HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bedaj00@DMI.USherb.CA (JOEL BEDARD)
Subject: Fischer VS Spassky match
Organization: Universite de Sherbrooke -- departement de Mathematiques et d'Informatique
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:35:06 GMT

Hi!

   I would like to know WHEN will be the first round of that match.

Thank you again,

   Joel

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-           Joel Bedard             Universite de Sherbrooke               - 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-   Internet :   bedaj00@dmi.usherb.ca  -                                  -
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Subject: Re: Programming Chess and Programming Go
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin wells)
Organization: y
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 07:16:44 GMT


RE: computer go vs. computer chess -- difficulty in coding

Chess programmers have another major advantage over Go programmers.
At any given point they can do a simple board evaluation: count the
men left on the board, weighting them appropriate (9 for queen, etc.)
and compare the totals.

On the other hand.. how do you evaluate a position on the Go board?
Especially during the opening stages of the game?  If you ask a 
professional "Who has the better position here?" they will say things
like "The territory black has created isn't nearly as valuable as this
thick white wall."  Or "Even though this white area is secure for now,
there is a bad taste to it which will cost white the game."  How do you 
evaluate that with a computer? 

Not only does the brute force approach fall apart due to extensive
possibilities in Go, but once you have read to the bottom ply, there
is no good way to decide if what you end up with is a good or bad
result.  Whereas in chess a fast and incredibly simple little
algorithm can answer this with a simple sum and compare algorithm.

.
Justin, 6 kyu

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: philip@spr.usask.ca (Tim Philip)
Subject: Re: Go-friends' sigs (was: Re: Programming Chess and Programming Go)
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:58:25 GMT

In article <2aa4f3d5wnr070@ark.abg.sub.org>, ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan) writes:
|> > Justin, 6 kyu
|>           ^^^^^
|> I think this is nice a habit.  We chess players should also sign with
|> our rating (no sarcasm!!).
|> 
|> --ralf, 1700 (non-USCF)


	Excellent idea!!!


Tim, 1900 (non-USCF).
From: annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chinook leads 2-1...
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:27:01 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

....with 11 draws.

-- 
James Annan.
                [--------------------------------------]
                [  "The only good Tory is a lavatory"  ]
                [--------------------------------------]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 06:18:19 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <SCHILLER.92Sep2174004@tira.uchicago.edu> schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:
>There already is talk from both Fischer and Kasparov. The attitude
>of the latter is "any place, any time", though I think that it would
>take a lot of money. After all, if there is 5 mil for a match against
>a former champ who is not even in the top 100, what would a Fischer -
>Kasparov match be worth. My guess is 20-25 mil. Who has that kind of
>money?

If (when?) Fischer pulls off a decisive victory- the talk of the chess world
will be Fischer/Kasparov. Don't think 25, but I could see 5-10 mil per
player, with an additional 5-10 mil to the winner. Of course, I would make
Fisher sign a paper saying 'no play, no play' :)
From the Go world, there are major tournaments all the time worth hundreds,
if not millions- and the purses for those are going up....I could see 
potential corporate sponsership, exclusive converages, etc being worth
many millions of dollars. If there is enough interest in the Chess community,
the money will be there....
r.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: Handicap story
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-19707]: bourbon
Keywords: Lasker chess story
Organization: E.E. Dept., Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:43:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.134836.11677@maths.tcd.ie> tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes:
>Mention of handicapping reminds me of the following story
>I heard from a friend years ago.
>Is it well-known? It is too much to hope it is true!
>
>Lasker was crossing the Atlantic in a liner.
>An obnoxious bighead was offering all-comers a rook handicap.
>Lasker took the offer, and duly lost.
>
>"There must be some advantage in only having 1 rook," said Lasker.
>"Maybe I'd do better if I gave you the rook."
>At which he gave the big-head a rook, and duly won.
>
I heard it was a queen. And the guy was embarrassed to learn who his
opponent was. (I think it was while going to NY 1924)

>-- 
>Timothy Murphy  
>e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
>tel: +353-1-2842366
>s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland


David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu
From: Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: sneaky Nimzo-Indian?
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:56:27 GMT

Yes, 3 ... Bb4 is a back door to the Nimzo, but to a variation that isn't
particularly outstanding for Black.  White can take advantage of the
transposition by playing 4 cxd5.  Now Black can play 4 ... Qxd5, as one of
my postal opponents did, but that's asking for trouble.  White will try to
push his e-pawn, and when he finally does, he gets a free tempo.  Or Black
can play 4 ... exd5.  Now White plays 5 a3 kicking the Bishop.  If Black
replies 5 ... Bd6 or 5 ... Be7, you have an Exchange QGD in which Black has
wasted a move with his bishop, while White has played the useful move a3.
If Black replies 5 ... Ba5, his bishop is pretty useless on the queenside
(especially after White eventually plays b4).

If Black replies 5 ... Bxc3, then we really are heading for a Nimzo.  (Unless
Black puts his king knight on e7 instead of f6; but don't lose any sleep over
that.)  But a lot of Black's options are gone.  No doubling and blockading the
White pawns.  No ... dxc4 followed by ... e5.  Black's only reasonable
counterplay is by an eventual ... c5; he might eventually equalize but you
have talked him out of all the easy lines.

If you decide 4 cxd5 isn't to your taste, 4 e3 and 4 Nf3 and probably 4 Qc2
ought to be OK; they will probably transpose to main variations of the Nimzo.
BTW, you should not let a lack of book knowledge discourage you from facing
the Nimzo.  You'll learn a lot from it.  But I don't mean to discourage you
from trying the Catalan either.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: chinook
Keywords: update
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:58:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.213535.7250@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> gls@windmill.ATT.COM (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes:
>In <BtpCM0.Mzw@math.uwaterloo.ca>, alopez-o@neumann.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>> 
>> Well, at least for humans the rule is:
>>   Don't try to play any faster because your opponent has little time.
>> 
>> Especially after a greatly hurried move from your opponent, chances 
>> are you can obtain some positional advantage by playing a very fine 
>> game against his non-optimal moves.
>
>In the Buffalo area the strategy of running yourself low on time to make
>your opponent play carelessly was called the "Thrush Gambit" . . . I can't
>imagine why!
>
>I've used it myself, once.
>
>RETI OPENING.  W. R. Tallmadge -- Sicherman, Club Tournament, Buffalo 1976.
>1. A- S- 2. 7XXU 31 3. F A- 4. 3C N 5. 4 7XS 6. T 3X1 7. N- 7XI 8. 34 H-
>9. 32 4
>
>I am not comfortable with positions like this, but nothing has gone wrong
>so far.
>
>10. 7I 8A1 11. I T- 12. 7A U 13. A NK 14. NJ 8A1 15. 7XXT 7XF 16. A 8E1
>17. 7N UK
>
>White has a space advantage but has trouble exploiting it.
>
>18. 5L2 8P1 19. 7XU
>
>A blunder.
>
>19... 7AK 20. A 3J 21. 3E1 5L2 22. 5K
>
>Another blunder.
>
>22... 8J 23. F 7F 24. 3Z A 25. 7N F-
>
>I have no idea why I played this.
>
>26. 33 5XX2 27. IK J 28. 8H1 3E2 29. 8L2
>
>Black's pieces defend awkwardly.
>
>29... 8E1 30. 3XA2 54
>
>Not a brilliant move, but threatens 31... 33.
>
>31. 0 8P1 32. 7T 33
>
>This should win, but ...
>
>33. 8E2 3Z3
>
>So that if 34. 85 85 30; nevertheless a weak move.
>
>34. 7H 32; 35. U-
>
>With the idea of 35... TK 36. 3Z1.
>
>35... 5XXT2 36. 52 5XXP2 37. 3XE1
>
>Taking advantage of the pin on the 7.
>
>37... 5XT1 38. 3Z1 3E2
>
>The complications after 38... 7K are bewildering.
>
>39. 7K 84K
>
>Of course not 39... J 40. 84K 30.
>
>40. 7F 8E4
>
>Cramped.  I have 22 minutes left now.
>
>41. 7T S 42. 8A3 5XT 43. UK 85 44. 5P2
>
>Ouch!  I have 12 minutes to work my way through this.
>
>44... 8L4 45. K 0Z 46. 8PK 0P 47. 7H
>
>My material advantage is vanishing.  I must give up a 7 to save the 5.
>
>47... 7I 48. 7F 5L3
>
>I have 3 minutes left.  White has 48, but is watching the clock and
>not the board . . .
>
>49. 7A 5K 30
>
>And victory goes to "the second last blunder."
>
>-:-

With absolutely NO intention of being rude, "what in the hell is this?"
looks like a uuencoded game score???  :^)

Bob

BTW, if there is an interpreter in the house, I would like to see the
moves in a form my "limited computer" can parse, such as algebraic (or,
gag, descriptive) but not whatever this is.....


-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Subject: Fischer-Spassky II
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Distribution: rec.games.chess
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:48:47 GMT

Anybody heard anything recently on Fischer-Spassky II??  There have
been no discussions lately on the topic (I'm not trying to restart 
any discussions of whether or not the match should be played, the 
location, or theories on Fischer's current playing strength).  Does
it still look like things are on for September 2 (6 days and counting)??

JOHN


-- 
JOHN A. SWARTZ - The MITRE Corp. Bedford, MA * John_Swartz@iegate.mitre.org
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
 One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."  J.R.R. Tolkien
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:00:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.192930.6089@cs.brown.edu> jhc@m2lll.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.030558.2107@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.170331.2807@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug19.151458.2688@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>>>| In article <1992Aug19.022125.17183@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>
> stuff deleted......
>
>>I guess I have to grant you that we are at an impasse here, as when I
>>play chess, I play chess.  I don't try to irritate or intimidate my
>>opponents.  I try to be cordial, polite, and make the game a game of
>
>But you are the one who said just a few paragraphs ago, "And I think
>your idea is nothing less than idiocy."  And aren't you the one who
>started talking about "biggotry."  These seem like attempts to
>intimidate.  Oh, in *chess*, you try to be cordial, polite, etc.
>

Right, and if you will reread my post, the "idiocy" I mentioned was the
idea of allowing a single opponent to "refuse" to play the machine.  This
disrupts the final standings enough to rankle anyone.  My two proposed
choices are (no computers) or (no restrictions on computers), with there
being no satisfactory middle ground.  My bigotry comment concerns prejudice
against a "peer" due to some physical, cultural, etc. difference.  Here
Cray Blitz is a legitimate "peer" for most chess players.  If you find the
games "uninteresting" I would remind you that many have complained about
Karpov in the same way.  Indeed, Kasparov became a sensation with his
"interesting" style of play, especially when compared with Karpov.  For
my two cents, I don't mind that Cray Blitz plays uninteresting chess if
it is as "uninteresting" as Karpov's chess!

I don't want to intimidate anyone.  As I have stated repeatedly, there is
no middle ground.  Either reject computers totally, or accept them totally.
Don't try to muddle things up by having the "right of refusal" and such
follies.  Such rules simply guarantee that machines will "fade from sight"
because of the negative effect they will have on tournaments.  

Bob Hyatt

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: olesen@math.uiowa.edu (Martin Olesen)
Subject: Dragon games from US Open
Originator: olesen@larch.math.uiowa.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:23:15 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA




  Here are two interesting Dragongames I played in the US Open.


      Ilya Figelman (2145) - Martin Olesen

    1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 
    9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.h4 Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.h5 Nxh5 
    15.g4 Nf6 16.e5 dxe5 17.Nb3 Qc7 
    18.g5 Bf5 19.gxf6 exf6 20.Qd5 Rfc8 21.Rh2 h5 22.Rdd2 Rxc3 23.bxc3 Qxc3 
    24.Rhe2 Bf8 25.Qa5 Qxa5 26.Nxa5 Bb4 27.Nxb7 Bxd2+ 28.Rxd2 Rxc3 
    29.Bxa7 Rc7 30.Nd6 Rxa7 31.Nxf5 gxf5 32.c4 Kg7 33.Kd1 Kh6
    34.Ke2 Kg5 35.Ke3 Ta3+ 36.Td2 f4+ 37.Ke2 Txa2+ 38.Kd1 h4 39.  resigns  0-1



  The second game is played for $ 2000


     GM Sergei Kudrin (2670) - Martin Olesen


    1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 
    8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.h4 Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 
    14.g4 b5 15.h5 b4 16.Nce2 Qa5 17.Kb1 Rfc8 
    18.hxg6 fxg6 19.Rc1 Qa6 20.Nb3 Be6 21.Nf4 Bf7 22.g5 Nh5 23.Nd5 Bxd5 
    24.Qxd5+ Kh8 25.Bd4 e5 26.Be3 Rf8
    27.Qd3 Rc6 28.Nd2 Qc8 29.Qb5 Qc7 30.Qxb4 Rb8 31.Qa4 Nf4 
    32.Rhe1 Ng2 33.Re2 Nf4 34.Ree1 Ng2 
    35.Qxa7 Rb7 36.Qa4 Nxe1 37.Rxe1 Rb8 38.c4 Qb7 
    (Black is slightly better) 39.Qc2 Qb4 40.Rc1 Ra6?
    41.Qb3! Qxb3 42.Nxb3 Bf8 (After the Q-exchange white is probably winning) 
    43.Rc3 Be7 44.a3 h6 45.gxh6 g5 46.Nd2 Kf7 47.b4 Kxh6 48.Kb2 Kh5 
    49.Nf1 Kg6 50.Rd3 Rh8 51.Nd2 Rh3 52.b5 Ra8
    53.Rb3 g4 54.fxg4 Bg5 55.Bxg5 Rxb3+ 56.Kxb3 Kxg5 57.a4 Kf4 
    58.b6 Ke3 59.Kc3 resigns 1-0


                                                Enjoy, Martin
From: jgolds@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey A Golds)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Boycott
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:23:02 GMT
Organization: Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu


It seems to me that people who are opposed to the Fischer-Spassky match
are opposed simply because of the U.N. sanctions...  That's kinda like
saying I'm opposed to speeding because it's illegal.  Look, just because
something is illegal does not make it wrong.  I can think of many things
that are illegal for no real reason.  Even some police officers think
this way.  For example, recently in California there was a drug bust
and a reporter asked a cop what he thought of the situation, he said
something to the effect that he couldn't see anything wrong with
marijuana except for the fact that it is illegal.  See what I mean?

Look, I'm not trying to put anyone down, but illegality does not imply
incorrectness.

And now, bacj to our regularly scheduled program...

Jeff
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6539 rec.games.go:1733 rec.games.board:8319 rec.games.programmer:3674
From: jrickard@eoe.co.uk (John Rickard)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Strategic games, computational cost & implications
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:31:07 GMT
Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
: The computational complexity of a game is normally taken to be the number
: of possible games.
: 
: Thus for Go the number is close to 361! (361 x 360 x 359 x .... x 3 x 2). You
: could say it is smaller by 4! or maybe 8! because of symmetery in the board,
: but dividing 361! by 8! hardly changes the result. Of course it could be a
: bit larger because of ko and replay into large previously captured areas, but
                                                                            ~~~
: that would not change the overall number by much. So, 361! is about 10^924.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In fact, it changes it enormously.  I can show that there are more
than 10^(10^10) possible games (with no repeating of a board position
allowed in a game).  You can work out that this must involve games
with thousands of millions of moves, with a lot of recapturing.  (In
fact my proof involves a position with 60 kos on the board.)

(I agree with other posters who have argued that the number of
possible games says very little about a game.)

-- John Rickard
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fishcer's last official game
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:17:09
Organization: CSUA/UCB
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: benwood@milton.u.washington.edu's message of Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:30:40 GMT

In article <benwood.715285840@milton> benwood@milton.u.washington.edu (Ben Henwood) writes:

   I recall reading that Fischer made an appearance at the Marshall Chess
   Club on his way back from winning the title, on his way to 20-years
   of oblivion, and that he played some speed games in a relaxed
   atmosphere.  If so, they must have been his last public games,
   although certainly not official.  If my stretched memory serves, he
   also discussed how he did not intend to wait the full 3 years to
   defend his title, or that at least he'd play often and also play
   matches, too (I don't remember if for the title or not).  

Fischer didn't become a total recluse til some time after giving up
the title to Karpov.  While world champion he still showed up at some
chess events and presumably played some blitz, etc.  Also, he played
two well known games against the MacHack VI chess computer in the late
70's.  Both games were routine crushes as the machine was pretty weak,
but they are published in the Wade/O'Connell collection among other
places.
From: albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Nimzo query
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:11:42 GMT

>From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig):

>Suppose we begin as follows:

>        1. d4   Nf6
>        2. c4   e6
>        3. Nc3  Bb4
>        4. a3   Bxc3
>        5. bc   c5

>How badly can Black now clobber 6. d5?  That move does not appear in
>ECO, MCO13, or BCO, which suggests that it must be really wretched.


In Nimzo positions such as this, the white player would like to open
up the position to activate the bishop pair, and the black player
would like to keep the position closed, in hope that the bishop pair
be inactive, and thus inadequate compensation for the doubled c pawns.

I would guess that the authors of the above opening manuals dismissed
6. d5 because it is too committal for white to close the center. black
can reply with d6 and e5, and the blocked center is more consistent
with black's strategic aims. 

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Review: Knightstalker
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:47:03 GMT

In article <Aug.23.11.37.15.1992.13310@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:

>if I want to study endgames by playing against KnightStalker I just
>load my Pandolfini's _Endgame Course_ or Fine's _Basic Chess Endings_,
>pick a position and go to it.  If I lose, I can then compare what I
>did with the book line.  It's fantastic!  If I want to study tactics
>or mates, I can load either of my versions of Reinfeld's _1001_

You do say "my" here.  Am I right that you created these databases
yourself?  that they are not commercially available?  Lot of work if
so, although perhaps not so bad if you enter them as you work through
the problems the first time.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: budelsky@ikp.Uni-Koeln.DE (Dietmar Budelsky)
Subject: SD tournaments
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:14:10 GMT


Hello, reading the discussion about SD, I found it seems to be
a problem of the rule book. There it seems to be difficult to
understand. I'm no american, so I don't know the exact text, but
the idea for the rule is quite easy:

If the player, whose time didn't fall has   a n y   way to win
from the current position, he wins the game. It can't be distinguished
between helping mates (I don't know, if this word translation from
German is the right terminus in English) and only slight errors, the
fellow with fallen clock can make in future positions. The mate in 1
rule means only, that the mate position is constructed through legal
moves from the position at fallen clock (no stalemates between). The
TD has to claim a win for the player.

The only real problem, the rule book has to solve are theoretical
remis constellations as KNN vs K. Here, it is possible to construct
a win, but the game would last 50 moves if noone looses his flag.

Dietmar Budelsky (1769)
Institut f"ur Kernphysik, Universit"at zu K"oln, Germany
budelsky@snert.ikp.uni-koeln.de
From: watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: fischer match coverage
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:05:02 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>|> Telechess has an advertisement in the August issue of
>|> Inside Chess an advertisement in the August issue of
>|> Inside Chess.
>|> 
>|> Phone number: 1-900-988-0078
>|> The info line: Ext 664, "round by round updates on all the action"
>|> The game line: Ext 565, "Don't miss a single move"
>|> 
>|> Average call two minutes.  $2.00 per minute.  Touch tone phone.
>|> Under 18 requires parental consent.
>
>  Doesn't this violate the U.S./U.N. trade embargo against Yugoslavia? After
>all, they are making money on an event taking place in the restricted area. As
>I understood it - NO money can be exchanged based on anything in the restricted
>area. Anyway, on principal I am personally boycotting this match, as I dis-approve
>of anything in violation of the embargo. This match is illegal according to
>U.S. officials, so I won't support or follow it. I urge all to avoid posting
>any information about it, and to ingore all information that does get posted
>on this perfidious match.
>
>-Ron
>

The sanctions must only cover financial transactions actually involving the
Serbians. If no money could be exchanged based on anything in the restricted 
area, then it would be illegal to sell newspapers that reported the war, and
no commercials could be sold on newscasts that covered the fighting.

>PS - OF course, if they move to Belgrade or anywhere else outside of Yugoslavia,
>     then there's no problem!

What country do you think Belgrade is in?

Bradley