HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: David Bronstein visits the US
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:06:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxBpv6.DFA
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU

In article <9211062219.AA07668@papyrus.hpl.hp.com> Joseph Albert <albert@papyrus.hpl.hp.com> writes:
>
>
>To follow up on my earlier post, GM David Bronstein is visiting HPLabs from
>Nov. 4 to Nov. 16.  The purpose of his visit is chess-related, to play
>against Deep Thought and HiTech.  These games will take place on ics.
>the ics account hpdbdt has been set up for this purpose, but other HP
>employees are using the account at times, so it isn't guaranteed to
>be GM Bronstein all the time.
>

Is HiTech on ics? and if so, under what name?

-benoni
From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: For Andreas Eder (are@athen.sto.mchp.sni.de) only
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:14:15 GMT
Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com
Distribution: rec
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA

Andreas, I got your e-mail request for the SAN Kit.  Unfortunately, my
mailer thinks that your address is unreachable.  Please try again with
a different address.  You might also want to try the ftp site
valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu (pub/chess/misc/san.tar.Z).

 [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == (508) 294-3484              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson
From: seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Where did they get these names?
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:05:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

I suspect the name "Siesta" originated with Capablanca, who
was notoriously lazy with opening preparation. There still
isn't much theory to it.


Steve Hoell			seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu
From: edd@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ed.knowles)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in article uploads?
Summary: Yes!! More Chess Chow
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:09:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <32485@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg) writes:
> 
> I recently put on the newsgroup Joel Benjamin's Schliemann article.
> 
> If enough people are interested, I can upload past articles from
> _Chess Chow_ and put them on the net too.
> 
> For example,
> 
> "Gruenfeld Defense, Kf1 variation" by myself
> "Agony:  Sadler-Wilder, Wilder-Mainke" by GM Mike Wilder
> "Torture" by GM Ferdinand Hellers
> "AbNORMal Behavior" by GM Mike Rohde
> "Lucky Pen" by GM John Fedorowicz.
> 
> The purpose of the uploads is to share with the readers the fundamental
> aims of the magazine:  mirth, entertainment, instruction.
> 
> Kenneth Sloan suggested this method, as compared to the alternative
> way where I simply give you a preview of the next issue's contents.
> 
> Or, as Joel says, "Chess for fun, chess for everyone."
> 

Sounds good to me! CHESS CHOW IS GREAT! By the way, Mark, my renewal
is in the mail... Do you guys have anything to say about the Fischer Farce?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Joseph Albert <albert@papyrus.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: 1.e4 c5 miniature
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:27:15 GMT




In article <1992Nov12.020702.5417@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> qazqaz@Muir.Stanfor
d.EDU (Mike Perkins) writes:
>
>I just played another fun miniature with Psion as black:
>
>1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.o-o Nxe4 5.Re1 f5? 6.d3 Qb6? 7.Bxd7+ Bxd7
>8.de4 Be7 9.ef5 ef5 10.Bg5 Be6 11.Bxe7 Kxe7 12.Ng5 Qxb2? 13.Rxe6+ Kf8 14.Qd8++
>
>It's probably obvious I don't usually play 1.e4 in real games. Was the pawn
>sac 4.o-o sound?
>

a more fundamental question is what is the B doing over on b5 on move 3
when black's 2nd move was e6?

it seems that this just loses a tempo after 3. ... a6, which is a very useful
move for black, one that will almost surely be played at some point. the
only good retreat is Be2, since on d3 the B blocks the queen pawn, on c4
it loses another tempo to 4. ... b5, and on a4 it will be trapped by the
pawns.

is there some justfication for 3. Bb5 against 2. ... e6 that I am unaware of?

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
From: rryan@panix.com (Rob Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Questions about Fischer
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:09:12 GMT
Organization: Panix, NYC

In <92311.143837ASEDC@ASUACAD.BITNET> <ASEDC@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:

>I'm not famliar with U.S. chess, so I hope someone can answer my following
>questions:
>
>1) Did B. Fischer kept onplaying exhibition games after he quit the world
>   title?

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

>2) For those of you proficient in Fischer classical games, how well has he
>   played against Spassky?  (News Today are that he won)

The NY Times has a good article on this point on page 57 of the
Sunday, 11/8/92 issue.  The general conclusions are that (a) he's
really off of his form of 20 years ago; (b) he improved dramatically
during the 30 games; and (c) he's probably within the top 50 players
in the world, but probably not as good as the top elite players.
The article mentions that Fischer seems to be expressing interest
in continuing to play, but earlier NY Times articles pointed out that
this is cast in doubt because of his insistance on no adjournments,
and on open-ended matches (my term: he doesn't want draws to count and
doesn't like fixed length matches).

>3) What was the reason he said he had for playing again?

He claims that it was to defend his title as World Champion.  Rumor
mill suggests that it was probably a need for money or something to
do with his chess-playing girl friend.  It's impossible to guess with
someone as mercurial as Fischer.

>4) Has he expressed interest in playing for the world title again?

He thinks he just did.  Kasparov has indicated willingness, but Fischer's
comtemptous comments the other day won't help.  Also, Kasparov would
probably not like Fischer dictating the rules as he's prone to do.
The chess world is less interested in Fischer's chances to challenge
the title than they are in the Short-Timman match in January to decide
who will challenge Kasparov.  And the general consensus is that Fischer
is, not yet, anyway, playing at the level to merit such a match.

-- 
  Rob Ryan
    Internet:   rryan@panix.com or Robert_Ryan@brown.edu
    Bitnet:     ROBR@BROWNVM
    Compu$erve: 70324.227@compuserve.com
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: gaprindashvilli's strengt
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:03:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov12.120340.17373
Distribution: rec
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <199211.4184.12671@dosgate> "gordon mazur" <gordon.mazur@canrem.com> writes:
>All this is irrelevant though. I don't think Fischer could give N odds to
>any one over 1900 then or now. I don't think he would lose every game, but
>I'm sure he would lose every match.

This is a little crazy. I won't argue about 2300's versus Fischer
minus knight, but 1900?? Either you're underestimating Fischer (or any
GM), overestimating a knight, or overestimating what it is to be a
1900 player.  I'm a 1900-2000 player, I know Fischer would whip my butt
easily without a knight.  

If you think about the games in which Fischer (and other GMs) easliy
beat weak IMs with piece sacrifices early in the game (move 15-20,
say), it would just be a matter of waiting for the 1900 to make some
mistake giving Fischer equivalent compensating advantages for the
piece.  Yes, if the weaker player were careful, he might avoid that,
but I doubt very much if he could do it very long or very often.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Abuse of "gnufour" on ICS?
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:56:14 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Looks like someone has figured out how to cause gnufour to lock up (notice
the two games involving gnufour and the time, and how one is Unr):

 1 gnufour vs Fodder    [Unr Blitz inc=12] { 4:14 -  0:00} {38-38}  (B : 15)
15 cg vs Fodder         [Reg Stand inc=10] {10:06 -  0:00} {39-39}  (B : 1)
 6 gnufour vs Bradie    [Reg Stand inc=10] {14:19 - 59:55} {39-39}  (W : 2)
 4 Fodder vs fumble     [Reg Stand inc=10] { 5:08 -  7:43} {08-08}  (W : 45)
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:38:02 GMT

In article <1519@tekgen.bv.tek.com> brucec@tekgen.bv.tek.com (Bruce Cheney) writes:
>...
>The TD was correct in that once a game is "over" there is no
>going back to correct illegal moves, improper setup, etc.

Correct.

>
>But I would take some slight exception to his interpretation of
>"over."  The game is over when one side has been checkmated, one
>side resigns, or a draw has been recognized or agreed to, or when
>a stalemate occurs, or when one side runs out of time.
>
>"Signing" the scoresheet might not be relevant. Did you say "I resign"
>before then? Then I would argue that the game ended when you said it.

Stretching very very far to make a point.  The USCF rules explicitly
mention several ways of resigning without saying "I resign".  It even
warns that you should be careful not to simply stop both clocks when you
merely want to find the TD for a ruling, lest your opponent (correctly!)
infer that you have resigned.  It would take a lot of fancy talking to
convince me that someone who signed a scoresheet with a 1-0 written on
it did not "resign".  Signing the scoresheet is never done until *after*
the game is over.  So...if the scoresheet is signed, the signer cannot
reasonably claim that "the game isn't over, yet".

>
>BTW, this leaves open a gaping hole in USCF rules.  What if the illegal
>move ends the game? (ie causes checkmate!) Under current USCF rules, the
>game is over, you don't go back, etc. ... Obviously ridiculous.
>

BZZZT.  Thanks for playing, anyway.  From the current rulebook:

  I.12. The Completed Game
        A. The game is won by the player who has mated
           his opponent's king, provided that the mating
           move was legal.  This immediately ends the
           game.

>Oh yeah, I am also a certified USCF tournament director.

Time for a refresher course, methinks.
-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black)
Subject: Results of Ratings Survey...
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: na
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:26:38 GMT


Survey results follow.  First I'll show you the game again; I was going to 
include the annotations (written by the winner), but he doesn't really give
any analysis and also adopts a tone which offends me (an "I knew all along I was
going to win..." attitude, IMHO).  If you are interested in the annotations,
you can look up the article in the December 1980 issue of Chess Life.


W. Stanley Davis (1621)
IM John Fedorowicz (2479)
U.S. Open, Round I, Atlanta, 1980

 1. Nf3   e6
 2. e3    b6
 3. b3    Bb7
 4. Bb2   c5
 5. Be2   Nf6
 6. d3    d5
 7. Nbd2  Be7
 8. Ne5   O-O
 9. O-O   Re8
10. f4    Bf8
11. Qe1   a5
12. g4    a4
13. Rc1   ab
14. ab    Ra2
15. Ba1   Na6
16. g5    Nd7
17. Bh5   Ne5
18. Be5   Nb4
19. Qh4   Nc2
20. Rf3   Ne3
21. Re3   Rd2
22. Rh3   c4
23. Bf6!  Bc5+
24. Kf1   Bf2
25. Bf7+  Kf8
26. Qh7   gf
27. Bg6   1-0


This is the biggest upset I've ever seen; how did Fedorowicz let this game
get away from him?  The Chess Life article says only, "The IM apparently 
underestimated the strength of his opponent's mate-or-nothing onslaught...".

Was Davis a master-in-disguise?  I looked in my old (and somewhat scattered)
collection of Chess Life's and found that his rating in Dec 1981 was 1663, so he
obviously did not continue beating IM's on a regular basis during the year
after this game.  He was not listed in the 1984 rating list (and this is the
next oldest list I could find).

Fedorowicz, much to his credit, managed to overcome this embarrassing first
round loss and tie for first in this tournament.  He's also become a GM since
then.

----------------

Survey results.  No one attempted to annotate the game, and many people did
not reveal or estimate their ratings.  A number of people insisted that because
I said the game might be recognized, it must therefore be a game between 2400+
players.  One person thought he might have recognized the game as Lasker vs.
Capablanca; another thought it might be Duncan Suttles and Bent Larsen (a
tongue-in-cheek guess based on the opening).  The one guesser who came very
close admitted to recognizing the game; it's interesting that no one else
put Black's rating higher than White's.

Here is the list of responses I got:


Rating of Guesser		White		Black
-------------------             ----------      ----------
UNR				2400+           2200
1500				1700		1600
1700				2000            2000
1700				1900            1500
2350				2640		2580

None given			2400-2600       2400-2600
None given			IM-GM		IM-GM
None given			1700		2550



------------------------------------
john//  (Who am I?  Why am I here??)
jrb@ingres.com
From: brucec@tekgen.bv.tek.com (Bruce Cheney)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:33:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: tekgen.1519
Organization: Tektronix, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.111752.1@pa881a.inland.com> nason@pa881a.inland.com writes:
>With all the talk of the "Half point forfeit", it got me thinking about
>something that happened to me.  In a tournament game my opponent made an
>illegal en-passant move.  I let it slide, it was my first tournament and blah
>blah blah, well, I was stupid. The game ended, I signed my scoresheet and
>waited for my next pariring.  Then I got to thinking about it.  I looked it up
>in the rules and verified that it was illegal.  I asked the TD about it and he
>said that, yes that is illegal as they get.  However, because I signed the
>scoresheet the there was nothing that could be done.   I had to raise exception
>during the game.  
>
>Is this true or is there some appleal I can apply.  I am not going to, but am
>curious about the rules, appealing and all that, more for future reference.  
>

(excerpts from email to john follow for public comment)

The TD was correct in that once a game is "over" there is no
going back to correct illegal moves, improper setup, etc.

But I would take some slight exception to his interpretation of
"over."  The game is over when one side has been checkmated, one
side resigns, or a draw has been recognized or agreed to, or when
a stalemate occurs, or when one side runs out of time.

"Signing" the scoresheet might not be relevant. Did you say "I resign"
before then? Then I would argue that the game ended when you said it.

BTW, this leaves open a gaping hole in USCF rules.  What if the illegal
move ends the game? (ie causes checkmate!) Under current USCF rules, the
game is over, you don't go back, etc. ... Obviously ridiculous.

Oh yeah, I am also a certified USCF tournament director.

Bruce Cheney NI7M
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: funky pairings
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:58:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cis.1992Nov11.035859.9471
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

In article <BxIz1H.1qF@news.orst.edu> linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin) writes:
>....  After losing my first 2 games, I won my third
>round game and then got a full point bye in the fourth round!  The
>idea is to give FPB's to players who have no points.  You're not
>supposed to get it after winning a game.  

Not so.  Byes are supposed to be given to the lowest rated player in the
lowest score group - and...only one to a customer.  After 3 rounds, with
only 13 players, it is entirely likely that you fully earned your bye.
Were there any players with lower scores (or the same score, but a lower
rating) who had not already received a bye?

Let's see - three players already had a bye, and thus at least 1 point.
Of the others, only 1 other player could possibly have had a score of
zero.  From the range of ratings you report, I suspect that there were
no draws to complicate matters.  So...your bye sounds entirely plausible.

No blunder here.

Sounds like a fun tournament, though.  The pairings for the fourth and
fifth rounds must have required considerable....creativity.



-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Caro Kann fantasy variation
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:17:22 GMT

I believe the variation 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3?! is so named because White can
get a strong attack if Black plays 3...dxe4 4.Bc4 exf3 5.Nxf3, but White gets
a bad game if Black plays anything else, because 3.f3 is just a stupid move.
In other words, the great attack is a fantasy because Black has to agree to
it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Unsound Sacrifices (was Some Other Long Title)
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:23:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.205831.9440@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.233834.22767@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.ed
>u writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.121130.8021@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A
>. N. Walker) writes:
>
>>>   Yes, he beat all the weak players,
>>> by playing unsound sacrifices.
>>
>>Being refuted after several days of analysis doesn't make a sacrifice
>>unsound.
>
>     What????!!!?!?!?  That's ridiculous.  The fact that a sacrifice
>is refuted most certainly does mean that it is unsound, period.
>
I disagree. There are sacrifices that are definitely sound, i.e. force a
favorable result, those that are definitely unsound, i.e. known to be
refuted or easy enough for a strong player to refute in the limited time,
and those that are unclear, which are the most interesting.

There is no consensus on the definition of sacrifice. Most authors don't
speak of a sacrifice if it is just the first move of a short combination
that leads to mate or material gain; but what is 'short'? For a mediocre
player it is something like 2-3 moves, but for some players and in some
positions, 15-20 move combinations are possible. Thus, sacrifices that 
start a forced combination are not 'pure' sacrifices.

The other extreme is when a 'sacrifice' is really a blunder. But there are
many cases in between. It is very difficult to beat strong players without
playing 'risky' moves, whose consequences are not exactly calculable for a
human over the board. Many such moves are one day shown to lose against
perfect play. But if you call all such moves unsound, you must conclude 
that virtually all World Champions (with the possible exception of Capa
and Petrosian), not just Tal, became WCs by making 'unsound sacrifices'.

Your logic, when followed all the way, denies the existence of sacrifices.
Given infinite time, we can tell for every move if it wins, loses or draws
against perfect play. (Yes, the dreadful word: Solvability!) "Sacrifice"
has no meaning against a perfect opponent. It is purely a concept of
the synthetic mind.

	Sven
From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: funky pairings
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:57:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Nov12.205713.27562
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

Benjamin Lin writes
> In article <palane.721514387@pv7412.vincent.iastate.edu> palane@iastate.edu (Paul  
A. Lane) writes:
> >
> >What would be interesting is to have a tournament with standard pairings
> >up until the last round and match the contenders in each class against each
> >other. Otherwise, you wind up circling each other's boards like vultures.
> >
> 
> In class pairings do NOT work.  These were tried a while ago in my area
> and things got messed up when 2 class C players played eachother in round 5.
> One of them ended up with 4/5 which probably tied for second place if I
> remember correctly.  The way to solve the problem of class prizes is to
> get up and coming players to play in your tournaments!  Players who
> can consistently upset players are the ones who deserve class prizes IMO.
> That is why tournaments need to have lots of players...
> 
> -benoni
>    

I just have to say something on this thread...

I've done simulations with pen and paper when class gets really boring and have  
determined that the minimum number of players a 5-round Swiss can handle is 8, and  
that requires a lot of creativity and no draws.

According to _USCF's Official Rules of Chess_, if class players are also in  
contention for place prizes, the proper procedure is to ask players if they would  
like to play for the place prizes.  If they say yes, give them no special  
consideration -- they'll probably end up playing someone very high and lose, but  
there is the possibility of an upset.  They are allowed to win either prize.  If  
no, then they are ineligible to win place prizes but are paired in-class, so they  
have an easier opponent.  Of course you should probably advise them of their  
standing for the class prize.   

--
The secretary says he's on another line.  
Can I hold for a long, long time?   -TMBG
Michael Schmahl a.k.a. Black-Robe Mage  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: ****ALEKHINE'S DEATH****
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:17:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.010849.12049@cs.ucla.edu> quam@moby.cs.ucla.edu (David Quam) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.193045.4746@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> ctepedel@nyx.cs.du.edu (cihan tepedelenlioglu) writes:
>>	Does anyone know the reason of Alekhine's death.?(brief question)
>>
>Possibly C2H5OH ...

No. He died of heart attack. He quit drinking in 1935, after losing the
WC title to Euwe. (It worked, he regained the title the following year.)

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess