HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alacron!adb@uunet.UU.NET (alan brunelle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer the King?
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:51:47 GMT
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.unl.edu



I am very perplexed by something: *How could Fischer still be the World
Champion if he resigned the title in 1975?* As my (very) faulty memory
remembers, Fischer stated something like "Seeing as youse guys have
decided not to have a championship with my conditions met, then I 
resign my title". Now if that is true, then why is he meandering around
the globe claiming this title? 

I can see some potential responses:

1. He resigned the FIDE title, not the *real* World Championship.

2. Seeing as he was dealing with an organization overrun with communists
   (== FIDE == Jews), they had no *right* to deal in any way with the
   *real* World Championship. (Fischer's concept, certainly not mine!)

3. Or, perhaps, I have it all wrong...

In any event, until I can find my _Chess Life & Review_ issue with the
text of the telegrams, can anyone out there clear up the two points:

1. Did Fischer resign his/the title in '75?
2. If so, what explanation has he come up with in '92?

TIA

adb

---

Any ideas on this "Fantasy" Variation:

1. Nf3 f5; 2. e4 fxe4; 3. Ng5 d5; 4. d3 exd3; 5. Bxd3 e5; 6. Nxh7 Nf6;
7. Bg6+ Ke7

		+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
		| r | n | b | q |   | b |   | r |
		+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
		| p | p | p |   | k |   | p | N |
		+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
		|   |   |   |   |   | n | B |   |
		+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
		|   |   |   | p | p |   |   |   |
		+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
		|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
		+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
		|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
		+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
		| P | P | P |   |   | P | P | P |
		+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
		| R | N | B | Q | K |   |   | R |
		+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:10445 news.answers:3960
From: shauck@adobe.com (William R. Shauck)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,news.answers
Subject: rec.games.chess FAQ: Table of Contents
Keywords: chess FAQ semimonthly table-of-contents
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:57:48 GMT
Expires: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 22:54:29 GMT
Reply-To: shauck@adobe.com
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Supersedes: <chess-faq-toc_720612903@adobe.com>

Archive-name: chess-faq/part0

[1] Federation Internationale des Echecs (FIDE)
[2] The United States Chess Federation (USCF)
[3] Chess Federation of Canada (CFC)
[4] American Chess Foundation (ACF)
[5] Ratings
[6] How USCF Ratings are Calculated
[7] How USCF Lifetime Titles are Earned
[8] Tournaments
[9] The Swiss Tournament Pairing System
[10] I'm a Novice/Intermediate.  How Do I Improve?
[11] Recommended Openings and Opening Books for Novices/Intermediates
[12] Publications
[13] Where to Get Books and Equipment
[14] State and Local Organizations (USA)
[15] Correspondence Organizations
[16] Bulletin Board Systems (BBS's)
[17] E-Mail Games, ICS, Mailing Lists, Usenet reader
[18] Material Available via Anonymous FTP
[19] Chess-Playing Computers
[20] Chess-Playing Software
[21] Database Software
[22] Utility Software
[23] Using Figurine Notation, Symbolic Annotation, or Diagrams in Printed Text
[24] Trivia
[25] Common Acronyms
[26] Variants
[27] Disclaimer and Copyright Notice
-- 
William R. Shauck                   Internet: shauck@mv.us.adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated       uucp: ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!shauck
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Gaprindashvilli's strength (was re: Fishcer with odds)
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:07:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsbcsl.6639


Gaprindashvilli in 1963 finished ahead of all of the English players at
Hastings and broke even with Tal in speed chess.  At Rejkavijk 
immediately thereafter she finished behind only Tal and Gligoric.  The
evidence is that she was a very strong 2400 player, and nobody thought
that Fischer could give her Knight odds at any form of chess in 1963.
In fact the Soviets thought the offer was a joke; that G would have
crushed F in such a match.  As Bill Maddex says: a reality check guys!
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fischer's strength
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:47:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.141752.11116@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>
>the reason that so many grand masters and international masters are
>criticizing the quality of play is that they are bitter and jealous.
>

What follows shows that Don knows very little about chessplayers:


>think about it from their perspective. suppose you were an IM, and
>worked like grim death night and day for that GM title. then bobby
>comes out of retirement after 20 years of seemingly doing nothing
                                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does anybody think so?

>and he trounces borris spassky who is ranked 100 in the world...with
>little or no effort. these Grand Master "wanna-be's" are understandably
>upset. it isn't fair in their minds that it comes so easy to him to be
>brilliant while they have to work to be mediocre.

This is nonsense. Kasparov is nowdays far more brilliant than Fischer, so
where are those jelous IMs who claim that Kasparov's chess is not very good?

>
>now lets say you were a GM. you make your living playing chess. chances
>are you have to squeek by...perhaps playing postal chess for 20$ a game

Playing postal games for money - as a way of earning a living? You could
have at least consulted Pandolfini to make your fiction a little more
realistic  ;->

>to supplement your sporadic tournament winnings. it's tuff to get that
>big payoff since sponsors don't like to cough up hundreds of thousands
>of dollars in prize money.  then, after 20 years, bobby comes out of
>retirement and WHAM! he gets a 5 million dollar purse to play against
>borris spassky (who these jealous GM consider to be a has-been).

Spassky has been a has-been for quite a while. That has nothing to do with
Bobby. Also, you don't have to be a genius to make 3.33 (not 5) million in
that part of the world: the opportunities for weapons or oil or other supplies
smuggling are plenty.

> the
>sponsors are lining up

Very doubtful.

> to pay him 2.5 million to play polgar and 
>10 million to play kasparov or karpov.

Even less convincing.

>  kasparov can't even get 1 million
>to play for the FIDE world championship.

He got substantially more last time.

>don wedding
>

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Searching for Bobby Fischer
Keywords: movie, chess, waitzkin, bobby fischer
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:36:24 GMT

In <BxF944.6pn@world.std.com> mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser) writes:

>jhl28500@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jae Hyung Lim) writes:

>I've heard that Ben Kingsley, the guy who played Gandhi, will be in this film.

He will play the part of Bruce Pandolfini, Josh's chess mentor. Both Bruce
and Josh are actively involved in consulting for the film.
From: dmilette@aix1.uottawa.CA (Denis Milette)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chessmaster 3.0, hidden .bmp's
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:09:16 GMT
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.unl.edu


hi

browsing through my hard disk with my -viewer- (.bmp,.pcx,.gif,etc)
and in the subdirectory /bitmaps I stumble accross 2 files that 
Chessmaster never did let me know about. The files head.bmp &
headmask.bmp show the pictures of the developpers of this great
software.

How can I tell Chess... to show me these guys? Must be a secret
sequence or something. Like in Corel Draw & Windows 3.0, etc..
I went through ALL the menu options and saw nothing. Any ideas
out there?

-- 
Denis Milette (dmilette@panda1.uottawa.ca) yaba@daba.doo
University of Ottawa/Universite d'Ottawa
Computing & Communications-Informatique et communications
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Computer WM?
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:01:09 GMT

In article <1dbqcuINNhgb@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE> carsten@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.101610.537@ifi.unizh.ch: hafner@ifi.unizh.ch (Michel  
>Hafner) writes:
> 
>: The 7th World Computer-Chess Championship will be held in
>: Madrid (Spain), November 23-27, 1992.
>: 
>: 
>: Participants:
>: 
>: Centaur          (Russia)
>: Chess Genius 1.0 (UK/Germany)
>: Cumulus          (France)
>: Echec            (France)
>: Hiarcs           (UK)
>: Kasparov         (USA)
>: Lachex           (USA)
>: M-Chess          (USA)
>: Mirage           (CIS ?)
>: Nightmare        (Germany)
>: Nimzo            (Austria)
>: Pandix           (Hungary)
>: Prochess         (Netherlands)
>: Rebel            (Netherlands)
>: Risc 2500        (Netherlands)
>: Ulysses          (Germany)
>: Woodpusher 2     (UK)
>: Zugzwang         (Germany)
>: 
>: Notice the absence of some of the 'regulars', although
>: B*-Hitech (USA) and Fritz (Germany) may yet enter.
>
>
>Where are programs like 'Deep Thought','Mephisto' and 'Cray Blitz'?
>Is there a separation between mainframes and micro computers?
>
>

Nope,  Cray Blitz is staying home over the Thanksgiving holidays.  This
set of holidays is the second most revered "family" time in the U.S.A.
Somehow, this year, the ICCA let Spain set the date with no regard for
traditional U.S. holidays..  I have done enough of these that I felt
more like staying at home with my family rather than being gone the
*entire* Thanksgiving week.  We will probably play at the ACM tournament
in Feb...

Bob Hyatt

BTW, it is often frustrating that the best programs in the entire world come
from the U.S. yet no consideration is shown when choosing dates for such an
important event.  If you think that I'm on a soap box, you ought to see the
suds around here......   :^)

Bob
-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
From: toblermichae@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Another piece sac. line
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:24:03 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

	Does anyone out there have any games involving this variation of the 
King's Gambit?
1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0.
Taking the Knight seems to be consistent with 4...g4. Is there anything 
else? I was black when this position arose, but I chickened out on 
accepting the sacrafice because my opponent was rated 2400 and I didn't 
feel too comfortable about it. Can black eventually achieve an advantage of  
some sort, either accepting or refusing the sacrafice? Any comments or 
games would be appreciated. Thanks.
From: pals@ipact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: a question and a complaint.
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:44:19 CDT
Organization: IPACT, Valparaiso IN

In article <92312.134427RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, 
<RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:

> hi there.  i'm a player of middling skill.  recently, i've renewed
> my interest in chess.  one of the things that i'm doing is playing
> a bunch against my computer.  i have a question: should i play against
> the hardest level, no matter how bad it kicks my butt, or should i
> play against the easiest level, until i can consistently beat it,
> and then move on to the next level?

Depends on what a "level" is (it varies).  Probably the best way to play a
machine that is considerably stronger than you is to take time odds, that
is, give the machine about 1/3 as much time as you.  This will reduce
boredom for you, and keep the contest a bit more even.  If this corresponds
to a different "level", then so be it.

> now a complaint.  i recently set up the computer's board with kbn v k,
> and let the computer play against itself.  it wasn't able to mate in
> 50 moves.  surely the algorithm wouldn't take up too much space! i
> mean, people can remember it.

A good computer should be able to do this, but as far as I know, none use
a special algorithm for it (and shouldn't have to).

-- 
Randy Pals                |pals@ipact.com
IPACT, Inc.               |
From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Half point forfiet???
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:57:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Nov10.005759.8768
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

sven  hauptfeld writes
> In article <1992Nov2.162835.6767@cs.ucf.edu> jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph  
Dumas) writes:
> >
> >>One more question: Is the TD the tournament god? In general is there a  
higher  
> >>authority to go to if one really feels that they have been cheated?  
There is  
> >>over $100 riding on these decisions.
> >
> >You can always appeal to the USCF (assuming this is a USCF rated
> >tournament); they have ultimate authority to rule on the dispute and
> >impose sanctions against the TD for screwing up/violating rules.  Not
> >that I think this will happen; they will probably write him a letter
> >saying "this is the wrong way to handle this, don't do it again" and
> >then drop the matter.  Practically speaking, TDs are pretty much gods
> >and get away with just about anything short of wholesale fraud (and I've
> >heard of a few who have gotten away with that, at least short term).
> >But if the guy is basically well-intentioned and just doesn't know the
> >rules, perhaps an official wrist slap by the USCF will avoid this in the
> >future (and maybe even get you some or all of the money, assuming you
> >don't win the "unforfeited" game.  Good luck.
> >
> 
> I don't know the rules in detail, but it would make sense that, if you 
> accept rescheduling the game and play it, you automatically waive your
> right to appeal to the USCF. In other words, if you play and lose, you 
> lose and that cannot be changed.
> 
> Unless there is some utmost stupidity in the rules (which is not at all 
> unlikely), you should make up your mind and EITHER file an official appeal
> to the USCF OR reschedule the game - BUT NOT BOTH.
> 
> BTW, if I were you, I would choose the quixotic path and appeal. If you
> play the game, you support the unjust decision and encourage the TD to
> continue being a jerk. You probably won't be his last victim.
> 
> 	Sven

Under USCF rules, you must submit to whatever judgement the TD levies, even  
under a concurrent appeal.  This is called "playing under protest".  If the  
appeal is granted, then you should be awarded whatever is appropriate.
--
The secretary says he's on another line.  
Can I hold for a long, long time?   -TMBG
Michael Schmahl a.k.a. Black-Robe Mage
From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Analysis welcomed!
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:10:31 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.

The following position arose in a league game, and went for adjudication.
The result came back the wrong way [for us!], so we are considering an
appeal, for which analysis is usually supplied [though not compulsory].

  ------------------
 |   ::  ::  ::  :: |
 | ::  ::  ::  ::BP |	W (to move): K h3, R f2, B e2, N g3, P h2
 |   ::  BP  ::  :: |	B: K g5, R a3, N h4, Ps d6, e5, h7
 | ::  ::  BP  BK   |
 |   ::  ::  ::  BN |
 | BR  ::  ::  WNWK |
 |   ::  ::WBWR  WP |
 | ::  ::  ::  ::   |
  ------------------

Unfortunately, this position is just at that critical stage where it
needs, but is too complicated for, exact analysis!  Any ideas from the
strong players on the Net would be very welcome.  [Let me emphasise that
no-one is going to play the position out, no money is involved apart
from the appeal fee of #1, and I don't think there is an ethical problem.
We simply would like to know the objective truth about the position,
and if that confirms the original decision, we'll save our fee.]

	White can only move B or R.  We are fairly sure that 1 Bc4 only
draws after 1 ... Rf3!, so the critical line is 1 Rf7.  Now 1 ... h6?!
2 Rg7+ Ng6 3 Bc4 wins, so Black must play 1 ... Ng6 [threat Nf4 mate!],
when White starts to free himself by 2 Rf5+ Kh6 3 Rh5+ Kg7 4 Kg4, and
the position is delicately poised.  4 ... Ra4+ looks best, but may just
be driving the K where it wants to go.  At some stage, Black surely has
to switch from tactics, and keeping White tied up, to something more
active with the central pawns.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
From: jriechel@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: (none)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:52:54 GMT


Paul Epstein writes:

   [...]
   ...(Not only is the Fried Liver Attack a win for white but
   Black's Nxd5 possibly gives White even stronger options.)

From what I understand, the Fried Liver Attack (which arises from the Two
Knights Defense:  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5
6. *Nxf7*) is NOT a win for White.  Black can hold his own.  Consider:
6.-Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Kd6 8. Nc3 Nb4 9. Qe4 (the classical continuation,
was it Philidor who played the questionable 9. a3 Nxc2+ 10. Kd1 Nxa1
(10.-Nd4!) gambit?) 9.-c6 10. a3 Na6 and black answers 11. d4 or 11. f4
or 11. o-o by 11.-Nc7 and eventually plays 12.-Kf7.  This is MY
responce to the FL as Black, I think book differs beginning at 9.-c6.
They are many interesting (and historical) variations in the Two Knights
and in the "various" Fried Liver attacks.

The books say that White actually does better by playing 6. d4 in responce
to 5.-Nxd5.  In at least one variation that originates with 6. d4, White
still plays the theamatic Nxf7.

James Riechel
jriechel@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:31:21 EST
From: Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Check revisited
Distribution: usa

In article <12806@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>, tcmaint@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (-Broadband
Network Maintenance) says:
>
>In regards to a king being checked be 1 or 2 pieces, this holds true even if
>the king were in check by 3, 4 or more pieces. In order to have 3 you must
>have 2, in order to have 4 there is 3.
>
>I don't see that a king that is in check 3 pieces is not also in check by
>1 and 2 pieces also.
>

First of all, I think the whole argument is a little silly, and the point
you make certainly seems valid, at least in spirit.  However, the
counter-argument would seem to be that if you are correct,
then it would unnecessary to mention "1 or 2 pieces"; saying "1 piece"
would be sufficient.  Why, then, did the framers of the law say
"1 or 2 pieces"?  Why not just "1 piece"?

I think that they were trying to be very careful with language and
make sure that nobody claimed that a double check was not a check.
They also knew that a triple (or higher) check was not possible
in the traditional sense of the player making a move to deliver a check.
Therefore, they did not have to go higher than "1 or 2 pieces".

On the other hand, it being not being possible to move into check, it
was not necessary to worry about moving into single check vs. double
check vs. triple check etc.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: erb@world.std.com (ed r baker)
Subject: Re: Once rated, not always rated.
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:52:37 GMT

What would result in a higher rating:

1) Using one's old rating from 8th grade (based on two tournaments), or

2) Starting afresh as if one was never rated?

Assume that one is a much better chess player now than in 8th grade.  What
is the difference in USCF rating points, if the current level is X?
From: sym@aber.ac.uk (Stuart McIntyre)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S ALL GAMES 1 THRU 28
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:39:25 GMT
Organization: University of Wales, Aberystwyth

As a novice, I would appreciate some postings of games with annotations.
I'm sure others would like this too, and someone might point out something
you missed!

Thanks


-- 
                  Stuart McIntyre    sym@uk.ac.aber

        B e   e x c e l l e n t   t o   e a c h   o t h e r
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: please explain the "Fischer clock"
Keywords: fischer, clock, what
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:28:13 GMT

In <1992Nov6.191744.15475@midway.uchicago.edu> eb11@quads.uchicago.edu (Ernest Barreto) writes:

>I can't seem to get a straight answer on this--

>would someone please explain just what is meant by
>"the Fischer Clock"?

In a normal chess tournament, each player is assigned T minutes for M moves,
say 120 minutes to make 40 moves. The problem with this is that many players
tend to use up almost all their time in the early stages of the game, leaving
only a few minutes (or less) to make the last ten moves before the time con-
trol. Naturally, the quality of chess played under these conditions suffers.

The Fischer clock uses a different way to set time limits. For example, an
equivalent time control to the last would be 80 minutes + 1 minute/move to
make the first 40 moves. Each player still has 120 minutes to make 40 moves,
but will never have less than one minute for each move.
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: funky pairings
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:04:32 GMT
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

In article <BxKwJ6.I78@news.orst.edu> linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin) writes:
>...
>
>I'm pretty sure the guy opted for the C prize anyways, since it would
>be more than splitting the 2nd place prize.  However, isn't the idea
>of Swiss System to rank players based on number of points scored? 

Well, no.  The idea of to Swiss System is to provide a toournament where
you can simultaneously:

    *determine a winner
    *play lots of chess
    *play a predictable amount of chess (no fear of knockout - only byes)
    *sort out the players so that everyone finds a close,
      competitive game or two (in the last few rounds)

I suspect that, knowingly or not, most class players like Swiss
tournaments because of the last point.  The most difficult problem a
Class A player has is finding a good, competitive game.  When the system
works, that's exactly what you get on Sunday.  I'm not sure why Quads
aren't more popular - probably because my theory is completely bogus,
but there it is, anyway.

Back to the Swiss system.

It does a terrible job of ranking the middle of the field.  Look at the
distribution of scores at the end of any large tournament.  Very few
perfect, or close to perfect scores at both the top and the bottom.  In
the middle, you have a lot of players grouped into relatively few score
groups.  Every round jumbles the order, especially for players who
oscillate around 50% scores.  The order after the last round may be
completely different than the ordering after the next to the last round,
and completely different again if yet another round were to be played.

This is one reason that "class prizes" are slightly foolish (or, as I
characterized them earlier today - a 'lottery".)

But - you have a choice. If you want to give precedence to correctly
handing out class prizes, then you have to give up on the goal of
correctly ordering the entire field.  If you want a total order, the
pair normally, and forget about class prizes.  If you want good class
prize winners, then forget about totally ordering the field.  That's why
the rules specify (more or less clearly) that if you accept a class
pairing you give up all rights to the Open $$.

-- 
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