ken@alice.UucP (Ken Thompson) (10/12/85)
white: Kasparov
black: Karpov
event: World Championship 1985
result: +-+
opening: C42/11 06. Nc6
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6
3. N:e5 d6
4. Nf3 N:e4
5. d4 d5
6. Bd3 Nc6
7. O-O Bg4
8. c4 Nf6
9. Nc3 B:f3
10. Q:f3 N:d4
11. Re1+ Be7
12. Qd1 Ne6
13. c:d5 N:d5
14. Bb5+ c6
15. N:d5 c:b5
16. Qb3 O-O
17. N:e7+ Q:e7
18. Q:b5 a6
19. Qb3 Rfd8
20. Be3 Rac8
21. Rac1 h6
22. h3 Nd4
123456789012345678901234T
Karpov 0++11+++++0++++ 7+
Kasparov 1++00+++++1++++ 7+cv@linus.UUCP (Chris J. Valas) (10/15/85)
-=-
I know we've all become slightly jaded because of the rules changes
since last time around with these guys, but is anyone interested enough
to have been translating the moves postings to the other notation?
Are you waiting until the conclusion to post all of them at once?
Somebody please say yes.
Chris J. Valas {decvax,utzoo,philabs,security,allegra,genrad}!linus!cv
-=-gjerawlins@watdaisy.UUCP (Gregory J.E. Rawlins) (10/18/85)
In article <599@linus.UUCP> cv@linus.UUCP (Chris J. Valas) writes: >[................] is anyone interested enough >to have been translating the moves postings to the other notation? Ummm...i think that anyone interested enough in the games can do the "translation" him/herself. It's easy to go from algebraic to descriptive - the easiest thing to do would be to label a spare chessboard a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h and 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Of course one could argue that you shouldn't even have to "translate" and should learn to use algebraic...but i don't want to plunge us back into the descriptive vs algebraic argument of a couple of terms back. By the way, no one ever says it so i think i will - Thanks for taking all the trouble to post the games Ken, we all appreciate it very much. greg. ps-to the clued out. "ken" == Ken Thompson of Belle fame. --- -- gjerawlins%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Gregory J. E. Rawlins gjerawlins@waterloo.csnet gjerawlins@watmath.uucp Dept. CS, U. Waterloo