HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sven..hauptfeld@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Could Chess be a Win for Black?
Date: 28 Sep 92 05:19:08 CST

Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu

In article <8elE6ju2ATvuMdskQX@pitt.edu> Teri A Meyers <tasst2+@pitt.edu> writes:
>
>(By the way, to Sven -- learn to read.  When you responded to me in your 
>article 7154, you repeatedly quoted me in places where I used the word
>"experiential" as though I had written experimental.  Experiential means
>derived from experience.

True, but on a computer screen with its pixels flashing 20 or so times per
second this kind of dislexia is quite normal. Instead of 'experiental' which
looks like 'experimental' and is *extremely* rare, you could use 'empirical'
which means the same but is much more common and doesn't disguise in other
words' images.

Anyway, as far as I remember our discussion, substituting 'experiental' for
'experimental' changes nothing.

>  You are right that white has a pull in the
>initial position, but I don't think Black is lost, and that is why I
>call the initial position "dynamically balanced".  Black has dynamic or
>active counterchances--but he certainly isn't winning.

What you just said is that the position is dynamically unbalanced, but not
enough for either side to win. It clearly contradicts your previous statement
that it is dynamically ballanced.

>  I maintain that
>the game theory idea that chess may turn out to be a forced win for Black

Such "game theory idea" exists only in your mind, as I have already explained.

>is an absurdity (from the experiential point of view),

"Absurdity from experiental point of view" is a contradiction in terms.

> even though it is
>equally plausible with the other possible outcomes from a purely logical
>point of view.  It is another example of an instance where logic breaks
>down against the realities of life.)

No this is another example of people constructing their own 'realities of
life'. You arbitrarily attributed certain ideas to game theory and to logic,
some other to reality, and then claim that they don't match.

	Sven

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Budapest gambit
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:40:28 GMT

I posted:
>>The Fajarawicz is dangerous at some levels because there are
>>some lines which lead to very aggressive black piece placements.
>>These lines depend upon White making a mistake-at least to some
>>degree.  It is dubious at best at GM level.  I would be willing
>>to bet that there aren't any GMs in the world who would avoid
>>playing 1.d4   2.c4 because Black could play the Fajarawicz.
>>

I don't think the above statement is too hard to follow.
Anyway, one should play what one has fun playing!  If you
need to play a Black defence against GM competition I'm
not sure why you would be interested in the Budapest.

Here's a game from not-quite-so-high-and-mighty-competition.
The Fajarowicz (note spelling) of course!

Wh(USCF 2200)-Bl(USCF 2350)
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. de Ne4 4. Qd4 Nc5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Qd1 Ne4
7. a3 a5 8. Qc2 d5 9. e3 Bf5 10. cd Qxd5 11. Bc4 Qd7 12. Qb3 a4
13. Qd3 Nd6 14. Qe2 Nxc4 15. Qxc4 Bd3 16. Qc3 Ra5 17. Nd4 Rc5
18. e6 fe 19. Qd2 Nxd4 20. ed Qxd4 21. Nc3 Bd6 22. Qe3 Re5
23. Bd2 0-0 24. 0-0-0 Rxe3 25. Bxe3 Qc4 26. Rd2 Bxa3
27. Rhd1 Qxc3+ (0-1)

Well, it wasn't that good - but it was fun.  In case anybody
thought otherwise - this doesn't prove that this is playable
at GM level :^)

-Mark

p.s.  It's not!
From: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Anand-Ivanchuk 3-1!
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:50:36 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <92280.101623IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:
>Anand, next world champion?

In '96 !!!!!!!!!

-- 
JOHN A. SWARTZ - The MITRE Corp. Bedford, MA * John_Swartz@iegate.mitre.org
>Kill troll with sword

You don't have that!
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,sci.math
Subject: Re: A different variant of chess (infinite board)
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:28:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvCznn.4u4
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU

In article <1992Sep29.104211.6272@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>In article <BvBE5D.KrA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
>Mate can be forced with KRRvK, KRBBvK, KBBBBvK.  Mate cannot be forced
>with KBBBvK.  An interesting case is KRBNvK.  I haven't found a sequence
>that forces mate, yet.
>
I missed the definition of infinite board.  Is it just infinite sideways,
or in all directions with the original setup in any spot.  If just sideways
infinitely, then underpromoting 2 more bishops, etc. is possible.  Otherwise,
how can these cases be possible.  Wouldn't KQ v. KR in almost all cases
be drawn?
     
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: chess may be solved?
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:33:54 GMT

In article <1af8qkINN24l@cascade.cs.ubc.ca> kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca (Kees van den  
Doel) writes:
> In article <12646@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> tcmaint@sail.LABS.TEK.COM  
(-Broadband Network Maintenance) writes:
> >
> >I hope chess is never solved, but for those who want to solve chess
> >I will give you a hint. There are 18 solutions, one for each possible 
> >opening move. Just trying to help.
> >
> >--bruce
> 
> The following is logically true:
> 
> If there are 18 opening moves we will surely see the poisoned pawn  
variation
> of the Najdorf with Spassky playing black.
> 
> --Kees
I count 20 moves, am i missing something?

--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: mirror
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:40:38 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <Sep26.225902.67938@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) writes:
>>From: miklas@thorogood.rutgers.edu (Keith Miklas)
>>
>>suppose that you are playing a novice who is quite an inexperienced
>>chessplayer.  He knows that you are a superior player, and decides to
>>mirror each and every one of your moves.  What's the best strategy to
>>play against this person?
>>
>>(ps don't play the stonewall! :)
>
>How about:  1. P-Q4 P-Q4  2. P-QB4 P-QB4  3. BPxP BPxP  4. QxP QxP  5. QxQ
>
>Or is this person too smart for this?  If so, I think it's actually a fairly
>interesting question.
>
>Scott

Even better than my idea.  I was going to open a R file and take his rook.

An interesting side note, something like this actually happen.  When the
superior play realized that it wasn't just a particularly boring line of
the Four Knights Game, he opened the Q file played QxQ.  His suddenly
confused opponent eventually responded with KxK.  Turns out he didn't
know the rules, and was bluffing.
From: strgh@warwick.ac.uk (J E H Shaw)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: king's gambit
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:27:02 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <1992Oct1.152954.1093@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
>
>Why do grandmasters almost never play the king's gambit as white despite
>its popularity in previous times?  What are considered the strongest defences
>for Black?  Edward Lasker says in his book "Chess" that the Falkbeer
>counter-gambit 2...d5 is the strongest response.
>Is this response really so strong that White dare not play the gambit any more?

A few grandmasters do play it, notably Joe Gallagher whose book on the KG
is out soon.  A few others like Illescas, Ivanchuk & Shirov have also tried
it recently.  I think it's sound, but doesn't have the automatic pull of,
say, the Ruy Lopez.  I used to play 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3; the defences I
least liked to face were Fischer's 3...d6 and the Cunningham 3...Be7 followed
by ...Nf6 (Euwe?)  I've also lost horribly to John Nunn after 3...d5,
but I'd have lost horribly to him after anything.  I have however beaten
some very strong players in 5-minute double Muzios.

Eric Schiller wrote a book `Who's Afraid of the King's Gambit?' that
includes some excellent lines for Black.

The Falkbeer counter-gambit isn't so hot: 3.ed e4 4.d3 Nf6 5.de is too
strong; lines with ...c6 (Nimzovich?) are fun but I'd still prefer White.

                -- Ewart Shaw
-- 
J.E.H.Shaw,  Department of Statistics,  |  JANET:  strgh@uk.ac.warwick.cu
             University of Warwick,     |  BITNET: strgh%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL
             Coventry  CV4 7AL,  U.K.   |  PHONE:  +44 203 523069
$$\times\times\qquad\top\gamma\alpha\omega\exists\qquad{\odot\odot\atop\smile}$$
From: i6p@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S    ?
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:22:18 EDT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cornell University

I have been away for a while.  
How many wins/losses/draws for each player?
From: cec35848@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Chuck Carroll)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: (Long) Solvability Proof, Unsolvability Proof
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:24:16 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:

>In article <BvMH7w.LBz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cec35848@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Chuck Carroll) writes:

>   There you go again.  The rules of chess do not specify whether an
>   infinite game is better than, equal to, or worse than a draw (for
>   both players--it does not even specify that chess must be a zero-sum
>   game in the case of an infinite game.)

>"In the long run, we are all dead".

>What do the rules say about players dying in the middle of a game? Is
>it declared a draw? :-)

Seriously, though, a logical, mathematical solution to chess
does not consider this possibility.  In the same vein, if
such a thing (that is, a repitition or long series of moves where
players could claim a draw but do not) actually happened, the TD
would no doubt eventually declare the game a draw.  But of
course that's not the question.

-- 
Chuck Carroll					      cec35848@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Counselor Troi, do you sense anything from this 'Stimpy?'"
"I sense extreme stupidity...wait, there's something else...
I feel...Happy Happy Happy, Joy Joy Joy!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: haha@lesti.hut.fi (Harri Haanp{{)
Subject: Re: Is Chess Solvable?
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 25 Sep 92 13:14:22 GMT

In <1992Sep23.162012.22636@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:

<stuff deleted about how to win a game in which the first check wins>

1. Nc3  e6 (e6 is the only move that offers any resistance)
2. Ne4 Ke7 (forced)
3. Nf3

3. ..  d6
4. Nd4

3. ..  f6
4. Nd4

3. .. Nc6
4. Nh4

3. .. any other
4. Ne5

with check next move. How's that?

Harri H.
From: cayley@plains.NoDak.edu (Michele Cayley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Is bughouse solvable?
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:54:22 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network
From: cec35848@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Chuck Carroll)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Solvability - new angle
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:21:15 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva) writes:

>It has been claimed, with some justification, that unending games cannot be
>regarded as draws.  However, because of the finite number of different game
>states, this does not prevent a mini-max procedure from deciding whether a
>given position is won for one side or the other.  Hence it is decidable in
>finite time and space whether the starting position is a win for White, a win
>for Black, or a win for neither.

This would be true, except that you must consider the possibility
that an infinite game may be *better* for either or both sides
than a win.  (Weird and unlikely, but not impossible)  Since the
value of an infinite game is undefined, we do not know.

-- 
Chuck Carroll					      cec35848@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Counselor Troi, do you sense anything from this 'Stimpy?'"
"I sense extreme stupidity...wait, there's something else...
I feel...Happy Happy Happy, Joy Joy Joy!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rueb@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Christopher J. Rueb)
Subject: Chess  FAQ list
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:34:35 GMT


  I am brand new to this news group and enjoy most of the comments
  and issues.  I have about 15 questions to ask but maybe first I
  can read the FAQ (fact list) for this group.  Could someone
  post it this week.  Thank you.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Please stop
From: nason@pa881a.inland.com
Date: 1 Oct 92 08:45:50 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN
Nntp-Posting-User: zaikos

In article <30SEP199209431897@summa.tamu.edu>, kbs4580@summa.tamu.edu (SCHAUB, KEITH BRADLEY) writes:
> 	Enough already again from a different person. We are tired of
> having to read your solvability crap. E-mail to each other so we can
> read something interesting. Besides, I don't see any of you writing the
> program to do it. That's like saying, "We can travel at the speed of light.
> We just have't got the engine to do it yet." 
> 
> Give me a break. Go Fischer!
> 

Whole hearted agreement.  This thread does not even belong here.  Please move
it to rec.games.programmer or some misc comp sci conference.  Talk about
ethernet it the lans conf. talk about startrek in the startrek conference talk
about sovability in the proggrammer or math conference, talk about chess in the
chess conference.

Thank-You 
-- 
My opinions are my own and not those of my company.  
Free advice is worth its cost.  
--- John M. Nason - NA9U ---|--------------------------------------------|
Inland Steel Company        |  -- nason@pa881a.inland.com                |
Process Automation MS 2-464 |  -- Fax:   219-399-7856                    |
3210 Watling Street         |  -- Voice: 219-399-2450                    |
East Chicago IN 46312       |"Ya can't shoot em till they stop sparklin" |
----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S Match, ratio wins/draws. WHY?
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:03:03 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I agree that the lack of adjournments (and the resulting fatigue) might be a
factor, but haven't a number of these games been clearly winning for one side
or the other before any adjournment would have occurred?  Look at game 11 and
game 12, as well as the Ruy Lopez Fischer lost.  Maybe knowing there's no
adjournment coming makes players play more to win (or lose).  And who knows
what the Fischer clock has to do with it.  It may not be possible to answer
this based on only one match.
From: Gary.L.Snethen@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Gary L Snethen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: "Solvability" in Chess
Date: 28 Sep 92 05:49:59 CST

Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1992Sep28.030130.18379@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:

>In article <xeno.717639078@pv34ad.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>>
>>If all moves lead to a forced loss, claim a draw.
>>   reasoning:  We cannot assume our opponent will make a mistake.  Our best
>>               option is therefore to claim a draw.

>Huh?  If _all_ moves lead to a forced loss then our opponent cannot
>possibly make a mistake.  Resign.

Very sorry for the confusion...  Let me restate it more clearly.

If currently both players are in a loop, and the third repetition has
occured, then:

If all (alternative) moves lead to a forced loss, claim a draw.
   reasoning:  We cannot assume our opponent will make a mistake.  Our best
               option is therefore to claim a draw.

A similar situation happens all the time in 'go' in local positions...
Ever hear of a 'seki'?  Whoever attacks, loses.  This can happen in chess
too...  Whoever exits the loop first, can be forced to lose.  Thus, in this
situation, the game is a draw (the loop will never be exited).

>Regards,

>-- 

>Will Bralick					wbralick@afit.af.mil

---Xeno

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: Living World Champions
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:44:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.161847.28348@osf.org> ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum) writes:
>---------
>
>Somebody asked for a list of the people, now living, who have held the world
>Chess Championship title. I haven't seen a response, so - here they are:
>
>Smyslov
>Botvinnik
>Spassky
>Fischer
>Karpov
>Kasparov
>
>-Ron

I know Tal died quite recently.  Has Dr. Euwe died?  If so, when.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cianca@di.unipi.it (Paolo Ciancarini)
Subject: Re: Progressive tournament
Organization: Dipartimento di Informatica, Universita' di Pisa
Distribution: rec
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:28:40 GMT

In <THO.92Sep26230319@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi> tho@tik.vtt.fi (Timo Honkela) writes:


>An unofficial but international progressive chess e-mail
>tournament is about to begin. If you would like to take
>part please contact tho@tik.vtt.fi. The participants
>will be divided into groups of 4-7 persons. One may use
>two weeks for each turn (series of moves). Most of the games
>are expected to end in 5-8 turns. Small surprise prizes
>for the winner(s)! 

Concerning progressive chess (and all etherogeneous variants), 
I inform all interested people
that in Italy we have since 10 years an association called
AISE (Associazione Italiana Scacchi Eterodossi)
that has a lot of tournaments.
They have printed the "Progressive Chess Informant",
that collects the most important games and openings
(available also on MSDOS disk);
they also have an MSDOS program called ESAU
able to find mates in N progressive moves
(useful to check your correspondence games).
They organize a lot of different games correspondence tournaments,
and also manage international etherodox correspondence Olympics.
Since three years there is also a festival
where you can play etherodox chess over the board.
This is every year in september in Gradara,
a nice place on the Adriatic see about 300km east of Rome.

Address:

AISE
president: Alessandro CAstelli
C. da Potenza, 11 
62010 Villa Potenza (MC)
Italy

The yearly subscription should be about 20 US dollars,
and you get a bimontlhy bulletin with theoretical articles,
tournaments advertising (also in English), etc.

Paolo Ciancarini
Univ. of Pisa

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paolo Ciancarini  (cianca@di.unipi.it)
tel:     +39 50 510264 fax: +39 50 510226
address: Dip. di Informatica - University of Pisa
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: dld@cs.monash.edu.au (David L Dowe)
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...
Organization: Computer Science, Monash University, Australia
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:40:39 GMT

<RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:

>i make no guarantees that this is the quickest mate with your opponent
>mirroring your moves, but it gets the job done:

>            1. f4          f5
>            2. g4          g5
>            3. e3          e6
>            4. gxf5        gxf4
>            5. Be5         Be7
>            6. Nf3         Nf6
>            7. Ng5         Ng4
>            8. Nxh7        Nxh2
>            9. Bh5 mate.
   Jules Welling told me of one of Sam Loyd's, where Black wins in 8 moves.
It can be found in Alain C. White, "Sam Loyd and his chess problems", Dover,
New York, p62.   1. e4 e5  2. Ke2 Ke7   3. Ke3 Ke6   4. Qf3 Qf6   5. Ne2 Ne7
6. b3 b6   7. Ba3 Ba6   8.Nd4+  and Black's only legal move is 8. ... exd4++ .
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Budapest gambit
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:56:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.081805.26138@klaava.Helsinki.FI> mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.
FI (Mika Kukkonen) writes:
about the line: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de Ne4?!
>>>From my experience (and few games I have seen) 4.a3! refutes whole line.
>>>I can dig up few games with this line, if you are interested.
>>
>>Yes, Mika is right ... 4.a3 is the beginning of some lines
>>which are very bad for black.  4.Qc2 also is the beginning of
>>a "refutation."  4.Nf3 lines also lead to good positions
>>for white.  BUT - just knowing the above info is like just
>>knowing a little karate - it's just enough knowledge to get
>>your ass kicked!
>>
>>The Fajarawicz *should* be bad for black if White follows up
>>correctly.  How often do you think that's going to happen
>>though?  That depends on who you are playing.  GMs obviously
>>don't play it, but others can.
>

>Oh? As a proof of my statement, and to contradict everything you said
>(GM's do play this line, and 4.a3 + 5.Nf3 + 6.Qc2 is very bad for black)
>I'll give you following two games:

[Two games in which 1 GM and 1 non-titled player got crushed
 very easily have been deleted]

What does this contradict?
* Mika is right? - NO
* The Fajarawicz should be bad for black? -NO
* a3 is the beginning of some lines which are very bad for black? -NO
* Qc2 is the beginning of some lines which are bad for black? -NO
* Nf3 is the beginning of some lines which are bad for black? - NO
* simply knowing that 4.a3 4.Nf3 or 4.Qc2 lead to good lines
  could get White into trouble? - NO

Oh, I see - you mean GMs DO play it!!  Well, I guess I have to
be more literal.  GMs don't play it from the BLACK side against
other GMs UNLESS they are willing to risk a terrible game right
out of the opening.

The Fajarawicz is dangerous at some levels because there are
some lines which lead to very aggressive black piece placements.
These lines depend upon White making a mistake-at least to some
degree.  It is dubious at best at GM level.  I would be willing
to bet that there aren't any GMs in the world who would avoid
playing 1.d4   2.c4 because Black could play the Fajarawicz.

-Mark

p.s. Before you flame someone else who agrees with your statements
     look up the words contradict and everything.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: alper@sushi.psych.nwu.edu (Theodore M. Alper)
Subject: Wait -- is THIS the sort of thing that the solvability opponents
Originator: alper@sushi.psych.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston IL
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:14:46 GMT

have in mind?
A and B  are playing in a tournament. They each need
1 point to earn a prize. Their utility function is:
sitting-and-continuing-to-play:    0
winning-the-game:                  1
drawing:                          -0.2 
losing:                           -1

They reach a repetition of postions -- whoever diverges first
will lose, but they'd rather sit and repeat the moves forever than
claim the draw and go home losers.
From: pals@ipact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: GNUCHESS for Windows
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:48:30 CDT
Organization: IPACT, Valparaiso IN

In article <2742@uswnvg.uswnvg.com>, mmcgreg@uswnvg.com 
(Mark McGregor) writes:
> 
> A previous post noted that GNUCHESS for the Mac had an error in the
> checkmate process (i.e. the game doesn't restart after losing or winning
> -- it is neither a gracious winner or loser).
> I have found the same problem with GNUCHESS for windows.

I have also found that GNUCHESS 3.21 for windows interprets the 
stalemating of its king as a checkmate of its king, i.e. it flashes
the pop-up "Opponent mates".

-- 
Randy Pals                |pals@ipact.com
IPACT, Inc.               |
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess