HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gene@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Gene E. Johannsen)
Subject: The two styles of Fischer Clock
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:48:19 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

	There seems to be two kinds of clocks called Fischer clocks.  One is
the X minute timer with a Y hour pool, and the other is the X hour timer with
Y minutes added/move.  Which is the real one? 

gene
From: pjj+@cs.cmu.edu (Peter Jansen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Correction! (Bishops and Queens)
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:40:27 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


In message <14495@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
wrote:
> My mistake - the position I was thinking of was a position where if a Bishop
> were on a certain square, that side would win, while if a Queen were there,
> that side would lose.  Promotion was part of the puzzle, but it wasn't exactly
> an example of e8 = B wins and e8 = Q loses.
> 
> Trying to devise such a position is a good way to occupy an evening or two.

And in message <1992Aug23.212958.3421@u.washington.edu>,
jph@hardy.u.washington.edu (Jeff Hanson) replies:
> 	This ruse was propagated in Northwest Chess magizine in the 1970s by
> the same author.  I never saw a solution.

No ruse, really. In fact, if one doesn't care about aesthetics,
it doesn't seem all that hard (10 minutes, with some luck...).
However, my solution has nothing to do with promotion, so perhaps
it doesn't fit the original puzzle:

	8  - k - * - * - *
	7  p - * - * - * -
	6  P * p * - * - *
	5  K X * - * - * -    White: Ka5, Xb5, Ba3, Pa6, b2
	4  p r p * - * - *    Black: Kb8, Rb4, Pa7, a4, b3, c6, c4
	3  B p * - * - * -
	2  - P - * - * - *
	1  * - * - * - * -

	   a b c d e f g h

- If the X is a Queen, Black is in check, and the Q can have checked from
  the 5th row. So it's Black to move and 1. ... Rxb5+ 2. Kxa4 c3 wins.
- If the X is a Bishop, the last move couldn't have been White's. So Black
  just moved (e.g. c7-c6) and White wins with 1. Bxb4 cxb5 2. Kxb5 etc.

Still not very likely to occur in an actual game...

-- Peter
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gzogbi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi)
Subject: Re: Alekhine a4 lines
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:20:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.205442.2026@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>     We were discussing the line:
>
>1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.a4!
>
>Antti offered some interesting suggestions for the response
>7...a5, namely
>
>i) 8.Ng5 e6 - unclear, if somewhat better for white.  That's okay!
>
>ii) 8.ed!? (!) +/=  - Yup, I have to agree that this one hurts a bit.\
>                      I don't feel at all comfortable defending this
>                      position after, say 8...ed 9.00 00 10.Re1 d5!?
>                      11.Bf4 ...
>iii) 8.Qe2 Nc6 9.h3 00 10.00 de 11.de Nd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4 13.Re1 Be6!??
>
>     Well, this is certainly an interesting line.  I like the idea,
>and I'll look into it a little more.  To be honest though, 8.Qe2
>doesn't really bother me too much.  There seems to be much scope
>for other ideas here.  Maybe
>
>8.Qe2 00 9.h3 Nc6 10.00 Bf5!?  Alburt tried this setup at least once.
>or
>8.Qe2 d5!? (or ?! - I don't know)
>
>Some other Black replies after 7.a4!
>
>i) 7.-dxe5
>
>You (Antti) gave 7.-dxe5 8.Qe2!  Hmmm, could you email the Short-Timman
>game?  I'd like to see why Qe2 is so good.  In the meantime I'll take
>a closer look.  The line I've looked at starts with
>
>8.a5 Nd7 9.Nxe5 00 10.00 Nc6!?  The Black pieces can get pretty active
>here, but usually at the cost of a pawn (at least).
>
>ii) 7.-d5
>
>8.a5 Nc4 9.Nbd2 b5!? - This is pretty complicated.
>
>     Well, this should keep me busy for at least one pack of
>cigarrettes.  Thanks for the reply.
>
>-Mark
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II, game 2 update
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:51:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep3.115139.15335
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Just a quick word, as of 11:30 am, EDT.  Game 2 is underway, Spassky
played the Saemisch variation of Bobby's King's Indian, possibly
hinting at fireworks, but they chopped off the queens on the 7th
move when Boris opened the d-file.   

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138
From: mginsbur@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:58:48 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Suggested improvements for the judging process (as requested):

[Here, I am only concerned with the 'Analysis' Category.  I am not
quibbling with the other categories, which offer much subjective leeway.]

a.  At least one of the judges should be an IM or GM.  And, he should
be as impartial as possible [suggestion:  Elliot Winslow at the USCF -
are you interested, Elliot?].

b.  The criteria I set forth in the prior post were, in my opinion, 
not followed.  Recall I mentioned 'search for truth', 'advancing known
theory or summarizing what we know so far', and 'impartiality'.  
Therefore, I recommend that these criteria be followed a la Huebner or
Timman.

And there it is.  An improved method for judging the analysis category.
Of course, I understand the judges are overworked and underpaid, as I
said before.  

All I am asking for is a fair appraisal of the analysis as nominated.
I also understand that much good analysis simply wasn't nominated, as
Chris Chabris points out.  The criteria which I set forth, btw, are
those which underly the classic work "The Art of Chess Analysis" by
GM Jan Timman.  And Botvinnik also advocated self-criticism as a method
of getting the truth out of one's own games.  Recall that the CJA
winner this time around omitted key losses by the author which
do not support the article's conclusion.  

I hope this time around I am more constructive and less bitter.  I 
recommend that those who are interested get a hold of Cozio article
I am criticizing and judge for themselves.

--Mark Ginsburg 
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Smoking (was Alekhine a4 lines)
Organization: The Ohio State University
 <1992Aug26.212741.2598@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:48:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.212741.2598@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gzogbi@magnus.acs.
ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi) writes:

>      Only *one* pack of cigarettes??  Hell, I usually smoke one pack per
>main line, and a few more for subvariations!! 

     Who was talking about smoking them. :^)
Anyway, SHEESH, I hope they're light cigarettes.

>BTW, nothing's better than
>smoking, drinking beer and playing speed chess!!

     Ummm, you left out coffee.

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pillay@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (PILLAY K)
Subject: Looking for a game
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Undergrads).
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:35:10 GMT

Would anyone like to play a game (Just a friendly!!)

thanx kiruben 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Mate in 11 (was: Re: chinook)
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:19:22 GMT

In article <2a9fafcfwnr070@ark.abg.sub.org> ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan) writes:
>hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>> 
>> An example.  At the 1984 US open, we were playing in the speed
>> event at Pasedena.  After having beaten several masters, IM's,
>> etc, we were playing an 1800 player and Cray Blitz sac'ed its
>> queen for an inexplicable reason when it appeared to be winning
>> material.  Gutman (Korchnoi's second) said "machine make horrible
>> blunder."  After we lost (pretty quickly, being a queen down) I
>> asked him what he would have done, and reset Cray Blitz to that
>> position but playing the 1800 player's side.  He suggested simply
>> "take the rook and win easily."  I entered that move and cray
>> blitz promptly announced a mate in 11 in less than one second.
>> He was amazed.  I was sickened...... Cray Blitz chucked it's
>> queen to avoid this mate in 11....
>
>Would be very interesting to see this position.  Do you have it at hand
>and can you post it?
>
>Thanks!  --ralf


Wish I did.... we have played so many speed games over the years that I cleaned
the files out several years ago.  However, this was not the only time that I
have seen this problem.....  in computer vs computer games where we search
nine to ten plies deep and our microcomputer opponents often search much
less, I have seen Cray Blitz "give away" a pawn that it's 10 ply search said
it "must" lose.  Unfortunately, it's opponent couldn't search deeply enough
to see the material win.

If it only "knew" that it's opponent (electronic opponent in this case) is
searching 7 plies deep, it could certainly use this knowledge to adjust how
it played.  I suppose it could become the "ultimate swindler" where it could
"offer a pawn" that it's deeper search shows it very unsafe to take.  Against
humans it would be less effective....  I have seen many strong players play
Cray Blitz and ignore anything that appeared to be hanging because they knew
the strength of the program....  

Guess you can't have everything......

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
From: zoran@hertz.njit.edu (zoran siveski fac ee)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Score
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:35:33 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.


According to WCBS radio Spaski resigned after 49th move.

Zoran
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: computers that intentionally slip up (was Re: chinook)
Keywords: update
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:36:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.064606.22271@ists.ists.ca> sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.010326.16786@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>>In article <21189@optima.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
>
>>He was amazed.  I was sickened...... Cray Blitz chucked it's
>>queen to avoid this mate in 11.... and playing an 1800 player
>>that wouldn't have seen it in 5 minutes much less 5 seconds or
>>so.  (remember that Gutman [sp?] didn't see it either and he was
>>a GM....)  Shouldn't the program say "wait a minute, I will get
>>mated in 11 or else sac my queen, but, I don't think an 1800 player
>>can find this mate...  since I'm gonna sac my queen, I'll probably
>>lose anyway, so I'll take the rook and run (and hope...)"
>
>While I am compelled to admit that this might result in the program
>winning a few more games...
>
>I have to say I have always strongly opposed the argument that says the
>superior players should intentionally make a mistake on the presumption
>that the inferior player won't catch them.  
>
>Perhaps my argument doesn't apply to computers so readily, since the
>main thrust is to claim it is a bad habit, and leads to careless play.
>However, something still bothers me about the whole idea of this.  I
>would rather play my best possible game, and lose; than make a move I
>know is wrong and win.  I get no satisfaction out of such "victories".
>
>>!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !

This is why we haven't done anything about this in the past.  But,
thinking about it, what would YOU have done in that game.  Sac'ing the
queen led to a sure loss (it was a queen sac'ed for a knight as I recall).
As a human, I would probably have taken the "speculative" path rather than
the "certain loss" path.  Remember, to a computer, the "best" move might
not be the same as you or I might choose (this is an excellent example,
since, to the computer it could either play a queen down or get mated.
I would probably evaluate a queen down and mated as the same.....)

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
From: cfc@isr.harvard.edu (Christopher F. Chabris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:58:35 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Kathy Watts [really Hal Bogner]) writes:

>Mark Ginsburg deserves everyones support in this discussion about the CJA
>awards NOT because the awards themselves are important.

I disagree. He does not deserve everyone's support for alleging a pro-Chess
Horizons bias, for charging that the entire judging process was somehow
unsound, and so on.

>What is admirable about Mark's posts is this:
>
>He has knowledge of the author's sources (in particular, Walter Shipman's games
>vs. GM Rohde), and is publicly revealing the author's failure to include
>experience counter to the premise they are trying to defend.

This I have no quarrel with. Keep in mind, however, that one could hardly 
expect most potential judges of the awards to have similar personal knowledge
in each case.

>If people with facts don't bring them out in this kind of situation, why are we
>bothering to search for truth anywhere?

I agree. But perhaps the proper way to search for truth -- in chess -- is to
publish an article offering analysis to counter the Shipman & Shipman piece.
I don't think the proper way is to allege biased and incompetent judging with
no facts to back up the charges. In an earlier post, Mark cited Botvinnik,
who is well-known to have urged players to publish their analysis. I urge Mark
to do the same, rather than publish accusations. I hope it appears in Chess
Chow, a fine magazine in my opinion, and I hope it includes all these games
we've heard about but not yet seen. I'm sure they will be fun to look at..

>C'mon, folks - let's stop talking
>about side issues.... Isn't there someone on the net who can ask the Shipmans
>why the Rohde-W. Shipman games aren't mentioned?  Maybe a CJA judge here on the
>net (not the one from Ohio - I mean the one from Boston!) could do this?!

First of all, given the wide scope of Mark's initial accusations, I don't
believe that much of what followed was a discussion of "side issues." Second
of all, you could refer to me by name -- even though I'm from Cambridge, not
Boston. Third of all, the Shipmans live in New York and New Jersey, as far as
I know, not Massachusetts. So perhaps Mark himself is in the best position to
interview the authors and report back. (And which CJA judge is from Ohio?)

-Chris
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: IRC: Channel #Chess!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:21:37 GMT

I'm on IRC channel #Chess!. Hopefully other netters can get on and give/get
info on the game as it progresses.

IRC is Internet Relay Chat. Type "irc" at your shell prompt and/or ask your
sysadmin to see if you have it on your machine.
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: bookup
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:56:53 GMT

In article <92239.133739ATM2@psuvm.psu.edu> <ATM2@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I am interested in purchasing pc software that will allow me to store
>my games in my computer, indexed by opening, tournament, opponent,
>with the possibility of adding notes. The program should also be able
>to print, and replay the games on the screen. Windows compatibility is a bonus.

Bookup is definitely NOT the answer.  Bookup is good for theoretically
related games; for individual games, Bookup consumes too much disk
space (about 40 Kb per game).  As the documentation says, it is not a
game database manager.

Chessbase seems to be the program for you, although the recent review
of KnightStalker makes me think that you may need only KS, which would
save you about $250-350.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington)
Subject: Re: Fischer match on ICS
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 02:24:18 GMT

I don't mean to be rude, but do you realize that this has
already been argued in the past month. The arguments are not 
convincing; see what I believe are the varied and sundry refutations
in previous posts by myself and others.

Certainly, I respect that others may disagree with me...
Consequently, I shall not expect anyone to force you or others
who oppose the match to watch it. Please allow those of us
who are interested in it to pursue attempts to view the
games. Furthermore, please don't be so naive or quixotic as to
believe that watching the match and condoning any of the attrocities
being perpetrated there (or anywhere else in the world) are 
synonymous. 

Thanks, Steve  .
From: jmcd@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John McDonald)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer is PC
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:35:28 GMT
Organization: Center for EUV Astrophysics

I think that Fischer's behavior at the "news conference"
only shows that a boycott is not an unreasonable action.

Would you go to a chess game played by Hitler at Treblinka
just for the chess?  (OK, admittedly an extreme example)

I don't think it is "politically correct" to be offended
by Fischer's behavior.  I think it might be HUMAN to be
offended by obtuse anti-social behavior.  If he really
was interested in the integrity of the game, he wouldn't
sound so childish.

And if you really were interested in people's behavior
towards eachother, you wouldn't indirectly support 
anti-everything by supporting Fischer.  It's just a game.
(and a good one at that :-)

j
From: philip@spr.usask.ca (Tim Philip)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: bobby's fillings
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:20:36 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

In article <Bu095z.53B@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr) writes:
|> Did Bobby  r e a l l y  have his fillings taken out to foil Soviet
|> attempts to beam in radio waves?  
|> 
|> More importantly, perhaps, did he really think they were trying to
|> do this, regardless of what countermeasures he might have taken?
|> 
|> I ask because this--far more than merely erratic or self-defeating
|> behavior--would be a pretty good indication of pretty serious
|> mental illness.
|> 
|> MG


	Why would this indicate mental illness??

	It seems to me that this would simply be another example
	of his paranoid behaviour compounded with his lack of 
	education.  How is he supposed to know that they can't do
	that?? (if, indeed, they can't :-))   Bobby *was* a high school
	drop out if memory serves me.

Tim, 1900 (non-USCF).
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: huie@netcom.com (John Huie)
Subject: Fischer/Spassky Match on Prodigy moves 25-33
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 20:19:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: Rec.games.chess


Fischer      Spassky	  	   Fischer		Spassky
 White        Black	            White	         Black


1.  e4       e5			   25. Qc1		Bf8
2.  Nf3      Nc6		   26. Qa1		Qe8
3.  Bb5      a6			   27. Nf1		Be7
4.  Ba4      Nf6		   28. N1d2		Kg7
5.  O-O      Be		   	   29. Nb1	        Ne4!?
6.  Re1      b5			   30. Be4		f5
7.  Bb3      O-O		   31. Bc2		Bd5
8.  c3       d6			   32. ab5		ab5
9.  h3       Nb8		   33. Ra7		Kf6!?
10. d4       Nbd7
11. Nbd2     Bb7
12. Bc2      Re8
13. Nf1      Bf8
14. Ng3      g6
15. Bg5      h6
16. Bd2      Bg7
17. a4       c5
18. d5       c4
19. b4       Nh7?!
20. Be3      h5
21. Qd2      Rf8
22. Ra3      Ndf6
23. Rea1     Qd7
24. R1a2     Rfc8
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Alekhine a4 lines
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:54:42 GMT

     We were discussing the line:

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.a4!

Antti offered some interesting suggestions for the response
7...a5, namely

i) 8.Ng5 e6 - unclear, if somewhat better for white.  That's okay!

ii) 8.ed!? (!) +/=  - Yup, I have to agree that this one hurts a bit.\
                      I don't feel at all comfortable defending this
                      position after, say 8...ed 9.00 00 10.Re1 d5!?
                      11.Bf4 ...
iii) 8.Qe2 Nc6 9.h3 00 10.00 de 11.de Nd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4 13.Re1 Be6!??

     Well, this is certainly an interesting line.  I like the idea,
and I'll look into it a little more.  To be honest though, 8.Qe2
doesn't really bother me too much.  There seems to be much scope
for other ideas here.  Maybe

8.Qe2 00 9.h3 Nc6 10.00 Bf5!?  Alburt tried this setup at least once.
or
8.Qe2 d5!? (or ?! - I don't know)

Some other Black replies after 7.a4!

i) 7.-dxe5

You (Antti) gave 7.-dxe5 8.Qe2!  Hmmm, could you email the Short-Timman
game?  I'd like to see why Qe2 is so good.  In the meantime I'll take
a closer look.  The line I've looked at starts with

8.a5 Nd7 9.Nxe5 00 10.00 Nc6!?  The Black pieces can get pretty active
here, but usually at the cost of a pawn (at least).

ii) 7.-d5

8.a5 Nc4 9.Nbd2 b5!? - This is pretty complicated.

     Well, this should keep me busy for at least one pack of
cigarrettes.  Thanks for the reply.

-Mark
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6374 rec.games.go:1667 rec.games.board:8125 news.groups:17088
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Date: 24 Aug 92 03:19:59 GMT
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca  (Justin Wells)
Organization: y

In article <5783@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

>As for the name of the proposed new group (if it comes to pass), this
>is NOT a minor point; a group that is supposed to separate specific
>topics also needs a specific title.  A badly chosen name leads to
>confusion, hurting not only the readers of the original group (who
>lose postings) but also those of the new one, who again have to deal
>with (to them) uninteresting topics.  Choosing a confusing name is
>self-defeating.


I guess this is the real problem with rec.games.board

rec.games.board is NOT.  Instead of being a newsgroup devoted just
generally to board games, it is a newsgroup which is practically
dedicated to a specific type of war/railroad/stock game that is NOT
what most people think of when they think of "board game"  (it may
be what the players of these game think of when they think "board
game", but it is not what i, or most people, think of -- i think
about games like monopoly, scrabble, shogi, checkers, etc.).

The real problem is that "rec.games.board" is actually
"rec.games.war" in disguise.  

My favourite suggestion to date is still to just create a rec.games.war
and leave rec.games.board for everyone else (scrabble, shogi, etc.)

There currently isn't a general newsgroup for board games which don't
have their own specific group -- rec.games.board is SUPPOSED to fill
this spot, but it doesn't.

When someone looking for posts on Pente hits the newsgroup lists, they
probably go straight into rec.games.board -- and after reading about 25
messages decide they're in the wrong place.  Usually posts on pente end
up going into rec.games.go --

Hence one can only conclude that rec.games.board is inappropriately
named.  It should be called "rec.games.war" or "rec.games.board.war"

Justin Wells
sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca .