HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:28:19 GMT

I disagree.  I am not happy about Ginsburg's posts.  Moreover, all the back
and forth about CJA judging is somewhat of a red herring.  The central point
in Ginsburg's argument is that he is accusing Walter Shipman of intellectual
dishonesty.

This is pretty serious stuff.  It goes beyond standard network whining, and
into the realm of character assassination.  If Ginsburg really believes this
accusation, he should back it up with specifics.  If not, he shouldn't have
broadcast it, and moreover, all the additional flaming about CJA judging
becomes just so much ``the judges didn't agree with me so they must be wrong.''

Speaking of character assassination, what ever happened to Ginsburg's
accusation, broadcast on the net, that Rohde plagiarized his (Ginsburg's)
notes for one of his Chess Life articles?  That seems to have just evaporated
without a trace.  When an accusation of such seriousness goes out and there
is no follow-up, indeed Ginsburg and Rohde are apparently still on friendly
terms, it doesn't exactly encourage me to take Ginsburg's accusations
seriously.
From: kinne@oswego.Oswego.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: The 179th Demand...
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:53:18 GMT
Reply-To: kinne@oswego.Oswego.EDU ()
Distribution: usa
Organization: Instructional Computing Center, SUNY at Oswego, Oswego, NY
Originator: kinne@penelope.oswego.edu

Hello Folks:
	History is being made again, whether you agree with it or not.
I'd like to ask on some related, but ancient history.  According to
reports I have Fisher refused to defend his title because FIDE would
only agree to 178 out of 179 demands Bobby made.  What was the demand
Bobby made that FIDE would not agree to?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@ivan.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Go vs. Chess
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:10:32 GMT

Milton N. Bradley reviews computer Go in the latest CCR.

	These [3] programs all play a recognizable, but not yet truly
	competent game of Go....

A far cry from chess programs, which now beat grandmasters (but do not
yet play at the GM level).

	Remember, former World Chess Champion Emmanuel Lasker said "If
	intelligent extra-terrestrial life is ever discovered perhaps
	they will play chess, but certainly they will play Go!"

I never played Go, but I'm going to look into it.

--Jim
From: schoo@cs.rulimburg.nl (Patrick Schoo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Advances in Computer Chess 7
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:33:11 GMT
Organization: University of Limburg


                            CALL FOR PAPERS

                     ADVANCES IN COMPUTER CHESS 7 

                            July 1-2, 1993
                       Maastricht, the Netherlands

The seventh conference of the triennial "Advances in Computer Chess"
series will be held in Maastricht, the Netherlands, on July 1-2, 1993,
at the University of Limburg, Bouillonstraat 3. It will report on the
latest research results and work-in-progress in the field.

                            SUBMISSIONS
 
Contributions are invited from authors who have new results or ongoing
work to report on any aspect of computer chess or related theory.
Papers should ideally be 3,000 to 4,000 words in length, though papers
of any length will be considered. The papers will published as a book
under the editorship of Don Beal and Jaap van den Herik.

Papers (3 copies) should be sent to: 
 
	Don Beal 
	Department of Computer Science 
	Queen Mary & Westfield College 
	Mile End Road 
	London  E1 4NS 
	UK 
Or: 
	Jaap van den Herik 
	University of Limburg        
	Faculty of General Sciences
	Department of Computer Science 
	P.O. Box 616 
	6200 MD Maastricht 
	The Netherlands
 
to arrive not later than April 23, 1993. Authors will be notified of
acceptance by June 8, 1993.  Authors of accepted papers will be
requested to make their paper available in machine-readable form if
possible (WP or ascii formats are acceptable).

                            INFORMATION

Any additional information on the conference can be obtained by sending
mail or email to Jaap van den Herik or Tons van den Bosch at the
address listed below.

email:		herik@cs.rulimburg.nl or bosch@cs.rulimburg.nl

postal address: University of Limburg
		Department of Computer Science
		P.O. Box 616
		6200 MD Maastricht
		The Netherlands
Telephone:	+31 43 883477/3485
Fax:		+31 43 252393
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Subject: Not impressed
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:04:44 GMT


IMQHO, Spassky seemed to be playing very lethargically

and clumsily, while Fischer was quite precise as soon

as the game had opened up.  But Spassky's sloppy play

(poor manuevering, unsound sac, weak tactics) makes it 

hard to assess Fischer's strength.  I compare this

game to the beautiful Ruys from the K-K matches and

next to those, this game does not impress.

Jeff Ely                      "He said the Sun's not yellow...
Department of Economics        It's Chicken!"
UC Berkeley
\
/


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ovel@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Ove Lundberg)
Subject: FISCHER SPASSKY game 1 - comments
Keywords: FISCHER
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:35:13 GMT

The position after black's 16th move.
17.a4 appears to be a novelty (upto Informator 49).
17.Rc1 was played by Spassky(!) against Unzicker, Santa Monica,
1966. Spassky won.
17.Qc1 has been played several times, for example in
Smirin-Beliavsky, USSR ch 1989.


BTW, I would have played 19..cb(e.p), to make white's Q-side
advantage less static.
Though after 20.Bb3 Nc5 21.ab ab, b5 is weaker than c3.

Ove Lundberg, Uppsala, Sweden

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ovel@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Ove Lundberg)
Subject: Re: FISCHER SPASSKY game 1 - comments
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:48:39 GMT

schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:

>Wrong! 19.b4 was the novelty.
>Eric Schiller


Yes I suppose you are right, 17.a4 looks like an obvious move, but
19.b4(!) is far from obvious.
Thanks for pointing it out!

I checked if the position after 17.a4 had been played in the games of
Informator 1 - Informator 49. I got no hit.
After 16..Bg7 there were five games.
After 17.Rc1 one game - Spassky-Unzicker
After 17.Qc1 four games.

Though, as we both know, novelties in informator are sometimes no real
novelties - even if the get the N character. The move has sometimes been
played by a less known player.
It could also be that 17.a4 is in a game of Informator 50-53 (54?).

I haven't checked the position after 17.a4 c5 18.d5 c4. I'll do it when
I get home.

I have noticed that some informator games includes 2 new moves - the first
gives a transposition (in one or more moves) to an already played position,
and then, possibly late, there is another new move. Maybe this game is in that
category.
Informator gives the second new move the N.



Ove Lundberg, Uppsala, SWEDEN

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@ivan.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Fidelity "dying"
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:17:03 GMT

The recent CCR reports that Fidelity Electronics lost $3 million in
1991.  The owners canceled manufacturing of new machines in the U.S.
and laid off most of the employees.  It looks as though Fidelity will
become U.S. sales for Mephisto.  Two of the top people at Fidelity
formed Excalibur Electronics, which is importing Sphinx computers.

If you want a Fidelity, it looks as though you will have to buy from
the current stock, but then better machines are coming from Mephisto,
etc.

--Jim
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6538 rec.games.board:8318
From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.board
Subject: Re: chinook
Keywords: update
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:18:55 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Aug27.151435.19918@cs.UAlberta.CA>, janet@cs.UAlberta.CA (Janet Service) writes:
|> The results for Wednesday were 4 draws.
|> 
|> Tinsley is leading 16.5 points to 15.5.  Today is a rest day
|> there will be 4 games played on Friday and 4 on Saturday.
|> 
|> Janet


This brings up a question for chess programmers:

If Tinsley were behind a point, he might play more dangerously
because he needed a win.  Being ahead, perhaps he will adopt
a safer line, or a more conservative playing style.  This comes
up all the time in tournaments.

Do any of the programs have information about their standings?
Do they react to the information?
Some programs have "aggression" or "style" parameters; is it
customary to adjust these depending either on the opponent or
the current tournament standings?
Do any programs have information about their opponent?  His
rating, or playing style?   Whether the opponent is another
computer?

Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 06:36:15 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <yalnbja@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>Fisher sign a paper saying 'no play, no play' :)

Should read, of course, 'no play, no pay' 
:)
r.
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky news conference
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:06:11 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation

In article <1992Sep2.120425.416@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, trix@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (t.roger.kiang) writes:
|> 
|> At least Mr. Fry openly admits that the "real" Fischer seems
|> to be at odds with his "romantic images" of him, but, then
|> again my images of King Arthur probably got very little
|> to do with the "real" person...  With every intent of offending
|> at least one person, I like to point out that Serbs are killing
|> the Muslims in Yugoslavia, so, does this make Fischer anti-Arab?

  I don't think you can use logic to explain Fischer. I think he's just
  mentally ill. I feel sorry for him - and I feel sorry for chess. It can't
  be good for the game to have a pathetic bigot like Fischer as the most
  recognized chess player in the United States. Anything he does gets a lot
  of publicity - but it seems that the publicity the game gets from Fischer
  is very negative. Chess is much better off without Fischer in his current
  offending state, and I'll ignore any of his matches wherever and whenever 
  they are played - and urge all other to do so as well. I'm not forcing others 
  to do so nor do I expect many others to agree with me. But as a chess player I 
  am utterly ashamed of Fischer and cannot condone his actions or his play.

-Ron

|> 
|> More likely Mr. Fischer is antisocial, and the only reason Chinese
|> and others haven't been mentioned by him is because his narrow
|> focus to the people who is critical of him now.
 
  Anti-social?? He's anti a lot of things besides that! Like anti-decency.
  Anti-normal. Etc.

|> Roger Kiang
|> trix@garage.att.com

-Ron Birnbaum
 ron@osf.org
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: huie@netcom.com (John Huie)
Subject: Fischer/Spassky Match on Prodigy First 24 moves
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 18:31:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: Rec.games.chess

    I imagine that many people don't want to wait for the finally results
of Game one so here are the moves so far in Game 1 of the Fischer/Spassky
rematch from Prodigy.  


Fischer      Spassky
 White        Black

1.  e4       e5
2.  Nf3      Nc6
3.  Bb5      a6
4.  Ba4      Nf6
5.  O-O      Be7
6.  Re1      b5
7.  Bb3      O-O
8.  c3       d6
9.  h3       Nb8
10. d4       Nbd7
11. Nbd2     Bb7
12. Bc2      Re8
13. Nf1      Bf8
14. Ng3      g6
15. Bg5      h6
16. Bd2      Bg7
17. a4       c5
18. d5       c4
19. b4       Nh7?!
20. Be3      h5
21. Qd2      Rf8
22. Ra3      Ndf6
23. Rea1     Qd7
24. R1a2     Rfc8

John Huie
huie@netcom.com
jhuie@mary.fordham.edu
From: gps0@harvey.gte.com (Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Comments on Fischer-Spassky II, game 1
Summary: Instead of 44. ... Qe1, 44. ... Ke7
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:39:45 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories

-- 
           Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro    
GTE Laboratories, MS-45      email: gps0@bunny.gte.com 
40 Sylvan Road               fax: (617) 890-9320  
Waltham MA 02254  USA        phone:  (617) 466-4236
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: M22614@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Boycott
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:50:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.030638.15123@afit.af.mil>
wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Sep2.013157.24190@tamsun.tamu.edu> sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
>| In article <1992Sep1.204826.12408@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
 
I was following this thread with some interest until I got to the
following inane statement.
 
>
>So you argue that Mr. Fischer has the Right to Play Chess _wherever he
>pleases_.  For example, at my house -- with or without my permission.
>Don't I have any private property rights?  Mr. Fischer does not have the
>Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_ because it may please him to
>Play Chess at my house.  It is tyrants like Mr. Harrington who seek to
>deprive us of our private property rights.
>
>
>--
>Will Bralick                          |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
>             wbralick@afit.af.mil     |  we must proportion our efforts to
>             bralick@cs.psu.edu       |  his powers of resistance.
>with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz
 
Excuse me, but I don't think Fischer was planning on playing on somebody
else's property against their will.  I believe he was invited to play.
As for whether he has a right to play chess wherever he pleases, sure he
does, so long as he doesn't encroach upon the rights of others.  The
question then becomes, does the state have the right to restrict his
travel, and does Fisher's insistance on playing encroach upon that right.
I'm certain that the (in)Justice Department and the Supreme(assholes)
Court would suggest the state has such a right.  Personally I think they
can eat me.  Go Bobby!
 
  ****Swampy
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
From: cessu@cs.hut.fi (Kenneth S A Oksanen)
Subject: Re: Strategic games, computational cost & implications (was Re: rec.games.strategic)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 05:06:55 GMT


huw@siesoft.co.uk (Huw Roberts) writes:
>[..] The idea is that beginners at a game are called (say) level 1.  Anyone
>who can beat a level 1 player 75% of the time or more is level 2.  Anyone
>who can beat the worst level 2 player 75% of the time or more is a level 3,
>and so on.  The complexity of the game is given by the number of levels
>between the world champion and the beginner.

>Noughts and Crosses is probably a level 1.
>Checkers is (I understand) about a level 3.
>Chess comes out around 9 or 10.
>Go is (from memory) about 40.

The relative amount of draws to wins and losses distorts this kind of
analysis of game complexity too much. Neither can this analysis be
extended from chess or go to rarely or non-competitively played games
since there simply might not exist players which would know to game
as well as Kasparov knows chess.

--
; (c) 1991 by Kenneth Oksanen, <cessu@cs.hut.fi>, +358-0-4513377 or -555017
((lambda (a) (a a ((lambda (a) (lambda () (set! a (+ 1 a)))) 2))) (lambda 
(a b) ((lambda (c) (newline) (write c) (a a ((lambda (b) (lambda () (b b))) 
(lambda (a) ((lambda (b) (if (= (modulo b c) 0) (a a) b)) (b)))))) (b))))
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fuzzy Rules/PA State Championship Controversy
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:09:04
Organization: CSUA/UCB
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: barryp@otago.ac.nz's message of 4 Sep 92 16:30:49 +1300

    > Late into a long and well-played round 1 game, an A-player had
    > achieved an elementary winning endgame against a master: B + 4
    > P's vs. B.  Although the bishops were opposite-colored, the win
    > was really quite simple, and the position (reduced now to K+B+P
    > vs. K, however).  However, the B capture did not count due to
    > the time claim, and the position left on the board was K+B+P vs.
    > K+B....

    Surely the situation as detailed is quite clear.  If the rule as
    stated above is correct then it should have been adjudged a win to
    the master. 

If it is KBP vs KB, it is at best a draw for the master, who lacks
mating material.  See USCF rulebook for details.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:43:17 GMT

In article <nolan.714802109@helios> nolan@helios.unl.edu writes:
>cfc@isr.harvard.edu (Christopher F. Chabris) writes:

>I'm curious as to what Mark thinks is a 'strong' player', too.
>[Probably NOT the majority of Chess Chow subscribers.]  I wonder what
>he thinks about the fact that the typical editor of a chess publication
>in the USA is NOT an IM or GM, and these are the people making the
>decisions as to what to publish in the first place.  (Chess Chow and
>Inside Chess excepted.)

Interesting issue.  I suspect that most publishers and judges are not
top participants in their fields.  What top pro edits a tennis
magazine?  What movie star writes reviews? judges Oscars?  "Strong"
vs. "top"?  I don't think that would significantly change the answers
to the questions.

I guess the appropriateness of an editor or a judgment depends on the
intended audience.  Who is the article good for?  Well, most people
consider the *Trends* series useless for class players.  I find some of
them helpful.  Others, well, I will not see anyone play games like that
against me.  So, it wouldn't help us amateurs a bit to see *Trends* get
a major award; in fact, the award might delude people into purchasing
them inappropriately.

Perhaps CJA does say what level they are judging for.

>I told Chris he was free to do so.)  What often happens is that each judge's 
>TOP choice is low rated by one other judge, and so the 2nd choice of each 
>judge gets the award.  If anybody has a suggestion for a better way to select 
>the winners in 1993, I'm ALL EARS!!  Judging awards such as these is by

The result seems reasonable to me.  You could certainly weight the
scores so that a {1,2,3} would beat a {2,2,2}.  But, as you say, the
judgment that a {1,2,3} is superior to a {2,2,2} is subjective.

Your system seems to have the advantage of taking the distance into
account.  So, one judge might rank the first article as only slightly
better than the second article.  Etc.

>>This was a very time-consuming task, as there
>>were well over 100 total entries in about 25 categories, for which we were

Why so many categories?  I found the list of winners interesting at
first, but I lost interest about half way through.  It would make life
easier, although there will always be some dissatisfaction with the
results.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Chinook-Tinsley results as of Saturday
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:04:14 GMT

In article <winders-250892105256@macwinders.support.apple.com> winders@aux.support.apple.com (Scott Winders) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.022355.16150@tamsun.tamu.edu>, sharring@cs.tamu.edu
>(Steven L Harrington) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <winders-240892150303@macwinders.support.apple.com> winders@aux.support.apple.com (Scott Winders) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug24.193627.11005@cs.UAlberta.CA>, duane@cs.UAlberta.CA
>> >(Duane Szafron) wrote:
>> >
>> >Let's keep this Checkers stuff off of rec.games.chess....
>> >
>> >Scott Winders
>> >winders@aux.support.apple.com
>> >
>> >"My opinions are my own, not my employer's"
>> 
>> 
>> *********************
>> 
>> Let's not. Many of us are interested in it. Thanks...
>> 
>> -steve harrington
>> 
>
>Hey, let's startup a thread on Othello.....
>
>Scott Winders
>winders@aux.support.apple.com
>
>"My opinions are my own, not my employer's"

Why don't we start a thread on "Obnoxious...."????


-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: newsgroup,rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: sneaky Nimzo-Indian?
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:54:40 GMT

In article <SCHILLER.92Aug27174508@tira.uchicago.edu> schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4

>It isn't a Nimzoindian at all. This is just one of the many Ragozin lines
>in the QGD, and there is plenty of analysis if you just track down the
>transpostions. It only becomes a Nimzo with Nf6, and not always then.

Thanks for the pointer to the Ragozin.  I certainly don't have much
on that line, but for those who have been following this....

The main line into the Ragozin, according to MCO-13:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4

Suggested responses are 5.Bg5, 5.cxd5, and 5.Qa4+ (the move that
several people suggested before).

The brief characterization says that the Ragozin "is an interesting
mixture of the Nimzo-Indian and the Queen's Gambit Declined."

Of course, in the line that we started with, neither Nf3 nor Nf6 has
been played, so it seems that one could readily transpose into....  For
QGD players at the lower levels, this line seems worth paying attention
to because Bb4 is so attractive to people who are just looking for a
decent move: they see an opportunity to develop the Bishop with a pin
and go for it.  I suspect that they are not thinking Nimzo, Rago, etc.

I guess if I had been more careful, I would have discovered that ECO
D38 is the Ragozin (note 1).  For some reason, D31/2 gives 4.Nf6 Ne7,
and the note to Ne7 does not suggest Nf6 with transposition to D38.
(We are probably expected to recognize the transposition, or they just
forgot it.)

For what it's worth, D38/1 gives 5.Qc2?!, but my humble abilities do
not enable me to quickly infer anything about playing 4.Qc2 in response
to the original line, although 4...dxc4, 5...b5 might be unfun for
White.  In some ways, 4.cxd5 seems best, but I don't particularly like
letting Black's QB out.  One person suggested following up with 5.a3,
and that may be forceful enough to....

Well, enough musings.  Thanks again for the pointer, Eric.  --Jim