Originally posted by lolofI liked the commentary. It was brief ,explained the game pretty well, didn't distract or go too deep or technical.
Thanks, it was a thriller! I couldn't see all the moves very clearly but listening to the comments and to see how fast the players made their decisions was fascinating.
I think it would have been totally pathetic for Polgar to have won on time when she clearly had a lost final position. That would not be a victory to crow about and have the game score framed to put on your wall or anything. This is my attitude towards the blitz games I play on RHP. If I lose on time but have a won position I still consider it a moral victory.
Originally posted by homedepotovA win is a win. A loss is a loss. Maybe you have a better position because you took too much time. Just saying. A win by Polgar would have been excellent and a tribute to her ability to think chess and to move quickly. Anyway, I could not stand to take that much time the guy did in the opening. But it worked for him, barely.
I think it would have been totally pathetic for Polgar to have won on time when she clearly had a lost final position. That would not be a victory to crow about and have the game score framed to put on your wall or anything. This is my attitude towards the blitz games I play on RHP. If I lose on time but have a won position I still consider it a moral victory.
Originally posted by thaughbaerHuh? Joking about RJ.
Great entertainment at the end. I still prefer The Master Game format with the players adding their own commentary. There's quite a few of those uploaded to YouTube. Here we have RHPs very own RJ Hinds playing the white pieces versus a Russian GM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu3OG9qhvhM
Did you notice the comments.
"Gawd doesn't Tony Slattery look GORGEOUS?"
"Aww, young Tony is so adorable!"
No not really.