HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cuban@athena.mit.edu (Federico A Garcia)
Subject: Women's US Chess Championship
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: ne
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 06:45:20 GMT


The 1992 U.S. Women's Chess Championship will be held in Waltham, MA
between August 19-30.  Besides the exciting chess (admission to the
rounds is free) there will be commentary on the games by local masters
($2 admission, free to students), a family festival and cookout, and a
free reception at the Boylston Chess Club in Boston on August 24.
Other FREE events include the "Chess Art of Samuel Bak" and "Game on
Giant Chess Set" on August 24 and an enactment by human chess pieces
of the brilliancy prize winning game on August 30.  For more
information about this event, call Marcia Duran at (617)547-4581.

-Fred Garcia
M.I.T.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:13:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Aug19.193622.13628@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP
(James H. Coombs) writes:
>Psychology is part of chess.  You are supposed to do things that disturb your
>opponent.  Lasker knew this, and so have most of the top players since then.
>Instead of elaborating, I will simply refer readers to Benko's *Winning with
>Chess Psychology*, an important book and an interesting read.

Before I get this book, could you just mention what sort of things you mean?
Do you mean playing disturbing moves, like deviating from an opening, or
playing aggressively when one's opponent is playing for a draw?

On the other hand, do you mean leaving the room to show the opponent that one
is so confident that one doesn't care about the clocks?  Or do you mean things
like banging pieces, leaning over the board, or leaning back with a smug,
satisfied smile after making a sacrifice?

The latter type of things I simply ignore.  If the disturbances are so severe
that they affect my concentration, I would call the TD, and I would certainly
prefer to play a computer than such an opponent; I would have more respect for
it.

Rujith de Silva.
Carnegie-Mellon University.

// If you were asked a hypothetical question, would you answer it? //
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:00 PDT
Subject: Re: Re : Lasker at odds
Nf-ID: #R:1992Aug22.160843.14615@magnus.ac:1727622559:cdp:1451600029:000:361
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Aug 22 16:00:00 1992


I've seen the anecdote many times in print, but always with Dr. Lasker on a sea
voyage and always with knight's odds; never with any other odds.  I agree with
the poster who said that Lasker's observation about the rook development was the
crux of the matter, but I believe I've seen the anecdote more with the "g" kn[C     
knight.

Fraternally,

Jerry Bibuld
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer/Spassky time control
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:33:25 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Aug17.122032.23881@visus.com> nash@visus.com writes:
>
>For those of you who don't understand how the Fischer clock works, let me  
>explain. There are two timers for each player. The first, the two minute
>timer, starts fresh from 2 minutes at the beginning of each of your moves.
>Only after that two minutes runs out does the main timer start running. 
>Essentially you get two free minutes each move. If you don't use all of the
>two minutes the remaining time is NOT added to the main timer. When the
>main timer trips the flag, your time is up.
>+---------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Richard V. Nash  | Visual Understanding Systems, Inc.         |
>| nash@visus.com   | Tel. (412)-488-3600   Fax. (412)-488-3611  |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------+

this sounds very similar to our croquet club clock.  we have 40 seconds to
move (hit the ball), after which you start cutting into a 160 second buffer.
when the buffer is all gone, then you have only the 40 seconds or your turn
ends (you cannot lose more than your turn on time).  our club clock rule,
however, is not the same as the one typically employed by U.S.C.A. sanctioned
events.  they have a 45-second clock and 2 timeouts of 1 minute each.

- nate
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: human vs. machines: right of refusal at tournaments
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:29:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.052113.16070@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>In article <199208112236.AA07599@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@CS.ARIZONA.EDU ("Richard Schroeppel") writes:
>
>>Conventional wisdom is that over-the-board play in tournaments is
>>the only accurate and fair way to evaluate a machine.
>
>Check Computer Chess Reports from ICD.  One technique is to run the
>computer against problems.  Another is to play machines against each
>other.  CCR is not naive about this, and multiple techniques are taken
>into account.
>

This reminds me of the "you know you are a redneck... if you have cousins
that are also sisters/brothers/etc....."  In other words, inbreeding by
testing computer against computer doesn't prove anything....  too many
things bias the results...  for example;  (1) was the original program
correctly rated so that my program's performance against it will give
a true rating?  After establishing my rating in such a way, when I play
(I being a program here) another program to establish his rating, how
accurate will that be?  (answer: not very... ask a statistician about
averaging averages)  (2) what about rating pool points.  If rating
inflation/deflation occurs, how does the computer follow the curve?

(3) most importantly, computers playing against computers proves very
little.  In reality, the computer that searches deepest wins most of
the games...  against humans, this doesn't always hold as evaluation
rules, quiescence evaluation, search extensions, etc. can allow a program
to play "more human like".  We have seen this phenomenon for years
and it is a real pain.  my $.02 here.....


>Also, the value of playing machines against humans is not clear.  How
>many games should they have to play?  The accuracy of the rating
>increases with the number of games played.  Should we settle for 20
>games with a standard deviation of 63?  But people do not stop at 20
>games.  And what if several of the opponents just do not feel like
>playing against computers?
>

This is also an unclear point.  I have seen Cray Blitz destroy players
due to "computer shock".  If someone has never played a computer, they
are easily intimidated.... whether expert or master.  Going to a tournament
that has not had computers almost guarantees a good result for the
computer....  but it turns around later....  after the players have
been in a couple of tournaments with the machines, their performance
rises...  we have seen this in several of the older Fredkin matches
where computers play machines....

Bob
-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Computers in tournaments: Who cares?
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:59:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.023033.2460@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.205138.14901@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug14.184203.20864@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:

>>>When you compare this number to the thousands of human tournament
>>>players, you see that the chance of actually getting paired against one
>>>is incredibly small.  It's not worth worrying about.

>>Gee, then there's no point in changing the rules.  If the chances of
>>computers actually being paired with humans is infinitesimal, then why
>>would we take away people's option of refusing to play them?  According
>>to you, it's just not going to come up.

>You didn't read carefully enough.  The chances of any particular human
>being paired against a computer is vanishingly small...  the chances of
>A human being paired against a computer (possibly against his wishes) is
>exactly 1.000 and no less.  So, the problem WILL arise, it just probably
>won't affect the majority of us.  At present, the TD is in an untenable

Didn't read carefully enough?  Perhaps, but that was irony.  So either
I didn't write carefully enough, or you didn't read carefully enough,
or I am not reading carefully enough now!

To be direct, the issue should not be dismissed just because the ruling
will directly affect only a few people.  I am sure that I will not be
paired against a computer, but I care about the freedom of those who
are so paired.  I also care about the 50 move draw rule, even though
there are miniscule chances of the rule being invoked in one of my
games.  And so on.

As much as anything, I also care about truth.  So, when someone says
that people who oppose the change in the rule are afraid of personal
freedom, then I am compelled to point out that they are afraid of
LOSING personal freedom.  I also think it worthwhile to have a
discussion and to consider alternatives instead of waving ones hands in
hopelessness.  The proposal may not be changed, but at least we learn
something about its motivations (such as the inadequacy of relying on
computer-computer competition).

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: janet@cs.UAlberta.CA (Janet Service)
Subject: Re: Man vs Computer Checkers Championship
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:25:24 GMT

In article <UeZDeDM00k00FY5ZkQ@transarc.com>, Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM writes:
> How can they play up to 4 games a day if the games are on the order of 5 hours?
> 
> It's incredible to me that Tinsley could maintain a pace of 12 games in 4 days.
> Weekend chess tournaments used to be like this (3 games Saturday, 2 games
> Sunday, at time controls which led to 5-hour games), but that format has been
> almost universally abandoned because it was too strenuous.  International
> chess tournaments are held at 1 game a day, and even this is too strenuous
> for many players.

They are playing 20 moves per hour.  The games on Monday lasted approx.
4 and 5 hours, so only 2 games were played on that day, therefore the
other 2 games were played on Wednesday (a scheduled rest day) thus
keeping to the agreed 4 games per day schedule.
From: U13054@uicvm.uic.edu (Howard Wachtel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computers in tournaments: Who cares?
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:52:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: uicvm.92231.165252U13054
 <1992Aug14.205138.14901@cs.brown.edu> <1992Aug18.023033.2460@cis.uab.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <1992Aug18.023033.2460@cis.uab.edu>, hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
says:

  {Much deleted ...}

>You didn't read carefully enough.  The chances of any particular human
>being paired against a computer is vanishingly small...  the chances of
>A human being paired against a computer (possibly against his wishes) is
>exactly 1.000 and no less.  So, the problem WILL arise, it just probably
>won't affect the majority of us.  At present, the TD is in an untenable
>position and the USCF needs to set a policy and stick with it.

   The TD is only in an untenable position if there enough people refusing
to play computers to have a significant effect on the pairings.  Such as,
a tournament with 4 computers in a field of 20 players (which is in part
what led to this discussion).  How could such a tournament exist if the
chances of a given person having to play a computer are "vanishingly
small"?
   Or if there is only one computer playing in a given section, the TD
will only have difficulty if a fairly large number of players refuse to
play against it.  If we who are against this rule change are really in
the minority, and if there are so few computers active to make the chances
of being paired against one to be negligible, this situation is unlikely
to occur.
From: u855ops12@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Patrick Blanchard)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess Program?
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:29:21 GMT
Organization: The University of Melbourne



   I am looking for a chess program (IBM PC) that not only plays a fairly
strong game (not that I'm a strong player - just an optimist) but is also
useful for analysing old games to see where I went wrong, etc.. Do the programs
that get a regular mention in this newsgroup do this? (i.e. Zarkov, Mchess,
Knightstalker, etc.)

   Thanks in advance.

Patrick Blanchard,
Information Technology Services,
University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Australia.
From: drchip@cup.portal.com (MYRON A LIEBERMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: handicap in chess
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 22:55:57 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <darse.714329138@silver-vly>

One of the more popular handicapping methods in chess is time odds. Allow
a certain amount of time for the game, but apportion it between the players
based on rating difference.
From: "jay hack" <jay.hack@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: chess news        4/4
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:53:07 EST
Reply-To: "jay hack" <jay.hack@execnet.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Executive Networks Information

>>> Continued from previous message
DATELINE: BELGRADE, Yugoslavia

BODY:
    Retired American  chess  grandmaster Bobby Fischer has agreed
to play a  second match in Yugoslavia after his rematch with Boris
Spasky next month, a  spokesman for the organizers said Friday.

   The organizers did not identify Fischer's opponent. On Thursday,
Yugoslav  millionaire Jezdimir Vasijevic challenged current world
champion Gary Kasparov  to play a match against Fischer.

   Vasiljevic, who has provided $ 5 million for the Fischer-Spasky
match,  scheduled to begin on Sept. 2, offered Kasparov $ 500,000
for each game played  with Fischer.

   Kasparov did not immediately respond to the challenge.

   Fischer's second match will also be organized by Vasiljevic, but
match  director Janos Kubat said Friday that neither the identity
of Fischer's next  rival nor the amount of prize money could be
revealed immediately.

   Fischer defeated the Spasky in 1972 to become world champion,
but later  forfeited the title by refusing to defend it. He has not
played in public since.

   Fischer and Spasky will play a first round on Sveti Stefan, an
island off the Yugoslav republic of Montenegro. The nine-match
series will be concluded in the  Serbian capital of Belgrade.

   Fischer's trip and the potential prize money are apparently in
violation of  U.N. sanctions imposed against Serbia-led Yugoslavia
for its role in the war in  Bosnia-Herzegovina.

   The State Department has declined to comment on the matter.
---
  SLMR 2.0  All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: us252637@mmm.serc.3m.com (William D. Rouner)
Subject: Re: Girls
Organization: 3M - St. Paul, MN  55144-1000 US
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:03:31 GMT

After introducing chess to several dozen folks (most of whom can now beat me)
including former girl-friends and my wife and daughter, I have a few tips for
encouraging weaker players.  Let them choose the approach:

a.  Give a handicap (take away one of the major piece)  Letting a child choose
    the amount of handicap is fun.  They delight in taking away nearly
    everything and trouncing you.  Soon, they get bored with the easy victory
    and begin leaving you with more and more men.

b.  Discuss the moves as you play (some prefer that you discuss only your
    moves, others prefer that all moves be discussed)  Be sure to talk about
    move itself ("This move prevents these pieces from getting into the game."
    rather than "You should have moved here to..." or "That was stupid!")
    This seems particularly effective when one criticizes one own move as in
    "Hmmm, maybe that move wasn't so good after all...it left a big hole..."

c.  Play many speed games rather than one long intense game.  This has proved
    particularly popular with high-school and college aged players.  It has
    the merit of exploring several variants in one evening, it tends to reduce
    the magnitude of a gross error in the weaker player's mind because he can
    quit when the blunder is obvious, and start again.  Since I'm a slow
    thinker, it also reduces the difference in playing strength.  But the
    MOST IMPORTANTLY it seems to promote an easy-going fun atmosphere that
    lasts after the games.

    An alternative is to record the game, discuss it afterwards, and replay
    from a certain point.

d.  Do exercises (this worked with the few people that didn't like any of
    the above approaches) such as try to mate me with your K and R against
    my K in 20 moves.  Many are weak in endgames and playing many speed
    games from the same endgame position is good.  Save the K,B,B vs K for
    last; that has frustrated too many folks.

e.  Choose a class of openings that you will not study and let your opponent
    study it.  This approach worked well in my early years when I knew nothing
    about Queenside openings.  That experience taught me to be a more hunble
    teacher as I fumbled my way through the opening despite superior tactics.

f.  Give the opponent the option to switch side once during the game.  Kids
    like this one and despite still losing, take glee in seeing me squirm
    out of the mess.  Seems like they think "I could have done that."

I do not encourage what one respondent suggested "...let them win."  Some
are quick to spot this and resent it, and in the long run it doesn't
promote good play or trust.

Hope this helps.  The books recommended so far are good suggestions,
particularly the Bobby Fischer one.

Bill
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6354 rec.games.board:8108
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Man vs. Machine World Checkers Championship (day 5)
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:37:18
Organization: CSUA/UCB
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: lake@cs.UAlberta.CA's message of 21 Aug 92 19:59:46 GMT


    With regards to the questions about Chinook's endgame database:
    currently all 6 piece positions , 7 piece 4 vs. 3 positions, and
    40% of the 8 piece 4 vs. 4 positions have been solved.  We expect
    to finish the balance of the 8 piece positions within the next 6
    months to 1 year.

Yikes!  How many 8 piece positions are there?
I calculate:      32-choose-8	[places to put the pieces]
		* 2^8		[each piece can be red or black]
		* 2^8		[each piece can be normal or king]
		/ 4		[rotation symmetries]
		/ 2		[reflection symmetries]
= 10518300 * 256 * 256 / 8
= 8.6 * 10^10 positions (approximately).

How are you going to store them all????

I'd also be interested to hear details about Chinook's hardware+software.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Suggestions for chess program?
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:46:57 GMT

In article <2a8d4bfdwnr070@ark.abg.sub.org> ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan) writes:

>But if he later buys a faster PC, he won't have a stronger program.
>I recommend M-Chess (about U$100-150) that plays at Mach III level
>even with a 286 with 12 MHz.

A faster PC enables the program to search deeper in the same amount of
time.  If you set the level to a fixed depth, then the playing strength
will not change with the power of the machine: only the speed of the
search will vary.  The difference between Zarkov 2.6 on my XT at about
9 MHz and my 80486 at 25 MHz is approximately 1+ ply.  Now this is a
very rough estimate based on watching the two at the same time: one
bogs down at 6 ply and the other at 7-8 ply (depending on the position
and on how closely you are watching, etc.).

More precisely, CCR adds 60 points to 386/33 results to get an
estimated result for 486/33.  I don't know what adjustment to make for
a 286/12.  In any case, the speed of the machine does affect the
strength of the program when set at time control instead of depth
control.

--Jim
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:08 PDT
Subject: ELO and Swiss System Software
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1451600026:000:234
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Aug 17 21:08:00 1992


Does anyone know of -- and wish to recommend -- IBM-DOS-compatible software to
rate chess players (ELO, rather than USCF) and/or software to pair Swiss system
tournaments?

I'd appreciate email responses.

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer/Spassky time control
From: bagai@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:26:19 CST
Organization: Wichita State University, Wichita, Ks

I am told that the upcoming match will use Fischer's clock with the
following time control:

	Each player initially gets 90 minutes on his clock and an
	additional 2 minutes after each move is made.

	No secondary time controls, no adjournments, no nothing ....

The only advantage that immediately comes to my mind is that this avoids
mad time scrambles, because you always have at least 2 minutes before
each move.  Can anyone think of any other benefit?

For at least up to 60-move long games (very few games are longer than that)
this control is slower than the usual 40/2, 20/1 ... because you now have
3 and 1/2 hours as against 3 hours in the existing control.  Though I
personally prefer slower controls, this isn't really an advantage because
many players don't.

Of course, getting rid of adjournments really makes it an INDIVIDUAL
contest, but that has nothing to do with the time control as such.

Rajiv Bagai
bagai@wsuhub.twsu.edu
From: jiang@liasun5.epfl.ch (Tao JIANG)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: chess programs for IBM-PC -- ftp sites?
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:50:10 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne


Does anyone know where I can get chess programs for IBM-PC?
Please send e-mail to me directly because I don't have much
time to read the news.  Thank you.

--
Tao Jiang
Swiss Federal Inst. of Tech., Lausanne
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
From: urban@sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Urban)
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Reply-To: urban@sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Urban)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:59:43 GMT

I think that the distinction that people are looking for is between
proprietary games (Monopoly, Diplomacy, etc.) and non-proprietary
games (Xiang-Qi, Shogi, Mancala, etc.).  

A separate group for the latter might be appropriate (although I 
personally favor starting up a mailing list as a trial balloon
before creating yet another newsgroup).  The question becomes,
how do you name the group?  `strategic' is too general, but
`non-proprietary', `PD', or `traditional' do not communicate much.

	Mike
	Mike Urban

	urban@cobra.jpl.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Organization: Center for Information and Language Studies / University of
	Chicago
	<1992Aug19.022125.17183@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Aug19.151458.2688@cis.uab.edu>
	<1992Aug19.193622.13628@cs.brown.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:03:13 GMT

All this paranoid nonsense about the committee is getting silly.
You want a vote. Show up. Then you get a vote.
It is that simple. I don't even check for USCF membership.
Every person in the room gets a vote.

Eric Schiller
Chairthing
USCF Computer Chess Committee