HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Subject: Re: piece sacrifices
Originator: jcbokar@c00566-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:46:56 GMT


In article <1992Nov6.163252.28948@news.columbia.edu>,
de11@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Epstein) writes:
|> Paul Epstein) writes:
|> >I know of exactly three openings which are sometimes played at
|> international
|> >level which involve a piece sacrifice.  They are as follows:
|> >Muzio Gambit:  1. e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3. Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gXf3
|> 6.Qxf3.
|> >
|> >Cochrane Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7.
|> >
|> >Alekhine's Defence.  1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 d3 5. Nxe5 Nd7
|> 6. Nxf7
|> >
|> >
|> >Does anybody know of any other reasonable openings that involve
|> piece 
|> >sacrifices?
|> >
|> >Paul Epstein.
|> 
|> How about the Pelikan Sicilian: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6
|> 5.Nc3 e5
|> 6.Nb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5, and now both Nab5 and Bb5 have been
|> tried.
|> 
|> David Epstein
|> 
|> 
There is a variation of the Two-Knights Defense that involves a peice
sacrifice.  David Bronstein played it in the late 1950's.  Horowitz's
Chess Openings book has some info on it; I believe under the heading
Morphy's Variation.
jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Joseph Albert <albert@papyrus.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: David Bronstein visits the US
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:19:19 GMT



To follow up on my earlier post, GM David Bronstein is visiting HPLabs from
Nov. 4 to Nov. 16.  The purpose of his visit is chess-related, to play
against Deep Thought and HiTech.  These games will take place on ics.
the ics account hpdbdt has been set up for this purpose, but other HP
employees are using the account at times, so it isn't guaranteed to
be GM Bronstein all the time.

For those wishing to observe, these games will be going on during the
day time pacific time during at many times throughout this period of 
time.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: uiterwyk@cs.rulimburg.nl (Jos Uiterwijk)
Subject: ICCA Journal Vol. 15, No. 3
Keywords: Computer chess
Organization: University of Limburg, Maastricht
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:33:23 GMT


To respond on some questions and to give you some information,
the ICCA Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3 (September 1992) has been
published recently (although a little retarded).

For those not knowing this Journal:

======================================================================

The ICCA Journal is the Journal of the ICCA, the International
Computer Chess Association. The ICCA Journal is devoted to
scientific publications (articles, research notes, book reviews),
reports of tournaments, announcements and other information on any
aspect of computer chess.

The ICCA Journal is published 4 times a year and a yearly subscription
costs fl 50.- (Dutch guilders) or $ 30.- (US dollars). More information
can be obtained by sending an Email message to

	icca@cs.rulimburg.nl

or by replying to the originator of this news

	Jos Uiterwijk
	Deputy Editor
	uiterwijk@cs.rulimburg.nl

======================================================================

The present issue (Vol. 15, No. 3) contains among others:


Articles:
--------
P.J.Jansen: 
	KQKR: Awareness of a Fallible Opponent.

W. Barth and S. Barth: 
	Validating a Range of Endgame Programs.

Note:
----
The Editors: 
	Thompson: All about Five Men.

Reports on:
----------
	The 4th Computer Olympiad.
	The 1992 QMW Computer-Chess Tournamment.

======================================================================
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Polgar Match
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:50:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Nov6.195027.16593
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov06.020928.5446@crash> uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes:
>But how well would Fischer have done against Polgar when he
>was 16??
>
He would have crushed her. She would not be able to show up for the games in
1959, so Bobby would win all games by forfeit.  :-)

	Sven
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Gaprindashvilli's strength (was re: Fishcer with odds)
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:34:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.004724.4676@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>
>Don't have those lists; however, isn't there a secondary condition for
>the GM title that in the term one achieves the third and final GM norm
>one must also be rated at least 2500 ELO?

No. That rule was introduced in the 80s, when she already was a GM.

I think Chiburdanidze was the first woman to top 2500, but only for a short
time after 100 points were added to women's ratings (the purpose of this was
to merge the men's and women's rating lists, which had been separate). The
Polgars, who had regularly competed in men's tournaments, did not get the
100 points, and neither did Pia Cramling. So Zsuzsa (Susan) Polgar was the
first woman to top 2500 by 'normal' means.

	Sven

P.S. This is all from memory ... 'as is', no warranty...
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Looking for an E-mail chess player
From: ctodd@jupiter (christopher todd)
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:44:24 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

 

	Hello My name is Christopher and I am looking for an E-mail chess playerI am not a serious chess player,but I like to play at least three times a week.
	So if anyone is interested drop me some E-mail and let the games begin.






						Christopher
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Gnufour on ICS
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:39:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxKBqL.8L8
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU

In article <1992Nov10.160302.9967@crash> uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes:
>Needless to say I lost all games on time, and have been somewhat intimidated
>by Gnufour since then.  The other day I played it again, and was winning
>convincingly when I was inadvertently logged off the ICS.  No big
>deal, it was an unreg match anyway.
>I played gnufour last night and had a most unusual game, it had me
>in what was a forced mate situation, it could have mated me in
>5-6 moves (10 min Blitz Game).  I offered it a piece to get
>out of mate, and the program took it!  I then battled back,
>and gnufour subsequently went into brain lock, and I won on time.
>
>Are computer programs really this dumb, or is gnufour just lame?
>It makes me wonder how the darn program (gnufour) gets me in
>trouble so often, I am like 2-8 against it, and should have
>lost last night.
>Would a better program like MChess give up a mating combo for a pawn?
>

You must have been playing it as an unregistered played.  I've noticed
that when logged in as unreg, I can crush gnufour w/o much problem,
but when logged in as benoni, I get smushed!  Is it just psychological,
or does gnufour intentionally let unreg players win?

-benoni
From: marcusc@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: rec.games.chess
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:37:10 GMT
Organization: New York University

In article <1992Nov8.193045.4746@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, ctepedel@nyx.cs.du.edu (cihan tepedelenlioglu) writes:
> 	Does anyone know the reason of Alekhine's death.?(brief question)

Heart failure
I hear he died clutching a pocket set

Flent omnes
> 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: RVBAAL@kub.nl (R V BAAL DEA/OI)
Subject: Re: Best player never to win the World Championship
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 08:50:19 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University (KUB)
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22

In <1992Nov5.152457.25196@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mapmef@gdr.bath.ac.uk writes:

[stuff deleted]

> Curiously all the English magazines that I've seen comment on Short-Timman say:
> "Well, Timman is very strong, good match player but this is Short's time, his
> big chance, he must win"  whereas the one Dutch magazine I've seen says
> "Well, Short is very strong, good match player but this is Jan's big
> chance ... etc"
> 
> [Of course neither of them has the remotest chance against Kasparov.]

Neither of them? How's that? Kasparov is'nt Jesus, is he?
In 1935 Alekhine was considered as invincible as Kasparov now.
Yet there was another underestimated dutchie who did the impossible...

reinier van baal, tilburg university, the netherlands; internet: rvbaal@kub.nl
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's strength
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:17:52 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <BxKw47.4v0@world.std.com>, ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow) writes:
> I have the impression from various strong players I've talked to or heard
> from/about around the country that they feel that Fischer's play is *not*
> that good, maybe even in the 2400 range.  This inconsistency is appalling
> and unignorable.  Maybe FIDE gives out titles if you play at 2650 for one
> tournament and then 2300 for another, but (1) your rating will not get very
> high, and (2) if it's from one *game* to another, you'll never win anything
> except the brilliancy prize...
> 
> --elliott

the reason that so many grand masters and international masters are
criticizing the quality of play is that they are bitter and jealous.

think about it from their perspective. suppose you were an IM, and
worked like grim death night and day for that GM title. then bobby
comes out of retirement after 20 years of seemingly doing nothing
and he trounces borris spassky who is ranked 100 in the world...with
little or no effort. these Grand Master "wanna-be's" are understandably
upset. it isn't fair in their minds that it comes so easy to him to be
brilliant while they have to work to be mediocre.

now lets say you were a GM. you make your living playing chess. chances
are you have to squeek by...perhaps playing postal chess for 20$ a game
to supplement your sporadic tournament winnings. it's tuff to get that
big payoff since sponsors don't like to cough up hundreds of thousands
of dollars in prize money.  then, after 20 years, bobby comes out of
retirement and WHAM! he gets a 5 million dollar purse to play against
borris spassky (who these jealous GM consider to be a has-been). the
sponsors are lining up to pay him 2.5 million to play polgar and 
10 million to play kasparov or karpov.  kasparov can't even get 1 million
to play for the FIDE world championship.  these guys are jealous as
hell and criticize bobby hoping that maybe these sponsors won't offer
these purses to bobby anymore...and maybe the sponsors will find
a different, better, and more worthy GM to offer the 10 million to.

so what you have is plain and simple....jealousy.




don wedding
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Women's ratings (was about Gaprindashvili)
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:42:17 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Nov12.004724.4676@colorado.edu>
perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:

> Further, we should also remember that
> about 1987 or 1988 FIDE arbitrarily raised womens' ratings 100 points,
> citing a discrepancy with their true playing strength.

But not the ratings of Pia Cramling or the Polgar sisters!  FIDE
claimed this was because those four only played in men's tournaments. 
Many believed, however, that what FIDE really wanted to do was keep a
Soviet atop the Women's rating list.  Wouldn't surprise me if that were
true.

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have realized it would be bad vodka when all the label said
was 'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: edd@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ed.knowles)
Subject: Re: F-S II Wrap-Up
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:01:16 GMT
Summary: Fischer would give Kasparov no trouble whatsoever

In article <17228@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
> Thanks again for the great service you did many chess players, past, present
> and possibly future.  I haven't played tournament chess since 1982 (although
> I subscribe to Inside Chess and still follow everything from a distance), but
> Bobby's return has started me thinking about playing again too.  It's a bit
> like a drug...  On the other hand, I still have another ten years to wait, I
> suppose!
> 
> Anyway, I appreciated your efforts, as did Duncan Suttles, to whom I relayed
> the games.  It will be interesting to see if Fischer and Kasparov will get
> together - so near, yet so far!  I think Fischer and Anand are the two
> players who would give Kasparov the most trouble, although I don't think
> either can beat him right now.  Naturally I would never post something like
> this on the net, as two hundred 1200 players would jump down my throat...

If you really think Fischer would give Kasparov any trouble, you should play
over the  games of Fischer-Spassky II carefully. This match was a farce, like
a match of two 1900 players... Spassky must've been almost on his deathbed
to play as badly as he did (prostate problems, kidney problems, exhaustion,
the flu -- yet still managed to win 5 games against "the legend"). It's easy
to compare Kasparov and Fischer's play because their opening repertoires are
similar. A good place to start is the King's Indian Defense. Compare Fischer's
aimless play against the Samaisch with Kasparov's dynamic counterattacking
(in game one of the 1990 match for instance). Even in the last game, Fischer
should have been crushed until Spassky started giving away all his pieces
(makes one wonder if Spassky received a "premium" to lose the match by a
large margin...). I'm not a Kasparov fan, but I have to agree with him when 
he says that there are a least 50 players capable of beating Fischer in a
match today (I think he was being conservative, Spassky's not even in the
top 100 and won five games and threw away about 5 more). Honest grandmasters
will tell you the truth -- Fischer is not even a shadow of the player he was
in 1972. The fact that he still considers himself to be the strongest player
in the world and was "pleased with his play" shows that his psychosis has
destroyed his objectivity. His personality hasn't improved either. I feel
good about this match taking place though only because it's good to see
Spassky receive some good fortune (even though it was painful to watch such
a great player taking part in such an embarassing, humiliating farce -- but
it is a lot of money). 

                        -Ed Knowles

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington)
Subject: Re: cowboy crushes scratchy on ics
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:06:33 GMT

In article <BxKw8J.HvF@news.orst.edu> linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin) writes:
>[  It seems that there haven't been many games on reg.games.chess
>   recently, so I thought I would post cowboy's recent crush of
>   scratchy!  good job cowboy! ] 
>
Thanks for the compliments, I'll try to keep my over-inflated ego in check.
I'll throw in a few comments/annotations. It seems that the sac may not 
have been sound if DT had given back the material at the crucial time.

>[       cowboy                 scratchy      ]
>
>1       P/c2-c3 (0:05)         P/e7-e5 (0:27)
>2       P/d2-d4 (0:02)         P/e5-d4 (0:20)
>3       P/c3-d4 (0:03)         N/g8-f6 (0:14)
>4       N/b1-c3 (0:02)         B/f8-b4 (0:17)
>5       P/a2-a3 (0:10)         B/b4-c3 (0:12)
>6       P/b2-c3 (0:04)         o-o (0:16)
>7       N/g1-f3 (0:02)         R/f8-e8 (0:16)
>8       P/e2-e3 (0:04)         P/c7-c5 (0:17)
>9       B/f1-e2 (0:14)         Q/d8-a5 (0:17)
>10      o-o (0:25)             N/f6-e4 (0:18)
>11      B/c1-d2 (0:15)         N/e4-c3 (0:18)
>12      B/d2-c3 (0:22)         Q/a5-c3 (0:02)
>13      B/e2-d3 (0:24)!?       P/c5-c4 ? (0:16)

13. Bd3 telegraphs my intentions to sac on h7 - any good human would
    smell a rat. While the sac may not be entirely sound, the move
    13...c4 is a real lemon. It makes the sac too tempting by wasting
    a tempo and hitting the Bd3 at the same time. The only thing preventing
    13...c4 from meriting a ?? is the dubious nature of the sac.

>14      B/d3-h7 (1:22)         K/g8-h7 (0:18)
>15      N/f3-g5 (0:02)         K/h7-g6 (1:32)
>16      Q/d1-g4 (1:01)         P/f7-f5 (0:31)

16...d5 should be considered maybe

>17      Q/g4-g3 (1:38)         Q/c3-a5 (1:39)
>18      Q/g3-d6 (0:56)         K/g6-g5 (0:09) ??

this may be the losing move... 18...Re6 seems to hold from the brief
analysis that I've done. White may have some justification for giving
2 pieces for a rook based on black's lagging development, but it's not so
clear.

>19      P/f2-f4 (0:15)         K/g5-h5 (1:13)

White is winning

>20      R/f1-f3 (1:21)         Q/a5-a6 (0:17)
>
>[ does 20...Re6 (jgold's move) lose too? ]

I think so... 21. Rh3+ Kg6(kg4) 22. Qf8 w/ threat og rg3 and qg7 with
mate soon thereafter.

>
>21      R/f3-h3 (0:19)         K/h5-g4 (0:44)
>22      R/h3-g3 (1:22)         K/g4-h4 (0:12)
>23      Q/d6-d5! (0:54)         R/e8-e3 (0:08)
>24      R/g3-e3 (0:13)

24...Qc6 
25. Qf5 Qg2+
26. Kg2 d5
27. Rh3 mate  

All in all it wasn't so much good play on my part as it was horizon effect
and greed (materialism) on DT's part. A timely return of (some of)
the material may have proven the sac unsound.

-Steve Harrington 
-ICS::cowboy


>


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: xawemmer@cs.ruu.nl (Xander Wemmers)
Subject: Kasparov - Fischer
Summary: World championship ?
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:03:46 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science
Keywords: match Kasparov Fischer WM?

Hot news!


The Dutch television reported after the end of Fischer-Spassky II that
Kasparov declared himself willing to play Fischer.


NB1: Kasparov did not exactly say he wanted to challenge Fischer
					       ---------
						-------
						 -----
						  ---
						   -

NB2: Kasparov said that he was willing to play under certain conditions.
						     -------
						      -----
						       ---
							-





					Xander Wemmers
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hsieh@math.toronto.edu (Paul Hsieh)
Subject: Miniature
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 19:59:47 GMT

As long as we're posting our "greatest miniatures":

ICS 10,0 game: qed (white) Desmodus (black)
1. d4 c5 2. dc nf6 3. c4!? Qa5+ 4. nc3 ne4 5. Bd2 nxc5? 6. b4! Qxb4
7. nb5 Qxc4 8. nc7+ Kd8 9. Rc1 Qd4 10. nxa8 b7 11. nf3 Qf6?? 12. Rxc5!
bc? 13. Ba5+ Ke8 14. Nc7+ Black resigns in view of 14. ... Kd8 15. Nd5+

Moral of the story?  Don't run you queen on adventures around the board
in the opening.  Maybe we should have a best miniatures contest.  We
could submit them to one of the masters that reads the net with the winner
having the right to the next match with Fischer!  :)  Anyways, this would
be my submission.

A little more seriously though, what am I really supposed to do in the
event of 1. d4 c5 ?  I played 2. dc but against other people (who do not
bring their queens out early) black usually ends up having no trouble.
I suspect the better move is 2. d5 but I haven't had a chance to test it
out.  BCO (which sadly is my only openings reference) does not list c5
as a response to d4, so I was wondering if any of the authorities out
there could verify whether or not 2. d5 is the right thing to do, or
otherwise tell me what the right move IS.

Paul Hsieh (1700 CFC)
From: ron_s@verifone.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky, DIR/ALLGames 19-24
Date: 2 Nov 92 13:22:53 -1000
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI

In article <1992Oct27.204826.7246@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, gls@windmill.ATT.COM (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes:
> Here's our up-to-the-minute report on the big match, written in the
> NOTATION OF CHAMPIONS!  Be a world champion--use Smythescript!
> 
>   Game 19      Game 20      Game 21      Game 22      Game 23      Game 24    
> Bobby Boris  Boris Bobby  Bobby Boris  Boris Bobby  Bobby Boris  Boris Bobby  
> F     N      F     N      F     N      F     N      F     N      F     N
> 7XN   7XS    7T    7XXI   7XXU  7XS    7T    7XXI   7XN   F-     7T    7XXI


   Hey - trash this garbage script - get it off the net waves -- its like
using a cannonball to write a letter with -- its possible but would
only be done by a pinhead...


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black)
Subject: Re: Davis-Fedorowicz, U.S. Open, Round 1, Atlanta, 1980
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:58:19 GMT

> 
> Recently someone posted this game which reached this position after 23.Bf6!:
> 
>  -----------------------
> |          q* r* b* k*   |8     The game continued 23. ... Bc5+ 24.Kf1 Bf2
> |    b*          p* p* p*|7     25.Bf7+ Kf8 26.Qh7 gf 27.Bg6  1 - 0
> |    p*       p* B       |6
> |          p*       P  B |5     I don't see what would happen after 
> |       p*       P     Q |4     23. ... gf6
> |    P     P           R |3
> |          r*          P |2     I looked and looked and don't see the catch.
> |       R           K    |1     Can anyone help me?
>  ------------------------
>   a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h
> 
> mike perkins

In his "annotations" to this game in "Chess Life," W. Stanley Davis writes
this after 23. Bf6!:

    "Twilight and evening bell, And after that the dark!"  If he takes my
    Bishop, it is mate in five.

I remember looking at this position 10 years ago and trying to find the "mate
in five"; I never did.  Now in the age of cheap chess computers I've confirmed
there is no mate in five.  This is all moot, however, since as several people
have noted, Black is totally busted after 23. gf.

john//
jrb@ingres.com
From: mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Should women's tournaments exist?
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:45:56 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Nov13.010734.20321@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
>This is an important question which I haven't seen discussed in this group.
>My opinion is that they perpetuate the harmful and untrue notion that
>women can't compete with men on equal terms, and that they prevent more
>women from being world class chess players by encouraging them to play against
>each other rather than against the world's best.
>Significantly, the best women seem to have consistently avoided women's
>competitions.
>
>Is anybody prepared to defend the continued existence of the women's world
>championship cycle and other women's competitions?  I get the impression that
>they are being phased out, and  I think that the continued success of Judit
>Polgar will accelerate this process.
>

If someone "gives" a chess tournament for women and they attend then a women's
tournament (or a world championship) is justified by the participation of the
players. We have junior championships, scholastic championship, prison 
champioships, armed forces, etc.

If enough people are interested in a match between the two (perceived) best
women players in the world then play on!

Now there are those who would maintain that there are no *men's* tournaments
but the real issue is that of encouraging the participation of more women in
this sport. 

I don't think that the issue is the relative strengths of women vs. men. 
If more women participate then more very strong women players will appear on
the scene. I would be delighted to see women players getting strong enough
to make it into the WC cycle and eventually win the "real" world championship.