HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: This has gone far enough! Stop avoiding the issues
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:39:40 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <18559@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
> The following exchange occurred in one of the "discussions":
> 
>>
>> Personally, I don't think Fischer is as good as Kasparov. But I would be
>> delighted to be proved wrong if Fischer plays any further matches. If he
>> doesn't, then who can disprove the claim that he only came back for the
> money?
> 
> Even if he did play, how could you disprove it? A man's motives are something
> even the best court in the world can only guess at.
> 
> 
> There is a famous quote from an English judge to the effect that "the state
> of a man's mind is as much a question of fact as the state of his digestion".
> Has the law changed?  Is this off the topic?  Is there a topic?  Is anyone
> going to confuse Sherzer and Shirazi after the U.S. Championship?
> 
> So many questions - so few answers.


OH GOODIE!!! Someone made a move equivelent to getting forked!!! They 
brought in a legal truism!!!

Yes, it is as much a question as his digestion--how the fuck can you know
EITHER about someone else???
 
Huh???

It is a question of fact in that we look at the surrounding circumstances, as
much as is relevant, and the judge or jury 'decides' the defendant's or
witnesse's state of mind BECUASE FLIPPING A COIN IS SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY
TO REACH AN ACCURATE RESULT!!! And, the  key word is somewhat. Until
we can invent a device that can read minds, we look at the surrounding
circumstances (as best as we can ascertain) and try to examine the actors prior
dispoisition on similar events (as best as can be summed up by the parade of
biased witnesses) and then say either "Well, if I were him, what would I have
been thinking?" OR "Well, what was that sicko thinking of when they pulled
that?!?"
 
The law has not changed. It still guesses at intent, and in order to make 
the whole mirage appear stable, just doens't care if it guesses wrong.

And you expect to be able to tell what Fisher was thinking???
 
HA HA HA!

DMC



 

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: fhh@watson.ibm.com (Feng-Hsiung Hsu)
Subject: Re: IBM Deep Blue
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:37:20 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Followup-To: rec.games.chess

In article <1992Dec12.111549.18997@daimi.aau.dk> palsberg@daimi.aau.dk (Jens Palsberg) writes:
>From the danish national chess magazine "Skakbladet" (12, 1992):
>  The major attraction is a four-games match between
>  "IBM Deep Blue" and danish GM Bent Larsen.
>  The games will be played daily 11-17.

There is a little misunderstanding here.  The machine playing is not
really the final Deep Blue, but Deep Thought II runing the Deep Blue
preliminary software/search algorithms.  There are three stages of development
for Deep Blue: the software simulation on DT II (Deep Blue Simulation), the
preliminary version on a prototype 10-processor machine (Baby Deep Blue), and
the final 1024-processor machine (Deep Blue).  Only the first stage machine
will be ready for the match.  The main difference between Deep Blue Simulation
and DT 2 is the introduction of new search extensions algorithms.  The
Deep Blue technical presentation itself will be mainly on the new Deep Blue
custom VLSI single-chip chess machine.

As for the match itself, I am not sure whether it is a 3-game or a 4-game
match.  The machine is supposed to play against Swedish GM Andersson or
Cramling on alternate days as well.
							--Hsu
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: This has gone far enough! Stop avoi
Date: 20 Dec 92 03:44:07 GMT
  <1992Dec19.170133.570@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Dec19.170133.570@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

> In article <1451600063@igc.apc.org>, CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org> writes:
> > 
> > Isn't anyone going to respond to racist lies about "black on black" killing?
> > Is it that all participants on this forum are European/United Statesian
> > racists?  Is it that those who aren't have given up?  Certainly, no one can
> > believe the lie that there were more persons killed in New York (City) than in
> > "Jugoslavia" during the second Fischer-Spassky match.  
> 
> 'Twas no lie... Sure, there may be flare ups when other contries top either
> NY or CA for murders, but Yugoslavia did not qualify at that time.
> 
> Funny thing is, there were probably less rapes there too, but those figures are
> speculative at best.
> 
> A stat on talk.rape that was published is that more Californians died last year
> by knife attacks than were murdered in ALL of Canada. I do not know
> the validity of THAT one, but I do beleive it is prbably true.

I don't think rec.games.chess is the place to debate the war in the
former Yugoslavia or society in general (and I'm sick of
holier-than-thou people's claiming that I'm racist).  But I wouldn't be
surprised if more Californians died last year by knife attacks than
were murdered in all of Canada, either -- there are more Californians
than Canadians.  Chessplayers of all people should know statistics can
be used to prove anything -- how else would we all be of such divergent
opinions as to who is/was the best player never to have been world
champion!


--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
BTW -- The answer to the last sentence is Korchnoi.
From: dubach1@husc10.harvard.edu (joev dubach)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:52:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.DUBACH1.92Dec13185244
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu's message of 13 Dec 92 20:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.154655.465@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
[Lots of stuff deleted]

>And if he plays outside of the rules, an still stomps them into the ground, as
>he has been doing? 

Um, sorry, the only GM he's been stomping into the ground lately is Spassky.

>Then the title best college basketball team has no meaning as well?

No, actually, it doesn't.  Haven't you ever heard a coach say, "Any
team can beat any other team on any day"?

>Who was the last person to beat Fischer?
Spassky, game 26.

>Well, from someone who has taken the original issue and tried to twist into a
>sepearte unrelated issue, you appear to have not progressed very far...
>
>Now, let me state it clearly, as Mr. Wedding has been repeatedly calling for
>others to do:
>
>"What basis are the GMs using for saying that Fischer is not as good as he
>was?"

Look, the only person who's been doing any repeated calling around
here is you, and frankly, I'm sick of it.  Mr. Wedding has, after
retracting his original, inflammatory remarks, posted some interesting 
questions.  He is, to the best of my knowledge, waiting for replies on
these questions.  The fact that you have nothing better to do with
your time than post insubstantive replies repeatedly does not address
anything of importance.  If somebody makes a post which you believe to
be off-topic, _do not reply to it_.  If somebody asks you questions
which you refuse to answer on the basis that they are off-topic, _do
not reply to them_.  Right now, 80% of your posts are wasted
bandwidth, beating the same dead horse.

Joev
--
_____________________________________________________
DDDDDDDDD   JJJJJJ      | Joev Dubach
     D      J     J     | dubach1@husc.harvard.edu
     D      J     J     | 249 North Mail Center
D    D      J     J     | Harvard University
DDDDD    *  JJJJJJ  *   | Cambridge, MA 02138
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: ICS Ratings
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:41:50 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Looks like the average rating is still going down, albeit at a slower
rate (perhaps 1 point every 2-3 days).  Has anyone archived the average
ratings on a day-to-day basis so this decrease could be examined?
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"S.B., with an I.Q. of 161, failed to complete his course of study,
running away instead with his professor's wife."
H. J. Eysenck, _Know Your Own I.Q._
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:32:43 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec17.195011.9474@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
> In article <18611@mindlink.bc.ca> Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen) writes:
>>> Eric S. Perlman writes:
>>>
>>> Msg-ID: <1992Dec16.182332.2727@colorado.edu>
>>> Posted: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:23:3
>>>
>>> Org.  : University of Colorado, Boulder
>>>
>>> In article <1992Dec16.011130.26210@penet.fi> an1595@anon.penet.fi writes:
>>> >GM Fischer indicted!
>>> >Arrest warrant issued!!
>>> >
>>> >Should U.S. chessplayers
>>> >lobby outgoing President Bush
>>> >for an executive pardon???
>>>
>>> NO.  Absolutely not.  Bobby Fischer may be a great chessplayer, but he's
>>> a despicable person.  Let the system work.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "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
>>
>>Just as it worked for Richard Nixon???
>>Peter
>>--
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
> 
> By pardoning Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford didn't let the system work in
> that case, either.  I think that decision was also wrong.
> 
> -- 
> "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

What about the fact that a pardon IS part of the system?

DMC
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: F-SII Analysis (was to THE GMS AT...)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:07:35 GMT

>What, pray tell, specifically did the GMs tell you about those games that were
>the basis of their opinions?
>Please, share the secret with all of us.

  You can read what GMs say about the games in Chess Life, Chess Chow,
or other publications.  I believe IM Mark Ginsburg posted an article
written by GM Benjamin.  You should read that.  Overall it seemed
pretty objective.

  There are some things I still wonder about in the given analysis
though.  For example, in game 2 - when Fischer neglected to play
Nxb4 in the exchange up ending his move was given two (TWO!)
question marks.  The analysis I've seen (Evans, Seirawan) ends up
with a zugzwang position where Black wins the White Bishop on a3.
This didn't seem forced to me.  In fact Craig Stauffer (an NM)
showed me a line where White sets up a fortress position while
leaving Black with Rook AND a pawn against Bishop.  I don't remember
the exact position (and don't have it in front of me now), so I'll try
to post this later.

  However, there were plenty of examples of Fischer blunders in this
match that the Old Bobby wouldn't have allowed himself to play.
For example,  In that *horrible* King's Indian (Game 12 I think),
he really didn't shine.  I was going over that game with a local
2350 player.  We were having the moves read to us.  When Fischer
played a5?  we both immediately turned and said, "a5??  Isn't
that bad?"  It turned out that it was bad.  In his prime Fischer
used to play a great many moves that caused that same reaction,
but they usually had a rather deep point to them (e.g.  Nh5!? in
the Modern Benoni of game 5 (maybe game 7) of Fischer-Spassky I).
Game 6 of F-S II is another example of some pretty bad play from
Fischer (and Spassky too - in the endgame and opening).  I saw
that one as the moves came in on ICS, and kept waiting for Fischer
to *prove* that he was getting some play for his position.  This
never happened.  There were altogether too many examples of this
for me to believe that Fischer is 2700+ strength.

  I still hope to be proven wrong in my assessment.  There
is some merit to the argument that Fischer did what he
needed to do to win the match - period! - and that he actually
would perform much better against, say Karpov.  Well, I think
he'll need to!  Until (*IF*) he plays again, the only objective
way to judge how well he plays is to critically analyze his
recent games.  IMHO, he isn't playing as well as he once was.
A couple of my specific reasons are given above.

-Mark

p.s.  To reiterate:  You should read (if you haven't done so
      yet) the GM Benjamin article about the match.  It's
      pretty good, pretty objective, and pretty inexpensive
      to obtain if you're on the net.
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: This has gone far enough! Stop avoi
Date: 19 Dec 92 22:01:33 GMT
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1451600063@igc.apc.org>, CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org> writes:
> 
> Isn't anyone going to respond to racist lies about "black on black" killing?
> Is it that all participants on this forum are European/United Statesian
> racists?  Is it that those who aren't have given up?  Certainly, no one can
> believe the lie that there were more persons killed in New York (City) than in
> "Jugoslavia" during the second Fischer-Spassky match.  

'Twas no lie... Sure, there may be flare ups when other contries top either
NY or CA for murders, but Yugoslavia did not qualify at that time.

Funny thing is, there were probably less rapes there too, but those figures are
speculative at best.

A stat on talk.rape that was published is that more Californians died last year
by knife attacks than were murdered in ALL of Canada. I do not know
the validity of THAT one, but I do beleive it is prbably true.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: This has gone far enough! Stop avoiding the issues!
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:24:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.165115.446@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <33880@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg) writes:
>> DMC, just curious:  have you read the article by GM Benjamin? 
>> 
>> Perhaps there are other GMs who have also offended you?
>> 
>> -XYZ
>
>What relevance would that have to THIS discussion? (Besides to further confuse
>the isses?)
>
>DMC


Ok, instead of all of these personal attacks, the best way to resolve this 
is a discussion which focuses on the points raised by Mr. Wedding and the 
GM articles in Chess Chow and Chess Life.  I think the major claim that 
Mr. Wedding was disputing was that Fischer played a lot worse than 
he did in the 1972 match, and that he is nowhere near his previous 
level or Kasparov's current level (not to mention other elite GM's)
Benjamin (in CC) claimed this and analyzed some of the games as evidence.
Now, first of all is there any dispute about his analysis, or the conclusions
drawn from the analysis, and if so why?  The main reason to be given is 
that the other GM's are jealous.  What evidence is there for this?  Or 
evidence that refutes this? 

BTW an argument that goes :
    1)  They are unfairly criticizing Fischer bcause they are jealous.
    2)  How do I know they're jealous?  Because they're unfairly criticizing
        Fischer

becomes valid only if other corroborating evidence supports it.  
Let's have clear logical arguments here instead of messages with lots
of !!!^&^%#&^%&!!!!  characters. 

BTW on a chess note-- what's the current analysis on 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb
3. a3 bxa 4. Bxa3 ? 

                                                 William
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer to play Ljubojevic
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:20:59 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Isn't Linares the adopted hometown of Ljubojevic?

Just curious.

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: slazzeri@seas.gwu.edu (Santos Lazzeri)
Subject: CHESS BASE UNIVERSITY
Organization: George Washington University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:16:00 GMT


I am looking for information about the program Chess Base University. Can anyone
with personal experience with this program post or e-mail me his/her impressions
or comments?

Thanks a lot

Santos G. Lazzeri


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/LIFE, round II
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:54:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.013935.18785@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> corleyj@helium.ga
s.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.154655.465@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.ed
u writes:
>>In article <1992Dec13.180811.15558@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium
.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec12.193455.462@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo
.edu writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec12.055515.4606@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@heliu
m.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>>>>> In article <1992Dec11.165710.448@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utole
do.edu writes:

This argument has put me in the unfortunate position of
missing the question, "Who was the best player never to
win the World Championship?"

-Mark
From: pals@ipact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Alekhine attack in French defense
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:23:06 CDT
Organization: IPACT, Valparaiso IN

In article <1992Dec16.171541.22542@dxcern.cern.ch>, 
marino@dxcern.cern.ch (Massimo Marino) writes:

> Hi, I've heard about the Alekhine attack on French defense but I did not
> found any reference about it on my (rather scarce) collection of chess
> books. Anyone in the net could help me enlightning me?

There are (at least) two major French lines that bear Alekhine's name -
the Alekhine-Chatard attack and the Alekhine Gambit.  The first goes:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4!?

Now Black can accept the pawn with Bxg5 and then Qxg5, or decline in a
number of ways - c5, O-O, and f6 being among them.  To my knowledge the
current theoretical status is "unclear" in both the accepted and the best 
of the declined lines.

The Alekhine Gambit goes like this:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nge2

It's been a while since I've looked at these lines so I don't remember
many of them.  I do remember that Black should not go whole hog in trying
to hang onto the pawn (e.g. 4. ... dxe4 and then later f5), and that the 
line is not considered very testing for White (i.e. Black can equalize).

-- 
Randy Pals                |pals@ipact.com
IPACT, Inc.               |
From: 824-5054%wwiv@tweekco.uucp (Jay Whitley #824 @5054)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: '92 USCF Ratings Distribution
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 01:46:02 GMT

 Based on CHESS LIFE Dec 1992 Ratings Distribution.
 Each block represents approximately 200 people.
 X range is <600 rating points for first column, then
 [(x-100) to (x-1)] beginning at x=700 in the 2nd column.
 E-ratings make up 33% of the 33,600 listed players.
 Average rating is approximately 1420.
 

        E DCCB
        EDDCCBB
       EEDDCCBB
      EEEDDCCBBA
      EEEDDCCBBAA 
     EEEEDDCCBBAA 
     EEEEDDCCBBAAX
    EEEEEDDCCBBAAX
    EEEEEDDCCBBAAXX
  EEEEEEEDDCCBBAAXX
  EEEEEEEDDCCBBAAXXM
  EEEEEEEDDCCBBAAXXM
  EEEEEEEDDCCBBAAXXMMM
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:17:44 GMT

In article 2727@colorado.edu, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>
>NO.  Absolutely not.  Bobby Fischer may be a great chessplayer, but he's
>a despicable person.  Let the system work.

I don't think "being a despicable person" is illegal in the US.

Yet.

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------| If the trees are bare, if the
Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| skies are gray, if the Zamboni
ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--| is running, can winter be far
Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------| behind?  -C.Schulz
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: This has gone far enough! Stop avoiding
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:39:20 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec14.192826.2582@chemeng.ed.ac.uk>, steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (Steven Rix) writes:
> 
> As far as the Benjamin article goes (that is all I have seen), I would like
> to know a bit more about JB. This is not intended anti-Semitically, but is
> JB Jewish? If he is, can you blame him for taking offence at Fischer's remarks?

No, but his views on jews have nothing to do with his chess abilities.

> Is anyone denying that the venues for the match were in the UN sanctions region,
> that blood is being shed within a hundred miles of the match site, and that
> Fischer's contemptuous treatment of his mother country is ... contemptible? 

Jesus Christ. More people died in New York from violence during the match than
died in Yugoslavia. If the U.N. were to forbid going to NYC, would you care
what they said?


> 
> Personally, I don't think Fischer is as good as Kasparov. But I would be 
> delighted to be proved wrong if Fischer plays any further matches. If he 
> doesn't, then who can disprove the claim that he only came back for the money?

Even if he did play, how could you disprove it? A man's motives are something
even the best court in the world can only guess at.

DMC
From: kgowen@cie.uoregon.edu (Kevin Gowen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Mchess Pro
Summary: a good question
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:16:39 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
NNTP-Posting-Host: cie.uoregon.edu

In article <92355.110225U13054@uicvm.uic.edu> U13054@uicvm.uic.edu (Howard Wachtel) writes:

>   I don't have any version of MChess yet.  Would it be better from a
>chess standpoint to upgrade to a 486/33 with 12 MB RAM and also buy
>MChess Pro rather than simply buying the ChessMachine, whose strength
>is claimed to be the best available for the PC and independent of
>machine speed?  I would have guessed that the latter is more cost-effective
>unless one needs a faster machine for other purposes.

It depends on what you already have.  My set up is a 386 running at 40 mHz
with 4 Meg of memory.  I think it would be more cost-effective for me to
spend $150 on MChess Pro than $500-800 on a Chess Machine add-on board.
In your case, however, you might consider the latter, that is, IF you're
serious and IF you have the money.  Because your rating is in the Expert
range, you probably wouldn't benefit from the cheaper programs such as Zarkov
or TitanChess because they probably wouldn't play very well on your slower
machine.

Either way, it looks like you'll be spending a pile of money...

>Howard K. Wachtel              University of Illinois at Chicago

-kevin
kgowen@cie.uoregon.edu

PS - If you end up purchasing the Chess Machine, I would appreciate a review
of it posted to the net.  I don't know very many details about it.  Thanks.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess