HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Tie breaks for 5 Swiss Systems
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:12:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.165650.1285@cs.ucf.edu> jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas) writes:
>Why not "average opponent's established ratings"?  

For one reason - it might lead to horrible disputes about the pairings
for the last round.  The pairing directly influences the tiebreak (if
any). 

>...If I beat an Expert
>who just happened to be having a rotten tournament, should that be worth
>more than beating a 1650 who was otherwise lucky (or playing above his
>head) and had a good score (and performance rating) just this once?  Or
>not? 

Not, in my opinion.  Ideally, the tiebreak should involve something
which happenned during *this* tournament.




-- 
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
From: palsberg@daimi.aau.dk (Jens Palsberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: IBM Deep Blue
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:15:49 GMT
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark

From the danish national chess magazine "Skakbladet" (12, 1992):

  IBM announces that the worlds strongest chess computer
  "IBM Deep Blue" will be presented to the world
  in Copenhagen, Denmark, in February 24-27, 1993.
  The major attraction is a four-games match between
  "IBM Deep Blue" and danish GM Bent Larsen.
  The games will be played daily 11-17.

(The above is _not_ a quote, merely my brief summary of an article 
and an IBM advertisement).

--
Jens Palsberg  
Computer Science Department, Aarhus University,
Ny Munkegade, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pjj+@cs.cmu.edu (Peter Jansen)
Subject: Re: Alekhine attack in French defense
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:31:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.151250.19481@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>In article <breuker.724580257@cs.rulimburg.nl> breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis
>Breuker) writes:
>>
>>It's the variation after (actually it's called Alekhine-Chatard):
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4!?
>>(for instance 6...Bxg5 7.hxg5 Qxg5 8.Nh3 ...)
>
>     I always thought it was called that also, but recently
>     a friend of mine called it:
>
>     Albin-Chatard Attack!
>
>     I thought he was wrong, but showed me 2 different citings
>     with this name (one was Openings for the Club Player, Harding).
>     In most books I've seen it it's called Alekhine-Chatard, as
>     was said here.
>
>     Does anyone know the definitive answer here?
>
>-Mark

In 'My best games of chess 1908-1923' Alekhine includes the game
Alekhine-Fahrni (Mannheim 1914):

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nd7 6. h4!

"This energetic move has been especially played in off-hand games by the
 ingenious Paris amateur, M. Eugene Chatard, and previously by the Viennese
 master, A. Albin. It was during the present game that it was introduced
 for the first time in a Master Tournament."

The game continued (the exclams are Alekhine's)

6. ... Bxg5

"6. ... O-O, adopted on several occasions in international tournaments
 in recent years, was refuted by Bogoljuboff in his game against
 Spielmann at Vienna 1922, which continued 7. Bd3 c5 8. Nh3! Re8
 9. Nb5 f5 10. Nd6 cxd4 11. Nxe8 Qxe8 12. Bb5! and White should win.
 6. ... c5, and if 7. Nb5 then 7. ... f6 seems somewhat better."

7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3 Qe7

"After 8. ... Qh6 Black's Queen would be in a precarious position,
 and in this case White could gradually have strengthened his position
 by 9. g3 and 10. Bg2."

9. Nf4 Nf8

"White refutes this plausible move by an enterprising attack, but against
 any other reply he would have obtained ample compensation for the Pawn
 sacrificed." [further comments omitted]

10. Qg4! f5 11. exf6(EP) gxf6 12. O-O-O c6 13. Re1 Kd8 14. Rh6! e5
15. Qh4 Nbd7 16. Bd3 e4 17. Qg3! Qf7 18. Bxe4! dxe4 19. Nxe4 Rg8
20. Qa3! Qg7 21. Nd6! Nb6 22. Ne8! Qf7 23. Qd6+
"and mates in 2 moves."


-- Peter
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Chess computer game... which one?
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:19:08 GMT

In article <exunmk.47.0@exu.ericsson.se> exunmk@exu.ericsson.se (Noel Kerns) writes:
>In article <b2cbb62e@Kralizec.fido.zeta.org.au> patrick.mcdonald@f605.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Patrick McDonald) writes:
>>From: patrick.mcdonald@f605.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Patrick McDonald)
>>Subject: Chess computer game... which one?
>>Date: 13 Dec 92 12:47:17 GMT
>
>>Original to: Nllopis@Ecs.Umass.Edu
>>Hi there, Nllopis@Ecs.Umass.Edu. On Dec 09, you wrote:
>
>> -}I currently use Chessmaster 3000 and I think is great (with
>> -}all the Mentor options and all that). 
>> -}Are there any other ones as good or better?
>
>>Many. Best are MCHESS and MCHESS PRO. Next would be ZARKOV and
>>KNIGHTSTALKER. After this, REXCHESS. GRANDMASTER is a slightly weaker
>>version of ZARKOV. All these are, however, much stronger than CM3000.
>
>>                             Patrick
>> 
>
>Understood. But how mant of us really NEED a chess program stronger than 
>CM3000?  (I like the Windows version myself, and unlike many folks on the 
>NET, I've had little to no problems with it.)  For most of us a 2100-2200 
>program (486/33) is more than adequate for both playing and analysing.  
>Obviously, there's nothing wrong with owning a stronger program, but there 
>rapidly comes a point of dimishing return where the extra dollars would be 
>better spent (for most of us) on improved features instead of eaking out 50 
>more rating points. Just my thoughts........
>

The best reason I have ever heard for a "stronger" chess program -->  the
fact that it is stronger lets you handicap it by making it move quicker.
Then, your games (practice) are more fun.  The idea:  with a 1800 program
(assuming you are 1800) you can play a 40/2 tournament game and spend half
your time "waiting" since the program will really "use" all of it's clock
time by the 40th move.  If the program is 2200, you can play at 40/2 and
let the program play at 40/.5 (or whatever makes the rating difference more
equal).  Then, most of your game is spent with YOU analyzing your next
move, and not waiting much on your opponent.  Seems to work.....

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: simanovs@athena.cs.uga.edu (Alexander Simanovsky)
Subject: Looking to buy a used Chess Clock.
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:47:29 GMT


Greetings - A friend of mine (who does not have access to the net) is
looking to buy a used chess clock.  Nothing fancy; something simple that
works well will suffice.  If anyone has a clock lying around collecting
dust, drop me some e-mail with your best price and I will pass the info to
my friend.  Thanks a lot.

Alex Simanovsky - UGA Law '95            "We suspend our disbelief...
simanovs@athena.cs.uga.edu                  And we are entertained"
From: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (Steven Rix)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
Date: 17 Dec 92 10:09:42 GMT
Reply-To: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk
Organization: Edinburgh University Chemical Engineering Department.
Originator: steven@gour

In article 34164@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU, mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg) writes:
>DMC asks what basis are the GMs using for saying that Fischer is not
>as good as he was.
>
>I wonder if DMC read Joel Benjamin's article.  If he did (I am guessing
>he didn't based on rather strong circumstantial evidence) then I don't
>think this question is so hard to answer.  Look at the games!  Look
>at the notes to the games!  Compare with Fischer's fluid handling of
>similar positions in his prime!

I think that DMC is basing his comments on the nature of the JB article. From
the title onwards ("Bobby's back - but what does it mean?"), the reader finds 
what COULD be interpreted as a personal attack on Fischer. Of course, Fischer's
attitudes are offensive (maybe he has a mental problem). But I don't think it
follows that because he is twisted up he cannot possibly play 2700 chess.
"Shortly we will take a look", says JB. This COULD be interpreted as prejudging
Fischer's chess on the quality of his personality, and choosing games where 
Fischer plays attrociously to illustrate the point (or else attributing Fischer's
"brilliant win" in game 1 to Spassky's bad play).

That said, I think that most of JB's statements are fair comment, albeit from a 
one-sided point of view.

>Come now, we're not going to dispute that Fischer is somewhat past his
>prime, are we?
>
>-mark

Of course, if Fischer REALLY is 2620, he has slipped a lot in real rating terms.
2780 in 1972 must be worth much more nowadays (maybe 2850+?) due to inflation in
the Elo system (count the number of 2600+ players then and now). DMC etc are
saying this is ENTIRELY due to the nature of the clock. Do you agree?
From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Dennis Baker
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:19:14 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business


Kudos to worthless non-GM D. Goldfarb and to worthless non-GM B. Harper 
for somehow resisting the inexorable tidal wave of fluff that seems
to be buffeting us from the midwest.

--Worthless IM Mark Ginsburg

(bitter, jealous).

[p.s. at least I beat scratchy a couple of times before it becomes
 invincible.]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: This has gone far enough! Stop avoiding the issues!
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:40:53 GMT

Rather than "avoiding the issues", let's avoid the argument.  Strong
Grandmasters can disagree on their assessment of a position - which is a good
thing for chess.  Trying to figure out how much Fischer has lost on the basis
of one match is silly.

Trying to justify every move Fischer made on the one hand, or holding him to
an impossibly high standard on the other, isn't getting anyone anywhere.  Nor
is impugning Joel Benjamin's motives, even if you don't agree with his
analysis.  Probably only Fischer could clear up some of the mystery, and
since he doesn't care, why should we?

Maybe Short and Timman will rescue us from all this.
From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Subject: Re: Chess Problem Question
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:31:27 GMT

Benjamin Sloss writes
> douglasy@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Douglas W. Yee) writes:
> >
> >
> >A month ago, I spotted one of Ed Maillet's "To Play and Win" problems 
> >in _Chess Bits_.  Since I was not able to solve the problem, I 
> >eagerly awaited the answer which was posted a couple days ago.  The
> >original problem was as follows:
> >
> >>  White: Ra1 Rf1 Kg1 Pa2 Pb2 Pc2
> >>         Pf2 Pg2 Ph2 Qb3 Bc3 Pg7
> >>
> >>  Black: Bc6 Qe6 Pf6 Pa7 Pb7 Pc7
> >>         Ph7 Kb8 Re8 Rg8
> >>
> >>       Black to play. Mate in 6
> >My question is what is the continuation for:
> >
> >   1. Qe6-h3    Pf2-f3
> >   2. Rg8xg7    Pg2-g3
> 
>  after 	1. .. Qh3
> 	2. f3 Rxg7
> 	3. g3 Re2
> 
> White's fate is sealed:
> 	4. Rf2  Rxg3+
> 	5. hxg3 Qxg3+
> 	6. Kh1  Bxf3+
> 	7. Rxf3 Qg2++

But that's mate in 7!
--
CONFIG.DAT not found.  Reboot universe?
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: A warrant issued for Bobby Fischer's arrest.
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:21:31 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec16.023156.27727@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
> The AP wire referred to Fischer's recent match againt 'the Russian
> Boris Spassky'.  Sure, we all know he was from the USSR, but isn't he a
> French citizen now?  Therefore wouldn't it be technically incorrect to
> refer to Spassky as Russian?

Not if you mean as in ancestory/place of birth.



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jm13@ellis.uchicago.edu (Kermit T. Frog)
Subject: US Amateur Team East
Reply-To: jm13@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Harvard Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:06:56 GMT

I am part of a team going to the US Amateur Team East in February
in Somerset, NJ.  Our three ratings are 2206, 2142, and 2084, for 
an average of 2144.  If anyone rated either 2368 or below would like to join
us, please reply to meltzer@husc.harvard.edu.  Thanks.

Jonathan Meltzer

-- 
jm13@quads.uchicago.edu

"I may not understand what you say, but I'll defend to your death 
 my right to deny it." -- Albert, from 'Outrageously Pogo'
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert)
Subject: Re: Fischer Boom II
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:44:28 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories -- Database Technology Dept

In article <1992Dec17.172653.15466@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> pauln@cbnewsi.cb.att.com
(paul.h.nelson) writes:

   I don't know about UCSF membership, but the traffic in this newsgroup
   has increase significantly.

Yes, it has increased alot, but I haven't seen much increase in traffic 
containing useful and/or interesting posts on the subject of chess.

joseph albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
From: jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: US Championship Round 8 GAMES
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:34:29 GMT
Organization: Econometrics Laboratory, U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily3.berkeley.edu

|> 
|> Round 8
|> 1-0 Gurevich,D-Benjamin,J
|> 0-1 Shirazi,K-Gurevich,I
|> 1-0 Sherzer,A-Ivanov,I
|> 1-0 Yermolinsky,A-Browne,W
|> 1/2 Men,B-Gulko,B
|> 1/2 Dzindzichashvili,R-Rachels,S
|> 1-0 Wolff,P-Seirawan,Y
|> 1-0 Fedorowicz-Ivanov,A
|> 
|> Standings After 8:
|>   6-2   Sherzer
|>   5-3   Seirawan Wolff D.Gurevich I.Gurevich Fedorowicz
|> 4.5-2.5 Gulko Dzindzichashvili
|>   4-2   Yermolinsky Men
|> 3.5-4.5 Browne Rachels
|>   3-5   Benjamin A.Ivanov I.Ivanov
|>   0-6   Shirazi

The game score which follows shows Wolff-Seirawan 1/2-1/2 and there's no
Fedorowicz-Ivanov.
From: sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 19 Dec 1992 01:04:18 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: photon.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec18.210943.10605@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1gpafnINN8bb@tamsun.tamu.edu> sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
>>
>>                   Couldn't we better use that "slot" in prison for housing
>>someone that is an actual threat to society?
>
>By your logic, we should pardon WWII war criminals who are now 80+ years old
>and definitely do not pose any actual threat to society.
>
>	Sven
>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but WWII war criminals were guilty of comitting
_crimes_ (important word here). Let me guess, they are all being jailed
because they played chess... Oh, that's right - it was a crime
to play chess in Yugoslavia. Why? Because I said so. Yeah, but
am I _victimizing_ anyone? No, but it's guilt by association son.
Yes sir, but then why aren't you joining me Mr. President?
Son, you aren't supposed to ask that. Oh, sorry. Status quo all
the way, sir. Let's put that bastard in prison! He deserves it
much more than those wonderful people that actually victimized 
someone..........

Okay, enuff parody. Suffice it to say that I'd prefer that
Sven NOT be the one responsible for telling me what my logic
"means". Thanks, Sven, but I'll speak for myself.

-steve harrington
-texas a&m university
-ics::cowboy
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: A warrant issued for Bobby Fischer's arrest.
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:31:56 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

The AP wire referred to Fischer's recent match againt 'the Russian
Boris Spassky'.  Sure, we all know he was from the USSR, but isn't he a
French citizen now?  Therefore wouldn't it be technically incorrect to
refer to Spassky as Russian?

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:34:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.132520.549@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>
>How is the US claim, that it can enact laws which attempt to exercise control
>over people outside of its territories, any different than the Iranian claim
>that it can pass judgment on Salman Rushdie for writing a book while he was in
>Great Britain?
>
>I eagerly await a mature response which addresses these questions...
>
>DMC
>  

How about this:

	I, a high level military official, hop on a plane to say, China, an
	tell them all about secret US millitary installations.  Would the US
	have the right to try me for treason, in effect, exercising control
	over people outside of its territories?

Granted, Fischers acts are not neatly as odious.  But this is not the part
of the argument I am addressing.  My scenerio is an attempt to provide an
example wha country may have the right to try on of its cite  And
make no mistake, Fischer is an American citizen who has had thnifits of
a country whose standard of living is high enough to allow for professional
chess players.  Nomany Somolians (or Bosnians) in the Candidates cycle
this time 'round, were there?

-- 
-Tim Cuffel	Finger for PGP 2.1 

CIA, FBI, terrorism, assassination, cryptography, RSA, cocaine, DEA, Swiss bank
account.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: Fischer to play Ljubojevic
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:59:12 GMT

I'm sure Fischer's lawyers will check the status of Spain's extradition laws
(or his next match might be against Dennis Howard Marks...)

[apologies if this joke is too obscure]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gsandova@condor.dpi.udec.cl (Gustavo Sandoval T)
Subject: a
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 10:34:10 GMT
Organization: Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcion - Chile
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

alo

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:35:16 -0500 
From: Bruce_Leverett@transarc.com
Subject: Arrest warrant for Fischer, and related topics

Events have overtaken me.  A couple of weeks ago, in a message I posted to
r.g.c., I said this:

>Seriously, I would like to remind everyone that Fischer has not been
>convicted for this ``crime.''  He isn't even a fugitive.  The Treasury has
>sent him a warning, but warnings are cheap; no government has taken any
>serious action against him, such as issuing an arrest warrant.  I think that
>as Americans, we should not forget the concept of ``innocent until proven
>guilty.''  Moreover, it is unlikely that Fischer will ever be convicted of
>any crime.  In a few years, the Yugoslavian civil war will come
>to an end, one way or another.  When that happens, Fischer will come home--if
>he wants to.  I predict Milan Panic will do more time than Bobby Fischer.
>You read it here first.

As you all know by now, the U.S. government has issued an arrest warrant.
No doubt they were tuned in to r.g.c. and realized that I had called their
bluff.

I still say, ``innocent until proven guilty.''  But I also say, r.g.c.
readers, if you get offers to play chess in Serbia or Montenegro for big
bucks, think twice!

I have personally ascertained that the upcoming Echonet vs. r.g.c. challenge
match will NOT be played in Yugoslavia.  (Participants will, however, be
nude.)

Bruce "not IM-size" Leverett
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Dennis Baker
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:38:24 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I agree with worthless non-GM Ginsburg that I want Dennis Baker to come back.
You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone...
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: davez@brahms.udel.edu (David Micha Zlotkin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: play by e-mail?
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:21:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bz3xoC.Hw6
Distribution: rec.games.chess
Organization: University of Delaware


   This is my first posting to this group, and I was wondering if 
anybody was interested in playing chess by e-mail. I'm an okay
chess player, but haven't played in a while, since I haven't found
an opponent. If there's anybody interested, please e-mail me at
davez@brahms.udel.edu. Thanx!

						Dave
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:53:55 GMT


Let me make a couple of suggestions and an observation:

READ Joel Benjamin's article.  Unless you can point out areas where
you essentially disagree with the analysis which leads him to his
conclusions, people will ignore you, with good reason.  You have asked
the GMs to address the issues: to my mind it is you who are ignoring 
them by avoiding the analytical issues.

When a player who has avoided the FIDE world title cycle claims to be
world champion and in the same breath claims that all of the world
champions since 1974 have conspired to fix matches, games and moves of
games, we have a right to look at his games and decide whether his
claim has any validity.  The consensus of informed opinion seems to be
that even taking into consideration the match conditions, F's claim is
ludicrous.  If you wish to dispute this conclusion, that's up to you.
If you wish to persuade others to take your opinion seriously, you have
to do what serious individuals do: analyze the games and argue from that
analysis.  To date neither Mr Wedding or you have done so.  I therefore
suggest that you are not a person to be taken seriously.  When you do
so, I'll look at your analysis with the greatest possible interest, and
you may even persuade me.  But that can't happen until you decide to be
serious.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Dershowitz on Fischer
Date: 16 Dec 1992 18:40:23 GMT
Organization: Econometrics Laboratory, U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily7.berkeley.edu

Today on National Public Radio, Alan Dershowitz was laying out a possible 
case for Bobby Fischer should he choose to face the charges in court.  The case
would rest on the argument that enforcing the sanctions in this case would
be a violation of Fischer's First Ammendment rights.  Dershowitz was saying
that Fischer could argue that playing chess was more of a form of artistic
expression than a commercial venture.

Why Dershowitz was speaking for Bobby was not made clear.  It was never stated
that he had been hired by Fischer or if he was just giving his opinion for free.  
From what I know about Dershowitz, I personally find the latter unlikely.

By the way, in case you don't know, Alan Dershowitz is famous for defending
Klaus(sp?) von Bulow, Mike Tyson and other famous  and controversial figures.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Ely                         |    "He said the Sun's not yellow...  
Department of Economics          |     It's Chicken!" 
UC Berkeley                      |
jeff@econ.berkeley.edu           |    
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess