months Zebediah has been playing only with Master Level and always
winning the Game. Looks like he uses some st computer or he is
highly rated player.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
