HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Computers vs. Humans: The struggle begins
Organization: Center for Information and Language Studies / University of
	Chicago
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:50:20 GMT

larwick2476 writes:

Hello chess fans,
        I thought that you should know that one of the major things that was
discussed at the meetings during the U.S. Open this year was the topic of
mandating that players play computers... I am happy to report that they are
going to revise the book so that it is mandatory.  This will provide a whole
new aspect into the great tournaments of today.  C ya at the next U.S. Open!
 --end of quote--

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, as those of you following
the discussion here know. I just want to make sure that newcomers don't
get the wrong idea. 

My committee recommended to the delegates that the rules be modified. I still 
haven't heard what the delegates did (that's the USCF for you!), but I will
pass on the official results if and when they reach me.

Eric Schiller
Chair
USCF Computer Chess Committee.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Subject: Spassky's Breyer
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:36:16 GMT


>This is the more puzzling in that I can't figure out why *anybody* would want
>to play the Breyer Variation against Fischer.  It basically concedes White a
>slight but lasting advantage through superior control of space and lack of
>satisfactory Black counterplay. 

I think to be more precise you should say that its the Closed Ruy Lopez 
in general that concedes white a long-term advantage in space, restricting 
black to passivity.  Which variation of the closed black chooses to play 
simply amounts to what flavor he likes his suffering in.  So Spassky's choice 
is to play the open defense (not his style), the Marshall (he's a wimp) or take his "Spanish Torture."  With this in mind it makes perfect sense that he 	chooses the Breyer defense since its the variation of the closed he's most
familiar with (played it throughout sixties and seventies when it was very
fashionable).  I wonder if he'll repeat it.  Wouldn't it be interesting to 
see a Zaitsev variation!?

Of course Spassky has another choice:  meet 1.e4 with ...c5!?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Ely                         |    "He said the Sun's not yellow...  
Department of Economics          |     It's Chicken!" 
UC Berkeley                      |
  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jlwestm@ptsfa.PacBell.COM (Jeff Westman)
Subject: REPOST:  Notation Program 3.11
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:28:45 GMT
Keywords: chess program, notation


A short while back there was much talk about Henry Thomas' Notation v3.11
program, for Unix and Vax (?) systems.  I like the program and find it quite
useful.  Has anyone (including Henry) tried porting it to an IBM PC ??

Thanks in advance,

Jeff
-- 
Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Organization: Self-similar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 02:13:24 GMT


I began a lengthy response to Mr. Hyatt's latest, but decided that we 
had reached a philosophical impasse.  In the interest of conserving 
bandwidth (and my time!) let's move on to other topics.


Best regards,

-- 
Will Bralick                          |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
             wbralick@afit.af.mil     |  we must proportion our efforts to 
             bralick@cs.psu.edu       |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz
From: regan@acsu.buffalo.edu (Kenneth Regan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Comments on Fischer-Spassky II, game 1
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:59:18 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci


In general I'm too busy to get involved making comments on this match,
but the last twenty posts have made me feel positively /guilty/ on
behalf of us Masters.  Cheese!  (mandatory Chess Chow imprecation) :-)


I was very impressed by Fischer's play, most so becuase he created
a beautifully instructive game.  With the center closed, both players
will choose a wing to play on.  White's typical Ruy maneuver
Nb1-d2-f1-g3 usually signals play on the K-side, but here the N added to the
powerful "prophylactic" effect of controlling f5.  Once the center and
c and b pawns got locked, it was Black, not White, who had to look
to the K-side for play, but Black couldn't get in the move Pawn-f5 needed
to start it.  Spassky's play in moves 19-24 was too slow, but the only
improvements I can think of would be attempts to "batten down the
hatches" on the Q-side.

The first beauty in the game is that the pinprick that burst Black's defenses
was the exact inverse of the typical Ruy maneuver: Ng3-f1-d2-b1!
This is a great example of a long-range target: the weak black pawn
on b5 which White's plan of a2-a4 and b2-b4 created, and which would
fall after the exchange of Rs and Qs on a8 and Nb1-a3!  Note that none
of Black's pieces can move to the defense of the b-pawn.  Even if Black
had positioned his Knights so they could get to c7 and e8 (the latter
to defend against Be6-b6), White would then have no obstacle to a plan
like g2-g3 and Bc2-d1-e2, so that after exchanges he could play
Bf1-h3-d7 before Black could counter with Ba8-b7-c8 (!)

Spassky's piece sac with Nxe4 was quite desperate, and an admission
of having no defense to Fischer's plan.  It wasn't even close to
succeeding even had White been thrown on the defensive, but Fischer's
counterattack was very fine.

The position after 43...Kd7 44. Nd4 bears some comment.  When I played
the game through, I thought--huh, maybe Black is escaping?!?
After all, Black has two Bishops, and White's K-side is a little airy.
Put Black's Queen on e7 instead of e8 and he can play 44...Ng5,
and he seems to be right back in the game.  But with the actual
position, a little analysis shows that Black is indeed really, truly
busted.  He can't defend b7 because f7 will hang, and so both
of his Q-side pawns are doomed--they even fall with check in some lines!
So 44...Qe1ch was desperation too.  The thing to note is: Fischer
had to see ahead that this position was winning.  Too often in my
own games after attacking I'd get something like this, but with
Black's Queen on e7 instead, and I wouldn't win.  This kind of
control of the game is what sets the very top players apart.



-- 
Kenneth W. Regan           			Assistant Professor
Computer Science Dept.				(Opinions not < SUNYaB)
SUNY at Buffalo, 226 Bell Hall			Tel.: (716) 636-3189, -3180
Buffalo,  NY  14260				regan@cs.buffalo.edu
From: schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer - Spassky: The Prize
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:22:33 GMT
	<1992Sep3.182204.17591@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Center for Information and Language Studies / University of
	Chicago

I don't think you are far off the mark, SVen. Though
remember, chess in Yugoslavia has always been
funded, well, er...creatively.

To those in the know, I invoke the magic word:

Bjelica!

To those not in the know, sorry, but there are all
sorts of libel and slander laws which might kick
in if I elaborated.

Bjelica!

Eric Schiller
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Alekhine a4 lines
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:23:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.205442.2026@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>     We were discussing the line:
>
>1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.a4!
>
>Antti offered some interesting suggestions for the response
>7...a5, namely
>
>i) 8.Ng5 e6 - unclear, if somewhat better for white.  That's okay!
>
>ii) 8.ed!? (!) +/=  - Yup, I have to agree that this one hurts a bit.\
>                      I don't feel at all comfortable defending this
>                      position after, say 8...ed 9.00 00 10.Re1 d5!?
>                      11.Bf4 ...
>iii) 8.Qe2 Nc6 9.h3 00 10.00 de 11.de Nd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4 13.Re1 Be6!??
>
>     Well, this is certainly an interesting line.  I like the idea,
>and I'll look into it a little more.  To be honest though, 8.Qe2
>doesn't really bother me too much.  There seems to be much scope
>for other ideas here.  Maybe
>
>8.Qe2 00 9.h3 Nc6 10.00 Bf5!?  Alburt tried this setup at least once.
>or
>8.Qe2 d5!? (or ?! - I don't know)
>
>Some other Black replies after 7.a4!
>
>i) 7.-dxe5
>
>You (Antti) gave 7.-dxe5 8.Qe2!  Hmmm, could you email the Short-Timman
>game?  I'd like to see why Qe2 is so good.  In the meantime I'll take
>a closer look.  The line I've looked at starts with

Please post this game, not just email.  Thanks!



-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Subject: Re: chinook
Keywords: update
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin Wells)
Organization: y
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 21:07:43 GMT

In article <21189@optima.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.151435.19918@cs.UAlberta.CA>, janet@cs.UAlberta.CA (Janet Service) writes:
>|> Tinsley is leading 16.5 points to 15.5.  Today is a rest day
>|> there will be 4 games played on Friday and 4 on Saturday.
>|> 
>|> Janet
>
>
>This brings up a question for chess programmers:
>
>If Tinsley were behind a point, he might play more dangerously
>because he needed a win.  Being ahead, perhaps he will adopt
>a safer line, or a more conservative playing style.  This comes
>up all the time in tournaments.

One interesting thing about this tournament:

People keep talking about how the computer has an advantage because it
never gets fatigued over a long tournament.  Has anyone here yet considered
the advantage Tinsley has?  Tinsley learns about the computers game, he
may begin to understand the mistakes it makes, and what the weaknesses and
strengths of his opponant are -- on the other hand, the computer will 
never learn anything about Tinsley, and blindly play away on each situation
without any regard for who it is playing against.

My feeling is that the longer the tournament lasts (ie: in number of games)
the more likely Tinsley is to come out ahead.  Furthermore, if Tinsley
played against the machine enough times, I'm willing to bet he could
eventually beat it 9 out of 10 games -- just by knowing how to mess it
up.

Justin Wells
sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin).


PS -- For those of you who feel that checkers is not an appropriate
	 topic for this newsgroup -- I sympathize with you completely!
	 So VOTE YES on the proposal for rec.games.abstract!!!
.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: chinook
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:41:24 GMT

In article <PHR.92Aug27213418@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>
>    Chesstech types have discussed something called the
>    "discernibility factor" as one such idea.  The gist would be to
>    know something about who you are playing (and how they compare
>    with you in rating, etc.)
>    ...
>    These ideas will find their way into programs, but they are pretty
>    "speculative" in nature.
>
>I think that some programs have a "contempt factor" which they use
>to decide whether to accept draw offers and suchlike.
>I can't remember any specifics.

The "contempt factor" is simply the draw score.  If you believe you are
equal with your opponent skill-wise, you set the contempt factor to 0.
If you are playing Kasparov, and are two pawns up, you might still go for
a perpetual check (draw).  To make the computer do this, we set the draw
score to +2 pawns.  Then, as long as the computer is less than two full
pawns ahead, it will favor a draw when possible.  On the other hand, if
a win is absolutely necessary, we set the draw score (contempt factor) to
a negative number like -2 pawns.  Then, we would be willing to give up
two pawns to avoid taking a draw.

Most programs don't manipulate this number.  In Cray Blitz, we always leave
it at zero.  Changing it affects the game in bizarre ways.  For example,
setting it to +2 pawns makes the program play passively, always trying to
repeat previous positions to force a repetition....

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen)
Subject: Re: What's the current assessment of the Marshall Attack?
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 07:11:40 GMT

In article <21188@optima.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
>What's the current of the Marshall Attack (in the Ruy Lopez,
>e4 e5, Nf3 Nc6, Bb5 a6, Ba4 Nf6, O-O Be7, Re1 b5, Bb3 O-O, c3 d5!?).
>The last time I played seriously, twenty years ago, White seemed
>to have the edge.  Lately, I've seen it used by good players with
>Black.  Is it rehabilitated?  Is 3 Bb5 refuted? :-)

Rumours of its death are greatly mistaken. It is played today
by some of the best playrs in the world: Short, Nunn, Kamsky, Sokolov, 
Ivantsuk, Anand(?) ....

>
>Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
>
>
From: achut@nairobi.Eng.Sun.COM (Achut Reddy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Give me commentary! (was: Fischer 1, Spassky 0)
Date: 3 Sep 92 05:06:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: nairobi

We've now seen the moves of game #1 posted several times.
What's missing is some expert commentary!
There must be lots of GMs analyzing this match
to death; could someone please post their commentary?
Or post your own!

Thanks,

-achut

"So many moves... so little time."
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: c9111381@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (ROBERT BUCK)
Subject: Re: Girls
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:50:04 GMT

could anyone send me a copy of an article that got erased today 
from the newsgroup titled

Re:Girls 

it was hilarious and id be forever grateful to anyone who can send 
it to me.
thanks in advance

rob.
e-mail c9111381@wombat.newcaslte.edu.au


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: Marshall - ask Fischer
Summary: Fischer-Spassky, Santa Monica 1966, was a Marshall 
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:32:54 GMT

In article <14816@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>Judging from the first game, Fischer didn't seem to be too worried about
>meeting the Marshall, but I don't recall ever seeing Spassky play it (I might
>be wrong).

You are.  Spassky played lots of Marshalls during the '60s, one of which was
Fischer-Spassky, Santa Monica (Piatagorsky Cup) 1966: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5
a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 o-o Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 o-o 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 Nxd5 10 Nxe5 Nxe5 11
Rxe5 c6 12 g3 (!? -- I think I've got this move order right, but am not sure)
Nf6 13 d4 Bd6, and eventually drawn fairly normally.  RJF mentioned this game
in the notes to one of the innumerable closed Ruys in 60 Memorables, indicating
an improvement somewhere around move 16 that he claims leads to an advantage
for White.  Of course, there have only been 25 years' worth of theory on the
Marshall since then ...

It's funny, but as soon as I saw the move order in the first game (7 ... o-o 8
c3 d6 rather than 7 ... d6 8 c3 o-o), I started to suspect that Spassky was in
for a hard time.  With 8 c3, Fischer throws down the gauntlet -- "Hey, remember
that Piatagorsky game, Boris?  Bet I can beat it *this* time ..." -- and with
8 ... d6, Spassky refuses to pick it up.  One GM or another -- Kavalek? --
wrote in Chess Life many years ago that failing to play 8 ... d5 on this move
order gives White a certain sense of psychological victory; Browne wrote, "If
you do not intend to play the Marshall Attack, I think 8 ... d6 is a better
move than 8 ... o-o."  The psychological jockeying started early, and it sure
looks like Fischer is getting the better of it.

This is the more puzzling in that I can't figure out why *anybody* would want
to play the Breyer Variation against Fischer.  It basically concedes White a
slight but lasting advantage through superior control of space and lack of
satisfactory Black counterplay.  There are probably some top-flight GMs that
can be conceded this kind of advantage without any more ill effects than any
other failure to equalize as Black in the opening.  Fischer is, or at least
was, not one of them.  His efficiency in turning that kind of position into a
full point probably is unsurpassed in chess history.  Surely Spassky knew
that; after all, he was a victim of Fischer's technique against the Breyer in
the 10th game of the 1972 match.  So what was going on in his head when he
chose that opening?  Any Spassky seconds on the net? :-)

-- 
Bill Johnson				| "This is a bit complicated, so let
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| me explain it backwards."  (first
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| line of a memo from a fellow Los
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| Alamos physicist who will go unnamed)
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Stalemate (was Re: handicap in chess)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:17:47 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <16utotINNji@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Aug20.025956.7134@ists.ists.ca>

>draw allowed a more reasonable rule.  Certainly the party which caused the
>stale shouldn't get the full win, because he has prevented the game to end
>with a checkmate via legal moves.  And it does seem kind of silly to give a

This doesn't seem at all certain to me.  I think the checkmate rule should
be eliminated: a player should win by actually capturing the opposing King.
There should be no requirement that a King in check move out of check, or
that a player not move into check.

Note that this would eliminate stalemate.  The player who is stalemated
moves the King into check and then loses, assuming the other player notices
and actually takes it.

Is there any good reason for the game ending on checkmate rather than the
actual capture of the King?

--Tim Smith
From: hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Boycott
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:20:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum) writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.125926.5831@newshost.unh.edu>, sjk@kepler.unh.edu (Stephen J Kenny) writes:
>|> I hereby encourage all individuals thinking of boycotting
>|> the F-S re-match to do the following:
>|> 
>|> Boycott oil companies dur to ozone depletion from auto emmisions...
>|> Boycott comsmetic companies for unethical treatment of animals...
>|> Boycott your parents for the emotional scars suffered during
>|>  the horrors of childhood..
>|> 
>|> Get the idea?

> I don't believe any of the above have any sanctions against them from the U.N. 
> or any other body. I don't believe that of the above have set up concentration
> camps to murder their opposition races. 

> Get the idea?

>|> Have a nice day.

>You too.

>-Ron

I thought the agreement on this match predated the U.N. embargo.
Shouldn't there have been a grandfather clause exempting it?

More to the point, boycotts that involve coercing large companies
and multinationals seems appropriate but using that coercive
power on individuals violates basic principles of human rights.

This situation is reminiscent of what happened to Zola Budd.
Budd was an extraordinary runner from South Africa who gave every
indication that she might be a quantum improvment over other
women runners.  However, the boycott was on and Budd had to go
through some incredible political rigamarole so that she could
be declared a British citizen and thus be allowed to compete in
international tournaments.  Budd's career was effectively destroyed
when she returned to SA to visit parents and relatives and attended
a forbidden sports event -- she was barred from international 
competition.

Followers of Fisher's career will recall that he was forbidden from
going to Cuba to play in the international tournament there but
the expedient of using a telex to relay the moves was used.  From
Fischer's standpoint, I'm sure this is just a matter of the government
interferring with something that should be above politics -- i.e.,
chess -- just as they did before with the Cuban tournament.

Remember Carter's Olympic boycott?

A final thought.  Chess is an entertainment.  What was once Yugoslavia
was a nation of chessplayers.  My guess is that if a poll were taken,
the combatants would want to see the games take place as a way of
gaining a moment of diversion from all the misery surrounding them.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky Game 2 Result
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:23:46
Organization: CSUA/UCB
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gm26@prism.gatech.EDU's message of 3 Sep 92 20:55:19 GMT

Could someone post the schedule for the forthcoming games?
I know the info has appeared here before, but I didn't save it...
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Kathy Watts)
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:54:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.200505.20737@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>
>
>J'espere que non.

I love it when you type French, Eric!
>
From: gm26@prism.gatech.EDU (MCMURRAY,GARY V)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer/Spassky Game 2
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:16:55 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Here are the moves so far for game 2

1. d4	Nf6
2. c4	g6
3. Nc3	Bg7
4. e4	d6
5. f3	c5
6. dc	dc
7. Qd8	Kd8
8, Be3	Nfd7
9. Nge2	b6
10.0-0-0 Na6
11.g3	Nc7
12.f4	e6

I will again post more as I get them from prodigy!!!!

-- 
MCMURRAY,GARY V
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gm26
Internet: gm26@prism.gatech.edu
From: amrk@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Andrew Markiel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Boycott
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:13:23 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

I'm not going to argue about whether the match is illegal or not, or what
Fischer should or shouldn't be doing. But I don't see why I should boycott the
match. I don't have any control or influence on wether the match goes ahead or
not, there's nothing I can do to affect the outcome. But, if something happens
in the world, I don't see what's wrong with me trying to find out about it. If
Fischer does end up playing the match, it's news, it's information. There's
nothing illegal about gathering information about things that are happening in
the world.
To put it another way, watching someone doing something illegal is not illegal.
You could argue that not trying to stop them is illegal, but in this case there
isn't really any way for me to stop the match, so that doesn't apply.
As far as moral arguments go, you can try to convince it's wrong to watch the
match, but I don't believe this is true, and this is getting into philosophical
arguments that probably don't belong on rec.chess.

-Andrew
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess