HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 11 Oct 1992 03:40:49 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <16214@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:

>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.

Several points.

1. Even when Fischer was winning the candidates' matches, shutting 
   out players who could normally go for years without losing two 
   consecutive games, one frequently heard comments like "I'm more 
   impressed with his results than with his moves."  Nobody quite 
   seemed to understand why top grandmasters made elementary mistakes 
   against him.  I think the answer lies in the moves, though, and
   not in anything mysterious or psychological.

2. Fischer was not playing good chess at the beginning of this match.
   Ever since that awful Saemisch, though, his play has looked a lot
   better to me.  I think he may have played himself into shape.

3. If Gary Kasparov really believes he can beat Fischer and beat him
   easily, he can pick up several million dollars while clearing up
   any doubts.  That's hard to pass up.

4. We live in interesting times.  The "Fischer boom" of 1965-1975
   was probably worth a much needed $600 to me in prize money that
   would not otherwise have been available and I was *far* from
   being a major beneficiary.  Leading to:

5. If Fischer disappears after this match there should be a *lot* of
   disappointed people around, several of whom have the initial "K".
   There is fame, glory, and money to be won.  There's also a great
   deal of aggravation in store.  Fischer is not easy to deal with.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Question about 1 e4
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:37:10 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <Oct.13.13.14.56.1992.8724@remus.rutgers.edu>, miklas@remus.rutgers.edu (Keith Miklas) writes:
> I would like theoretical opinions on which defenses for black to 1. e4
> yield a closed, positional game as opposed to a more open tactical
> game.  Basically, what is, in general, the most closed, positional
> defense to e4?  Ruy Lopez?  Sicilian (closed Sicilian)?  Maybe (even
> probably) Caro-Kann?  _Definately_ Not Alekhine's, Scotch,
> Center-counter.  Pirc? or (personal opinion: Yuck->) the French?
> 
> Any comments/opinions (even brief ones) appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Keith

I find the St. George (Baker's Opening) tends to lead to closed positional
games. But maybe that's just the way I play it.


-- 
James Annan.
                [--------------------------------------]
                [  "The only good Tory is a lavatory"  ]
                [--------------------------------------]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:25:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct14.142509.16384
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <23889@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
:In article <1992Oct13.223044.3140@Princeton.EDU>
:carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo) writes:
:
:> At what level of tournament play does it become the "norm" for the losing
:> person to resign in a K+B+N vs. K endgame?  (one which is won for the
:> opponent, of course)
:
:... and when you're done answering that question, you might answer the
:same one for K+Q vs. K+R, which is even harder to win.

Even strong players (IM/GM) don't resign that one until they are within
a few moves of being mated and/or losing the rook.  (Several examples
in _Chess Life_ over the past few years.)  Makes sense, since it is known
that even such players could not on a few occasions force mate within 50 moves
when confronted with perfect defense.  ["Perfect defense" is defined as
the move that postpones the loss of King or Rook as long as possible
against optimal play.  The hitch is that a GM is no more likely to play the
defense perfectly than the offense; also a Q vs. R position arising in
actual play is not likely to be among the comparatively few that require
30-odd moves to win.]

Conversely, the marginally drawn R+B vs. R endgame is often played out
until either the weaker side falters or the 50th move is at hand.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu
Subject: Re: Fischer's Back! (alas)
Organization: Gallaudet University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:33:07 GMT

In article <1530@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM>, chuck@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Charles Rissmeyer) writes:
> Having dropped my membership to the American Chess Federation about 6 years ago,
> I haven't really been following chess developments since then.  When I recently
> heard that Fischer had finally surfaced and is involved in a rematch with
> Spasky, I almost fell off my stool.  Of all the confounded things, this is just
> great.  The hero of many of my age back in the early 70s, and he's back.
> I remember Shelby talking about how so many have tried to talk to Bobby, but he
> would never listen.  I gave him up as a lost cause.
> 
> Does anyone else share my elation at having Bobby back on the scene?
----------------
following Fischer these days must be the operational definition of mixed 
emotions. I was a big Fan of his back in the old days... I ignored his 
boorish behavior, his rudeness, his antics and apparent greed.  This was 
the time of Ali when it was all part of the game, the contest of wills and 
the use of distraction.  The difference was that you could see the twinkle 
in Ali's eyes that told you it was all a sham. He let you in on the joke. 
With Fischer, it's no joke.

So when he finally goads Kasparov into a match (can there be any doubt that 
Kasparov will have to come to play him?)  I'll be watching not with the 
enthusiasm of watching Ali climb one more hill but with the morbid 
curiosity of watching an impending train wreck.

skip
From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 19 opinion
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:28:27 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.

In article <1992Oct14.215324.3884@math.utexas.edu>
epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
>After 35 moves, my opinion is that Fischer has a 75% chance of winning
>a 25% chance of drawing and maybe a 0.00000000001 % chance of losing.
				     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Are any stronger players willing to offer their opinions?

	Yes.  My opinion is that, for [apparently] a mathematician, you
have a weak grasp of the size of numbers [:-)].  If none of the zeros
have been altered in transmission, you think F has a 1 in 10^13 chance
of losing a position that you have a much bigger probability than that
of having set up incorrectly, or of completely misunderstanding.

	Even if we assume that S truly does have no realistic way of
winning from that position, we then have to remember that even the
greatest players occasionally have complete hallucinations.  If F
blunders once in a thousand games, that gives S a chance of around
0.1% of winning.  Not to mention the chances of F falling asleep and
losing on time, or having an argument with the organisers and walking
out, or [invent your own better-than-one-in-a-million scenario].

	Even if those odds were correct, can you really afford to
bet 100 billion [US] dollars to one cent on the outcome?

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Subject: Re: 1992 U.S. Championship
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:31:31 GMT

In article <9210091812.0.UUL1.3#20523@intercal.com> hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell) writes:
>
>The U.S. Chess Federation's 1992 U.S. Championship promises
>one of the strongest fields of all time. This event, sponsored

How come Maxim Dlugy isn't playing in this event?  He also didn't play
in the recent Reshevsky Memorial event.  Is this because of his duties
as USCF President?

BTW, my pick for first place is Alex Sherzer.       

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Organization: Dept.Medical Cybernetics&Artificial Intelligence,Univ.Vienna,Austria,Europe
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:51:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.013809.25739@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>Victor Winter writes:
>>
>> To Ed Hummel: Go directly to jail, do not
>>               pass go, do not collect $200.00 :)
>
>This will be my LAST posting on this topic.  If anyone wants my
>opinion on the topic of solvability, ask me via email.
>
>> However some of you have spent all of your effort in trying
>>to find "unreasonable" loopholes.
>
>I find it interesting that in the game of chess, answers can
>be found for the question "Can white force a win?", but the
>question "What results from best play by both sides?" has no
>answer.  (Unless additional assumptions are made.)
>
>---------
>Ed Hummel

I didn't want to join this discussion and I will not respond (not even via e-mail),
but as nobody else left this statement undisputed, I guess somebody has to.
If I can show that white can force a win it means that he can win against *any*
black defense. *Any* black defense naturally includes black's best defense.
Thus I know what results from best play by both sides.
Conversely, if the question "What results from best play" has no answer, then the
question "Can white force a win" has no answer. Proof left to Ed.

					--- Juffi
-- 
					--- Juffi

Johannes Fuernkranz                                    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5320652(Fax)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: baljeual@uther.calvin.edu (Alan Baljeu)
Subject: Re: Lasker-Pelikan
Keywords: Sicilian
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:11:28 GMT

jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.194243.18692@ncsu.edu>, jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR) writes:
>|> 
>|> Does anyone know if the Lasker-Pelikan has been refuted, and or what is the best line of play against this opening?
>|> Thanks,    jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu

>I really like the lines following
> 
>	1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.Nd5! Nxd5 7.exd5
6... Nxd5 is not possible as far as I can tell.  How should this have been?
(mail failed)
>Black players usually don't know this line as well as others, but they should
>because IMHO it gives white an excellent positional advantage and requires
>black to take risks on the K-side in order to try to counter white's
>simple and risk-free plan on the Q-side.  I think black's best is:

>	7. ...Nb8 8.c4 Be7 9.Bd3 a6 10.Nc3 o-o 11.o-o

>But unless they know this line, they rarely make the retreat to b8, instead
>they'll play something like:

>	7. ...Ne7 8. c4 Nf5 9.Bd3 Be7 (...a6? 10.Qa5) 10.o-o a6 11.Nc3 o-o
>	12. f4! 

>when white gets the kind of attack one usually must sacrifice a pawn for.

>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Jeff Ely                         |    "He said the Sun's not yellow...  
>Department of Economics          |     It's Chicken!" 
>UC Berkeley        
> 
>	
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Subject: Re: F-S II game 19 comments (Fischer's health?)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:37:45 GMT

fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:


>Fischer was very upset that he didn't win the nearly-nine-hour game
>19.  "I had a very easy win and messed it up," he said.

We've heard something about Spassky not being well. Have you heard how
Fischer's health is holding out? Is the match fatiguing him? Does he admit
to any lapses of concentration because of age/mental state/whatever?

RB
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Subject: teaching chess to young children
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:03:21 GMT

There seems to be quite a lot of interest in this topic.  Those looking
for advice might be interested to read Fred Waitzkin's book  "Searching for
Bobby Fischer."
With hindsight, there seems to be a moral in that Jeff Sarwer, described in
the book as an outstanding seven-year-old, is now completely unheard of,
and didn't even have a U.S.C.F rating the last time I checked.
There are now very many people in the world who are both stronger
and younger than Joshua Waitzkin, the main subject of the book.  It would 
therefore seem to be very unlikely that either of them will become professional
players, despite having devoted a large part of their childhoods to the game.

On the other hand we know that the joy of chess is its own reward.
I only intend this to be a postscript to the book and certainly do NOT
intend to make any value judgments about such choices made by both parents
and children.

Paul Epstein

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo)
Subject: Re: Fischers performance - rough calculation
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:58:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.162244.23933@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:

>He [Fischer] believes he is the best chess-player in the world
>and, as such, deserves an immediate match with Kasparov regardless
>of how badly he beats Spassky. I'm sure he'd be playing much better
>chess right now if he was playing Kasparov for the title.  Don't you?

As I understand it, Fischer firmly believes he is defending his title in this
"World Championship" match with Spassky.  He does not acknowledge Kasparov as
any sort of champion, and if (when?) they play, Fischer will consider 
Kasparov the challenger.

David G. Caraballo
carabalo@phoenix.princeton.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Organization: UW Computing
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:20:26 GMT

One good book on chess strategy is "Play Winning Chess" by Yassar Seirawan.
Although not about openings per se (I'd guess it would be called positional
chess) it talks in general terms about what you should be trying to do when
developing your pawns and peices and why.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Monaghan: arithmetic-mean, melanin-deficient, gender-advantaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:13:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.014623.22533@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>I still think that deflation caused by this effect will in the long run simply
>even out the ratings of entering and leaving players, so that the steady state
>is neither inflationary nor deflationary.

As Sloan says, "please read Elo."  You simply don't know what you are
talking about, and Elo is both interesting and easy to read.  --Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@willis.cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Boring Calculations (weekly posting)
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:43:52 GMT


                      Fischer-Spassky II (Part 2)
                        30 September 1992 - ...
Player                Prev Perf Post R01  R02  R03  R04  R05  R06  R07  Score
  1  Robert J Fischer 2735 2632 2718 L002 D002 D002 D002 W002 W002 D002  4.0
  2     Boris Spassky 2575 2677 2591 W001 D001 D001 D001 L001 L001 D001  3.0


As usual, the Performance Ratings are garbage - instead:

Dp = 57 or 58, call it 60
Ra = (2735+2575)/2 = 2655   (insert your guess here...)

Fischer: PR = 2655+30 = 2685
Spassky: PR = 2655-30 = 2625

And, Post-event ratings, rounded, are:

Fischer: 2720
Spassky: 2590

Fischer continues his slow slide on the Elo scale (down from his 20yo
rating), while Spassky continues to gain slightly (up from his
established, current FIDE rating).  2700/2600 continue to look like
probable asymptotes.

Or not.



-- 
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: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Info on K+B+N vs K (Was: Re: resigning wusse
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:18:28 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1992Oct16.035356.2493@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.140047.26019@linus.mitre.org> jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz) writes:
>>...
>>
>>I have a copy of Pandolfini's End Game Course -- it doesn't have the K+B+N
>>vs. K endgame in it
>
>Huh?  What do you call Endgames 16-24?
>
>Endgame 16 "Mate in Two"            W: Kf7,Bf8,Ng4 B: Kh8
>Endgame 17 "Mate in Three"          W: Kf7,Bf5,Ne5 B: Kh8
>Endgame 18 "Mate in Four"           W: Kg6,Bb4,Ng7 B: Kg8
>Endgame 19 "Another Mate in Four"   W: Ke8,Bf8,Ne5 B: Kg8
>Endgame 20 "A Third Mate in Four"   W: Ke6,Bg5,Ne7 B: Kh7
>Endgame 21 "The Lock"               W: Kd6,Bg5,Ne5 B: Ke8
>Endgame 22 "Transition to the Lock" W: Kd6,Be3,Ne7 B: Kf7
>Endgame 23 "The King Shift"         W: Kc6,Ba7,Nd5 B: Ke8
>Endgame 24 "The Drive"              W: Kc6,Be3,Nd5 B: Ka8
>
>
>And, no - Pandolfini doesn't spend any time showing you how to get the
>position at the start of Endgame 24 - or specifically how to punish
>deviations from best play by Black.  Just the ideas and the main lines.
>After that, it's up to the student to think.
>
>It's not to everyone's taste - but I like it.
>
>And - it starts at the very beginning:
I stand corrected -- I haven't been reading Pandolfini's Endgame Course
lately, and it's probably high time I got back to it.  What I was thinking
of was that he did treat this subject in a complete article in one of his
Chess Life columns, "The ABC's of Chess", where he discusses the concept
and gives a sample game on the subject.  This article (appeared in 1979,
and not the mid-80's as I had originally posted, sorry for the error) also
appears in Pandolfini's book, "The ABC's of Chess".

Sorry for the misinformation . . . got to stop relying on memory.

John


-- 
--JOHN A. SWARTZ---The MITRE Corporation---Bedford, Massachusetts-- 
-- "Every time I look in the mirror, all these lines on my face  --
--  getting clearer . . . The past is gone."- S. Tyler, J. Perry --
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fischer's Back! (alas)
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:37:24 GMT

In article <16127@mindlink.bc.ca> Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen) writes:
>
>This does sound a bit pessimistic. If Fischer beats Spassky with a
>comfortable margin, than neither Karpov, nor Kasparov could avoid
>a match, provided Fischer wants to play them.

Anybody who thinks Kasparov would play a guy who won't play unless he is
addressed as the World Champion must be very naive. And why do you think
that neither K could avoid a match with Fischer? 

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:06:27 GMT

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.

The only real question is: just how well is Fischer playing, and
how much and how quickly is he likely to improve? Only time
will tell (it usually does), but I have to admit that I just
plain get annoyed seeing people proclaim Fischer some sort of
contemporary chess god without any foundation. We look at the 
games and we judge. Kinda like people claiming that Tampa
Bay is going to the superbowl. Acceptable talk in Florida,
perhaps, but not taken seriously in the Midwest. Why?
Because we judge the play, not the record. In the long run
it is a more reliable indicator. talent is not enough - ask
the NY Mets.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
From: mapmef@gdr.bath.ac.uk (M E Fletcher)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Dying during a game
Date: 7 Oct 92 10:57:29 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>"In the long run, we are all dead".
>
>What do the rules say about players dying in the middle of a game? Is
>it declared a draw? :-)
>
>Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

I've never seen anyone die during a game but a few months ago I saw
someone slide onto the floor having an epileptic fit during a tournament.
The controllers were running around desperately hoping there was someone
who had some idea what to do - fortunately there was. An ambulance was
summoned (probably un-necessarily) and as the guy was being stretchered
out, still having the fit, his opponent could be seen thoughtfully
stopping the clocks and filling in his result slip as a win!

matt

[It was a quickplay tournament: 30 mins each for whole game, so there wasn't
any chance of the victim coming back.]