HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: checkers
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:21:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.203742.822@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>...
>Listen idiot, did I say the current champion was a computer???
>NO! I said that no human can beat the programs we have out there for checkers!

A very well publicized match was held recently between the generally
accepted best computer checkers machine and the generally accepted best
human checkers player.  The human won.

>It is finished. They don't even work on the programs anymore as the maximum
>number of permitations is EASILY crunched by your average home PC.

Checkers is still an active area of research for several people.
Including the folks who built the machine which lost the match to the
human.

The computer in question is quite a bit stronger than "your average home
PC".  It is very, very good - but still not quite there, yet.




-- 
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: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: Computers and Chess, what do IM, GM's think?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:09:47 GMT

uzun@netcom.com (William Roger Uzun) writes:

>I find it enjoyable to pit my skills vs computers like Maxwell, and
>gnufour on ICS.  They usually defeat me, but I find that they
>can enhance my play and seem to have helped me develop a better
>overall view of the board, in less time.

>I am not a real good chess player, maybe a B or A class competitor, 
>possibly less, I have a 1450-1500 pt rating on ICS and no
>USCF rating, I am curious as to how helpful computer chess
>programs are to very advanced players, even GrandMasters.

>I derived little benefit playing MChess Pro on a 486/33, it
>defeated me easily on several occasions.  Would someone
>with a 2450+ rating, FIDE, defeat a pgm like MChess Pro
>easily?  Take, for example, the womans world Champion
>Xie Jung, realistically, could MChess Pro ona real fast computer
>hope to defeat her?  How useful are computer chess pgms
>to GrandMasters, and very strong GrandMasters?  Clearly
>someone like Karpov or Kasparov could easily defeat MChess
>Pro, or the ChessMachine, but could they derive any benefits
>from these pgms, or would it be quite boring to them.  Could
>a weaker GM Like Xie Jun derive any benefit from these pgms.

>Just curious.

>-Roger
>uzun@crash.cts.com
>uzun@netcom.netcom.com


The best programs, running on fast hardware, can draw a lot of games
against middling GMs, and even win a few.  The humans have to play with
extreme tactical care, of a somewhat different nature than against other
humans.  The computers do not have grand schemes as do the human
opponents, but the computers are ruthlessly accurate at finding
hard-to-find tactics, esp. defenses, if they fall within the search depth.
 
At faster time limits (e.g., speed chess), these computers loom larger. 
They win a lot of games, probably winning matches against most IMs and
even many GMs.  Both humans and computers lose strength as they play
faster, but humans lose more (typically).
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Latest FIDE Ratings
From: saba@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (John Saba, Univ. of Ariz. Computer Center)
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:51:39 MST
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-User: saba

Top Women in Order of Recent Rating Gain or Loss

Qin Kanying (China)                         2410   + 95
Svetlana Prudnikova (Russia)                2420   + 85
Ketevan Kakhiyani (Georgia)                 2420   + 60
Alisa Galiamova-Ivanchuk (Ukraine)          2445   + 45
Alisa Maric (Yugoslavia)                    2415   + 25
Natasha Boykovic (Yugoslavia)               2385   + 20
Zsuzsa Polgar (Hungary)                     2560   + 20
Judit Polgar (Hungary)                      2595   + 20
Nana Ioseliani (Georgia)                    2460   + 15
Ildiko Madl (Hungary)                       2415   +  5
Ketevan Arakhamia (Georgia)                 2440   +  5
Maya Chiburdanidze (Georgia)                2510   +  5
Ainur Sofiyeva (Azerbaidzan)                2390   +  5
Anna Akhsharumova (USA)                     2385      0
Irina Levitina (USA)                        2415      0
Elena Akhmilovskaya-Donaldson (USA)         2405      0
Pia Cramling (Sweden)                       2525   -  5
Vesna Bashagic (Bosnia-Hercegovina)         2385   -  5
Xie Jun (China)                             2470   - 15
Zsofia Polgar (Hungary)                     2415   - 30
Svetlana Matveyeva (Kirgisia)               2395   - 40

-- 
John Saba
saba@ccit.arizona.edu
saba@arizvms
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: neurogen@reks.uia.ac.be (Neurogenetica)
Subject: Chess prog on CPC664?
Organization: U.I.A.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:01:48 GMT

Hi there,

I still own (besides an normal PC) an old schneider home computer
type CPC 664. I want to use it as a chess computer but don't have a 
separate chess program for it. Could anybody help me with getting one?

Help would much be appreciated.

SGR aka GEERT RAES

please E-mail cause I don't normally read this group.
please Use FOR GEERT as part of the subject header cause I don't 
  have a separate log-in.

-----
(* I'm a Modula-2 freak so no C *)
IMPORT SpellCheckerEng;
IMPORT Disclaimer;
IMPORT FunnyPart;
IMPORT SemiAsciiGraphics;
-----
From: kcy@meaddata.com (Cheong Yu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Results of the great match
Date: 5 Jan 1993 21:41:41 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kcy@meaddata.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: monster.meaddata.com

In article <1993Jan5.185546.29975@koko.csustan.edu>, jadiel@altair.csustan.edu (Jose Juan DeLeon) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan5.061548.20595@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
|> >I have been following this urbane, sophisticated, and highly edifying
|> >discussion with great interest.  I am reminded mightily of the
|> >discussions leading up to the Steinitz-Zukertort match.
|> >
|> >What most people do not realize is that the great match has already
|> >been played and that all parties involved are trying to hide the fact.
|> >However I have some preliminary results with notes from the players
|> >(names concealed)
|> >
|> >
|> >1.	g2-g4
|> >
|> >White:  I decided to spike the guns of this pretentious nerd from the
|> >very beginning.
|> >
|> >Black:  An unsound attack -- his chess positions resemble his usenet
|> >postings.
|> >
|> >1.	...	d7-d5
|> >
|> >White:  The usual counter, threatening the g pawn.
|> >
|> >Black:  Development with a threat, how juicy.
|> >
|> >2.	f2-f3
|> >
|> >White:  A psychological ploy.  This move prepares for a hedgehog
|> >defense followed by a king side break.  It also guards the g pawn
|> >and controls e4 from the flank.
|> >
|> >Black:  Another pawn move without development.
|> >
|> >2	...	e7-e5
|> >
|> >White:  Unimaginative center pawn pushes characteristic of defective
|> >personalities obsessed with the romantic open game.
|> >
|> >Black:  White has ceded the center and has no development.  Black has
|> >a won game at this point.
|> >
|> >3.	c2-c3
|> 
|> [stuff deleted]
|> 
|> White Blundered and and Black Followed with a Blunder of his own.
|> 
|> 3.      ...     Qh4!  mate.
|> 
|> but black played the stupid move of 3. ...  c5.   This game is
|> obviously fixed.

:-) :-) :-)

Mr. DeLeon, how can you judge that the game was fixed if you only have
these sample moves?  Your analysis seems a little skimpy too.  Are you
sure that you are an impartial judge of this game, or are you bitter
and jealous that you are not a participant in this match?  I think
that your analysis may be suspect.

How did you know that 3. c2-c3 was a not theoretical novelty that only
White could understand, or was not a ploy to hide some opening
preparation for a future match.  Furthermore, 3. c2-c3 was a swindle
and Black failed to find the proper continuation.

Besides, the game ended in a draw.  That means both players are equal.
A draw is a draw is a draw.  Period.

:-) :-) :-)

-- 
Cheong Yu             |                        |        (513) 865-7048
Mead Data Central     |                        |   Fax: (513) 865-1755
P.O. Box 933          |                        |      kcy@meaddata.com
Dayton, Ohio  45401   |                        |    uunet!meaddata!kcy
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Latest FIDE Ratings
From: saba@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (John Saba, Univ. of Ariz. Computer Center)
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:48:27 MST
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-User: saba

Top Men Sorted in Order of Recent Rating Gain or Loss

Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria)              2635   +115
Joel Lautier (France)                   2645   + 65
Vladimir Kramnik (Russia)               2685   + 60
Kiril Georgiev (Bulgaria)               2660   + 50
Zurab Azmaiparashvili (Georgia)         2655   + 35
Johann Hjartarson (Iceland)             2625   + 30
Ulf Andersson (Sweden)                  2625   + 20
Michael Adams (England)                 2630   + 20
Viswanathan Anand (India)               2710   + 20
Garry Kasparov (Russia)                 2805   + 15
Ivan Sokolov (Bosnia-Hercegovina)       2640   + 15
Boris Gulko (USA)                       2625   + 15
Simen Agdestein (Norway)                2630   + 10
Anatoly Karpov (Russia)                 2725   + 10
Boris Gelfand (Byelo-Russia)            2690   +  5
Valery Salov (Russia)                   2660   +  5
Predrag Nikolic (Bosnia-Hercegovina)    2630   +  5
Artur Yusupov (Russia)                  2645   +  5
Yevgeni Bareev (Russia)                 2670      0
Gata Kamsky (USA)                       2655      0
Rustam Dautov (Russia)                  2625      0
Lev Polugayevsky (Russia)               2635   -  5
Aleksandr Khalifman (Russia)            2630   -  5
Vasily Ivanchuk (Ukraine)               2710   - 10
Jaan Ehlvest (Estonia)                  2625   - 10
Nigel Short (England)                   2655   - 25
Jan Timman (Netherlands)                2635   - 30
Aleksei Shirov (Latvia)                 2670   - 40

-- 
John Saba
saba@ccit.arizona.edu
saba@arizvms
From: iscjcw@uccvma.ucop.edu (Jerry Wilcox)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Request Book Recommendation for Beginner
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:09:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Office of the President
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ajax.ucop.edu

In article <1993Jan06.154550.34884@watson.ibm.com>, kader@dante.kgn.ibm.com
wrote:
> 
> I am a beginner player and am looking for the best book
> to learn the fundementals of openings and overall strategy of the game.

It has long been my firmly-held opinion that the single best book for a
beginner is Chernev's "Logical Chess Move-by-Move". The major drawback is
that it is an older book, written in descriptive notation. Despite that,
the fact that it annotates *every single move* of the numerous games
presented, and annotates with the idea of trying to explain WHY the move
was made rather than to show how clever the annotator thinks s/he is, makes
the book most useful to the beginner as well as to the mid-range player who
wants to improve.

And yes, I do have other chess books, and yes, I realize that some (but by
NO means all) of them are actually worth reading.

-----------
Jerry Wilcox - iscjcw@uccvma.ucop.edu
All opinions expressed are MINE -- I'd have a different job if the
University wanted me to speak for it.
From: gaillard@panix.com (Ed Gaillard)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Robatch Defense -- any ideas?
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:31:06 GMT
Organization: Radio Free Hades

mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen) writes:

>In <ft#@byu.edu> jensen@baloo.ee.byu.edu (Curtis Jensen) writes:

>>In trying to find an unusual response to 1.e4, I stumbled on the
>>Robatsch Defense.  I found two lines which are as follows:

>Robatsch Defense is the old name, nowadays it is called either Pirc
>(1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 and 3.-g6) or Modern (1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 and 3.-d6).
>Looking at lines you presented it seems Modern is what you want.
>As I am currently looking over one critical line, I may help a little.

>So 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4! (In my opinion this is most critical, as the
>point in Pirc is to prevent white getting this wide center.) 3.-d6 4.Nc3
>Nc6 (Othe lines are either too passive or allow white a transposition to
>King's Indian) 5.d5! (Formerly thought good for black) 5.-Nd4 6.Be3 c5
>7.Nge2 Qb6 8.Nxd4! cxd4 9.Na4 and now:

>9.-Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qc7 11.c5! dxc5 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.Bxd7+ Qxd7 14.Nxc5 +=,
>Seirawan - Keene, 1982

The critical line here is 11....Nf6 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.c6 bc6 14.dc6
Be6 15.Qc2 O-O 16.O-O d5 (Danailov-Garkov, Bulgaria 1984) "with a
very double-edged position" according to Nunn.

This fragment is in the notes to game 69 of Informant 38, stopping at
the 16th move as above.  Does anyone have the further score of this
game, or any later games with this line?  Going through the
Informants, I noticed that since 1984, there are no games with 8.Nxd4;
only 8.Na4 seems to get played.  I don't know how much significance to
attach to that.  I've played the 4....Nc6 line myself in postal and
OTB games for about 4 years; only once has anyone played 5.d5 (and he
played the 8.Na4 line).  I'm not sure what that means, either.

I think the critical line in the 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 Nc6 Modern is 5.Be3 e5 6.d5
Nce7 7.g4! The book "main line" is 7....f5, but it is bad (see
Nunn's book for the analysis).  I've only faced 7.g4 once, in a
postal game, and I tried Schlenker's suggestion of 7....a6, but
after 8.h4! h6 9.Bh3 c6 10.Qa4 Bd7 11.Qb4 Qb8 Black's position
was dismal (although I eventually won).  Nunn's book suggests
that 7....c5 might be good, but after 8.dc6 (Schlenker) bc6 9.Be2
I don't see how Black is going to develop his Kingside.  7....Nf6
8.g5 Nd7 9.h4 h5 10.gh6 also seems to leave Black in an awkward
state.  Any suggestions?

-ed g. 
<gaillard@panix.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: dogali@hsi.com (Terry Dogali)
Subject: chess set purchase
Organization: 3M Health Information Systems, Wallingford CT
Distribution: ne
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:41:03 GMT

While in New York City during the holidays, a friend and I went into
a store.  He spotted a chess set by Mascot Direct.  It was a Sherlock Holmes
set with a cherry board.  The chess set was mark $2500.   The sales lady
said she would give to my friend for $850.  When I asked to see the paperwork
on it she said everything was in the box.   She said this was a great buy.
She was willing to eat the tax and shipping.  Since I do not play chess or
know nothing about collector sets I told my friend to look around.  The sales
lady told he will never get this buy anywhere else.   Does anyone know 
what a good chess set goes for and a maker we should look for.  Any information 
would be greatly appreciated.    
Thanks 
Terry Dogali
-- 
Terry Dogali                                           dogali@hsi.com
3M Health Information Systems
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Subject: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:55:38 GMT

> Tracy Monaghan writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <1iafvtINN4vd@shelley.u.washington.edu>
> Posted: 4 Jan 1993 23:07:41 GMT
>
> Org.  : UW Computing
>
> In article <1993Jan4.172000.818@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> >
> >Possibly because we don't have the definitive program written yet for
> chess,
> >like we have for checkers. (No human can beat the programs that are out
> there
> >right now for checkers.)
> >
>
> Your knowledge of current events (checker's champion is still human) is as
> suspect as your ability at chess.

I was unaware that dcrosgr was partner in writing the definitive checkers
program. Or might he be the secret weapon of Jonathan Schaeffer's chinook?
For the record the current World Checkers champion beat Chinook in a training
match +1 =19 -0 and then beat Chinook in an official title match this summer
by a score of +4 -2 =34. As usual DMC does not kow what he is typing about.
Peter
--

----------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 2267 Performance Rating for 10-year old in Montreal
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:25:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

Judit Polgar had a 2300 performance at the World
Open when she was nine.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tobill@mac.lerc.nasa.gov (William B. Wright)
Subject: Re: Should r.g.c be split into 2 groups?
Reply-To: tobill@mac.lerc.nasa.gov (William B. Wright)
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:32:58 GMT

> Maybe we should separate this newsgroup into 2 separate groups, say:
>
>rec.games.chess
>-and-
>rec.games.chess.misc
>
>the former would be restricted (absolutely) to posts which provide the
>scores of games, analysis of games/positions/openings, or questions
>answers are of the form of the first two items in this list.
>
>rec.games.chess.misc would be a free-for-all in which anything conforming
>to USENET guidelines, with some, no matter how remote, connection to
>chess, could be posted.
>
>is there enough interest to organize a formal RFD?

I would also like to see this newsgroup split up. My system takes a very long time to load all the 
headers for this group because of all the crap.

The iceman cometh!
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: DMC is really Don Wedding
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:24:17 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

It's also strange that Don did not complain about being compared to
r.g.c's version of public enemy number one and postings from both
accounts have ceased since the evidence was presented.

-Andy

-- 
================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: DON WEDDING RESPONDS -- ONLY ONCE
Date: 8 Jan 93 11:37:12 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services


to all:


well, i was out of news for about a couple of days since my modem has been
dead and such. boy, what a suprise for me when i log in and find about
a million posts that accuse me of being DMC.

well, i'm not.

i'm a fanatical bobby fischer fan, and all of my posts were in support
of bobby. when the thread turned into all out flaming i (and the others
who were in the original discussion) stopped posting and hoped it would
die. apparantly, others were more than willing to take up the banner.

since the proof against me is so convincing that even *I* am no longer
sure...i think that i should be reported. 

the system managers name is BRIAN NELSON, his account is BRIAN at this 
address. you can call computer services here at UT is 419-537-2511.

if i am fraudulantly using somebody else's account, i should be reported
and have my account taken away (along with all of the other things that
will happen to me).

you people who are accusing me of this owe it to me and to everybody
else to check out your accusations.

there is no risk for you. i'm not asking that you fly out here, or get
a bad haircut or anything else.

i'm asking only that you have the decency to actually call and find out
or send him email. when you find out, one way or the other, please post
your findings so that the world can see if i am me and he is he.

( he being, of course, DMC )

thanks much,

don wedding

p.s. 

there has been too much non chess stuff as of late, so i will not answer
these charges ever again.  if you doubt me, take the appropriate (risk free)
action.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: disabito@progress.COM (Paul Disabito)
Subject: Re: Harper vs. DMC
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:05:09 GMT

disabito@progress.COM (Paul Disabito) writes:
test
>dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>>Paul, DMC MADE this offer. Go back and read the times of the posts. I threw
>>down a rather spiked guantlet, and Mr. Harper is trying to get away...


>Yes, DMC, you made an offer. Bruce Harper rejected your offer. Did he reject
>it because he was afraid, or did he reject it because he didn't want to
>meet you in person? Well, in my opinion, if he was afraid to play you,
>he would not have made a counter offer (which offer, by the way, I was
>referring to in my post). 

>If I understand you clearly, you claim that Bruce does not have any "balls"
>because he rejected your offer. But his rejection of your offer does not
>prove anything other than that he rejected your offer. His motives have not
>been proved. Not wanting to meet you seems a perfectly acceptable motive.
>In fact, in light of Bruce's counter offer, it seems to be the true motive.

>You could argue that he is, in fact, afraid and that his counter offer was
>only made with the understanding that it would be rejected. It is not a
>serious offer, you could say, because there is no way to insure fairness.
>Either party could cheat. While it is true that both of you could cheat,
>it seems less likely that Bruce would cheat. He is, after all, a strong 
>player. At any rate, if you did contend that he rejected your
>offer because he was afraid of playing you, you could still not
>prove it. You are merely speculating as to his motives.

>I'd like to see you accept his counter offer. You could--and probably will--
>reject it on the grounds that there is no way to insure absolute fairness.
>Too bad for us if you do. It would have made great spectacle.

>-Paul DiSabito

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: disabito@progress.COM (Paul Disabito)
Subject: Re: Harper vs. DMC
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:15:03 GMT

hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.210509.24159@progress.com> disabito@progress.COM (Paul Disabito) writes:
>>disabito@progress.COM (Paul Disabito) writes:
>>test
>>

><DMC tirade deleted>

>If you gotta test, how 'bout quoting a more relaxing and informative
>message?  we have had enough of these messages without quoting them for
>a test.  Also, for you guys flaming on here......  how about not changing
>the subject line?  My kill file groweth...

Sorry about that. My finger slipped. I never meant to post that. I'll
be more careful next time.

--Paul DiSabito 



>-- 
>!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
>!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
From: 824-5054%wwiv@tweekco.uucp (Jay Whitley #824 @5054)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Request Book Recommendations
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 03:16:27 GMT

I agree with Jerry Wilcox's recommendation of Chernev's "Logical Chess
Move-by-Move."  The question I have is:  are there any other books
explaining every move (to the novice-to-average player) that aren't
cryptic annotations?  Chernev's explanations are very good...any others
like his?

I also like Pandolfini's Solitaire Chess/ABCs in Chess Life...are there any
chess books that use a similar format that help explain the moves that
are directed toward the non-expert?

I often feel that the most significant void in chess books is the bridge
between beginners and more expert books.  Many players don't want beginners
books, but they don't want to jump up to master-level annotated GM games!