From: jadiel@altair.csustan.edu (Jose Juan DeLeon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Results of the great match
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:05:29 GMT
Organization: CSU Stanislaus

In article <1icvalINN7ai@meaddata.meaddata.com> kcy@meaddata.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.185546.29975@koko.csustan.edu>, jadiel@altair.csustan.edu (Jose Juan DeLeon) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan5.061548.20595@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>|> >I have been following this urbane, sophisticated, and highly edifying
>|> >discussion with great interest.  I am reminded mightily of the
>|> >discussions leading up to the Steinitz-Zukertort match.
>|> >
>|> >What most people do not realize is that the great match has already
>|> >been played and that all parties involved are trying to hide the fact.
>|> >However I have some preliminary results with notes from the players
>|> >(names concealed)
>|> >
>|> >
>|> >1.	g2-g4
>|> >
>|> >White:  I decided to spike the guns of this pretentious nerd from the
>|> >very beginning.
>|> >
>|> >Black:  An unsound attack -- his chess positions resemble his usenet
>|> >postings.
>|> >
>|> >1.	...	d7-d5
>|> >
>|> >White:  The usual counter, threatening the g pawn.
>|> >
>|> >Black:  Development with a threat, how juicy.
>|> >
>|> >2.	f2-f3
>|> >
>|> >White:  A psychological ploy.  This move prepares for a hedgehog
>|> >defense followed by a king side break.  It also guards the g pawn
>|> >and controls e4 from the flank.
>|> >
>|> >Black:  Another pawn move without development.
>|> >
>|> >2	...	e7-e5
>|> >
>|> >White:  Unimaginative center pawn pushes characteristic of defective
>|> >personalities obsessed with the romantic open game.
>|> >
>|> >Black:  White has ceded the center and has no development.  Black has
>|> >a won game at this point.
>|> >
>|> >3.	c2-c3
>|> 
>|> [stuff deleted]
>|> 
>|> White Blundered and and Black Followed with a Blunder of his own.
>|> 
>|> 3.      ...     Qh4!  mate.
>|> 
>|> but black played the stupid move of 3. ...  c5.   This game is
>|> obviously fixed.
>
>:-) :-) :-)
>
>Mr. DeLeon, how can you judge that the game was fixed if you only have
>these sample moves?  Your analysis seems a little skimpy too.  Are you
>sure that you are an impartial judge of this game, or are you bitter
>and jealous that you are not a participant in this match?  I think
>that your analysis may be suspect.
>
>How did you know that 3. c2-c3 was a not theoretical novelty that only
>White could understand, or was not a ploy to hide some opening
>preparation for a future match.  Furthermore, 3. c2-c3 was a swindle
>and Black failed to find the proper continuation.
>
>Besides, the game ended in a draw.  That means both players are equal.
>A draw is a draw is a draw.  Period.
>
>:-) :-) :-)

Upon further analysis, it occurs to me that after 4. ... Qh4+
White has the resource of Kg2!!

I forgot that back in those days, players
occasionnaly resort to "Indian" style chess.  In which the king gets
to move like a knight on its first move.

From this position, the subtleties are beyond my reasoning skills.  This
is a very volatile opening position...probably the reason why Black chose
the "safer" and more trodden path with 4. ... c5

My apologies,
Jose de Leon