HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen)
Subject: Re: (book titles)
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:29:32 GMT

In article <Bvs0Gp.98L@news.orst.edu> linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin) writes:
>In article <PHR.92Oct7162046@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>>> >As Joel Benjamin notes in his Swill articles, beware any book with
>>> >"Winning with..." in the title!
>>> >
>
>There are so many books on the semi-open defenses, but nowadays, almost
>all tournament games are closed games or semi-closed games.  It seems
>that there would be a great demand for books with titles such as 
>Winning with 1 c4 b5!! or something like that.  Seriously though, I am
>looking for a good way to reply to 1 c4.  In a recent tournament, I 
>tried both 1...g6 and 1...b6.  How is it possible to prevent White's
>setup with c4,d3,e4 ?  Or how is it possible to take advantage of it?
>  
>

There are many ways to do it, but the suggestions here may not suit to 
your other systems. 

1.c4 e6

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5

1.c4 c6

One way to respond to e4, c4, d3:

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.e4 d6 5.Rge2 e5 6.0-0 c6
7.d3 a6 with the idea Nbd7, b5,d5 (BCO 1)

Antti
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Organization: Dept.Medical Cybernetics&Artificial Intelligence,Univ.Vienna,Austria,Europe
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:36:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.144507.29624@news2.cis.umn.edu> bedwards@nextear4.psych.umn.edu (Brent Edwards) writes:
>I'm a novice myself and have been reading a wide variety of books,  
>including ones on openings, and I've never seen an author plainly say what  
>the strategy and objectives of various opening lines are. Are there any  
>good books that discuss standard openings and don't just list hundreds of  
>variations?
>--Brent Edwards
>bedwards@nextear.psych.emn.edu

Try 'The ideas behind the Chess openings' by Reuben Fine. It's available as 
paberback and therefore cheap (can't go much wrong).
I think it gives a decent introduction to what the title promises. I only got it
as an expert and found it pretty boring, though. But I guess it should be 'Fine'
for beginners. Maybe you can get some opinions from other beginners who have read
this?

					--- Juffi

-- 
Johannes Fuernkranz                                    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5320652(Fax)
Schottengasse 3, A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe     juffi@ai.univie.ac.at 
--------------- "Life is too short for Chess." -- Byron -----------------
From: jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Game 16 Opening, Spassky-Fischer
Date: 8 Oct 1992 17:40:04 GMT
Organization: Econometrics Laboratory, U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily5.berkeley.edu

In article <9210072155.0.UUL1.3#20523@intercal.com>, hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell) writes:
|> 
|> ECO Analysis
|> 
|> Well, having finally had the oppornity to do a little research,
|> it seems that there was no TN by Fischer - The line as played
|> is designated a lemon by ECO. For those who have the ECO series,
|> it is volume E (IV), p. 334, c. 13, n. 91. The game position is
|> reached via transposition (it appears Qd2 is the proper response
|> to Qa5, not Bd3?).
|> 
|> 13 Rc1 Qf6! (exclamation point by Minev in ECO - He is now living
|> in Seattle and has a regular column in "Inside Chess!") and now
|> Radomski-Timoshchenko, USSR 1976 continued 14 Qh5 Kd8 15 h4 g4!
|> (Timoshchenko's idea, used by Fischer) 16 Bd3 f4 17 Bf4 Qf4
|> 18 Ne2 Qf6 -+ . Alternatives also given in the same note (91)
|> are 13 Ne2 Qf6 14 Bc2 f4 15 h4 Rf8 -+ Stein-Geller USSR 1966,
|> I 2/639; and (instead of 13...Qf6!) 13...Qg7 14 h4 fe4 15 Qh5
|> Kd8 hg5 += .
|> 
|> So it is all rather old hat. As Yogi Berra (?) said, you can
|> look it up.
|> 
|> HWR
|> 
|> 

Interesting but you must have the older version of ECO since in the second
edition of volume IV on the page you cite, there is no such footnote.  I
scoured the E60's and E70's for this position by transposition, but I 
could not find it.  I suspect that it was ommitted in the latest edition.
Can you tell me the ECO code for that line?
From: connors@drutx.ATT.COM (ConnorsPA)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Boring Performance Calculations
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:02:19 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO

Two observations about calculating Fischer's rating
from the current match:

(1)
        If we hold Spassky's rating as established and fixed at 2560,
        and assume that Fischer is some brilliant newcomer
        whose rating we are trying to estimate from
        the current match score (after 18 games), then we would calculate
        an estimated rating of about 2640 for Fischer.

(2)
        *More importantly*, if we work out the associated uncertainty
        with any rating based on the number of match games
        played so far, then Fischer's estimated rating
        would be
                2640 +- 65
        (where 65 is the statistical standard deviation).

        So Fischer's "true" rating could, quite reasonably,
        be as likely somewhere in the high 2500's as the low 2700's,
        as far as we can tell from just this one match.

        I.e., Fischer's "true" rating will only become clearer
        when (please) he plays many more games.
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 19 moves 1-35
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:40:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct14.164059.16386
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 19:56 GMT
    Sicilian Defense, Closed Variation:
    Fischer Spassky
    (White) (Black)
    1. e4 c5
    2. Nc3 Nc6
    3. Nge2 e5
    4. Nd5 Nge7
    5. Nec3 Nxd5
    6. Nxd5 Be7
    7. g3 d6
    8. Bg2 h5
    9. h4 Be6
    10. d3 Bxd5
    11. exd5 Nb8
    12. f4 Nd7
    13. 0-0 g6
    14. Rb1 f5
    15. b4 b6
    16. bxc5 bxc5
    17. c4 0-0
    18. Qa4 Bf6
    19. Rb7 Nb6
    20. Qb5 Rf7
    21. Rxf7 Kxf7
    22. Bd2 Rb8
    23. Qc6 Nc8
    24. Re1 Ne7
    25. Qa4 Qc7
    26. Kh2 exf4
    27. Bxf4 Be5
    28. Re2 Rb6
    29. Kh3 Ng8
    30. Rxe5 dxe5
    31. Bxe5 Qe7
    32. d6 Rxd6
    33. Bxd6 Qxd6
    34. Bd5+ Kf8
    35. Qxa7 Ne7
From: drosera@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Donald Burden)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: A question about chess copyright law...
Date: 10 Oct 92 16:22:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: mintaka.1992Oct10.162253.21475
Distribution: rec
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <BvvrtJ.ICM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cec35848@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Chuck Carroll) writes:
>
>I remeber reading just recently (I don't remember where--it was
>either in this group or in Chess Life) that the games themselves
>are in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted, but the annotations
>can.  So presumably it would be legal to make the moves available,
>but not the annotations.
>
>-- 
It was in last month's Chess Life that Larry Evans answers this
question.  He claims that just the moves can be freely re-distributed,
and annotations can be also - if included is the name of the source of the
material.  I've seen plenty of chess books - primarily books on various
openings - that mostly repeat ECO lines without giving credit.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 17 moves 1-21
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:21:04 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 18:18 GMT
   Fischer Spassky
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 c5
   2. Nc3 Nc6
   3. Nge2 e6
   4. g3 d5
   5. exd5 exd5
   6. Bg2 d4
   7. Nd5 Nf6
   8. Nef4 Nxd5
   9. Nxd5 Bd6
   10. 0-0 0-0
   11. d3 Be6
   12. Nf4 Bf5
   13. h3 Rb8
   14. Bd2 Re8
   15. Re1 Rxe1+
   16. Qxe1 Qd7
   17. g4 Re8
   18. Qd1 Bxf4
   19. Bxf4 Be6
   20. Qf3 Nb4
   21. Qxb7 Nxc2
From: mjn@ukc.ac.uk (M.J.Neish)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II Ratings
Date: 7 Oct 92 10:30:05 GMT
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

Hello,

Well, I never thought I would enter this tedious discussion about
performance ratings in the Fischer-Spassky match, but I feel I must
contribute now. I am certainly NO expert in this Elo rating system,
but what has struck me is that most people seem to agree that Spassky
is overly motivated and is hence performing better than he has done
in recent years. But, wasn't he feeling "unwell" for a period of time 
at the start of this match? Moreover, his illness coincided, unsurprisingly,  
with his four straight defeats, and it is these defeats which are weighing
the performance ratings so heavily in Fischer's favour. After a rest, during
which the match has been transferred to Belgrade (I believe) Spassky seems
to be at least holding his own (yes, okay, only two games so far). The
frequency at which the games are being played, coupled with the new
clock, and goodness knows what else, makes accurate assessment, in my
opinion, quite impossible.

Of course, I understand that most people, including myself, are quite
excited about Fischer's comeback and are eager to contemplate on results
of possible encounters with other players. But I'm afraid we'll just
have to "wait and see". I personally feel (and it is only a "feeling")
that Fischer will take his money and run, so to speak.

It's a pity.

Mike.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:16:19 EDT
From: Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Solvability - new angle

In article <BvnMpp.5tw.1@cs.cmu.edu>, rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva) says:
>
>It has been claimed, with some justification, that Unending games cannot be
                      ???????????????????????


>regarded as Draws.  However, because of the finite number of different game
>states, this does not prevent a mini-max procedure from deciding whether a
>given position is won for one side or the other.  Hence it is decidable in
>finite time and space whether the starting position is a win for White, a win
>for Black, or a win for neither.
>

I do not agree that Unending games cannot be regarded as Draws.  However,
some private correspondence has been placed some doubt in my mind in
at least on respect.  That is, if an Unending game is not treated as a Draw,
then where is it in the hierarchy "White can force a win", "Black can
force a win", or "a Draw can be forced"?  And if you cannot properly
place "Unending" in the "White wins", "Draw", and "Black wins" hierarchy,
then how do you perfrom the minimax procedure?

For the purposes of the minimax backing up procedure, you certainly
have W > D > B (where White is max and is seeking to maximize and Black
is min and is seeking to minimize).  I have been claiming that an
Unending game is a Draw, that W > D = U > B, and that therefore the
search tree is finite and solvable.

If, however, you grant that an Unending game is not a Draw, then where do
you place U?  Is it maybe U > W > D > B, or maybe W > D > B > U?  Indeed,
are all Unending positions equal?

This whole problem is avoided entirely if Unending games are simply regarded
as Draws.  Any Unending game can be reduced to "White cannot force a win and
Black cannot force a win".  It escapes me why the condition "White cannot
force a win and Black cannot force a win" cannot properly regarded as a Draw.

Notwithstanding the issue of whether an Unending game is properly treated
as a Draw, it has been suggested to me (once again in private correspondence)
that chess is solvable even if Unending games are not treated as Draws.
That's one I am going to have to think about, and I would be forever
grateful if some kind soul could explain how chess can be solved if you
are not willing (or are unable) to determine where a U is in the
W, D, B hierarchy.

On another issue, it was pointed out to me via private correspondence that
K vs. K and certain other "insufficient material" situations such as
K+N vs. K are explicitly declared to be Draws in the laws of chess, and
such situations are therefore not Unending games that would need
to be claimed to be a Draw by one or other of the players.  In that
light, perhaps a better example of a simple, Unending position was
the one someone posted recently of K+Q vs. K+Q, where the best either
player could do was shuttle queens back and forth to avoid losing.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:25:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.040127.7358@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.005143.29396@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:
>
>>[I agree with the article. Just a little correction:]
>
>>  Do you think Botvinnik, out of chess
>>for longer than Fischer, could even make it to an interzonal?
>
>I think Botvinnik has not been out of chess longer than Fischer. In 1970, he
>was still on the USSR team (10 boards) against the rest of the world. 
>Considering his character, I doubt that he quit suddenly, so I bet he played 
>later than 1972.
>
>Not that it matters now, when he is 81 years old...
>
>	Sven

Why thank you!  This proves might point even better.  Here we have M.M.
Botvinnik, a former world champion and a more active player than Fischer.
He certainly has a better claim.  Hell, being world champ two times has got
to be better than Fischer single undistinguished reign.  It could even be
said that Botvinnik has brought more to chess than Fischer.  He has made
many contributions to computer chess.  I believe that the availablilty of
a strong opponent who doesn't gloat, plays whenever you want, and lets you
take back moves has contributed every bit as much too chess as Fischer.

The point of all this is:

1. No one has any clue how good Fischer is, beyond the fact that he is probably
better than Spassky.  Since Elo reflects a career as opposed to current ability,Spassky's world champion past could be boosting a 2300 for all we know.

2. No one knows whether the admittedly dominant Fischer of '67-'72 could deal
with today's elite, much less the Fischer of today.  

3. No one knows how good Fischer is going to get.  20 years is long time to
go without a decent game of chess.  After a year hiatus I bragged about how
I beat a ~2000 level player, only to get tromped by the 3rd runner up in a
ten person dorm championship.  But I'm no Bobby Fischer...

So be patient.  Where not going to know these things until AFTER Fischer has
play ~50 more games with ACTIVE and ESTABLISHED players.  Even then, I would
attribute 50 straight lossed to rust, and not write him off.

To all those Fischer groupies out there.  Fischer is a MAN who plays a GAME.
He hasn't walked on water recently.  And he has as much claim to the world
championship as M.M. Botvinnik.
From: albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Winning with the XYZ opening
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:43:41 GMT


Well, I'm sure that Joel Benjamin could defeat me playing many of the
openings/defenses that are surveyed in books called `winning with the...'

Seriously, the above discussion might lead someone to think that as long
as the book *doesn't* have a facetious title, then it must be ok.  In
reality, one has to be careful with *any* opening book, especially those
that deal with openings that are either innocuous or bad, but claim ways

the problem is that many opening books are written by chess players who
are trying to generate income as their motivation for writing the book.
if an opening isn't so great, the book isn't going to sell alot of
copies by bashing the opening and putting it in it's proper place.

my favorite example is a book on the Nimzovitch Defense, by, if i remember
correctly, Tim Harding. he offers `new ideas' in the lines `thought to be a
refutation' of the defense, suggesting that black has good counter chances
[but you must read very carefully] against opponents unlikely to `know how to
justify the +/-' the whole thing is in a positive tone, and is written
in a deceptive fashion.  i don't know what the latest word of theory on the
defense is, I am only relaying what is in the book.

i am suspicious of opening books where none of the authors are GMs, and very
suspicious of opening books where none of the authors are even IMs.  if
you have an opening book by someone rated lower than, say, 2300 USCF, it may
be of value if it is a book for a beginner explaining ideas, but if it
is intended as an analytical work, be wary.  You are either getting a
regurgitation of the analysis that can be found elsewhere, or evaluations
in the context of the positional judgment of a player not in the 
competitive echelons by international standards.  [Of course, a regurgitation
of analysis found elsewhere is of value, but view it for what it is, basically
an index into and reprinting of the sources of material on the opening.]
And, 2300 USCF is probably too low of a cut off, I just used it as an example,
since there are indeed many opening books where the highest rated author is
rated below even that.

Unfortunately, chess is not organized as a scholarly activity, so that chess
publications are not scrutinized by a referee, as would be the case for
scholarly works.  Rather, we have a situation where chess players must try to
balance their chess with making a living.

Of course an author who is a GM doesn't guarantee honesty.  Even informants are
likely to be problematic, where an international competitor doesn't want
to `spill the beans' on a discovery that may be useful in a future game. 

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
From: abel@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Abel Yvon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Capablanca vs Rubinstein
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:16:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Universite de Montreal

If we begin to talk about who has been the greatest chess player of all times,
we will start a so long discussion that I fear it will never end (a little like
the solvability of chess). The same about who has been the greatest chicken.
But for the latter I have an idea: it was without any doubt Howard Staunton,
who refused many times a match to Paul Morphy.
But when we talk about the greatest of ALL TIMES, a recent and supposed very
serious study based on life performances ranked:

                 - First: Kasparov (without any doubt, is that clear?)
                 - Second: Karpov
                 - Third: Bobby.

I remember that I was sad when I read that. But any reasonable chess player
will have to recognize it. Gary is really strong. What can we do?
But without any solid criteria, anybody can say anything about it. There had
been so much talented chess player that we can cover many pages of text just
by writing their names. Morphy? Steinitz? Lasker? Capablanca? Alekhin? Euwe?
Botvinnik? Tal? Fischer? Deep Thought?

I read in previous articles the names of Capablanca and Rubinstein. Here's
an interesting game played between the two, in Berlin 1928 (maybe Hitler was
there, we donno):

J.R. Capablanca - A. Rubinstein

1.d4,d5 2.Nf3,c5 3.dc5,e6 4.e4,Bc5 5.ed5,ed5 (Oops! An isolated pawn already!)
6.Bb5+,Nc6 7.o-o,Nge7 8.Nbd2,o-o 9.Nb3,Bb6 10.Re1,Bg4 11.Bd3,Ng6 12.h3,Bf3
13.Qf3,Nce5 14.Qf5 (It looks like the knight on g6 is pinned so, JRC is simply
threatening Re5, crushing everything),Nd3 15.Qd3,d4? (What is this, ah la la)
16.Bd2,Qf6 17.Re4,Rad8 18.Rae1,Qc6 19.g3,Rfe8 20.Ba5 (A Bobby-like move!),Re4
21.Qe4,Nf8 (Still trying to defend that stupid pawn) 22.Qc6,bc6 23.Re7,Rd5
24.Bb6,ab6 25.Rb7,Nd7 26.Rc7,Rd6 27.Rc8+,Nf8 28.Nd2,c5 29.Nc4,Re6 30.Rb8 (This
game is a beauty. See how it seems to be so easy for JRC),Re1+ 31.Kg2,g5
(Now it looks like Ruby is very angry. He does not like it ok?) 32.a4!,Ra1
33.Nb6,Kg7 34.Rc8 (Not again please!),Ne6 35.Nd7,Ra4 36.Nc5,Rb4 37.Nd3,Rb5
38.Kf3,h6 39.b4,h5 40.g4,hg4+ 41.hg4,f6 42.Rc4 (Ah no! Not again that stupid
pawn!),Kf7 43.Nc5,Nd8 44.Nb3  1-0

You see how it's easy? But JRC encountered a wall, and its name was ALEKHIN.
So.

P.S.: And what about Philidor?
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: When Deep Thought Beats Kasparov...
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:27:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct10.022742.16222
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Oct10.033527.3477@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>No, I was not joking. Kasparov and his heirs will have access to winning 
>games and TN lines of play that Deep Thought will have used. Never mind
>how DT got there.

Kasparov and other GMs already have a constant source of TNs: other
GMs.  Each new TN in theory contributes an infinitesimal bit to
accumulated skill of the top players, and probably does little to
their over all winning precentage.  If you don't work on your TNs,
you'll start losing, but since everyone else at that level is TN-ing,
it evens out.  Except for the Kasparovs, Karpovs, etc., but even then
I don't think it's such a big deal in the big picture because they
still have the win the game, and that's why they're the best players.

The computer's biggest contribution to theory will be in the endgame, but
if computers do become skillful enough, Kasparov won't make it that
far to use his new knowledge.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138            
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: turo1953@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Arthur Pomeroy)
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:27:14 GMT

Perhaps we should ask that players making comments on this topic also post
their ELO rating. The comments on whether there are many players with much
more interesting output than Fischer's express an aesthetic judgement, but one
which is perhaps best left to those who are capable of judging. Certainly
there are many GMs and a few world champions (e.g. Kasparov, while Fischer
seemed to be in permanent retirement) who have expressed their admiration
for Fischer's play. To say his games are boring is simply a personal 
expression of one's reaction to his style. Personally, I like games with
clear strategic plans carried out with precision -- and this is usually
Fischer's strength. Tactics are a bonus.
As to whether Fischer dominated chess from 1967 on, it is clear that the
claim is not unreasonable. Statistics don't show everything (otherwise 
Portisch would appear to dominate with his numerous tournament wins in
the period!). I think a case could be made out for Larsen being almost 
as important at this time -- unfortunately he never did well in the world
championship matches. 
Re. Sousse: please don't refer to Stein as a patzer (nor Reshevsky and
some of the others). The view of most strong players at the time was that
Fischer would have won the tournament if he had stayed.
Art Pomeroy
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: asdf@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (matthew.s.chen)
Subject: Re: Novice Question - Openings/Books
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:24:34 GMT

In article <21413@drutx.ATT.COM> connors@drutx.ATT.COM (ConnorsPA) writes:
>My favourite single-volume openings book is "Kurs Debyutov",
>("An Opening Course") by Panov and Estrin. This, **very** unfortunately,
>exists only in Russian. The latest edition that I have, the 5th,
>was published in 1973.

I think this may have been translated as "Comprehensive Chess Openings"
by Panov & Estrin, published by Pergamon.  I saw an advertisement for a
new English edition by MacMillan a couple of years ago, but am not aware
of it being published.

						Matthew Chen



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess