HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer - Polgar/Kasparov update
Date: 20 Nov 1992 00:21:25 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniblab.aero.org

In article <1992Nov18.010145.15052@erg.sri.com> vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad) writes:
>In article <9549@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dab1+@pitt.edu (Darrin Bond) writes:
>>In article <1du7buINNsdm@news.aero.org> jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) writes:
>>>>Kasparov said Fischer needs to adjust to the new developments in 
>>>>chess in the last 20 years.
>>>
>>>What, pray tell, are these 'new developments'?
>>>
>>>--Larry %)
>
>Great question, Larry. I have been away from pure math for 10 years. During
>that time, there have been lots of developments. I have also have not boxed
>for 10 years. But there have been no developments. Still the same
>headbashing.
>
>Judging from your question, you are of the opinion that chess is not an
>intellectual activity, tha tthere is no learning involved in chess. Instead
>chess is like headbashing. Nice views!

How does this follow?  I'm still waiting for you or someone to concretely
enumerate these 'new developments' (no analogies, please).  

[1] What changes in chess 'perspective' have occurred in the past 20 years
    which Fischer may not be aware of?  I've seen nothing on the
    scale of 'hypermodernism' vs. 'classicism'.  (Or have I missed something?)
    Any ideas?

[2] Openning theory? I presume this is changing all the time.  

[3] Endgame theory?

[4] ?


So what did Gary mean by the phrase 'new developments'? Keeping abreast of
[2] and [3] is a matter of study.  [1] is altogether different. Maybe only
a 2600+ GM can answer this question?

--Larry %)
From: sstrazdu@vulcan.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: FS ll
Date: 19 Nov 1992 21:15:29 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: vulcan.intel.com

In article <12919@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> tcmaint@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (-Broadband Network Maintenance) writes:
>
>Netters,
>
>I missed the final results of the Fischer-Spassky rematch, could some kind sole
>either post the results, or email them to me.

I'd post the result, but I can't type with my feet, and I don't know any
fish that can type.

Sorry.  I couldn't resist.

--
Steve Strazdus    sstrazdu@sedona.intel.com
80960 Design      (602) 554-3867
From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Exploding the Myth:  GM Benjamin speaks on F-S II (_Chow_
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:29:36 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business


Don't forget Wilhelm Steinitz, who near the end of his career thought that
electrical impulses were emanating from his fingertips.  (and waited for
the currents to move the pieces for him!)

-mark
From: cxxh@cco.caltech.edu (Chris H. Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Should women's tournaments exist?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 12:58:43 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:

>In article <17439@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>>I agree that women's tournaments have no point and do more harm than good.
>>More to the point, I think idiotic "jokes" like "should Judit Polgar play
>>nude" are the reason why many women do not play chess - they don't want to be
>>associated with males who think that way.

>Being the unfairly misquoted author of that joke, I'd let this pass if there
>were only one such humor-impaired critic, but I'm getting hate-mail, so I'd
>better explain to the slow-at-mind-but-maybe-quick-at-gun what I meant, step
>by step:

[silly explaination deleted]

>	Sven

Earth to Sven, Earth to Sven, your logic circuits have failed.  Switch
to your backup brain, your primary one has malfunctioned.

Chris

PS  If you have to explain a joke, it's not funny.
From: bhahn@sw.stratus.com (Bill Hahn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Exploding the Myth:  GM Benjamin speaks on F-
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:58:40 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oldno7.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov22.195628.17705@husc3.harvard.edu>, fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
> 
> I don't think they have much to do with each other.  J. Meises
> (Mieses?) played GM-level chess in the early part of this century,
> while under the delusion that flies were constantly buzzing around his
> head.  He'd ask friends if quiet if they saw them.  He also was
> known to run from the building after every move at one particular tournament,
> sit in the corner on the floor of the adjancent building, talking to
> himself.  He'd get up, run back to the hall, make his move, and
> repeat.
> 
> Disclaimer: I don't have a source for these stories, but I read them
> someplace 10 years ago.  That's the best I can offer. 
> 

David, I think it was Akiba Rubinstein, not Jacques Mieses, and I 
think you may have read this in Schonberg's "Grandmasters of Chess".
(That's one source, anyway.)

By the way, thanks again for your work posting the moves during
the recent match.

-- 
Bill Hahn               bhahn@sw.stratus.com
Stratus Computer        "Meetings are places where minutes are kept
Marlboro, MA, USA        and hours are lost." From V. Weisskopf's memoirs.
--------- These are my opinions and not necessarily those of Stratus.------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: quam@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Quam)
Subject: Re: psychology
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 04:40:39 GMT

In article <achut.721894308@nairobi> achut@nairobi.Eng.Sun.COM (Achut Reddy) writes:
>
>The Soviets had a test they used on kindergarten-aged children to
>determine GM potential.  The teacher explained to the children
>(who presumably don't know anything about chess yet) how a knight
>moves.  Then they were given a chessboard with a knight on a1 and
>told to move it to b1 (this takes 3 moves), then c1, ..., h1, then
>h2, g2, f2, etc, touching all 64 squares in this sequence, using
>only legal knight moves.
>
>A child that could do this in under a minute was considered to be
>GM material.  Apparently they found this to be a strong correlator
>of eventual high-level chess performance!
>
>-achut


To cover all 64 squares would require 63*3 = 189 moves.  One
minute is 60 seconds.  This would be 189/60 = 3.15 (> pi!)
moves per second, without any mistakes, for a whole minute.
Any kindergarten child that can do that is an ET, not a GM.

                                             - David Quam
From: andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Endgame databases
Summary: some numbers
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:01:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24220
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ



	i thought it might be useful to insert some numbers into
this discussion. The thompson endgame databases are essentially
flat files of N bytes; each byte correpsond sto a position and
contains the number of moves to a loss or draw (it might be win or draw)
with best play. There are 2 N's; one for endgames with pawns and
one without. I can't recall what the N's are but one is about 121e6
and the other is within a factor of 2-3 of that.
	you use the databases by looking up the value for your
position (p) and then looking at the values for all possible moves from
your position and seeing which ones have a value of p-1.

	in any case, it is easy to compress these guys; below are the
contents of ken's first 2 disks with the database sizes.

chess1/bb_n 28564857
chess1/bn_n  6414575
chess1/nn_n  2048932
chess1/pn_n 49171699
chess1/pq_q 39266127
chess1/pr_r 59213925
chess1/q_bb 41984023
chess1/q_bn 41179863
chess1/q_nn 35325817
chess1/q_rb 11101735
chess1/q_rn 16370159
chess1/q_rr  5739409
chess1/qb_q  6408963
chess1/qn_n 37304351
chess1/qn_q  5116403
chess1/qq_q 29146853
chess1/qr_q 29105205
chess1/qr_r 30902830
chess1/rb_r  5690349
chess1/rn_n 48992004
chess1/rn_r  4725822
chess1/rr_r 36546013
chess2/bb_b  3264456
chess2/bb_n 28564857
chess2/bn_b  3797679
chess2/bn_n  6414575
chess2/nn_b  2045421
chess2/nn_n 40156056
chess2/pb_b 34648225
chess2/pb_n 55568721
chess2/pn_b 32274106
chess2/pr_q 13433888
chess2/qb_b 36600315
chess2/qb_n 34503423
chess2/qn_b 37453024
chess2/qr_q 29105205
chess2/rb_b 46632178
chess2/rb_n 48178979
chess2/rb_q  4485242
chess2/rn_b 44377888
chess2/rn_q  4017178
chess2/rr_q  7691870
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 16 Nov 1992 19:26:45 CST
From: <U36846@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: USCF Membership
 <92318.211853U36846@uicvm.uic.edu> <1992Nov16.192126.9088@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>

  Joseph,
   If a person is interested in becoming a member of USCF, then that
person will be paying money to the USCF.  That number is applicable to
both membership inquiries and orders.
           Larry Keating
From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Weird reaction to Joel Benjamin's F-S II Appraisal.
Date: 22 Nov 92 08:31:39 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.chess
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Exploding "Exploding the Myth"
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 

Jasen Olson write [bla bla bla].  We comment:

First of all, there were many embarrassing misspellings.

a.  "Irradicate?"
b.  "Reeming"?   

Hmmm, just what is it you're trying to say?  

Be that as it may, rest assured Joel is not trying to avoid controversy
with this stance.  Rather, _Inside Chess_ with its fawning pro-Bobby
stance is the party line these days.

And why should you assume Joel is content with some of Kasparov's
irrational statements?  That's silly and untrue.

By the way, check the fact that Milos was the LOSER in a brilliancy versus
GM Ian Rogers, (especially since _Chow_ THOROUGHLY covered the Manila
Olympiad where this game took place.).

Personally, I found Joel's assessment of the players in the F-S II match
extremely accurate (especially their playing strength, which has been
grossly exaggerated in some circles).  Sure, Bobby might play himself into
super form soon; many of us would like to see that happen.  However,
when arguing Joel's assessment of the match itself, remember not to 
attack a straw man (i.e. don't put words in his mouth).


-mark
From: spk@uk.ac.aber (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Latvian
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:28:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth.

Some time ago I was totally anihilated in a game where my opponent used
a Latvian opening. Could someone provide me with a little information
on this opening (the most common line or lines, obvious strengths and 
weaknesses).

Thanks,
  Stephen.
-- 
Stephen Kingston - spk@uk.ac.aber |  */^^-| | If you can do a better map
spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | ./|   | | of Wales then this in just 
Computer Science   System Support | _/'  <  | four lines,  then I  would 
Group - U. of Wales,  Aberystwyth | `-\__/- | like to hear from you!
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: psychology
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:11:50 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In the August '89 (I believe) issue of 'Chess Life' there's an
interesting article about what differentiates GMs from us mere amateurs
in terms of how chessplayers evaluate positions, etc.  The one good
example I can remember off the top of my head is that while GMs can't
remember random positions any better than the rest of us, they are
EXTREMELY good at remembering the types of positions they are likely to
encounter.

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have realized it would be bad vodka when all the label said
was 'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: "richard fogarasi" <richard.fogarasi@canrem.com>
Subject: chess scholarships
Reply-To: "richard fogarasi" <richard.fogarasi@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:45:16 EST

Hi Folks,

        I am a high school student in Canada, quite involved in chess. I
        heard somewhere that there are quite a few significant chess
        scholarships offered in the U.S. In fact, I think I have read an
        article in one of the issues of Chess Life about one of the
        colleges offering such scholarships, however, I can't seem to
        find it. If anyone please, please could give me ANY information,
        or sources of information on this, I would be very appreciative.
        Even the most fundamental facts would be of great help to me...



                                        Please E-mail any info to:
                                                     RICHARD
                                                richard.fogarasi@canrem.com


                                                        Thanks a lot...

---
  SLMR 2.1a  I can't believe I'm doing this??!! But I am.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: xawemmer@cs.ruu.nl (Xander Wemmers)
Subject: Re: pawn promotion
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:45:17 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <1992Nov20.031807.12035@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver) writes:

>In article <19413@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> lim@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim) writes:
>>There are situations where you might want to promote to a knight.
>>Are there any reasons why you'd promote to a bishop or rook?
>>The obvious answer is no, but I wanted to check to make sure.
>>
>
>I would guess that you might want to promote to a rook or a bishop to avoid
>a stalemate that might occur if you promoted to a queen.
>
>-David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
>

A standard example of promotion to a rook is

White: Kf6 pawn f7    
Black: Kh7

for f8Q is stalemate and f8R is the only way to mate black in two moves.

Promotion to a bishop looks very difficult to me, if the move has to be the 
only or fastest way to win.

By the way, there are chess problems in which white has to promote to
a *black* piece (even to a black king) in order to win.

White: Kh1 Ra1 pawn a7
Black: Ka8 Rb8 pawn b7

Mate in 1 move: 1. a7xb8(Black rook)

Does anyone have more examples of this?


						Xander Wemmers
From: rryan@panix.com (Rob Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: psychology
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:35:31 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Panix, NYC

In <1992Nov15.045139.24140@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:

>I wonder whether there are meaningful tests for assessing "chess talent",
>or indeed whether there is such a thing.  
>Are there any tests where the questions are ostensibly unrelated to chess,
>but where scores correlate very closely to ability at the game?
>(By "closely", I mean beyond what could be expected by social, economic
>and educational factors etc.)
>
>I heard that grandmasters are very good at mental arithmetic.  Is this
>true?  Is skill at arithmetic a good predictor for chess talent?
>I guess one should hope not because chess seems so much deeper and
>more beautiful.

When you say "chess talent", do you "potential"?  Someone could have no
talent, but the potential to demonstrate some with some training.  Clearly
chess is largely an acquired skill.  If fact some teachers, GMs, have argued
that they could take almost any novice and raise them to class A play within
several months (I don't remember who ... was it Kotov?).  But clearly some
have a greater potential than others.  Some will become GMs while most of
us won't.

Also, the fact that GMs are good at mental arithmetic doesn't necessarily
suggest that this is a good predictor.  Those arithmetic skills could,
conceivably, be a necessary, but not a sufficent, component of being a good
chess player.  (Presumably it's not the arithmetic skills themselves, but
rather the mental symbol-juggling that is necessary for arithmetic skills.)
The game could be, and most likely is, "deeper" than just the mental
agility that is required to do mental arithmetic.  So, even if there is a
correlation between math and chess, one cannot therefore attribute a causal,
a necessary, or a sufficiency relationship between the two.  But a correlation
may well still exist.

Undoubtedly chess is correlated to other variables, but I don't know which.
Any ideas?  I'm not sure, though, if there are any any tests that will
indicate the chess-potential.  But chess has been investigated in the
Cognitive Science community for quite a while, so perhaps some people have
tried.


-- 
 Rob Ryan
    Internet:   rryan@panix.com or Robert_Ryan@brown.edu
    Bitnet:     ROBR@BROWNVM
    Compu$erve: 70324.227@compuserve.com
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:52:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: gaia.1erga7INNb11
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucs.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov23.170044.15646@sequent.com> edjohn@sequent.com (Ed Johnson) writes:
>In article <92325.182926RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
>>what? if your right to protest an illegal move ends when the player


My local club recently held our first quick chess tournament.  There was a
dispute about illegal moves.  In USCF speed chess (5 minute games), illegal
moves result in a loss if the opponent calls it before touching a piece...
Anyways, a player left his King in check and hit his clock.  His opponent,
the TD (!) claimed a win because of the illegal move.  As arbiter and
organizer, I ruled that the claim was invalid.  In regular tournament chess,
illegal moves do not result in a loss.  Also, the TD still had more than
5 minutes left, so he wasn't in "time pressure" yet.  I awarded him an extra
2 minutes after the player who made the illegal move said that was ok with
him.  We didn't know what the "real" rules in Quick Chess were and just
made it up along the way.  Also, I'm assuming taking notation is not required.
So how is it possible to demonstrate 3 move repetition in Quick Chess???
Any USCF national TD's out there???

-benoni
From: kap1@cse.unl.edu (dietrich kappe)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: ICF
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:32:03
Organization: Univ. of Nebraska at Lincoln, Comp. Sci & Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu
In-reply-to: kanner@Apple.COM's message of 18 Nov 92 08:07:53 GMT

In article <33114@goofy.Apple.COM> kanner@Apple.COM (Herbert Kanner) writes:

   It's a little late in this thread to ask the question, but what in
   blazes is ICF?

   -- 
   Herb Kanner
   Apple Computer, Inc.
   {idi,nsc}!apple!kanner
   kanner@apple.com


Oh, I dunno, maybe Internet Chess Federation. :-)

You probably mean ICS, which stands for Internet Chess Server. Its a
sort of electronic chess coffee house. You can give it a try at
valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu, at port 5000.

So:

	telnet valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu 5000

Use any old name to log in.

If I've goofed on any of this, sorry, but its late.

--
Dietrich Kappe			|	Computer Science and Engineering
kap1@cse.unl.edu		|	University of Nebraska at Lincoln
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ctepedel@nyx.cs.du.edu (cihan tepedelenlioglu)
Subject: ###ALEKHINE AND BLINDFOLD CHESS###
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 18:18:20 GMT

 	In Irving Chernev's "Wonders and Curiousities of Chess" Chernev
gives the blindfold records in historical order. The book mentions Alekhine's
performance in 1924 where he met a strong team of players, including a number
of masters and well-known experts. Eventually, Alekhine emerged after 11.5
hours  with a good score- 16 wins, five losses and five games drawn.
	When a book mentions about a record are we to assume that the opponents
are also blindfolded or do they play regular chess?
Thanks,
Cihan Tepedelenlioglu

Oh, by the way, does anyone know if there has been an improvement to Janos
Flesch's 52 player record which is also mentioned in the same book?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: "gordon mazur" <gordon.mazur@canrem.com>
Subject: all dt-bronstein ics game
Reply-To: "gordon mazur" <gordon.mazur@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:20:03 EST

This is regarding the posting of the DB-DT games.
I am not quite clear on the time controls. Does:
        FH>Bronstein,D-Deep Thought I
        FH>11/4/92 (15 minutes + 3 seconds per move)
mean that Bronstein had 15 minutes for the game & DT 3 seconds per move
or they both had 15 minutes PLUS 3 seconds per move. ie: Fischer Clock?

Does that make this game:
        FH>Bronstein,D-Deep Thought I
        FH>11/5/92 (15+15)
15 minutes versus 15 minutes or 15 minutes plus 15 seconds per move?

Explaining the above should make this one clear to me:
        FH>Deep Thought II-Bronstein,D
        FH>11/12/92 (20+30)
20 vs 30 or 20m + 30s

If I am the only one that was confused, I apologize for my lack of
deductive reasoning. Please blame my misspent youth.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to clarify....gordie
---
  SLMR 2.1a  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Exploding the Myth:  GM Benjamin speaks on F-S II (_Chow_ upload)
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:41:26 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.chess


Kudos to Joel Benjamin for "telling it like it is."  Nobody whom I have
seen commenting on the match has had the guts to confront all the 
consequences in the way that Joel's article does, nor has had the 
courage and understanding to debunk some of the myths about the actual
games.  I only wish that he had looked at more games!
From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament
Date: 23 Nov 92 05:00:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Nov23.050036.21040
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

Kenneth Sloan writes
> In article <1576@tekgen.bv.tek.com> brucec@tekgen.bv.tek.com (Bruce Cheney)  
writes:
> As I said above, I concede your point.  Now...what do you do
> when a player claims "I mated him on the board *before* my flag fell -
> so the fact that the flag is down now is irrelevant".  Will you convene
> a protest committee and ask for witnesses?  Does it make any difference
> if this is a SD game or a normal time control?

The mate on the board takes precedence whether the move happened before or after  
the clock was punched, because the opponent has to make the claim before the game  
is over.   The clock doesn't cause time forfeitures in itself.  The player has to  
make the claim.

--
CONFIG.DAT not found.  Reboot universe?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess