HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Move order to avoid Petroff and play Scotch
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:13:12 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

Dennis Breuker asks:

(After 1.e4 e5  2.d4 exd4  3.Nf3)

-But what about 3...c5? Is this good? I think white will play Bc4, 0-0 and c3
 and stands very well (or am I missing something?).

In Cafferty and Hooper's "A Complete Defence to 1. P-K4" they write:


	Even the anti-positional 3...c5 seems feasible provided
	Black meets 4.c3 by 4...d5 and 4.Bc4 by 4...Nf6 intending
	an early ...d5.

Last year I took the Black side against a USCF Master in a 5-minute game.
After getting the worst of it in the opening, I counter-punched my way
to checkmate. 

No, 3...c5 isn't very good, but I'd certainly play it again.

What does ECO say about this line?


Steve Hoell		seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: henry@stsci.edu (Ron Henry)
Subject: New Fischer book
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:15:11 GMT

For all you Fischer fans out there, there's an excellent new book called
"Fischer: His Approach to Chess" by Elie Agur (I don't recall the publisher
offhand, but I picked it up at the Eastern Open).  This is a must for anyone 
interested in serious study of Fischer's games.  It explores Fischer's 
approach to the middlegame using examples from over 300 positions.  The 
emphasis is on understanding Fischer's distinctive style and contrasting his 
approach with other "reasonable" approaches that would appeal to other 
masters in the same positions.  This book is obviously the product of years 
of research and many of the positions are presented with original, in-depth 
analysis.

Agur brings out many misunderstood aspects of Fischer's style, including his
materialism, tendency to simplify, and his abhorrence of speculative play,
coupled with a tremendous will to win.  For example, there is an interesting
discussion of Fischer's comments about Bronstein "blundering a piece" in the
Two Knights' (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. d3 h6
7. Nf3 e4 8. dxe4!? Nxc4).  What is an unclear but appealing sac to a Tal
or Bronstein is simply a blunder to Fischer (but apparently exchange sacrifices
were not considered speculative, as these abound in his games).  At the same
time, Agur is no blind admirer and points out many examples where Fischer's
style led him astray; there's even a chapter on "superficiality."

I'm not sure how strong Agur is.  I can't find him on the FIDE rating list,
but at one point he mentions personally showing one of the positions to
Kasparov.  From my writing I'd guess his strength to be from 2400 to IM level.
At any rate, I'd recommend this book for study by anyone from 2000 up.  Below
expert level some of the ideas may be too sophisticated to appreciate.  It
is especially useful for study in conjunction with a comprehensive Fischer
reference such as Hays which gives the full score of the games involved.

-Ron Henry
From: jbarth@ep.ieee.org (Jeremy Barth)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Searching for one of Larsen's games...
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:38:42 GMT
Reply-To: jbarth@ep.ieee.org
Organization: IEEE, New York, NY

You're probably thinking of the famous Larsen - Spassky
game from the "USSR vs. the Rest of the World" match
in 1970.  Spassky played his unique brand of "simple,"
straightforward chess in response to Larsen's 1 b3
(a shocker in those days...) and won in under 25 moves.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: recommendation for beginner book
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:47:47 GMT

v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr) writes:

>How about _The Road to Chess Mastery_ by Max Euwe and someone else
>(Walter Meiden, perhaps?--anyway, the ghost writer).

>It gives twenty-five games between master and non-master, and
>explains, move-by-move, why the non-master is getting wiped out.
>It goes over essential strategic concepts such as open files,
>weak squares, control of the center, the two bishops, and so forth.
>It completely changed my play.  I'm still not good, but I now
>play with a plan, not just one move at a time, looking for material.

>Good luck!

This book was one of a series of at least three.  The first was called
"Chess Master Vs. Chess Amateur."  Back in the late '70s, I found these
books to be quite good for the intermediate player (say 1400-1900).

Roy Eassa

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: janeric@control.lth.se (Jan Eric Larsson)
Subject: Re: Keep it up and I will come back!
Originator: janeric@bellman
Organization: Dept. Automatic Control, Lund Inst. of Technology, Sweden
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:33:41



DMC writes;

>Well, due to the fan mail...

Didn't you have a test to do? Now, please get off the net and the
world will be a happier place.


Jan Eric Larsson                  JanEric@Control.LTH.Se      +46 46 108795
Department of Automatic Control
Lund Institute of Technology     "We watched the thermocouples dance to the
Box 118, S-221 00 LUND, Sweden    spirited tunes of a high frequency band."
From: jeff@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 2267 rating for ten year old
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:08:04 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily10.berkeley.edu


>In article <1993Jan8.162506.8497@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell) writes:
>>>Here is a list of players by age and their ratings from USCF rating
>>>supplements. I've only listed the top rated in each age group. - Bill Wall
>>
>>>Name		AGE	RATING  YEAR
>>
>>...             ..      ....    ....
>>
>>>WINSTON,P      14      2200    1972  (master at age 14 years, 3 months)
>>>ROGOFF         14      2200    1967  (master at age 14 years, 8 months)
>>
>>What ever happened to these folks? Did they get real jobs or something?
>>I remember watching Rogoff at the 1975 U.S. Championship, where his
>>2nd place finish qualified him for the Interzonal.

It depends what you call a serious job.  Ken Rogoff is now a Professor of
Economics.  I had the great fortune of taking both of my first year
courses in macroeconomics from Ken here at Berkeley. He is an extremely
friendly person and an outstanding lecturer. He claims to have left 
chess for good, but fellow students have caught him playing against his 
computer in his ofice. :)  He told me that he wrote an article in Chess Life
explaining his decision to quit chess, but I have never read it.  He has 
since gone to Princeton.

Jeff Ely
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: stein@tellabs.com (stein)
Subject: Re: Scoresheets
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:05:42 GMT


In article <19459@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>Don't most real tournaments require the scoresheets to be submitted to the
>tournament director before a game is official?  In any case, I would think
>the question is simply a condition of the tournament - if nothing is said,
>the scoresheet belongs to the player (I have all mine!), but if it has to be
>submitted, it would belong to the tournament organizers unless otherwsie
>specified.
>
>(This seems too logical - it must be wrong...)

Yes, it is wrong. The rules are quite specific: players can be compelled to turn in
their scoresheets only if they're using score sheets provided by the tournament. If
score sheets are provided and you don't wish to turn one in simply use a score sheet
of your own. This is USCF, I don't know what if any FIDE rules exist to cover this.
This is a murky area, due to a history of almost unanimous compliance by tournament
participants. Most tournaments merely require marking the result on the pairing
sheet or perhaps submitting a result card. Submission of score sheets is voluntary.
I have been at a few tournaments where score sheets were required (supposedly just
to indicate the result). I turned in a sheet with only the result and the player's
names and signatures. No objections were raised. I've also been at tournaments where
both the score sheet and an update of the pairing sheet were required. I only marked
the pairing sheet. Again, no objections. 

The better organizers have a knack for avoiding controversy and abstain from such
requirements. And yes, it is quite logical that such requirements are unenforcable.
After all, the game score (not the sheet on which it is written) belongs to the 
players to do with as they see fit.
From: jeff@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess programmer's magazine (and some chess too!)
Date: 10 Jan 1993 20:51:23 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily10.berkeley.edu
Keywords: chess programming, sicilian

In article <1993Jan10.130958.23333@math.toronto.edu> hsieh@math.toronto.edu (Paul Hsieh) writes:

>
>Oh, yes, and I might as well post some chess.  Here's neat trap I found while
>playing KID on the ICS:
>
>KID-qed
>1. e5 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Be3 Nc6 7. f4 Be7
>8. Qf3 O-O 9. O-O-O Nxd4 10. Bxd4? e5 11. fe Bg4 12. Qg3 de 13. Bxe5 Bxd1
>
>This trap is SO good in fact that I managed to pull it on him twice in two
>days.  :)


I doubt he will fall into that trap a third time, as he will probably
find the improvement:

9. ...Nxd4 10.Bxd4 e5 11.dxe5 Bg4 12.exf6! Bxf3 13.fxe7 Qxe7 14.gxf3

when White has three pieces for the queen, the better pawns and the better 
game.  It's hard to see this variation over the board in a blitz game!
From: jb118@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeffrey N. Burch)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 1 BOOK ONLY
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:16:46 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute -- EOL

In article <1Xg0wB1w164w@tweekco.uucp> jay@tweekco.uucp (Jay Whitley) writes:
>Your personal chess library is being confiscated and
>taken away forever.  You are allowed to keep 1 BOOK ONLY.
>Which chess book do you keep and why?

"HOW TO GET YOUR CHESS BOOKS BACK" by I. M. A. Grandmaster.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  :-)

To answer your question more seriously, I really like Fischer's
60 Memorable Games.  Good annotations, good games, easy and 
enjoyable to read, even though I've been through it dozens of
times.

If I was allowed to keep 2 books, the second would probably be
Tal's account of the first Tal-Botvinnik match.  The games are
not as diverse as 60MG, but it is nearly as entertaining. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^  Dr. J(effrey Neil Burch)  USCF 2018      jb118@prism.gatech.edu    ^
^  Georgia Tech Research Institute                                    ^ 
^  Electro-Optics and Physical Sciences Laboratory                    ^
^  Atlanta, Ga.                                                       ^
^  30332                         I've got plenty of common sense.     ^ 
^  404-894-3628                     I just choose to ignore it.       ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Keep it up and I will come back!
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:58:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: life.1icsooINNk85
Distribution: world
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan5.141257.838@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
|> So, let me state this with exacting clarity:
|> 
|> I was wrong about the checkers program.

What?  DMC giving up so quickly?  I'm still waiting for him to find a way
to weasel out of this one.  A little thing like facts never stopped him
before.  Is this really DMC?  Actually, it's  DHC (for Houdini).  This seems
quite uncharacteristic of DHC, though.  Saying that he knows he was wrong,
but that it's irrelevant is akin to Houdini saying "Ok, so I couldn't get
the handcuffs off, but look!  It doesn't matter because I can still do just
about everything normally (write, drive a car, clap [well, golf clap], etc)."

Well, don't worry DHC.  We'll all surely miss the great things you brought
to rec.games.chess.  Have fun studying your brains out (whether they're on your
shoulders or on your backside).  What are we going to have to talk about now?
Oh, yeah.  Chess.  Oh, well.  I think we'll survive.


================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: henken@ocf.berkeley.edu (Matthew J. Henken)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Question about the Petroff
Date: 6 Jan 1993 17:32:03 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: headcrash.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan5.091341.1@pa881a.inland.com> nason@pa881a.inland.com writes:
>In article <1i68mlINNl2r@agate.berkeley.edu>, henken@ocf.berkeley.edu (Matthew J. Henken) writes:

>> 	  6 ... d5

>> I have a question for you sharper chess minds out there (which includes just
>> about the whole group :-).  I'm looking at a particular line in Petroff's
>> Defense:

>> 1 e4 e5  2 Nf3 Nf6  3 d4 ed  4 e5 Ne4  5 Bb4 c6  6 Qxd4 ...
>                                           ^^^typo??? Bc4??

ARGH!  I am simply unable to do the most basic things correctly I cost the
net hundreds, if not thousands with a stupid typo.  The line should continue 

5 Bb5 c6  6 Qxd4 ...
  ^^^

After which I am asking why 

6 ... d5

is not the best move.

I am very sorry for the mistake and the misunderstanding.  Perhaps now that I
have cleared up this problem, someone here will know the answer to my question.

Thanks very much for bringing this mistake to my attention.  This problem has
really been bothering me:  The idea that something is so obvious that it doesn't
merit a footnote and yet that I can't see it is disturbing.  I'd also like to
get a better move for black on move 6 than the customary ... Nc5 or ... Qa5+.

>> Now, the only moves for black considered at this point are:

>> 6 ... Nc5
>> 6 ... Qa5+

>> These moves seem to lead to an unsatisfactory position for black.  I was 
>> wondering what is wrong with the obvious 6 ... d5.
>> [stuff deleted]


Matthew J. Henken
henken@ocf.berkeley.edu
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: DMC is really Don Wedding
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:47:52 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <7264134548-35397@exaib>, bruhn@exaib (Peter Bruhn ) writes:
|> In article <1ifp0aINNgkr@life.ai.mit.edu> from [6 Jan 1993 23:12:10 GMT] you wrote:
|>  > the situation.  I think Mr. Thompson should submit his data (it would be
|>  > inappropriate for anyone else to do so without his permission) and report
|>  > this abuse.  What do you think?
|> 
|> I think this is really a bad idea. There is no proof that this account was
|> abused. I have got the feeling that your proposal is some sort of
|> (inappropriate) revenge for the rude postings of DMC. If you really think
|> that the account was abused by DMC, wait two weeks and send a mail to
|> this account indicating what you believe. Then the owner of the account
|> will read your message and take appropriate actions.
|> 
|> Peter

Revenge for what?  He hasn't done anything to me or offended me.  I have
nothing to get back at him for.  Besides, my suggestion was just to submit
the facts that were presented here and let the UofToledo deal with it in
whatever manner they see fit.  Ok, I see.  I should have said "alleged
abuse."  Sorry about that.  My sentence makes it sound like it was already
proven.  The odds are certainly stacked Mr. Wedding, but I should have been
a little more attentive to my wording, nevertheless.

-Andy
From: Daniel_Marsalone@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Daniel Marsalone)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Strength of Sargon III on Commodore 64
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:02:08 GMT
Organization: The Amiga GateWay BBS * New Orleans, La.


   Now I know that this question might seem to be way out there, but I
would like to know the approximate strength of Sargon III on the Commodore
64. 
 
   I used to have a C-64 and recently I gave all of my Commodore software
to a paisan. When I was over at his house, we discovered the floppy with
Sargon III and now that I'm hip to chess, I decided to play it to see how
tough it was. It was kind of tough to beat but I did beat it three out of
three. My friend who hasn't been playing seriously for more than six months
had hard time of it and lost a couple (while winning none).  
 
   My paisan really wanted to know how strong the program was so that he
could determine his strength when he finally is able to trash the machine.
 
   
 
   Another related question... How strong is the chess cartridge for the 
TI99/4A???? This game was a heck of a lot easier to beat than the C-64
Sargon. In the endgame, the Texas Instruments chess blew it. All you would
have to do to beat it would be to remain with an equal amount of material
and just trade down until there were few pieces on the board. Then the
computer would just make a big blunder and lose the game. This seems weird.
Since there are fewer pieces on the board to "think" about, why does the
computer make worse moves than it makes in the opening and middle game?
 
    Any info will be greatly appreciated.

-- Via DLG Pro v0.995

Daniel Marsalone             Daniel Marsalone            Daniel Marsalone
Internet: daniel_marsalone@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US
    UUCP: rex!agwbbs!daniel_marsalone
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: bennedik@namu01.gwdg.de (Martin Bennedik)
Subject: Endgame, was: FSII-game 2
Organization: Georg-August-Universit"at G"ottingen, Germany
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:59:09 GMT


 Somebody posted a long line which should win this ending for black.
 But this line was not correct, because after Rb2+ white could take
 the pawn instead of producing a self mate.

 I think the posted drawing idea could be correct, because I also
 read in a book about the match that after that game, Fischer and
 his secundants analysed this postition (and the "winning move" Nxc4)
 the whole night, but they were not able to find a win.

 I have also heard that Fischer is still in Yugoslavia, writing a 
 book about the match. Maybe he will write about that endgame too !?

 This information is taken from Schachmagazin, if I remember correctly,
 but these informations have always been worse than the info from this
 newsgroup - maybe somebody knows anything about that.

 Have you just seen the new Informator ? There was an Appendix with the
 latest games of the match and a lot of games were analysed inside, too.
 (It was printed in Hungary...)


 Another interesting thing from the book about the match was, that
 a master (forgot who) said, that he had sent the book The Spanish
 Exchange Variation -- Fischers Weapon to Fischer before the match,
 and that the strong move Ne4! had been analysed there !
 Has somebody read that book ?

--
bennedik@namu01.gwdg.de (Martin Bennedik)
-----------------------------------------
Play a while... - PLAY FOREVER !
-----------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jonathan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jonathan Schaeffer)
Subject: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:34:37 GMT

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>Listen idiot, did I say the current champion was a computer???
>NO! I said that no human can beat the programs we have out there for checkers!
>It is finished. They don't even work on the programs anymore as the maximum
>number of permitations is EASILY crunched by your average home PC.

You have no idea how thrilled I am to be dragged into this "friendly"
conversation.

Checkers is not finished.  There are 5*10**20 (500 billion billion) positions,
a number far beyond what can be "EASILY" crunched by a home PC.  If you have
an idea how this can be done, I would be very glad to hear it.

My program, Chinook, is one of the best checker players in the world and
recently contested a match for the human World Championship against Dr.
Marion Tinsley.  Tinsely won 4 games to 2 in the best-of-40 game match.
The program used an endgame database of roughly 70 billion positions,
consisting of all endgames with 7 or fewer men on the board, and 42% of
the endgames with 8 men on the board.  70 billion is a long, long way
from 500 billion billion.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Subject: Move order to avoid Petroff and play Scotch
Organization: University of Limburg, Maastricht
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:21:47 GMT

Hi everyone!

What is wrong with this move order if you want to play Scotch:
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3
- Black can play 3...Nf6, but this is a good version for white of the Petroff
  (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 exd4. I think 3...Nxe4 is better for black).
- 3...Nc6 is Scotch (our goal).
- But what about 3...c5? Is this good? I think white will play Bc4, 0-0 and c3
  and stands very well (or am I missing something?).

+---------------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Dennis Breuker                                    | breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl |
| Dept. of computer science, University of Limburg  | Voice: +31 43 883379    |
| P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands | Fax  : +31 43 252392    |
+---------------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Volga/Benko Gambit help
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:38:07 GMT

jadiel@altair.csustan.edu (Jose Juan DeLeon) writes:

>In article <1ibog0INNo6q@gour.chemeng.ed.ac.uk> steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk writes:
>>Play the Nescafe Frappe Attack! Read the recent book by Graham Burgess (published
>>by Chess Enterprises). For non-believers, the line goes
>>
>>1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cb a6 5 Nc3 ab 6 e4 b4 7 Nb5 d6 8 Bc4, 
>>
>>when Black has every chance of getting his head kicked in.
>>
>>Steve


>Also known as the Zaitsev Variation.   As an avid Benko player, this is
>the line I am afraid of.  It is also the only line I play against
>other Benko players.

Why?

Black isn't a pawn down and has a fine Benko position.

I would guess possible moves are 8...Ba6 or 8...Ne4 if she's looking for fun.
-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``BOYCOTT COLORADO!''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"White males make up only 39.8% of the American population, yet they comprise
fully 88% of the officers who drove savings and loans into bankruptcy."