HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjj+@cs.cmu.edu (Peter Jansen)
Subject: Re: Computer WM?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:37:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.101610.537@ifi.unizh.ch> hafner@ifi.unizh.ch (Michel Hafner) writes:
>As far as I know the computer chess world championship is due this month. 
>Can anyone provide more information? ( Participants, SW, HW, dates... ).
>								M.H.

Well, I don't know what WM, SW and HW stand for, but perhaps the following
(exerpted, paraphrased and summarized from a draft for the September
issue of the ICCA Journal) tells you what you wanted to know...

-- Peter

---

The 7th World Computer-Chess Championship will be held in
Madrid (Spain), November 23-27, 1992.

The tournament is a 5-round Swiss.
Time control is 40/2 - 20/1 - adjudication.
Rounds are from 16:00 - 22:00 (10am - 4pm EST) each day.
TD is Mike Valvo.

An exhibition of the inventions of Leonardo Torres y Quevedo
will be held at the tournament site.

Richard Greenblatt (author of MacHack VI) will be present and
comment on his computer chess experience 25 years ago.

The Spanish host (DOXA) is also attempting to attract Kasparov for
a simultaneous exhibition against the competing chess programs
(this exhibition would probably take place on Nov 22nd).

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.


The playing site address:

   Universidad Politecnica de Madrid,
   Escuela Universitaria de Informatica,
   Km. 7 Carretera Valencia,
   28031 Madrid.

The ICCA is making a block booking at a Madrid hotel.
Some spectators may be able to take advantage of the special rates.
Anyone interested may contact David Levy (phone/fax).

---

<Insert usual and unusual disclaimers here>
From: tsioutsias-dimitris@cs.yale.edu (Dimitris Ioannis Tsioutsias)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Is this move valid ?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 01:20:29 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyaya.systemsz.cs.yale.edu

I want to know if the following move is valid (I think is called
an-passan (?)) That is, you move your pawn from its initial position
(*2 for the whites or *7 for the blacks) two places forward and 
get the pawn of your opponent that is resting in the same row that
your pawn ends but one column to the left or right. So, you don't
get it by moving diagonaly, but for a pawn's 1st move that's allowed.

Please let me know if this move is valid or not.

->dimitris

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Joseph Albert <albert@papyrus.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Sacrificial openings
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:37:55 GMT


>I know of exactly three openings which are sometimes played at international
>level which involve a piece sacrifice.

>Does anybody know of any other reasonable openings that involve piece
>sacrifices?

How about a Queen sacrifice? In the king's indian Saemisch system:

1 d4 Nf6  2 c4 g6  3 Nc3 Bg7  4 e4 d6  5 f3 0-0  6 Be3 Nh5  7 Qd2 Qh4+
8 g3 Nxg3  9 Qf2 Nxf1  10 Qxh4 Nxe3

this was first played by Bronstein vs. Spassky in an interzonal game in
1954 or 1956, i forget, but in a slightly different position where a
couple of extra moves were interpolated.

Velimirovic played this line against Karpov a over a decade ago and got
trounced.  Recently, Seirawan has re-vitalized black's defensive ideas,
and held a draw against Kasparov.  two other recent games have been drawn,
and now we see GMs avoiding playing 8 g3, instead going for 8 Qf2, to avoid
the whole line.

and, while we are on the subject of Bronstein, he is visiting HPLabs in
Palo Alto from Nov. 4 to Nov 16. I don't know the purpose of the visit,
but he is giving a talk in the HPLabs colloquium today, to be followed
by a simultaneous exhibition.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 30 Fischer wins match - moves
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:28:06 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Fischer finally won his 10th game today to clinch his rematch with
Spassky.  It was another Samisch KID, but Fischer got a tactical
counter-attack going and won quickly.  It's not immediately clear to
me if Spassky sacrificed a piece unwisely or was forced to do so to
avoid an even worse fate.

   (King's Indian Defense, Samisch Variation)
   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. d4 Nf6
   2. c4 g6
   3. Nc3 Bg7
   4. e4 d6
   5. f3 0-0
   6. Be3 Nc6
   7. Nge2 a6
   8. h4 h5
   9. Nc1 Nd7
   10. Nb3 a5
   11. a4 Nb4
   12. Be2 b6
   13. g4 hxg4
   14. fxg4 c5
   15. h5 cxd4
   16. Nxd4 Nc5
   17. Nd5 Bb7
   18. Nf5 gxf5
   19. gxf5 Bxd5
   20. exd5 Bxb2
   21. Kf1 Qd7
   22. Qb1 Bxa1
   23. Rg1+ Kh8
   24. Qxa1+ f6
   25. Qb1 Rg8
   26. Rg6 Rxg6
   27. hxg6 Kg7
   White resigns

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: Fischer - Polgar/Kasparov update
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:16:48 GMT

In article <1du7buINNsdm@news.aero.org>, jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) writes:
|> >Kasparov said Fischer needs to adjust to the new developments in 
|> >chess in the last 20 years.
|> 
|> What, pray tell, are these 'new developments'?

  Knights can move backwards, and Bishops must stay on their original color.

  It's been a long time since Fischer's played!

;-)

-Ron




|> 
|> --Larry %)
|> 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Polgar Match
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 06 Nov 92 02:09:28 PST

I agree, Fischer will probably win 8-4 or perhaps 7-5 over Polgar.
But how well would Fischer have done against Polgar when he
was 16??  She should keep improving, given her age.

-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Best player never to win the World Championship
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:41:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.181915.6795@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.233834.22767@midway.uchicago.edu>
>hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>	[Quite a lot.  Obviously my attempts at irony have defeated him;
>sorry!  Over in the UK, we regard emoticons as a last resort.]
>

And here in the US, we regard personal bashing as a last resort (except in
election campaigns:-) so your comment will not make you very popular.

Anyway, this time I won't write "quite a lot" because I have nothing to add
to what I had said before. I'll just repeat the main point: if Kasparov
loses the WC match in '93, it will be the greatest upset in WC matches ever.

You seem to agree with that, yet you yearn to show that I am wrong in
everything I say to back that statement. Well, I guess doing too much
mathematical proofs does that to some people...

	Sven

	Mathematics - should it be legalized?
From: dtb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David Burr)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Source code for chess games
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:48:38 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.



I'm doing research on chess-playing algorithms and would like
to test a theory on a current chess game.  I have the source
code for gnu chess and would like to get the source for other
chess programs.

If anyone knows where I can get the source code, please post
a message or send me mail.

========================================================================
    David T. Burr                                Home:   (904) 372-4255
    dtb@cis.ufl.edu                              Office: (904) 392-9579
    Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences
    University of Florida, USA
========================================================================

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: Arpad Elo, 1903-1992
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:25:02 GMT


The wire services have reported the death of Arpad Elo las
Thursday in his home in Milwaukee. He was the father of the
rating system which is used internationally and in many
countries. More details when available.


HWR
From: emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: ICS Ratings -- Average Ratings -- Provisional Ratings
Date: 10 Nov 1992 21:55:00 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <9211092219.aa02409@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu> jriechel@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes:
}
}Why not start newcomers ratings to zero, and reset all currently rated
}players, also, to a rating of zero?  If your rating was ever exactly
}zero, then the system could be programmed to display =PAR= instead of 0.
}
}With this system, there would be no pretension to approximating the USCF
}and FIDE systems.  Of course, it would still use Elo's equations, but it
}would LOOK DIFFERENT.  Which is usually enough to convince people it's
}unique.
}
}James Riechel

This has the same problem as the current system.  All of the ratings will
gravitate towards 0 instead of 1000 or 1500, but the problem remains:  in
the current system, the differences between rated players is decreasing as
everyone moves toward the averages.  This problem would probably be solved
by having the provisional player's score not affect the opponents rating
until around 5-10 games are played.  That's not perfect either, but there
are no tournaments on the ICS (except for blitz), so there's no easy way to
use the provisional player's post-tournament rating to calculate into the
other players rating.

------------
E. Mark Ping
emarkp@soda.Berkeley.EDU

  "Stand aside, I take large steps."  --Michael Dorn
  "Say, that's a nice bike."          --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
  "Pituita es."                       --Unknown Latin Scholar
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Immopar Round 1
Summary: Judit beats Timman, Kamsky over Lautier
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:12:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Nothing official yet, but according to Dan Edelman, via his endless phone
conversations with the Polgars:

Bareev beat Karpov

Yusupov beat Salov

Anand beat Adams

Shirov beat Gelfand

Judit beat Timman

Kamsky beat Lautier

Polugaevsky and Short are still playing.

Kasparov and Kramnik are still playing.

More later, although it would be nice if someone "in the neighborhood" could
give later results, and, of course, *GAMES*.

--elliott
  Elliott Winslow IM
  ekw@world.std.com
  Assistant Editor
  Chess Life USCF
From: olesen@math.uiowa.edu (Martin Olesen)
Subject: Re: F-S II Wrap-Up
Originator: olesen@walnut.math.uiowa.edu
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:01:10 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA



|> It's easy to compare Kasparov and Fischer's play because their opening 
|> repertoires are similar.

                    This is obviosly nonsense.

 
|> Even in the last game, Fischer
|> should have been crushed until Spassky started giving away all his pieces

                    Can you prove this by concrete analysis.


|> I'm not a Kasparov fan, but I have to agree with him when 
|> he says that there are a least 50 players capable of beating Fischer in a
|> match today .

                    One shouldn't really take Kasparov serious. If someone
                    called you the lowest of dog, a criminal totally
                    unworthy of any honor, would you immidiatly jump
                    forward and applause his play.
                   
                    It seems that the only conclusion that can really
                    be drawn is that Fischers strenght is around 2630.
                    After all he scored 17.5/30 against a 2550 player.
                    This are the only numbers we have, and all other arguments
                    is just speculation (they may be true, but cannot
                     really be justified at the present. And certainly not
                    by us lowly chessplayers who are 300-500-1000 ? ratingpoints
                    lower)                                      



                    To truly judge Fischers strenght, many more games are
                    necessary. Let me qoute:

                     Timmann: "Fischer clearly still has the strenght,
                               but maybe not the concentration".

                    Seirawan: "Fischer is clearly above 2600. How much above
                               is the question".

                     So there is really no consensus among the top players
                     about Fischers strenght.
                  

|> 
|>       -Ed Knowles
|> 



                                 Martin Olesen
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Subject: Fischer's strength.
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:00:07 GMT

A formula commonly given for comparing British Chess Federation ratings
to F I D E ratings is to multiply by 8 and add 600.
A   B.C.F rating performance is calculated by awarding yourself your opponents
grade + 50 if you win, your opponent's grade -50 if you lose and your
opponent's grade if you draw.  These results are then averaged.
Obviously this procedure is anomalous if the rating difference is greater than
50 B.C.F points, and I'm not sure what then occurs.

The point is that after converting and doing the calculations B.C.F style,
we get a rating performance for Fischer of 2583 FIDE (assuming Spassky's
rating of 2550.)
What do people think of  this as an estimate for Fischer's strength?
From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The ICS rating system (was Re: Why I Hate the ICS rating system.)
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:16:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Nov10.021651.11618
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

Onar Aam writes
> Someone mentioned that there was a skew problem even when the provisional rating
> was 1500. The reason for this is unclear. I cannot imagine that the rating system
> is intrinsically skewish since it is directly based on the ELO rating system.
> Therefore there must be other reasons. But putting the provisional rating back up
> to 1500 will definitely help. That I can guarantee.

The ELO scale is a sliding scale which means that only the differences in rating  
matter, not the actual ratings themselves.  So the only thing you can glean from  
the numbers is how you rate with respect to the other players.  However, I agree  
that it would be a Good Thing [tm] if ICS ratings approximated USCF ratings.   
Perhaps just add about 200-300 points to the current ratings, or use my earlier  
suggestion.

--
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  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Unsound Sacrifices (was Some Other Long Title)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:01:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.162302.8714@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
 writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.205831.9440@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs
.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:

>>>Being refuted after several days of analysis doesn't make a sacrifice
>>>unsound.
>>
>>     What????!!!?!?!?  That's ridiculous.  The fact that a sacrifice
>>is refuted most certainly does mean that it is unsound, period.
>>
>I disagree. There are sacrifices that are definitely sound, i.e. force a
>favorable result, those that are definitely unsound, i.e. known to be
>refuted or easy enough for a strong player to refute in the limited time,
>and those that are unclear, which are the most interesting.

So do you think "sound" means the same as "practical"?
I agree that "unclear" means something else entirely.

     [great amount of text deleted]

>Your logic, when followed all the way, denies the existence of sacrifices.
>Given infinite time, we can tell for every move if it wins, loses or draws
>against perfect play. (Yes, the dreadful word: Solvability!) "Sacrifice"
>has no meaning against a perfect opponent. It is purely a concept of
>the synthetic mind.

Wrong.  Even if GMs aren't given infinite time they can determine
whether a sacrifice is bad.  My logic
went 1 way only:  if a sacrifice is proven to lead to a forced
loss (or even a worse position), it is unsound.  This has nothing
to do with infinite time frames.  Theorists change their minds
often when confronted with "unclear" sacrifices, but "unsound"
sacs usually remain so.

I certainly didn't mean to insult Tal by saying that his sacs
were unsound.  In fact, he agreed that many of them were,
though I'm sure he didn't think so at the time he made them.
Somebody (maybe you?) said that no Wchampion became so by
making unsound moves.  I would argue that they all did.

-Mark

I'm sure I'll be hearing from you soon enough.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Best player never to win the World Championship
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:22:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov06.085019.9160@kub.nl> RVBAAL@kub.nl (R V BAAL DEA/OI) writes:
>
>Neither of them? How's that? Kasparov is'nt Jesus, is he?
>In 1935 Alekhine was considered as invincible as Kasparov now.
>Yet there was another underestimated dutchie who did the impossible...

Gary doesn't drink.

	Sven
From: mazzarel@spam.berkeley.edu (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: How good is a 45000 rating??? |)
Date: 9 Nov 1992 22:12:50 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: spam.berkeley.edu

If you meet the Buddha on the road,  and he tells you his rating is 45000,
take him up on his offer to play blitz for money.

Ariel
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess Ratings
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:19:08 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Nov4.145405.17098@husc3.harvard.edu>, Mark Glickman writes:

> They use a logistic distribution for the differences in players' abilities,
> not a normal distribution.  Nonetheless, you are still going to have
> to finesse the problem of perfect scores in some ad hoc way, I believe.

Here is a copy of the message I sent Ken Sloan:

--

Thanks again.  Basically, my idea was to compute a performance
rating for a score of X/Y from a field that we know the individuals
ratings of four ways.

  Rating = { rating | expected number of wins = X }

This may be found quickly via bisection, except for scores of O
or Y.

  Rating = { rating | probability of (X or less)/Y = 1/2 }

If the probabilities for W/L/D are known, this may be done by
bisection and dynamic programming (consider the number of
different ways there are to score 5/8 ...).  This will handle
perfect scores (giving a range), but not zero scores.

  Rating = { ratings | probability of (X or more)/Y = 1/2 }

Again, this may be done by bisection and dynamic programming.
This will handle zero scores (giving a range), but not perfect scores.

  {ratings} = { ratings | X/Y such that X is the most likely outcome }

Bisection and dynamic programming, also.  Will handle all scores,
giving a range in each case.

Based on what you've given me, I'll just be able to handle integer
scores, or I'll have to compute both floor(x) and ceil(x) and do
some type of interpolation.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: piece sacrifices
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:28:17 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

I know of exactly three openings which are sometimes played at international
level which involve a piece sacrifice.  They are as follows:
Muzio Gambit:  1. e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3. Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gXf3 6.Qxf3.

Cochrane Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7.

Alekhine's Defence.  1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 d3 5. Nxe5 Nd7 6. Nxf7


Does anybody know of any other reasonable openings that involve piece 
sacrifices?
I understand that Salvio's Gambit is terrible for White,
and that Black should not play the moves leading to the Fried Liver 
Attack.  (Not only is the Fried Liver Attack a win for white but
Black's Nxd5 possibly gives White even stronger options.)

Paul Epstein.
From: LIB031@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Gaprindashvilli's strength (was re: Fishcer with odds)
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:06:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: uicvm.92315.210643LIB031
 <1992Nov10.053806.11318@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <92315.132104U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <baljeual.721441966@uther>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago


In article <baljeual.721441966@uther>, baljeual@uther.calvin.edu (Alan Baljeu)
says:
>
><U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>>>>
>>>>You're crazy if you think even a perfect chess machine could give
>>>>knight odds to a 2300 player.
>>>>
>>But Fischer was probably better than a perfect chess machine.
>:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
>:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
>:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
>:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
>:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
>Watkins didn't put them in, so I thought I better.(or was he serious?)
>
>Alan Baljeu

Ahem, thank you very much for your honest, heartfelt, non-sarcastic posting.
I am happy to know there are people like you on the net.

My point was that Fischer could play moves in a game against a
2300 which would probably be more effective than a perfect computer,
because, while a perfect computer would always make the best move,
Fischer could produce sound/unsound/questionsble/unknown gambits
or attacks which might turn out to be less than ideal, but which
could more easily beat a 2300.  Of course this 'perfect computer'
depends on weather chess is solvable or not....)   :-)

(just kidding of course, even the lowest idiot knows chess is
 solvable! )

-watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jh867044@longs.lance.colostate.edu (john haigh)
Subject: Re: Where did they get these names?
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 17:05:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

Jeff Hanson asks the source of the name "Dragon Variation."  The shape of Black's
pawns on d6, e7, f7, g6, and h7 gives the variation its name, NOT (though
this is plausible, too) the bishop lurking in his "cave" (g7) waiting to breathe
fire on White's queenside.

At least that's the explanation I saw in Chess Life a few years ago, possibly
in a Larry Evans column.  

<Modern Chess Openings> gives sources for many of the opening names in the
introductory text for the various openings.

				John Haigh
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess