Originally posted by wormwoodI have to disagree with you. His report gives this game:
here's a great tournament report, which shows how interestingly you can write, basically ignoring the whole chess part of it all.
Harald Borchgrevink at Blackpool 2007
http://www.blackpoolchess.org.uk/games/borchgrevink_2007_games.htm
(3) Borchgrevink (2.5),H (2297) - Kulik (2.5),D (2172)
31st Blackpool Chess Conference (4), 18.03.2007
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.e3 Be7 5.Bd3 0-0 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.Qc2 dxc4 8.Bxc4 c5 9.dxc5 Qa5 10.c6 bxc6 11.Bd2 Qh5 12.Nc3 c5 13.Ne2 Ne5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5 15.Bc3 Qc7 16.e4 Ng4 17.Ng3 Bd6 18.Rad1 Bb7 19.Qe2 Ne5 20.Bb3 Ng6 21.Rfe1 Be5 22.Bxe5 Qxe5 23.Rc1 Rac8 24.Red1 Rc7 25.Bc4 Rfc8 26.b3 Ne7 27.Qe3 Ng6 28.Rd2 h5 29.f3 Nf4 30.Ne2 g5 31.Nxf4 gxf4 32.Qc3 Qg5 33.Rcd1 h4 34.h3 Kh7 35.Rd7 Qg7 36.Bxe6?
White's queen is hanging on c3 so why didn't Black simply take off Whites queen instead of playing 36...Rxd7?
I'll tell you why, because the scoresheet is inaccurate, which means the entire position is wrong! Mistakes happen, but these kinds of mistakes are not acceptable. The writer owes it to his readers to be more accurate.