HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Polgar NOT (yet)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 21:38:19 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <1edjtfINN49i@life.ai.mit.edu>, cracraft@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Stuart Cracraft) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.182703.13886@u.washington.edu> benwood@carson.u.washington.edu (Ben Henwood) writes:
|> >hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
|> >
|> >>Could it be that the negotiations broke down because Fischer required that
|> >>Judith play nude?   :-)
|> >
|> >>	Sven
|> >
|> >I find this sexist and degrading to women in general and Judit in particular.
|> >Putting the smiley at the end does not negate the negativism and the sexism 
|> >to me; I find it is merely a '90s attempt to make a sexist remark.  
|> >
|> 
|> You know, Ben, I thought Sven's comment was highly humorous. Fischer
|> and Polgar would have probably laughed outrageously at it.
|> It is easy in the age of radical feminism and unsureness of how to even
|> speak due to recommended pronoun usage to forget that sense of humor is
|> far more important than either. 
|> 
|> Apparently, Sven knows this, and you don't.
|> 
|> Chill out.
|> 
|> --Stuart

As is typical from a Bobby-Basher such as Sven, this was merely a
poke at Bobby and his seemingly outrageous demands.  It was not a
sexist remark.  Bobby would be the only person with a right to be
offended by it.  If you're offended by the fact that someone
jokingly suggests that Bobby may be weird enough to make such a
demand, then Ithink you are the one with the problem.  When Bobby
actually does this (extremely doubtful), go complain to him.  I'm
sure he'll give your input about as much consideration as the
advice he got from the US Treasury Dept.

-- 
T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: xx011@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chess SIG)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: The CHESQUADS  FNCF E-Mail Play
Date: 21 Nov 1992 23:03:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


       The Chesquads are 5 man sectionals with each player playing
   4 games. Two as white and two as black colors assigned by the
   FNCF. Presently 60 players playing some 240 games are battling
   for position within their respected Quad.
       New Quads are started daily as players sign on. Dont miss
   out on the hottest internet activitiy yet. The Chesquads are
  becoming very popular internationally, get your seat now.

        To join the Free-Net Chess Federation (FNCF) send:

       Your full name
       e-mail address
       city,state,country
      How many Quads you like to enter -----.

               to xx011@cleveland.freenet.edu

         Please note your location is important for us to put
    you in your geographic SIG or Group. Our Rating List are
    divided by geographic zones.
          The FNCF is made up of 3 Major Sigs, 3 minor Forums
     and some 10 or so international and American chess groups.
     All play is free so join in.

Here is  Chesquad 192 ..........

 
                         CHESSQUAD 192
                          Presented by
                 THE FREE-NET CHESS FEDERATION
                  xx011@cleveland.freenet.edu
                        October 31, 1992
 
   PLAYERS              1      2      3      4      5      W L D  PTS
=======================================================================
1. Payam Ebrahimi     XXXX    2w     3b     4w     5b
2. Mika Kukkonen       1b    XXXX    3w     4b     5w
3. Robert Burgin       1w     2b    XXXX    4w     5b
4. Bryan Pendleton     1b     2w     3b    XXXX    5w
5. Mike Brenneman      1w     2b     3w     4b    XXXX
=======================================================================
1. JAY@CS.UCSB.EDU      2. MIKA.KUKKONEN@HELSINKI.FI
3. ECSVAX!BURGIN@UNCECS.EDU  4. BRYANP@INGRES.COM


   Dont miss the actions--if your serious about e-mail chess then
 you should sign on to the FNCF.
       We been serving the disabled,handicapped and shutins since
  1986. You dont have to miss chess tournament style competition
   ever again. Play till you drop. FNCF serving the world since 86.

-- 
The FREE-NET CHESS FEDERATION (FNCF) XX011@Cleveland.Freenet.edu
1986-1992 The Cleveland Chess Sig. (CCS) PLAY E-MAIL CHESS
JOIN the FNCF today contact xx011@cleveland.freenet.edu
The Fischer Blitz "Catch it".  This time we win!
From: llew@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Lok C. Lew Yan Voon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: chess stores in d.c./va/md ?
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:17:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu


i'll be in arlington, va next week. what are the chess stores
in that neighborhood?
thanks.
lok
Date: Sunday, 22 Nov 1992 14:24:25 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: This Bob Guy speaks on F-S II and GM Joel Trembles
Distribution: rec.games.chess

look, schmuck.

i never said that this gm joel guy said bobby was a weak international
master.  i said that he said that he believed that fischer would never
be a 2700 player because he was off his rocker.  which he did say.  duh.

i then went on to list three reasons why i disagreed.

one was that the general consensus is that fischer is currently somewhere
between weak international master and best in the world, inclusive.
either way, that's pretty great, even though he's messed up.  why can't
he then become greater, with practice, even though he's messed up?

the next was that there has been a long history of messed up, yet
great, chess players.  do you care to deny that?

the final one was that one of these messed up, yet great, chess players
was the pre-retirement fischer.  do you care to deny that fischer was
not messed up? do you care to deny that fischer was great?

yes, i've never heard of gm joel benjamin.  do you care to explain why
that makes my opinion less relevant?

do you care to answer any of these questions,  or will you just
conveniently cut out certain parts of my message, like you did last
time?  for example, i said something like,

      "the lowest opinion i've seen on fischer's strength is
       weak international master.  weak international master
       may seem like an insult to you gm types, but to people
       like me, it says don't even think about winning against
       this guy.  so whether he's best in the world, or a weak
       international master, or somewhere in between (my guess),
       he's pretty great, even though he's off his rocker.  if,
       after twenty years of not playing, he can come back and
       play AT LEAST as a weak international master, even though
       he's coocoo for cocoa nuts, what's to stop him from becoming
       greater, with more practice?"

you responded to this with something like,

     >"the lowest opinion i've seen on bobby's strength is weak
     > international master.  weak international master may seem
     > like an insult to you gm types, [...]"

     Attacking a straw man! GM Joel Benjamin said no such thing!

by including only the first sentence and a half of that paragraph,
you get around responding to what i DID ask ("what's to keep him
from getting better") by responding to something that i DID NOT
say ("gm joel says that weak international masters are losers").

i see two possibilities for a person who did this:

  1) the person simply didn't want to respond to my point, and
     instead chopped my message up and responded to things that
     i did not say;

  2) the person was too much of a dolt to realize what my point
     was.

my money's on #2, by the way.

if you respond to this message at all, please answer the question
of whether or not you think my opinion has less relevance than it
would have if i had heard of this gm joel guy.  i'm really interested
in your answer to that.

bob vesterman.
From: u9236635@sys.uea.ac.uk (R. Szczesniak)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: British Chess Magazine, November
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:55:50 GMT
Organization: UEA School of Information Systems, Norwich, UK.

What is wrong with using the set of books Speelman used instead ? Those endings
books seemed to cover everything under the sun. So why do people keep on 
bringing endings books. For that matter there is always the evergreen (ever - 
revised) classic Keres' Practical Chess Endings. Maybe its to supplement their
bank balances from rich kibitzas.

R Szczesniak
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Weird reaction to Joel Benjamin's F-S II Appraisal.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:48:49 GMT

In <1992Nov22.165641.20922@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:

>Bullshit!  Have you read Chess Life, the New York Times, or any of the
>British chess columns?  The British chess columns are the most neutral
>(except for Short's scathing invective in the Spectator), while the New
>York Times and Chess Life have so far been incredibly anti-Fischer. 
>Chess life has a fawning pro-Garry stance, in my view.

You're incorrect. The column written during the mid-match break was quite
decent in its appraisal of Bobby's play. Byrne has done an outstanding job
of covering the match.

>And since you're going to correct the spelling of those who disagree
>with you, I thought I'd be just as petty and correct your grammar. :-) 
>In the article "This Bob Guy speaks on F-S II and GM Joel Trembles",
>you wrote:

>> Hey man, give me a break, man.

Agreed. That was petty of him. However, yours is just as petty. Just let
the fellow no :) he was out of line.

Paul
From: @prism.cs.orst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: King's Indian question
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:41:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: flop.1eekb1INNg01
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov18.133620.3113@dxcern.cern.ch> marino@dxcern.cern.ch (Massimo Marino) writes:
>Hi, I got through this variation of K's I defense on a book reporting it
>as 4-pawns attack:
>
>1. d4 Nf6; 2. c4 g6; 3. Nc3 Bg7; 4. e4 d6; 5. f4 0-0; 6. Nf3 c5!;
>7. d5 e6; 8. Bd3 exd5; 9. cxd5 Qb6!

	This is just from memory, but I think in my mco by walter
korn, it has the same moves up to 6, but it says in a little note,
6. Nf3 c5? instead of !.  What's the real deal?
-Michael Nyman
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: quintar@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Huston)
Subject: My first tournament and an unusual opening (Take 2)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: rec.games.chess
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:23:24 GMT

Well, I attended my first tournament this weekend.  I had a really 
good time.  Didn't play that well, but it was my first tournament,
so I think that is kind of expected.  In my fourth match, I played 
against a player rated 1355 USCF, and he played an opening I haven't
seen in any books before.  It went like this:

White (1355) - Black (me-UNR)
1.  d4  d5
2.  e3  Nc6
3.  g3  Nf6
4.  f4  Bf5
5.  c3  Bg4

After this, he moved to defend his attacked queen.  Once that was taken
care of, he continued to advance all his pawns out until he had pawns at
a4, b4, c3, d4, e3, f4, g3, h4.  Has anyone ever seen this before?  If 
not, how should I have played?  I just tried to stick with general opening
principles and eventually made a rather nice attack on his position.  I 
was just confused until then...

Thanks for any suggestions...

Dogmeat (btw, I went 2-3 and was happy...)
From: albert@jomby.cs.wisc.edu (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: USCF Membership
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:21:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: daffy.1992Nov16.192126.9088
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories -- Database Research Dept

In article <92318.211853U36846@uicvm.uic.edu> <U36846@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Tom,
> The number for membership to USCF is 1-800-388-5464.
>       Larry Keating

It costs the USCF money every time someone dials this 1-800 number, which
if I'm not mistaken, is intended for orders only. try 1-914-562-8350
instead for menbership services.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Living Chess
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:04:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.113230.1256@ai.univie.ac.at> juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.175806.26328@njitgw.njit.edu> jpk2581@hertz.njit.edu (joseph p kisenwether apmt stnt) writes:
>>
>>Suppose you're playing a game of living chess where when a peice
>>moves on to the same square as an enemy peice, in stead of 
>>capturing that peice, the two people hold some contest (say
>>a fight to the death) to see who holds the square. You lose
>>when you're king is beaten in such a contest.
>
>How about deciding who holds the square with a game of chess?
>

How about deciding who holds the square with a game of living chess?



-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black)
Subject: Re: THE BEST MOVE
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:49:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.205927.12141@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
>Here are two analyses from Hort and Jansa's book _The_Best_Move_ that I
>don't understand.  They're positions 179 and 219.
>
>. . r . . . k .      The book says that White's best move is 1. h3!  "After
>q . . . . p . p      1 ... Rg3 2. Kh2 decides, and 1 ... Qd4 is not
>. . . . . Q . B      adequate because of 2. Qa6!"
>. p . . . . . .
>. p . . . . r .      What I don't understand is, what does White do if
>. . . p . . . .      Black plays 1 ... Rg6?  Also, after 1 ... Qd4, what
>P P P . . . P P      makes 2. Qa6 superior to 2. Qxf7+ and 3. hxg4?
>. . . . . R . K
>

I agree with your analysis; 1. ... Qd4 is a lemon since the Queen on f6
is protected!  So simply 2. hxg4 seems to win.

I've seen a lot of puzzles like this where the solutions were wrong; the
easiest place to find these is in Koltanowski's Chess column (found in
the S.F. Chronicle).  But I find that most of the errors usually are 
typographical; I often find that I can discover a simple modification to
the diagram which makes the solution work.  For example, in the above
problem we can add a white pawn on f5 and voila!  1. h3 works and
1. ... Qd4 is now a reasonable try (which fails to 2. Qa6!).  There may
be other simple modifications which also work... this was the first one I
tried.

john//
jrb@ingres.com
(1695 USCF)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: pawn promotion
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Date: 21 Nov 92 12:13:58 EST
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Nov21.005248.7318@news2.cis.umn.edu>
peskin@staff.tc.umn.edu (Yury Peskin) writes:

:Hello.  Here is a position where promotion to bishop is the only winning
:method:
:
:8 k . . . . . . .
:7 b . . . N . . .
:6 K . P . . . . .
:5 . . . . . . . .
:4 . . . . . . . .
:3 . . . . . . . .
:2 . . . . . . . .
:1 . . . . . . . .
:  a b c d e f g h
:
:p.s. According to the story White drew, overlooking 1 c7 Bb8 2 c8B!.

The Bishop promotion is indeed the unique winning move after 1.c7 Bb8,
but it seems to me that White also wins sans underpromotion with 1.Nd5:
Kb8 2.c7+ Kc8 (now Ka8 3.c8Q+ is more than OK...) 3.K:a7, or 1...Bb8
2.Nb6 mate (ouch!), or 1...Bc5(d4,...,g1) 2.c7 and the stalemate defense
has disappeared.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Subject: Name of: 1.Nf3 d5 2.e3 ?
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:43:05 GMT

Does this opening have a name?

	1. Nf3	d5
	2. e3

Thanks.
From: RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: pawn promotion
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:54:39 GMT
 <1992Nov20.031807.12035@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
 <1992Nov20.124517.6299@cs.ruu.nl>

what? you're not actually allowed to promote your pawn to a piece of
your opponent's color, are you?

bob vesterman.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:17:28 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:10:57 GMT
>FROM:   Robert Hyatt <hyatt@cis.uab.edu>
>
>In article <1992Nov23.050036.21040@raven.alaska.edu> fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage]) writes:
>>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.
>>
>o
>
>That is double-speak.  What do you do if player A makes a move, player B
>says "you lose, your flag has fallen, and then player A notices that he
>mated player B.  This is a loophole that was beat to death a couple of
>months ago, and the majority would probably agree that it needs to be fixed.
>
>I think the best solution is the one I proposed when this started earlier
>this year:  "The clock is the overriding factor in deciding the outcome.
[...]

>-- 
>!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
>!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !

There is a simple solution to all of this.  The contrived idea of
checkmate should be replaced.  Extend the game one move.  The game ends
when the opponent is on move with no king. If you
take the king off the board but fail stop the clock in time, you lose.
Otherwise, you win.  This also eliminates the idiocy of stalemate.  If
you get your opponent into such a bind that all he can do is move into
check, you should win.  Lot of endgame positions would bite the dust,
but so what?  I think it would make for a more consistent rule system.

Likewise, moving into check (or through it), or even touching a pinned
piece should lose to an opponent alert enough to take the king off the
board on the next move.  These changes are already frequently-met rules
in speed chess, with the exception that there is no touch/move rule.

-- 
jim tims 
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: Botvinnik Autobiography, Game 33
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:25:56 GMT


No. 33  King's Indian Defense
M. Botvinnik-V. Breitman
Electrical Works Team Championship
Leningrad, 1931

1 d2-d4       Ng8-f6
2 c2-c4       g7-g6
3 Nb1-c3      Bf8-g7
4 e2-e4       d7-d6
5 g2-g3       0-0
6 Bf1-g2      Nb8-c6

For the more common 6...e5 see game No. 25.

7 Ng1-e2      Bc8-g4

Repeating the error committed by Black in the cited game. On 7...Bd7, as 
Norman played against me at Hastings (1934/35), good is 8 h3, but now 
White establishes control over g4 and simultaneously defends the central 
pawn on e4. In general, Black cannot justify playing too passively, 
without atempting anything. He either has to choose an active plan of play 
on the Queenside (a7-a6, Rb8, Bd7 and b7-b5) or eventually go in for 
activity in the center (e7-e5 immediately, or after Re8).

8 f2-f3       Bg4-d7
9 Bc1-e3      Qd8-c8
10 g3-g4      e7-e5
11 d4-d5      Nc6-a5

Except for a few details, all as in the game with Kubbel (No. 25), but 
there I committed a serious mistake and was almost unable to recover from 
it. This time I have learned from my past mistakes.

12 b2-b3      b7-b6
13 Qd1-d2     Na5-b7
14 Be3-g5     ...

This idea of Nimzovich was mentioned in the notes to the aforementioned 
game.

14 ...        Nb7-c5
15 Ne2-g3     a7-a6
16 h2-h4      b6-b5

Black is not only late with this break, but makes it when the Knight will 
be pushed back.

17 b3-b4      Nc5-b7

It was better to accept a fragmented pawn structure after 17...Na4 18 Nxa4 
ba, rather than retreat the Knight to a square from which it has no 
prospects.

18 c4xb5      a6xb5
19 h4-h5      c7-c5
20 d5xc6      Bd7xc6
21 Bg5-h6     Qc8-c7

Black, after 21...Bxh6 22 Qxh6, cannot take advantage of the opposition of 
his Queen with the undefended Knight on c3.

22 Ra1-c1     Qc7-e7

If 22...Qd7 then 23 Bxg7 Kxg7 24 Nf5+ Kg8 (24...gf 25 Qg5+) 25 Qg5 Ne8 26 
hg fg 27 Ne7+ Kg7 28 Rxh7+ with mate unavoidable.

23 Ng3-f5!    Resigns

After 23...gf 24 Qg5, the Knight cannot retreat to e8 since it is pinned.

Copyright 1988, 1992 Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved
From: jc79@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (John Anthony Chanak)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: ICF
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:00:00 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.chess: 19-Nov-92 Re: ICF "Felix
Schroeter"@DKAUNI (536)

> > Logging onto ICS: You are asked for "Login:" and then "Password:"
> > What passowrd is legitimate?  Using "any old name" gets the uninformative
> > message "Invalid passowrd" and the caller is unceremoniously disconnected.
> Either you are registered, then you KNOW your password.
> Or you are not. Then you must use "guest" as password, according
> to what the system says, after a new Username is passed to it.
> To register: Mail root@valkyries. ...
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Here use just the
> official hostname of the ICS system.

PLEASE, PLEASE, ignore that address.... Mail to
"root@valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu" is *NOT* the place to send
registrations.  Read the on-line ICS information, "help registration" in
particular, to find out that you should send registration requests to
"chess@valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu".

Thanks.

-John
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: renglish@cello.hpl.hp.com (Bob English)
Subject: Re: All DT-Bronstein ICS Games, background, general comments
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:07:07 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs

fhh@watson.ibm.com (Feng-Hsiung Hsu) writes:
: The games themselves were all quite exciting.  I should have been
: spending time working on the new machine, but ended up finding myself
: glued to the tube watching the ups and downs of the games.  Personally,
: I am amazed at David's wild but logical imagination.  The old warrior
: showed that he still had the magical touches.  In all of DT I's games
: and quite a few of DT II's games, David had winning positions at some
: point.

I think the games showed the strengths of the combatants quite well.
The DT's (I & II) play very well when the position can be calculated
exactly, or when good move's are already known (as in the opening).
David played best when the positions were unclear and sharp, when his
judgement was most valuable.  In closed positions, where the number of
possible moves is limited, the DTs were able to look far deeper into the
position than David, and they won such games fairly easily.

Feng-Hsiung mentioned that David acheived winning positions in many of
the games, but was unable to find the actual win, either the precise
sequence of moves that would lead to mate or the precise sequence of
moves that would win decisive material.  Once the position became
decisive, the number of possible moves decreased and DT played with
great precision.

--bob--
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess