HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:08:28 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Bruce Harper writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <16214@mindlink.bc.ca>
> Posted: 11 Oct 92 03:08:16 GMT
>
> Org.  : MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
>
> I agree with everything David Fry says, except for his comments about
> Lasker.
> Lasker was as far ahead of his contemporaries as Fischer was ahead of his.
>
> The detractors of Fischer are only showing their ignorance.  The only
> question is whether Fischer is so good that he can take twenty years off
> and
> still be the best player in the world.  There is a strong argument to be
> made
> that Fischer is the greatest player in the history of chess, and if he
> isn't
> the best player in the world now, that wouldn't necessarily mean that he
> still wasn't the greatest.  On the other hand, if he can defeat Kasparov,
> there will be few doubters.
>
> Those that say Fischer is a "chess god" are going a little far in the other
> direction.
>
> Why are people so given to hyperbole?  It's absurd to think that Kasparov
> is
> shaking with fear right now, but it's obvious that his life has suddenly
> become a bit more complicated.
>
> One thing that must be beyond doubt - Fischer's return is good for chess,
> in
> many ways.  Other than that - stay tuned for the next match.

All very true. The ONLY question, will there be a next match?
I guess we can just wait.
Peter
--

----------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:52:04 GMT

In article <Bw0pCK.422@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric
Eaton) writes:
>In article (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?
>
>The one that I use (which seems fairly popular) is "Modern Chess Openings"
>by Walter Korn.  I'm using the 12th edition, but I think the 13th has been
>released.  The 12th is in the Old Descriptive notation, I *think* the 13th
>is in algebraic.  This is a good book, it covers many lines and gives the
>general idea of the opening at the beginning of each one.
>
>Another book that I've heard of is Bradford's Chess Openings.  I may be
>wrong on the first word of the title.  I know it starts with a 'B'.
>It is similar in nature to MCO, but I don't know much about this one.

I strongly disagree with this recommendation.  Both MCO and BCO
(Batsford Chess Openings) are compilations of opening variations.
They have a *short* introductions to the specific openings and then
give a bunch of lines with =,+/-,+/= type evaluations.  Specific
lines are not explained at all.  MCO and BCO have their uses, but
I would NOT recommend them to novices.  My recommendations were
posted earlier.  Any comments are welcome.

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Organization: Dept.Medical Cybernetics&Artificial Intelligence,Univ.Vienna,Austria,Europe
Distribution: rec
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:23:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.011413.1203@athena.mit.edu> mittman1@athena.mit.edu (Christopher T Chiu) writes:
>Yes and no.  He actually played 1 c4, then transposed into a Queen's Gambit
>Declined.  To my knowledge he has never opened with 1 d4 directly, but has used 1
>c4 as a way to transpose into various Queen's pawn openings--game six from
>Fischer-Spassky 1972 is an excellent example of this.
>
>Chris "Genghis" Chiu

I'm quite certain that Fischer played 1.d4 in one of the 1972 Championship
games and that this was the only (known) game ever he opened with 1.d4.
Which, of course, was quite a weapon. Imagine Spassky being prepared to
everything starting with 1.e4. He must have spent nights to adjust his
opening repertoire to Fischer's 1.d4 just in case he might play it again
(which he didn't (so far)).

I also think that Fischer has played 1.c4 before the 1972 Match.

My Chess books aren't here, so I can't be precise, but I can try to dig
it up.

					--- 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 -----------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cpf@alchemy.TN.Cornell.EDU (Courtenay Footman)
Subject: Re: 1992 U.S. Championship
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:48:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.200551.693@news.uiowa.edu> olesen@math.uiowa.edu (Martin Olesen) writes:
>
>     The question is why Kaidanov doesn't play in the U.S. Championship 92.
>     With a US rating of about 2700 he should certainly be qualified.
>
>     However the answer is: He is not elligible! To play one has to have had
>      residency for one year, and Kaidanov will still be one
>      month short of this when the championship is being played.
>
>
>                               Martin Olesen

Does this mean that Kaidonov is out of the next World Championship round?
It is my understanding that this years U.S Championship is the qualifying
event for U.S competitors for the '96 championship.  Am I incorrect,
or is there any other way that Kaidanov could qualify?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtenay Footman			I finally got back on the net.

cpf@alchemy.ithaca.ny.us		Now I will never get anything done
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gzogbi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi)
Subject: Re: Kudos to David Fry!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:36:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.031014.25675@athena.mit.edu> tycchow@athena.mit.edu (Timo
thy Y Chow) writes:
>I think David Fry deserves a standing ovation for his up-to-the-minute
>coverage of the F-S match!
>
>Tim Chow


 Definitely - thanks David!
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: K+Q vs. K+R ending (was: Re: resigning wusses)
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<1992Oct14.184005.24618@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1992Oct14.223855.14191@craycos.com>
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:48:47

    In article <1992Oct14.184005.24618@pony.Ingres.COM> jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black) writes:
    >
    >Does anyone have a good reference for KQ vs. KR endings?  The
    >best I've found is Keres' "Practical Chess Endings," but I'd
    >prefer a more comprehensive treatment.

    Didn't Ken Thompson produce the complete tree for this ending on a CD?
    You can't get much more comprehensive than that (although memorizing it
    might be a bit impractical for the average human player :-).

Yes, Thompson made a database for this ending, though I don't know
if it is on his CD.  He won a famous bet with GM Walter Browne,
that the machine could draw Brown from the weak side (50 move rule)
as well as win from the strong side.  Apparently the longest win
takes 40+ moves (I forget exactly how many).  Browne thought he
could win the bet trivially, lost and got very angry, then spent
the next month or so practicing the ending, and won a rematch 
by beating the machine in 49 moves...
From: carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer-Spassky II, game 19 (Analysis)
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:52:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <16364@mindlink.bc.ca> (Bruce Harper) writes

>Despite Spassky's inspired defense, doesn't 53.Kg4 win fairly easily?  
>If 53...Qd7+ 54.Kg5, and 54...Qxd3 loses to 55.Qg6+.

I am really surprised Fischer missed this move, which indeed wins easily.
53 Qe6+ is a major blunder in view of Spassky's 54...Qf7! which refutes 
Fischer's apparent plan.  Fischer had an easily won game (and it looks like 
he played extremely well to get to such an endgame), and he probably didn't 
think a draw could be forced while he was two pawns up. In any case, 
Spassky's defense was enjoyable to watch.  54...Qf7 was a pretty move, yet 
I am not sure it saves the game.

>The other point is that one would think a trade of the Pawn on d3 for the 
>Pawn on c5 would result in a winning Q + P ending.  Has anyone run this 
>through a computer?

I believe that 55 d4 may win for White, but I am not completely certain.
The main idea is that White's King will move toward the pawn at c5, while 
it simultaneously helps the queen threaten mate and dodges nuisance checks.
I believe the nuisance checks will end once the King is near c5.

After 55...Qxd5, 56 cxd5, Black is out of options (After 56...cxd4, White 
plays 57 d6 and wins easily.  After 56...Kg8, White wins easily after 
57 dxc5.)  So 55...Qxd5 does not work.  After 55...cxd4, White plays 
56 Qxf7! and wins easily. Black's best reply seems to be 55...Qf1+, after
which 56 Kg4 Qg1+. I like 57 Kh5 next.  If 57 ...Qd1+, 58 Kg6, and Black 
has no choice but to continue the nuisance checks (If 58...cxd4 then 
59 Qd8++, and if 58...Qxd4 then 59 Qa8+ Qd8  60 Qxd8++):  58...Qg4+. 
Then 59 Kf7, threatening mate again.  (Black cannot play 59...Qxh4,
because White mates in three moves:  60 Qa8+ Kh7, 61 Qg8+ Kh6, 62 Qg6++).
Thus, 59...Qf4+ 60 Ke6.  White should win easily after 60...Qxh4, 61 Qxc5,
so Black plays instead 60...Qg4+. White must sooner or later avoid these 
nuisance checks, so I prefer 61 Kd6 to 61 Ke5.  After 61 Kd6, Black plays 
61...Qxd4.  White actually loses after taking Black's queen, so 62 Ke6 
Qxh4, 63 Qxc5. The position in this case is White:  Q:c5, P:c4, K:e6; 
Black: Q:h4, K:h8.  I believe White can win this.  Black must move the 
King near the pawn in order to prevent it from queening, but such moves 
can lead to loss.  If 63...Kg7, then 64 Qe7+ Qxe7+ 65 Kxe7, and White 
wins.  If 63...Kg8, then 64 Qc8+ Kg7,  65 Qd7+ Kh6, 66 Qd5, and White is
ready to advance the pawn.  Comments/improvements are appreciated.
 
>It's no surprise that Fischer's kicking himself over this one, wherever
>the win(s) were.  But Spassky has been fighting hard from some bad
>positions (but he's had a lot of them).

David G. Caraballo
From: natalie@Chaos.mcs.kent.edu (Tim Sorenson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Back! (alas)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:48:30 GMT
Organization: Kent State University
From: Tony-Preston@cup.portal.com (ANTHONY FRANCIS PRESTON)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: When Deep Thought Beats Kasparov...
Date: Fri,  9 Oct 92 06:54:23 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

One this that is being left out of that calculation is that since the
early chess programs, computer speeds have drastically improved allowing
the ply depth to be increased.  Programs are limited to the speed of 
the computer.  To get another ply, you exponetially expand the tree.
Even with all the pruning techniques, you are approaching the limits.
From: nason@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:30:24 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN
Nntp-Posting-User: nason

In article <1992Oct10.203700.1952@math.utexas.edu>, epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:

I read in the book about the Fischer-Spassky tournament, that Fischer did play
1.d4 once.  I don't have the book with me, but it stated that he played it in a
tournament once prior to 1970.  When asked about it he said:

"I wanted to give them something to think about when they are preparing for
me".  I will try to find the quote in the book and give a reference to it.
> 
>  
-- 
My opinions are my own and not those of my company.  
Free advice is worth its cost.  
--- John M. Nason - NA9U ---|--------------------------------------------|
Inland Steel Company        |  -- nason@pa881a.inland.com                |
Process Automation Dept.    |  -- Fax:   219-399-7856                    |
			    |  -- Voice: 219-399-2450                    |
----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
From: tcmaint@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (-Broadband Network Maintenance)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:35:08 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.



Netters,

Did Bobby play 1.d4? 

Did not Bobby play a game where he played 1.d4 and the other player resigned.

Yes, I remember reading about this, don't remember all the details. 

If some one else knows more about the details please post.

--Bruce
From: chris@barrister.ucs.uoknor.edu (Chris L Petroff	)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Knights
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:04:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: constell.1992Oct12.160459.367
Reply-To: chris@barrister.ucs.uoknor.edu
Organization: University of Oklahoma Cumputing Services
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <1b5imaINNklp@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta) writes:
|>Path: constellation!convex!convex!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!wjames
|>From: wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta)
|>Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
|>Subject: Fischer's Knights
|>Date: 10 Oct 1992 03:29:14 GMT
|>Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
|>Message-ID: <1b5imaINNklp@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
|>
|>Is it just my imagination, or has anybody else been noticing
|>how often Fischer is keeping his Knights together in most of
|>the games so far?  It's as if Rain man were playing...
|>

hmm..  "Rain Man"  was an idoit savant for mathematics.  If Fischer
is the equivalent in chess (not an original thought) then that would
be a hard thing for someone to face over the board...  but I don't
think most people consider RJF an idiot.   There is a definite intelligence
behind his bizarreness.

I have found his fondness for his knights quite interesting... even more
interesting is the play and power he is getting from them.   Playing
through these games, I get the feeling that he truely likes them more
than bishops.  Perhaps they offer him more creatively satisfying 
positional/tactical possibilities.  Who knows?   I find it very intertaining
watching him 'struggle' with his knights!

|>And he also seems to want to Castle as rapidly as humanly
|>possible.
|>

But this was always his style...   develop quickly, get the peices out
and applying pressure, search for a weak spot...   and do so with
precision and ruthless efficiency...  or at least that was once his style.
He certainly plays differently now, but few can make a good guess
if it is better or worse conceptually.  He has aquired lots of rust, but
as it flakes off, we are seeing fine (if not slightly pitted!) steal.

He needs tempering and polishing...  but what about metal fatigue?! 

:-)

Chris.

Disclaimer:  This is not worth more than $.02.  Absolutely no warranty
	    given or implied!
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jpgraham@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John P Graham)
Subject: Unorthodox Openings
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:15:27 GMT

Sorry ... that was supposed to be 1500-1800 USCF in my last post:
NOT 150-1800 USCF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At 150 level I guess I'd even try the HAMMERSCHLAG (see the book!)

John.
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Zarkov vs GrandMaster Chess
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:36:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

I understand that GrandMaster Chess is the mass market version
of Zarkov, but is it the latest Zarkov?  On similar machines
would they perform about the same?  Any features removed
from GM CHess that are in Zarkov?

-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: baarniy@iastate.edu (Scott A Coon)
Subject: Polgar
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Keywords: world champ?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:03:01 GMT

I've noticed that there seems to be some strong feeling on
this group that Judit Polgar has no realistic chance of ever
becoming world champion.    Would this be because everyone is
a little gunshy about prodigies not panning out, or because of
her particular results against strong competition?
Basically I'm askin, can everyone really say they'd feel the same
if she were a teenage boy, and why?
Scott Coon
.
From: mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Alekhin-Rubinstein
Date: 11 Oct 1992 21:58:05 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct11.204836.1410@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rivin@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Igor Rivin) writes:
>In article <1b9vklINN3lf@uwm.edu> mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen) writes:
>>[Fischer commentary omitted]
>>Some have also claimed that Alekhin was "chicken" because he didn't give
>>Capablanca a re-match. Get your facts straight. Alekhin pursued a match
>>with Capablanca for years without success. Capa avoided playing Alekhin
>>despit (or because of) his dominance in most of his tournaments. The 
>>negotiations led to a deep rift in the relationship between the two. 
>
>What is your source for this? I have heard uniformly the opposite
>story, even from Soviet sources (generally pro-Alekhine as much as
>possible). 
>
>>Finally, Rubinstein was mentioned as one of the dominant players of his 
>>time. I'm not sure you could say that he dominated the game but he sure
>>was a genius at the game. I don't have the game score handy, and the 
>>opposition wasn't great, but Rubinstein-Rotlewi (1908?) is one of the
>>most incredible punishments of passive play that I've ever seen. BTW,
>>Rubinstein apparently died of starvation during WWI.
>
>Rubinstein died in (I think) 1962, in a rather comfortable
>"sanatorium" in Switzerland. He played throughout the 1920s, despite
>some mental problems, which affected his results and led to his
>eventual withdrawal from chess.
>
>
>
>
As to the Alekhin issue, I would have to look back in my collection of
Alekhin books for a specific source. The Russians have changed their 
stand on Alekhin, who was supposedly related to the family of the Czar,
and was a traitor to the revolution. So there support has been, relatively,
recent (since the 60's?). If I can dig up the direct source without a
lot of hassle I'll post it, but the perspective is based on reading about
the Capablanca-Alekhin issue over the years. 

I was incorrect about Rubinstein's death, however. I remembered a line in
his biography from RUBINSTEIN'S CHESS MASTERPIECES/100 SELECTED GAMES, by
Hans Winkelman which said, "Among the millions who fell victims to the
ravages of the Great War is to be numbered Rubinstein, chess genius."

I remembered this line which certainly sounds like he died. But the 
paragraph continues to described him, as you state, as a much diminshed
player. My apologies for this error. (At least I didn't bury a living
being, anyway 

Another note concerning the "Alekhin was chicken" debate is that 
Capablanca defended his title only once himself during his reign and
certainly had several worthy opponents from which to choose. Was 
Capa chicken? These descriptions seen completely silly to me. I can't
imagine anyone reaching the level of chess of these masters without
possessing more than a little confidence in their abilities.

mrosen

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ran9@midway.uchicago.edu (M.L. Rantala)
Subject:  A question about chess copyright law...
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:09:02 GMT


dubach1@husc10.harvard.edu (joev dubach) asks:

>Is there any legal reason why someone could not extract the games from
>the Informant CD-ROM, save them as text, and make them available for
>FTP?
>
>If annotations are a problem, could someone just use the algebraic
>notation without annotations?

1. Games cannot be copyrighted. Anyone is free to reproduced a game score.

2. Annotations can, and usually are, copyrighted.

3. One of the fundamental questions in copyright law is whether the work in
question represents an *idea* (not copyrightable) or an *expression*
(copyrightable). Annotations, for example, are expressions.

A recent Supreme Court decision (circa 1990) held that compilations are a
form of expression, and thus copyrightable. The work in question was a
telephone book. I believe that applying the reasoning from this case, it
could be argued that Informant game collections are a similar compilation.
Even stripped of the annotations, my guess is that to reproduce the same
collection of games would be a violation of American copyright law.

M.L. Rantala
ran9@midway.uchicago.edu
Disclaimer: I'm an economist, not a lawyer!
From: pmarko@bnr.ca (Peter Marko)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:50:57 GMT
     <1bceueINNs85@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU> <achut.718912764@nairobi>
     <1992Oct12.213101.10485@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1

In article <1992Oct9.200627.23168@midway.uchicago.edu> Eric Schiller,
schiller@whorf writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.155114.21794@bnr.ca> Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>  
>writes:
>> In article <1992Oct7.194431.13491@midway.uchicago.edu> Eric Schiller,
>> schiller@whorf writes:
>> 
>>   >Anand-Fischer would be more interesting. I think Anand would
>>   >be about a 5-3 favorite. But then I am conservative! <grin>
>>   >
>>   >More reasonable odds:
>>   >
>>   >Fischer-Damljanovic (reportedly next match), 25-1 Fischer,
>>   >	6-1 on a shutout?
>>   >
>>   >Fischer-Speelman or Fischer-Timman (3-2 against Fischer)
>>   >
>>   >Fischer-Karpov (4-1 against Fischer)
>>   >
>>   >Fischer-Seirawan (5-1 Fischer)
>>   >
>>   >Fischer-Kasparov (50-1 Kasparov)
>> 
>> Eric,
>> 
>> You should consider specifying the conditions of the above matches, as
>> the odds would be greatly dependant on them (i.e., length of match,
>> whether draws count, whether a tie is possible and the meaning of a
tie,
>> etc.).
>> 
>> I would be interested to see a repost with the above, so I can do my
>> estimates in reply.
>> 
>I'll make it easy. Any time control averaging greater than 2.5
>minutes per move. Any place. Ties invalidate the "bet". Any
>length > 6 games < 32 games.
>
>But really, I post these "odds" just as an opinion, not as data
>for mathematical manipulation. And I am reflecting not only my
>own opinion, but that of at least a few K's (Kasparov, Keene)
>with whom I have discussed these matters.

Eric,

Supposing a first-to-win-10-games match, here are my odds:

Kasparov        9-1 in Kasparov's favour
Karpov          8-5 in Karpov's favour
Anand           1-1
Timman          8-5 in Fischer's favour
Seirewan        6-1 in Fischer's favour

This is based on FIDE's July 1992 list and an estimated rating of 2690
for Fischer.  If anybody has more recent ratings for the players above, I
will be more than pleased to repost the new numbers.

   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada