HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Could Chess be a Win for Black?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:19:08 GMT

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
From: rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Solvability - new angle
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:22:31 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

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.

Rujith de Silva.
Carnegie-Mellon.
From: mhopper@emperor.gatech.edu (Michael A. Hopper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: solvability and tic-tac-toe variant
Summary: short proof by induction
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:33:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Engineering Research Lab, Georgia Tech.
Originator: mhopper@emperor

I too am tired of this thread.  However maybe the following will
help convince some that chess is *theoretically solvable* given
enough resources.

First let's take a simple variant of tic-tac-toe, allowing
the move of taking away one of your previous moves.  Therefore,
if you are playing x's, and there is an X on the board, you
are allowed to remove it as your move (though doing so is not
good strategy).

We can make the following two points:

1.  Now, how many possible states (positions) of the board are there?
    Well since each square can be in one of three states (blank, X,
    or O) and there are 9 squares, we have

		# possible states = 9^3 = 243

2.  But how many possible games can be played.  The answer is that
    there are an infinite number of possible games.

		# possible games = infinity

Conclusion:
	Does that mean that this variant of tic-tac-toe is not
	solvable?  I sure hope not.  I think I can play a flawless
	game every time.  Furthermore, I think I can write a
	computer program to play a flawless game every time.

	One key to the *theoretical* solvability of chess is
	that there ARE a finite number of states, each of which
	defines what move or group of theoretically equivalent moves 
	is best.

	While this proof is not formal, it does help with the idea
	of chess and other games which have some infinite qualities
	being none the less *theoretically solvable*.

-Mike

-- 
| mhopper@cerl.gatech.edu |   ' ) ) ) o  /_       ' )  /                
| Office: CRB 388         |    / / / /  /\_) __    /__/______   _   __  __
| Phone: (404) 894-9111   |   / / (_/\_/  \_/_/_  /  / (_) /_)_/_)_/_/_/ (_
| Home:  (404) 723-1718   |                               /   /      
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: chess game for the MAC
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:15:38 GMT

re: using SoftAT to play the top PC chess programs on the Mac:
 
Unfortunately, you take a large hit in performance when you use SoftAT.
Not worth the trouble, IMO.



































>>CheckMate
>>Decent graphics, will test itself or test you and assign an ELO rating (how
>>accourate I don't know?), all the usual features allowing setting of levels
>>of play, time the computer is allowed to think, whether it thinks on your
>>time, etc.

>>Checkmate is a potentially strong program but is hindered by its incorrect
>implementation of the draw by repetition (if you refer to Interplay's
>Checkmate-there are apparently more than one out there).

>Has anybody tried running M-Chess, Zarkov, Rex-chess or Knight Stalker on
>a Macintosh with Soft-AT?? If so, any comments? Does Soft-AT allow the use
>of the speed of the 68030 or 68040 or does it turn a Quadra into a 286
>clone?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fairy Chess (Grasshoppers) -- some thoughts/notes
From: mckenp2@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Mckenzie Peter D O)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:42:30 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
From: ben@wharf.UUCP (Bob Fischer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: oh no another rumor
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:51:18 GMT
Organization: Fisherman's Wharf BBS  (215) 383-7245

gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) writes:
> tennis@ziff.com writes:
> > Yeah, but how do you know F has spent all this time on chess?  Last I heard
> > (take with a pound of salt) he was installing cable TV for a living...
> 
> Oh, no.. not this rumor again.  This started because somebody looked up
> Robert J. Fischer in the phone book.  Turned out there was another person
> by that name in Pasadena who was a cable-TV installer.  That poor soul
> apparently hasn't had a moments rest.  
> 

I can sympathize with him!

My name is Robert Jeffery Fischer. Life can be hard being an 'rjf'!
Especially if you play chess! During the early 80's I was Delegate, and
thus my address would be printed in Chess Life from time to time. You
would not believe the letters I would get. Request for Autographs,
Questions about Fischer games, Fan letters encouraging 'me' to come out of
retirement, Phone calls, You name it! (Unfortunately, no five million
dollar match offers :-)

All this can be funny, but it get old after awhile. Just once I would like
to register for a tournament or visit a chess club without having to mumble
my last name, then explain it's not a joke!  Try ordering chess books by
phone without the operator thinking you have totally flipped!  Really!
It's hard to look people square in the eye, tell them your name really is
Robert Fischer, then play like an 1800 PHISH! ;-)

I guess I don't help matters by usually opening with 1.e4, and playing
indian defenses against 1.d4 :-) :-) :-)

And just so this doesn't get qualified as a "weenie post", Id like to make
this Inquiry......


I used to take lessons from FM Boris Baczynski back in the late 70's.
Since then, I've lost contact with Boris. I'd love to get a hold of him
and drop him a line if possible. Does anyone out there know Boris?
Know how he is doing?  How's his quest for IM norms? Last I heard he
moved to San Diego, doing work as a chess consultant for Fidelity.
(and that was back in 83!)

Peace,
    Bob



+--+                 ben%wharf@canal.org                 Chess          +--+
+--+--+                                                  is          +--+--+
   +--+--+      Fisherman's Wharf BBS (215)383-7245      a        +--+--+
Aiko  +--+                                               Fight!   +--+  aikO
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Theory of Bobby's Return
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 14:23:33 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1992Sep21.215011.11490@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>

> >If all of this is true, this could mean Fischer is more prepared 
> >and stronger than all chessplayers put together.
> 
> If this is true, why has Spaasky won two games?

Perhaps chess is a wave rather than a particle?
From: gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer News
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:44:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucthpx.1992Sep26.184402.9136
Organization: University of Cape Town
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Having trouble down here following the Fischer/Spassky match,
wonder if any kind soul out there would post in this group?
State of play and so on, tidbits.

Optimistic

Gavan Tredoux
UCT
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Kasparov Dec 1993?
Date: 3 Oct 92 12:35:03 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

> But Fischer will have to play a lot better than this to make the
> match respectable.
> --
> ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
> Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
> Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
>

not only will Bobby's play be "respectable", i think he will do
to Kasparov what he did to everybody back in the early 70's...
crush their egos to the point where they were never quite the
same.

and while we're at it, i'm among the folks out here who are fed
up with all the Bobby bashing. comments from people like, "he's 
playing like he's rated 1600..." etc.

hey, anybody can come up with a flawless game when it's adjourned and
and army of seconds go over it! it's a different matter when you have
to sit at the board for 7 hours by yourself and not make any mistakes.
this is what will separate the men from the boys.


go bobby!

don wedding
toledo, ohio
                                   
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: This Week In Chess History
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:18:18 GMT


                     THIS WEEK IN CHESS HISTORY
                          October 1-7,1992

October 1
1968 - Marcel Duchamp died

October 2
1882 - Ossip Bernstein born
1956 - Jonathan Speelman born

October 3
1941 - Victor Palciauskas born
1968 - David Norwood born
1980 - Alberic O'Kelly died
1991 - Gia Nadareishvili died

October 4
1950 - Norman Weinstein born

October 7
Yom Kippur
1933 - Jonathan Penrose born

Copyright 1992 Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 12 (?): comments
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:43:54 GMT


I think that the positional nature of the blunder was what prompted 
Tisdall to suggest that if he hadn't known who was playing, he would
have estimated Black's strength at ~1600.  I know experts who were
looking at the game and simply made faces when F played ... a5?  When
they were asked what they would have done, they said "Anything but that;
he has no counterplay after that!"  I expect tactical oversights when
a player is rusty.  I don't think that this is a result of rustiness
though.
From: phillies@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (George D. Phillies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: French defense, requested comments
Date: 6 Oct 1992 14:58:21 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

In an article whose header was mangled, lin@ucs.orst.edu
asks for comments on a game he (I think) played. In any event,
a few remarks (with the caution that I'm not terribly good)

1  e4 e6
2  d4 d5
3 Nc3 Nf6
4 Bg5 Be7
5 e5 Ne4
6 Nxe4 Bxg5
7 Nxg5 Qxg5
8  Nh3  The white pawns don't need more supportinstantly; f3 would block in the 
WQ and the KBP.
        Qe7
9 Bd3  Qb4+  It seems a bit early for the queen to go wandering out by herself.
   Especially when the pawn counter is there.  Given blck's lag in development,
   white might have considered Qd2 as another response.  Also, it puts bQ way 
   off center, when W is well-placed to castle king-side.

   Alternative black moves might include b6 (preparing bishop development and
   c5, c5 (attacking base of the pawn chain, though perhaps PxP, QxP ensues),
   or even O-O (though developing for O-O-O, indirectly pressuring e5, might be 
   better than O-O)
10 c3 Qxb2
   There is a received doctrine that idly snatching pawns does not win games.
   Of course, this capture does tend to open up the b file, but undeveloped
   black is in no position to exploit this circumstance.  White, on the other 
   hand, has an RQ combination, and real opportunities to exploit.

11 o-o Qxc3   o-o protects WK against a lone unsupported black piece.
   Again, snatching a loose pawn not does advance black's strategic position,
   though it is a material gain.
12 Rc1 Qa5
13 Qg4 g6
14 Rc5 Qa3
15 Rxc7 Bd7
16 Qf4 Qxd3  snatching a piece.  There's a real material gain here, but white 
              has dynamic compensation.  So long as WR stays on 1, the mating 
              attack  on W was unavailable.  ... O-O, uniting the rooks against 
              the open b and c files, might have helped(?)
17 Rfc1 Na6
18 Rxd7 Kxd7
19 Qxf7+ Kd8
20 Qf6+ Kd7
21 Qg7+

Nimzowitsch's book treats some of these file questions.  Znosko-Borovsky
discusses this opening, not quite far enough to discuss the original question.

   George Phillies          (He of the perhaps > 0 ranking.)
   phillies@wpi.wpi.edu











Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black)
Subject: Re: Endgame question
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:02:33 GMT

In article <Bv605s.4xJ@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric Eaton) writes:
>In article rjm@cs.brown.edu (Ralph Marshall) writes:
>>this in the general case.  My point was really about the fact that as
>>a beginner I'm reading books to show me what to do in forced wins, but
>>I've never seen this approach in other books.  Since it seems to be a
>>non-obvious adaptation of the basic plan it seems that a book for
>>beginners should list both of them and explain the differences.
>>
I've seen Capa's method in another book too (sorry, can't remember which).  I
think the reason most endgame authors give this topic short shrift is that the
no-brainer method works just fine and most games are resigned before they reach
this point anyway (I can't remember ever having played out this ending in a
tournament game).  I suppose for speed games it could make a difference, though.

>Well, I've taught a course on Endgame strategy.  We used Pandolfini's Endgame
>book.  (That's not the exact title.)  It seems that the K & R vs K ending can
>be done more "quickly" if one has time to think about it.  Almost a paradox.
>
I'm curious what people on the net think of Pandoflini's book (yes, I know this
is off the topic).  I was very disappointed in it.  Not only does it have the
highest density of typos I've ever seen, but IMHO the format of the book is
poor.  For those unfamiliar with the book, Pandoflini uses a "learn by example"
approach, but in many cases he shows techniques specific to a certain position
without revealing all of the attributes of the position which allowed the
technique to work.  For example, on page 242 Pandoflini gives a winning method
in a R+P vs. R ending; he explains several important points, but fails to
mention that the technique given works only for a BP and would not work if the
pawn were a QP or a KP.  Maybe Pandoflini intends the reader to discover this
for himself...?  Comments?  

>Usually, when training kids to play chess, teachers will inforce a certain
>drill that can be beat into a kid's head so that he won't forget it.
>
I'm a major opponent of this teaching method: learning by repetition and drill.
I've certainly had my fair share of it through school, but fortunately there are
still teachers out there who teach kids to *think*.

My $0.02.

john//
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: ChessBase vs. NICBase
Keywords: ChessBase NICBase Bookup Database Study
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:43:51 GMT

Hi...
   I am a 2000-rated player who's been inactive for around 10 years (other
than speed chess with low-rated friends).  I want to get one of the chess
database programs for the PC.  I've pretty much ruled out Bookup, as you
cannot buy large sets of games for it (so I hear).  That leaves ChessBase
and NICBase.
 
   I've seem the demo version of ChessBase 3.0; I know the real one is up
to 4.0 now.  It seems pretty powerful, but maybe daunting.  I haven't seen
NICBase at all, but have heard it's somewhat similar to CB (easier to use
but slower, I've heard).
 
   Does anybody out there have a good knowledge of both programs?  Or can
anybody warn me away from one or the other?  Any relevant info would be
greatly appreciated, email or here.  Thanks in advance!
From: gpylant@admin1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: re: F-S II game 12 (?): comments
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:29:57 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Oct2.083701.809@nntp.nta.no>, oyvind@hal.nta.no (Oyvind Eilertsen) writes:
> A Norwegian newspaper today quoted IM Tisdall's 
> comment to game 12:
> 
> "If I hadn't known who was playing, I would have
> guessed that black's playing strength was about 1600."
> 

Why are certain chessplayers acting and saying things like this?
Go back to kindergarden and play a game of pickup sticks!

Kasparov claims he can pick 50 players that can beat Bobby.....
I would like to see his list and wager a little money on the outcomes.

Others have been even more wishy-washy on their attitudes toward Fischer.
Some of the top GM's have first hated him and now are worshiping the "CHESSGOD".
I think Nigel Short has really been a gentleman about the whole situation. He
is excited about the return and hasn't said one bad thing , in fact, he wants
to be put on the list of prospective adversaries for future matches.


Positive and negative things have occured during *The Return*.
Last Friday night at the Memphis Chess Club, which was founded in 1900,
a player that had been away for 13 years (now armed with two PHd's in 
Computer Science!) came in, joined the club, and played two rated 60/g
games.  Another came back to play 5 minute with me in about 8 games.
He even played the Queen's Gambit Accepted not knowing Fischer had
done so.  It was fun taking me back to 1971-72 Boom days.  As the night
progressed more chess ghosts appeared ....weak and strong playing each
other and creating a *Chess Utopia*.  I was in "Chess Heaven" and everybody
was feeling great.  The Five Minute Nuts were making all kinds of noise,
but the 60/g players didn't care ...they were in another world with no 
complaints.

A lot of the members told me that they hoped Fischer didn't "flake out"
or go back into seclusion after the match.  I agreed and deep inside felt
a hollowness and the same time a great joy about the chess future.

-- Gary Pylant 

Memphis State University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Dan.Guerrero@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Dan Guerrero)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Living World Champions
Date: 24 Sep 92 21:59:20 CST

Organization: not enough

In article <1992Sep24.192121.27556@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jmumaw@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John C Mumaw) writes:
>
>     Euwe is dead, I'm sure Botvinnik is dead, but Tal is still alive, isn't 
>he?
>
>                                       -John Mumaw (1804)

Tal passed away on 6/28/92.

--
Dan Guerrero : dguerrer@rigel.hac.com    Hughes Aircraft Co. Denver,CO
==========================================================================
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 
"social sciences" is: some do, some don't.  -Ernest Rutherford

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

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: geissler@angelika.uucp (Norbert Geissler)
Subject: Re: Fairy Chess (Grasshoppers) -- some thoughts/notes 
Organization: SNI AP 154
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 17:05:15 GMT

In article <versmiss.717247646@ruulo3> versmiss@let.ruu.nl (Koen Versmissen) writes:
>"Steven M. Stadnicki" <ss7m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>> There aren't any mating positions with K+3G
>
>This is true in the present context (where you start with the same
>material), but not in general. The following is a K+3G vs. K mate;
>white's last move must have been something like Gh1xh6#.
>
>. . . . . K . k
>. . . . . . . G
>. . . . . . . G
>. . . . . . . G
>. . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . .
>
>
>
>Koen Versmissen
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>OTS, Universiteit Utrecht, Trans 10, 3512 JK  Utrecht, NL
>E-mail: koen.versmissen@let.ruu.nl - Tel: (+31) 30-536057
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What's about this:

 . . . . . K . k
 . . . . . G G .
 . . . . . G . .
 . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . .
 
So the last move of white was Gg7 # wherever he comes from ...

BTW, I would like to see more about FAIRYCHESS in this Newsgroup !
Norbert Geissler, SIEMENS-NIXDORF AG, SNI AP 154, 8000 Munich 83, Germany
E-MAIL: norbert.geissler@ap.mchp.sni.de   
..for chess, that superb, cold, infinitely satisfying anodyne to life, I feel
the ardour of a lover, the humility of a disciple.  (Herbert Russel Wakefield)
Date: Saturday, 26 Sep 1992 19:28:54 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...

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.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Polgar (Was: Re: F-S II game 12, etc.)
Summary: Rumor Nonetheless
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:38:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.234319.25715@midway.uchicago.edu>
hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

	In article <1992Sep30.173624.15979@husc3.harvard.edu	
	fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:

		In other news, the Hungarian news agency MTI is reporting that talks
		are underway for a possible match between Fischer and Judit Polgar.
		Fischer has not commented on this, but MTI says that Polgar's father
		said talks have been going on for months.

	You mean, FISCHER would play a WOMAN and a JEW ?
	What if he loses to those 'inferior species' or whatever he consideres them?
	Will he then kill himself? Will he finally shut up?

I suspect this is a rumor wanting to become truth.  Not that I'd be
surprised if it *does* (given the way things have gone so far!).

--Elliott
This is the unofficial, '2c' Winslow.
From: slarkt@thor.cf.ac.uk (Mr R K Thacker 92)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Famous quotation.
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:34:23 GMT
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway


  Could somebody out there with a copy of My System, please give me a
citation for the bit where he says that the existence of a threat is
greater than it's execution.
  I need;  page number, edition, publisher and year.
   Thanks.
      
             Rajeev.
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:8315 sci.math:12446