HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,sci.math
Subject: Re: infinite chess checkmates
Keywords: infinite board chess
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:14:52 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <BvC5sM.H4H@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) writes:
>Well a number of people have posted their opinions as to the minimum sets
>of pieces that might mate a lone king on an infinite board.
>
>e.g.     . . N N .
>         . . . . .
>         . . . . .
>         . . k . .
>         . . P P .
>         . . K . .  White (moving up) has just advanced the right pawn; mate !
>              Bill Taylor              wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz

         . . N . .
         . . . . .
         . . . . .
         . P k . .
         . . P P .
         . . K . .  White (moving up) has just advanced the right pawn

just replace that 2nd knight with a pawn....

- nate, off the cuff
From: carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: A question about simple endgames
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:49:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

Here is a question of a mathematical nature...

   In each case below, what is the smallest number, N, such that White can 
   force mate (White moves first) in N moves, regardless of position?

   a)  K+Q v K   
   b)  K+R v K
   c)  K+B+B v K
   d)  K+B+N v K

   (e.g., in a K+Q v K ending, the winning player (on move) can always win in
    10 moves (or fewer), so N<= 10 in case a.  Of course, N<50 in every case,
    or these would not be won endings.) 

David Caraballo

  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair)
Subject: strong chessplayer parents with strong children?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:08:43 GMT

   I read somewhere that neither of the Polgar sister's parents
is a really strong player (unclear what ``strong'' means in this
context, but I got the impression that neither one was ever
master strength).  Waitzkin's description of parents of chess
prodigies makes clear that the children are outplaying their parents
quite early.

   This leads me to wonder about cases of parent and child both being
strong.  According to the Oxford Companion, the grandmaster
Milan Vidmar (I'm told he was a big deal in electrical engineering.
Can anybody give details about this?) had a son who became an international
master.  I think the mother of the English champion Sir George Thomas 
won something like the British ladies' championship.  Are there other
cases?
Organization: Junior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Sat,  3 Oct 1992 14:59:18 -0400 
From: "Clifford T. Tanaka" <ct20+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Fischer-Kasparov Dec 1993?
	<1992Oct3.123503.10310@uoft02.utoledo.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.chess: 3-Oct-92 Re: Fischer-Kasparov Dec
1993? dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.e (1015)

> and while we're at it, i'm among the folks out here who are fed
> up with all the Bobby bashing. comments from people like, "he's 
> playing like he's rated 1600..." etc.

> hey, anybody can come up with a flawless game when it's adjourned and
> and army of seconds go over it! it's a different matter when you have
> to sit at the board for 7 hours by yourself and not make any mistakes.
> this is what will separate the men from the boys.


I don't think Fischer has much of a chance against Kasparov.  Fischer
just seemed to roll over and die for Spassky in game 12. I didn't
understand playing both c5 and a5, closing off the queenside completely
and giving white a free hand on the Kside. Black gets absolutely NO
counterplay at all.  
I got the impression at the start of the match that Fischer had no
intention of playing Kasparov when he called Kasparov one of the lowest
dogs or something like that and insisted that he was still the champ.  I
assume the match between Fischer and Kasparov if it were to take place
would have to be called a world championship match, but who would be the
challenger and who would be the champion??  There might be some problems
in arranging the match since both players insist he is the champion.
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Please stop
Date: 3 Oct 92 22:32:03 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1aduebINNiff@cascade.cs.ubc.ca> kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca (Kees van den Doel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.233850.25643@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>...
>>It is not possible, even in principle, to travel at the speed of light.
>>It is possible, however, to solve chess, at least in principle.
>>...
>>	Sven
>
>That is a *very* bad analogy.

What is your point? That is what I was saying. By taking my sentence apart,
you made it look like I was claiming the opposite.

Sven
From: greg@jaffna.berkeley.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Another mirror question
Date: 27 Sep 1992 23:22:23 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math Department
Distribution: world
Reply-To: greg@math.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: jaffna.berkeley.edu

Suppose you are playing a 5-year-old child who only knows the rules and
decides to mirror your moves.  Of course it is easy to come up with a
mate.  To make the question harder, as well as open to debate, suppose
you know that at some point the kid will panic and get mommy, a
grandmaster, to help him.  If your move can't be mirrored, mommy's
presence will be a sure bet.

You have to try to make strong intermediate positions, and you don't
have much time, since children tend to have short attention spans.  In
this circumstance, what would be the best line of play?

Please send a copy of your reply by mail.
From: kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca (Kees van den Doel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess Philosophy
Date: 26 Sep 1992 02:05:50 -0700
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca

Is chess solvable (in a mathematical sense)? Yes. Period. Anyone
who disagrees is wrong. Anyone who agrees is right, even if he
does not know the difference between "experiential" and 
"experimental" (I had to look it up too :-).

But I have a related problem, confusion, stupidity, whatever...
It's a bit long but it goes like this:


I am pretty sure that the initial position is not a win for black, but
if the hypothetical chess supercomputer would actually prove that by
computing the entire part of the game graph that is necessary for that
conclusion, then I would be a lot more certain. Still, there would be 
room for a little doubt, is there a bug somewhere, was there a hardware
problem that went by unnoticed, and even: can I really trust the foundations
of mathematics? (NB! It is provable that such a supercomputer can in
*principle* exist. This means that my doubt about the previous sentence
being true equals my doubt about the validity of mathematics, small but
nonzero.)
Now let's call my doubt about the truth of the statement "the initial 
position is not a win for black" _Doubt0_. And let's call my doubt
about the foundation of mathematics  _TheDoubt_. We have

    _Doubt0_ > _TheDoubt_ > 0

Now remove one of black's pawns from the board and repeat the above
arguments with a resulting doubt _Doubt1_. I'm *quite* certain black 
does not have a forced win with a pawn less, so we have

    _Doubt1_ < _Doubt0_

Removing more and more black pieces gives a decreasing sequences of
doubts. At a certain point we will obtain

   _Doubtx_ <= _TheDoubt_,

for me it's about at the rook odd's point, i.e. x = 5. The above
procedure can be used to find x for any chess player. Let's arbitrarily
define

X = maximum value of x taken over the set of all chess players
    rated >1700.

Now the problem "can black force a win" in chess[black-X] is "solved"
in the sense that all chess players rated >1700 are certain that the
answer is "no", and by construction this certainty cannot be made
greater by actually calculating it all out mathematically. If we
now repeat the arguments about the resources needed to construct
the ultimate computer to provide the mathematical proof we will
most likely get "huge_number" again, even at X odds. So how is
a chessplayer's brain able to do that what will need "huge_number"
amount of resources, both in time and space? Is it possible to arrive
at "correct" conclusions bypassing mathematics altogether?
Or is all this just bullshit?

Ideas, comments, refutations, flames are welcome! Orders to read
such and such book are not welcome.

--Kees
(kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mad4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Maddex)
Subject: more on game 11 (was Re: Kasparov speaks)
Reply-To: mad4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Pranksters for Peace
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 07:39:20 GMT

ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow) writes:

>[Kasparov] said 7.b4 wasn't such a big deal, that Spassky played poorly --
>10...exd4? noted especially, when 10...d6 and ...f6 would be thematic.
>Also, 12...Qb6 instead of 12...Qd7 (more ??s).  I wish I wasn't so wiped
>out, or I would have wanted to see this!

This makes a lot of sense to me, though I think 8...c5 looks pretty fishy as 
well.  I think Black's just busted after 14.Nc4.  Several people here have
suggested 14...Ne7, but that loses to 15.Ne6.  Wow, how does a GM get thrashed
so quickly several times?  Maybe he really is too sick to play, though that 
makes his stated ambition of winning seem a little pathetic.

>Meanwhile, note (now that you *can* get Informant 54!), that Game 162 is
>Kasparov-Salov, Sortmund 1992, which went 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6
>bxc6 5.O-O Bg7 6.Re1 Nf6 (which Kasparov gives a "N", which means Novelty,
>as in Theoretical Novelty, as in TN).

Gee, I thought 4.Bxc6 was new.  Could it be that Fischer, having got over the
bad preparation bug, is about to show just how much of Kasparov's published
analysis he's busted?-)  I don't have any of the relevant books, but how does
the English line this is the reverse of usually go?  

>So was Kasparov about to play (on 6...e5) 7.b4!?  I wish I could have been
>there to ask him! :-)

One final historical note:  as far as I know (admittedly not far at all) the 
only previous time Bobby played 3.Bb5 was against Matulovic(?) in Palma(?) in
'70(that I'm sure of), when he apparently had a novelty ready but was actually
badly prepared and got a wretched position.

>--Elliott

MADNESS
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva)
Subject: Re: solvability and the end of the universe
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:10:31 GMT

In article <BvHyCz.94A@acsu.buffalo.edu> v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
(Michael M Gorman Jr) writes:
>If you allow people to say things like, "The universe will end first," or
>"the computer will break down before it's through" and so forth, you're
>missing the point.  If you don't allow infinite calculation, infinite series,
>etc.  i n p r i n c i p l e , then mathematics just grinds to a halt.

Agreed.

>The point is: given an infinite time to think about it, is chess solvable.

Agreed, again, but that's too strong a statement for the current problem.  All
you need to solve chess is a large but finite length of time, and not infinite
time.  You also need a large amount of space to store the final solution, but
that's a different matter ... else you would know that chess is actually won
by <YFPCC>, but don't know how to carry out the win.

Rujith de Silva.
Carnegie-Mellon.

YFPCC ::= pigmentally-challenged | side-of-color
From: dmi@questrel.com (Dean Inada)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: What is this notation? Smythescript?
Keywords: Smythescript
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:10:34 GMT
Organization: Questrel, Inc.

In article <1992Oct1.225450.16006@husc3.harvard.edu> elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>for a really compact and opaque notation, list the legal moves from a given
>position in your favorite lexicographical order, so any move may be specified
>by a single character indicating its place in the lexicographic list and

Better, list by standard DT evaluation function, and arithmetic encode.
That way, reasonable games will tend to be even shorter.
From: James.Davies@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (James Davies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Progressive chess
Date: 24 Sep 92 21:18:35 CST

Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <Sep23.031051.84792@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) writes:
>jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) tries to negate my analysis via:
>
>>In article <Sep20.195726.83424@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) writes:
>>>tho@tik.vtt.fi (Timo Honkela) writes:
>>>>jtol (white) - tho (black), 18th of September, 1992
>>>>
>>>>1. d3
>>>>2. f6 d6
>>>>3. f3 e4 Be2
>>>>4. e5 Ke7 Nh6 g5
>>>>5. d4 dxe5 Bxg5 Nc3 exf6+
>>>>6. Kf7 Qxf6 Qxg5 Qc1 Qxa1 Qxd1+
>>>>7. Bxd1 e5 exd6 d7 dxc8Q Ke2 Qxc7+
>                            ***             NOTICE!  ATTENTION!
>>>>8. How does black mate?
>>>8. Kg6 Bc5 Nc6 Rad8 Rxd1 Rhd8 R8d2++ (doesn't even require all moves).
>>Rxd1 is check, so this isn't legal.
>
>I think my original line stands.  The king is not in check if it's on e2.

Right you are...sorry about that!

Anybody for a discussion about whether progressive chess is solvable? :-)

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:48:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.050207.19253@pony.Ingres.COM> jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black)
 writes:

>>How 'bout 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 Qxe5????
>>          6.Qxe5 and the mirror is cracked!
>>
>When I was a kid, my friends used to use this move copying strategy on me (so
>most of my early games were Petroff's!) but they never would have fallen for
>5. ... Qe5??? so the response was always 5. ... d6 instead, which regains the
>piece.
>
>What would you recommend against someone who decided to copy your moves, but
>wouldn't copy them if you made a move which required them to hang a piece (as
>the above does) or get mated in one move?  I realize this isn't a very precise
>definition, but you know what I mean... what would you have recommended to me
>when I was 12 years old and my friends were copying my moves?  Winning combos
>have to be at least a couple moves deep or they'll be detected...

The above line is still good, as Black must remain a pawn
down w/out compensation after 3.-Nxe4.  I wouldn't think that
Nxe4 could be an uncommon blunder for novices.  Note that Black
could also blunder on the 4th move with 4.-Nf6? 5.Nd6+.  I've
seen this happen before, but admittedly it is a BAD blunder.

The point is that White doesn't need to play any unreasonable
moves, and if Black copies (even to 3.-Nxe4) he gets a bad
(or losing) game.

-Mark
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:51:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23823
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <1992Oct6.103119.20658@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:

> When a position comes up for a 2nd time, we ASSUME it has the same
> value as the 1st time it came up.  (That is why we create loops in
> the graphs.)  In fact, it is clear that there will be multiple
> values (e.g., the right to draw after the 3rd repetition).  If we
> call the positions with different values "different positions"
> (which has been the proposed solution) we have no way of PROVING
> that the value continues to repeat as the position repeats.
> (I.e., the value of the position can be sequence dependent.)  So we
> are left with to permit either infinite positions or infinite
> values to finite positions.  In either case, its unsolvable.

Naah.  Each position can still be characterized by finite information:
the positions of the pieces, who can castle and on which side(s),
whether an EP capture is possible, how many times this position has
occurred before (this is finite because the only interesting values
are 0, 1, 2, or >=3), and how many moves must elapse without capture
or pawn move before you can claim a draw (this is finite because it
starts at 50 and gets smaller).

If you don't allow a player to claim a draw after 50 moves, that
reduces the amount of information in a position, rather than increasing
it.

Seen this way, the total number of positions, including relevant history,
is still finite, so it is still the case that one of the following is true:

	a. White can force a win from the initial position.
	b. Black can force a win from the initial position.
	c. Neither player can force a win from the initial position.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:50 PDT
Subject: Re: Assessing Fischer and opponents
Nf-ID: #R:1a4sumINNq5u@bigboote.wpi.edu:1596568160:cdp:1451600050:000:237
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Sep 27 19:50:00 1992


Without doing any research, I'm inclined to believe that the three Polgar
sisters have played a few dozen games (more than a dozen each) against 2600+
FIDE-rated opponents at normal tournament time controls.

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Living World Championsy
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:54:16 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1a2m2kINNoi3@agate.berkeley.edu>, mazzarel@spam.berkeley.edu (Ariel Mazzarelli) writes:
> I stopped to get some gas last night,  and I saw Tal buying a pack of Marlboros.
> 
> Ariel

i've heard rumors that his death was faked. apparantly, on his tombstone
his name is spelled...

   TAAL

even though he expressly stated in his will that his name be spelled
with only one 'A'. Also, he was not buried next to his mother as he
had requested.


don wedding


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ml@world.std.com (Mark Limont)
Subject: Test
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:28:04 GMT

This is a test

-- 
Mark Limont
ml@world.std.com

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jsm@fc.hp.com
 (John Marvin)
Subject: Re: Problem
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:25:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Workstation Kernel, Ft. Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.1 PL6]

Kees van den Doel (kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca) wrote:
: This problem was composed 30 years ago:
: 
: White: Ke1,Ra1,Re8
: Black: Kg2,Qh3,g3
: White to play and win.

Does this problem have a solution without castling? It would seem that
a problem that requires castling would at least specify that the King
and Rook have not moved.

	John Marvin
	jsm@fc.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: F-S II - Important reminder!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:37:25 GMT

Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:

>During the first half of the match, it was generally agreed to use the
>following three categories for postings:

>F-S II Game # (moves)
>F-S II Game # (analysis)
>F-S II Game # (gossip)

>The first category should be reserved for David Fry and others who do us all
>the great service of actually posting the moves to each game.  This lets
>people skip such postings when they already have the moves once (there's
>nothing wrong with having the moves posted several times, but no one wants to
>read them several times).

>The second category is for analysis of games which have already been posted.
>Several people posted opening analysis of Game 12 under the heading "moves".

>The third category is for press conferences, non-chess aspects of the match
>and (unfortunately) for those who wish to go on and on about Fischer's
>personality.  But at least the reader knows what he might be in for when he
>reads category three.

>To reinforce the point, I would ask people to post their agreement or
>disagreement with this system for handling the material relating to the match
>(or any other events which take place in the future).  I know David Fry uses
>it and I am most grateful.

This categorization makes perfect sense to me, and I strongly agree with
its intentions.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 13:40:16 GMT

In article <Sep.26.18.30.11.1992.2404@thorogood.rutgers.edu> miklas@thorogood.rutgers.edu (Keith Miklas) writes:
>suppose that you are playing a novice who is quite an inexperienced
>chessplayer.  He knows that you are a superior player, and decides to
>mirror each and every one of your moves.  What's the best strategy to
>play against this person?
>
>(ps don't play the stonewall! :)

there is an old story from Go as told by O.Korschelt.  Long ago the best
Go players were in china.  there was an arrangement of political cosmetics
whereby the Crown Prince of Japan was invited to play against the reigning
chimese champion.  the story goes that for years the chinese champion won.
then one year the Japanese prince of the time hit upon the idea of playing
his first Black stone in the exact center (K10) and then symmetrically made
mirror moves of white's, reflected through that stone.  the story also goes
that in this manner he actually won, by having the center stone link his
armies together at the end.  comments were made that - although highly
unlikely to be true - the level of play in china must not have been too
strong yet (remember Go is 4000 years old and this was from way back in
those early years, supposedly), for an easy strategem can be found to
foil this mirror.

cheers,

 - nate
From: ccecks@nuscc.nus.sg (Chua Kong Sian (Mr))
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: ChessBase vs. NICBase
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:12:52 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

Just a query.  Does ChessBase 4.0 includes KnightStalker?  Or do they
have to be purchased separately?  In browsing through certain chess
magazines, I noticed the word Fritz in relation to ChessBase 4.0.  Is
that another chess program?
From: Andrew.Koenig@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess is not solvable
Date: 25 Sep 92 05:55:30 GMT

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()

In article <1992Sep24.032123.5085@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:

> For the record, threefold repetition and the fifty-move rule do not result
> in an automatic draw---the draw must be CLAIMED (at least under USCF rules).
> Hence technically a chess game can go on forever, so the theorem that either
> chess is a draw or one side can force a win does not apply.

... except that there is only a finite number of possible positions anyway.


-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky game 15: bewilderment
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:02:37 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I don't have the position in front of me, but I would assume the draw is
something like Nf5+ gxf5; Qxf5 Rxb2; Qg5+ Kf8; Qd8+ and so on.

I haven't really looked at how all this came about - a dull game suddenly
became very lively.