HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spin@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Jeremy Spinrad)
Subject: Siesta variation (name)
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:30:11 GMT


   I happened across the explanation while reading Tartakower and Dumont's
500 master games of chess yesterday. It seems that Marshall played the
line against Capablanca in 1909, but the game was ignored and the variation
"slept" until it was revived by Capablanca in a tournament in Budapest 1928
with great success.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jam@chapln.enet.dec.com (Joe Micozzi)
Subject: novice question
Reply-To: jam@chapln.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:47:16 GMT


--

Why is it that when I read Master's games or chess bits I see this opening:

1 e4	e5
2 f3	c6
3 b5	a6
4 a4	f6
5 O-O	Be7

But when I play my computer or gnuchess 5. is ALWAYS

5 O-O 	f6xe4

Why???

What advantage is gained (or lost).  Part 2 is would 6. be

6. Re1 

or would 
6. c3 

be beter to keep a4 from becomming trapped

Thanks

*******************************************************************************

	There are only three constants in bicycle riding

		1) Bikes don't win races, people do.
		2) There's always a headwind.
		3) There's never enough time to ride.

*********************************************************************************
jam@chapln.enet.dec.com
*********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Joseph Albert <albert@papyrus.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: fischer with odds
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:02:50 GMT



Leonard Augsburger writes:

>>so the knight odds were pretty dubious even then.

>...with Knight odds. In a two sided blindfold blitz match, no question he
>would have won (he was able to beat an IM in blitz blindfold).

Gaprindashvilli was GM strength, so why do you think that because
Fischer beat an IM with knight odds in blitz blindfold should imply
that there is no question he would have won? it also depends on 
Gaprindashvilli's strength at blindfold play. for example, 
Koltanowski is an IM, yet an outstanding blindfold player, so it
isn't clear the fischer would beat kolty with knight odds in blitz
blindfold (unless the above mentioned IM game was against Kolty of course).

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: leyfre@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Frederic Leymarie)
Subject: Re: F-S II Wrap-Up
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 20:17:01 GMT


In article <1992Nov7.025750.17194@husc3.harvard.edu>, fry@tara.harvard.edu
 (David Fry) writes:

|> Fischer's behavior and political views are beyond defense, but I 
|> enjoy chess again because of his return, regardless of the sanity of 
|> the cause.  Maybe the K-K matches, the rise of young non-Soviets, and 
|> the new accelerated time controls should have drug me out of 
|> "retirement," but they didn't.  From anecdotal evidence I've heard 
|> from many sources, I'm sure I'm not alone and I think Spassky is 
|> right, this is god for chess.  Sure, it makes chess players look like 
                  ^^^^
|> crazies, but I think the good offsets the bad in this case.


Yeah! Fischer is back ! God is back !   ;-)


Thanks a lot David! It's been great.
-- 
Frederic Leymarie -- leyfre@mcrcim.mcgill.edu
McGill University, Electrical Eng. Dept., McRCIM,    |	Tel.: (514) 398-8236
3480 University St., Montreal, QC, CANADA, H3A 2A7.  |	FAX:  (514) 398-7348
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Should women's tournaments exist?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 01:31:30 GMT

In article <17439@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>I agree that women's tournaments have no point and do more harm than good.
>More to the point, I think idiotic "jokes" like "should Judit Polgar play
>nude" are the reason why many women do not play chess - they don't want to be
>associated with males who think that way.

Being the unfairly misquoted author of that joke, I'd let this pass if there
were only one such humor-impaired critic, but I'm getting hate-mail, so I'd
better explain to the slow-at-mind-but-maybe-quick-at-gun what I meant, step
by step:

1) For start, learn to read. I wrote that Fischer might have required that
   Judith play nude. I did not ask the question you "quote". BTW, putting
   freely interpreted words in quote is VERY BAD ETIQUETTE.

2) Now turn on your brain and I'll lead you through the logic of the joke
   step-by-step:

   1] Fischer is notorious for being sexist (and, aditionally, anti-semitic,
      which is aggravating in this particular case).

   2] Fischer is notorious for being stubborn, impossioble to negotiate with
      and full of annoying demands towards his opponents.

   3] Requiring somebody to play nude is annoying and outrageous.

   4] Requiring a woman to play nude in a predominantly male environment
      is, in addition to [3], sexist.

   5] Given [3] and [4], Fischer requiring Polgar to play nude is a 
      conceivable example of [1] and [2]. Also, given [2] (stubbornness),
      it is conceivable that such a demand could be his final word, 
      rendering the match impossible.

   6] Although it is conceivable and logical, this particular example is
      unlikely, and this combination is the standard recipe for what we
      call humor. Additionally, the fact that the statement would be 
      rude if quoted out of contest puts it in the particular category 
      of humor called sarcasm. Incidentally, due to the cultural tradition,
      the reader is expected to know this. (Yes, Dan Quayle, your War on
      The Cultural Elite has failed!)

   7] However, on the Seventh Day God said "Oh my God! I created some
      people humor-impaired!", so to make up for that mistake, He gave us
      the Smiley Face, which I obediently used in this case. Yet, it did
      not save me from the witch hunt.

OK, now it should be clear (huh!). Now I quixoticly expect the witchhunters  
to appologize. 

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Fischer-Polgar NOT (yet)
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:55:36 GMT

This is hearsay (I got if from a friend who got it directly from
one of the putative participants):

There is no definite arrangement for A Fischer-Polgar match.
There is no contract for a Fischer-Polgar match.
There is no site for a Fischer-Polgar match.
There is no date for a Fischer-Polgar match.

Fischer will remain in Yugoslavia for a while.
His next move has not been determined.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
From: seltzer@ics.enet.dec.com (Richard Seltzer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Searching for Bobby Fischer
Date: 8 Nov 92 00:27:39 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

I don't know who is playing Josh.  But the father is played by
Joe Montagna and Pandolfini is played by Ben Kingsley. Paramount
is doing it.

I've read the script.  It looks very good.  It focuses on Josh and
chess, and on his relationship with his father.  Instead of Jeff Sarwer,
his main chess opponent is a fictitious character.  I'm not sure
when it's due out, but I'm really looking forward to it.

Richard Seltzer  seltzer@ics.dec.com
-- or --      ...!decwrl!ics.dec.com!seltzer
-- or --      seltzer%ics.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: "gordon mazur" <gordon.mazur@canrem.com>
Subject: gaprindashvilli's strengt
Reply-To: "gordon mazur" <gordon.mazur@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:08:32 EST


BM>Reality check guys.  I'm pretty sure Gaprindashvilli didn't make her first
BM>GM norm until well after Fischer had stopped playing.  When Fischer made
BM>his notorious remark in the early '60s she was probably about a 2300 player,

Confirmation: July 1971 Gaprindashvilli was an IM rated 2390. This is the
earliest rating I can find for her. She became WWC in 1962 at age 21.
Either she didn't improve much in the 9 years '62-'71 or it didn't take
much to become WWC.

All this is irrelevant though. I don't think Fischer could give N odds to
any one over 1900 then or now. I don't think he would lose every game, but
I'm sure he would lose every match.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re:Fischer's strength
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:04:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: mindlink.17341
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Martin Olesen writes that there is no consensus among top players as to
Fischer's strength.  I think this is quite true, although it might be more
accurate to say there's a rough consensus as to his strength (about 2630),
but no consensus as to his potential strength.  No one, including Fischer,
can know whether he can (re)gain the additional strength to reach 2700 or
greater, which is what he would have to do to threaten Kasparov.

I admire Fischer for trying - which I think is quite easy to do without
admiring his political views and judgment in publicizing them.  I also think
he may well understand more about chess than he ever did, although he may not
play as well as he did 20 years ago.

One can only wonder at those who vilify Fischer, just as one must wonder
about those who diefy him.  But personally I think he's playing more
interesting chess now than he did before, although at his peak he played more
impressively...
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mccarthy@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Anthony McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Davis-Fedorowicz, U.S. Open, Round 1, Atlanta, 1980
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, California
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 20:10:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.035843.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu> abriggs@hmcvax.claremont.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.220421.27440@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, qazqaz@Muir.Stanford.EDU (Mike Perkins) writes:
>> 
>> 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
>
>Unless I'm mistaken..   23 ... f6  24 BxQ and that's pretty much it for black.


After 23. ... gf6 24. gf6 Black faces threats of Bf7 and Qh7 mate as well as
Rg3+ and Qg4 with mate threats
since after 24. ... Bc5+ 25. Kf1 Black quickly succumbs to mate
Black's best seems to be 24. ... h6  when White will play
25. Rg3+ Kh7 (if 25. ... Kh8 26. Bf7 threatening 
27. Rg8+ Kh7 28. Rf8 followed by 29. Qh6 mate) 26. Bf7 Rd3 (if Qd7 27. Qh5)
27. Rd3 cd 28. Qg4 (threatening Qg8 mate) Bc5+ 29. Rc5 Qf6 30. Rc7 wins
(threatening among other things Bg8+ and Rh7 mate)

There are many sub-variations here, but it looks like White is winning
with a little bit of care.

Anthony
-- 
 ,,,,	amc@angband.s1.gov		mccarthy@glacier.stanford.edu	
~\OO/~  (415) 422 7361			(415) 723 1554			
  \/	L-271 Lawrence Livermore Lab	McCullough 108		
	Livermore CA 94550		Stanford Univ. 	CA 94305	
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: baljeual@uther.calvin.edu (Alan Baljeu)
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c5 miniature
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:33:44 GMT

qazqaz@Muir.Stanford.EDU (Mike Perkins) writes:


>I just played another fun miniature with Psion as black:

>1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.o-o Nxe4 5.Re1 f5? 6.d3 Qb6? 7.Bxd7+ Bxd7
>8.de4 Be7 9.ef5 ef5 10.Bg5 Be6 11.Bxe7 Kxe7 12.Ng5 Qxb2? 13.Rxe6+ Kf8 14.Qd8++

>It's probably obvious I don't usually play 1.e4 in real games. Was the pawn
>sac 4.o-o sound?
4. o-o  is played all the time.
4... Nxe4  is probably unsound, but I like to play it anyway.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mkerry@eng.umd.edu (Michael Kerry)
Subject: Mischa...
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 22:48:17 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park


Hello!  This is my first attempt at posting to this group,
so pray forgive any mishaps...

I noticed recently an article (# 18697) copied from "New In Chess" 
No. 5, 1992 entitled Three Games of Mischa Tal, Part 1 .  In it 
was (not surprisingly) one of Tal's games, wonderfully annotated by
Jan Timman.  I was wondering if Parts 2 and 3 have been posted yet,
and if so whether someone would be kind enough to send them to me.
I do appreciate it, and thanks in advance!

Of course, if they haven't been posted, I suppose I'll have to
wait patiently with everybody else...  :)

MK
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kerry(mkerry@eng.umd.edu) 		And, no, I don't know what
Institute for Systems Research			Project GLUE stands for...
University of Maryland, College Park		Do you?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black)
Subject: Re: novice question
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:39:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.172450.1690@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>Joe Micozzi writes about the following opening:
>
>1. e4 e5 2. f3 c6 3. b5 (??!)
>
I assume his notation was messed up; he probably means 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 a6 (i.e. a Ruy Lopez).

>I'm not a very high-rated player, but isn't this move illegal?  And is
>it really that good anyhow?  :-)
>
>4. a4 f6(?)
>
This is Ba4 and Nf6.

>Why?  I don't think I can recall a single e4 opening in which the
>f-pawn gets pushed like this so early.  You'd think more masters would
>play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6, for example, if it were a sound opening.
>
This is the Damiano Gambit, I believe.  The usual next move is 3. Nxe5 (and if
3. ... fxe5 then 4. Qh5+ with an attack for the piece).

>5. 0-0 Nxe4
>
This is the Open Ruy Lopez (5. ... Be7 is the closed version); as Micozzi said,
most masters play the closed variation, but Kortchnoi and others have used the
open in Grandmaster play.  The usual reply here is neither Rd1 nor c3, but
instead 6. d4.  Now 6. ... ed is the Riga variation (which a friend of mine
was just showing me the other day!), and the main line goes 6. ... b5  7. Bb3
d5  8. dxe5 Be6  9. c3 etc.

john//
jrb@ingres.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Fischer's Best Games, Annotated
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<KAP1.92Nov4003152@cse.unl.edu>
	<1992Nov8.225702.3424@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:56:02

    As Soltis (most recently) pointed out, Evans probably deserves
    credit for the prose in My Sixty Memorable Games.  I doubt he
    should get credit for any of the analysis.  The prose in the
    earlier book may actually be Bobby's, since he was still a student
    at the time and may not have sunk to total monosylables yet,
    though I don't know.

Opinions vary on how much of 60MG Evans wrote---some even say
the whole thing.  However, looking at letters that Fischer wrote
in the 60's (some reproduced in Profile of a Prodigy, etc.) it's
clear that Fischer was capable of writing well when he wanted to---
and that a lot of the time, he didn't want to.
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Where did they get these names?
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:37:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bx9Iqz.5tK
Distribution: na
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU

In article <1992Nov5.160353.13676@u.washington.edu> jph@stein.u.washington.edu (Jeff Hanson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.032458.25528@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver) writes:
>>I was wondering if anybody was familiar with the derivation of the names of
>>the following attacks and openings:
>>
>>1)Giucco Piano - 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. Bc4 Bc5
>
>	This is Italian for quiet game.  It got its name when 4. d3 was the
>most popular line and the King's Gambit was popular.  The 4. d3 line is now
>sometimes called the Giucco Pianissimo, or very quiet game.
>
>>If anybody has any others to add to the list....
>
>	How about:
>8) The Siclian Defence, Dragon variation.

Dragon does not refer to dragons like in D&D, but to the constellation.
At least this is what I think Soltis says in the excellent book PAWN
STRUCTURE CHESS.  

Why is the Pribyl called that? named after a player?

-benoni
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: logan@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Richard Scott)
Subject: Re: Why I Hate the ICS rating system.
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:58:21 GMT

Who cares?  Just lower everyone's ratings :)
It is not that big a deal, is it?  I suppose people are deadly serious
about this, but it should just be fun.  I, for one, do not enjoy playing
people who don't care about anything but winning and their rating.  Part
of the reason I haven't been playing much.  However, why not just use
the ELO system?  Wouldn't that make more sense?  I am not very good
(only about 1120) , which I am sure is too high!!

Richard
-- 
AussieVamp 
AussieMan, Neophyte Vampire and DarkWolf
(Eric Clapton is God!!!)   [ and there is Bobby Fischer... ;-) ]
(Walter Payton, Mike Singletary and Neal Anderson form the Holy Trinity!)
From: de11@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Epstein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: piece sacrifices
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:32:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov6.163252.28948
Reply-To: de11@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Epstein)
Distribution: rec
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Nov6.062817.7368@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (
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
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: cowboy crushes scratchy on ics
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:11:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

After a noted GM visited ICS to play RFischer (DT I), and had limited
success, I am forced (out of ignorance, and awe at the beating given
to DT II), to ask what sort of rating cowboy has, and if he is a noted
GM.

-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Questions about Fischer
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:11:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsbcsl.6640

In article <PHR.92Nov8205236@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:


>    >1) Did B. Fischer kept onplaying exhibition games after he quit the world
>    >   title?

>    No.  He hasn't played any public matches between '72 and '92.  Rumor mill
>    has it that private games were played on the condition of non-disclosure.

>Not quite right.  He played two exhibitation games against the
>patzer-strength chess computer MacHack VI in 1975 or 1976.
>These are in the Wade+O'Connell collection and in various
>computer chess anthologies, etc.

Not quite right: the games were played privately ( and thus were not
strictly exhibition games) and the scores were released after the fact.
So until F-S II F had played no public matches of any sort.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Gaprindashvilli's strength (was re: Fishcer with odds)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:47:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.001740.812@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <BxKFq0.n2o@cs.dal.ca> hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
>>
>>
>>	I suspect that those who peg Gaprindashvilli's strength at
>>	2300 are underestimating her ability at the time by about
>>	100 points.  Perhaps someone with a copy of Dr. Elo's book
>>	could settle that point.
>
>Elo's book has only one reference to Gaprindashvili in the index, and
>it leads merely to the following report on her 1980 match with
>Ioseliani:
>
>               Players                    Higher-Rated Player
>Year    (Higher-Rated First)       D   N   P   We   W    W-We (sigma)
>1980    Gaprindashvili-Ioseliani  65  14  .59  8.3  7.0  -1.3  1.8
>
>which says that she performed 1.8 std deviations below the expectation
>calculated by Elo's system.  Neither rating is given, only that the two
>players started 65 points apart.  Gaprindashvili was expected to score
>59%, but in fact scored only 50%
>
>Looking in the list of International Titleholders, we find:
> 
>                        Country of              Title   Best 5-yr  Rating
>Titleholder           Birth/Residence   Dates  and Date  Average   1-1-86
>Gaprindashvili, Nona   Soviet Union   1941-     GM-80     2420      2330
>
>So, in 1986,  GM Gaprindashvili was past her prime, rated a mere 2330
>after recording a career peak (5-yr average) of 2420.
>
>Elo examines many factors in chess skill, including genetics, location
>of birth, etc. - but not gender.  He briefly mentions WGM and IGM
>titles, in the context of describing the method of achieving GM and IM
>titles, but otherwise does not deal with Women-only chess.
>
>Sorry, no hint as to Nona's strength in (what year again? I've
>forgotten).  My guess, based on the above is that she peaked at 2450
>circa 1980.  Anyone have FIDE lists from 1972-1980?

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?  This could easily get carried
away in the average, but it would therefore seem to follow that she must
have achieved 2500 at least once.  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.


-- 
"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: gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon)
Subject: what is it???
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:37:25 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University


Could someone please tell me what all this "scratchy/cowboy" stuff is??

Scott

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess