HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: janet@cs.UAlberta.CA (Janet Service)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.board
Subject: Chinook match
Keywords: results
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:43:54 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Jonathan Schaeffer has just called to let us know the results of
today's games.  Chinook won one game (Dr. Tinsley resigned) and
drew three games.

(The last time Dr. Tinsley lost more than one game in a match was
back in approx. 1948. )

They will be playing 4 more games tomorrow (Saturday) and resting
on Sunday.

We will post the results on Monday.

Janet Service
From: ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computer Ratings/Versions
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:06
Organization: Private Coherent 3.2.1 site waiting for 4.0

nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash) writes:
>... If Fidelity changes something in its evaluation
> algoritm, doesn't that mean they have a 'new' program and should have to star
> from scratch to get re-rated? Will the rating organizations require full  
> disclosure of source code to guarantee this?

I don't think so, because changes to the program won't make the rating jump
by more than some 10s of ELOs. So, continous improvements will have the
same effect as if some human continously improves his/her strength, and
s/he won't have to "start from scratch", neither.

> Also, for software only programs, how are ratings done at all? Because these 
> programs can run on different hardware, is there any 'official' way of rating
> them?

This applies too for chess computers where I would like to see only those
configurations rated that are officially sold (means: no 68040 Mephisto
rated because you can only buy the 68030).

But I don't think it will be a problem to rate software because it will be
run on the fastest available machines anyway and the speed of these machines
won't increase in a way that affects the rating exorbitantly. One says that
a 100% speed increase improves the rating by 30-50 ELO but that surely is
valid only to a certain limit.

Now think of the fact:  Given PC software like M-Chess and a 80486-50, when
are you likely to get a rating improvement of 30 to 50 just by speed? You
have to wait for a 100 MHz processor.  Or you can try to parallelize your
program, but I'm sure others in the net can confirm that this is easier
said than done. That's the reason why we don't see commercially available
parallel chess computers (except the Fidelity No.10 with the two 68040's).

--ralf
-- "... a particularly severe standard should be applied to the reasons that
   move the legislator to differentiation and unequal treatment. Hereby the
   legislator is demanded to check consecutively his forecasts he made at
   law creation and to adapt the once won understanding to newer knowledge."
                                              (From The Lubeck Sentence)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:25:21 GMT

In article <BszGqo.BrF@cs.psu.edu> bralick@asm.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.152642.3876@cs.ucf.edu> jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas) writes:
>| ...  If
>| this means we have to be somewhat less than accommodating to the
>| computer developers, well, they'll just have to figure out other ways to
>| evaluate their progress.  It can't be as hard as it was to come up with
>| the programs/hardware in the first place, can it?
>
>Why don't they put up $$$ to play matches against these strong players who don't 
>want to play the computer.  A developer could stake, say, $500.00 on his machine 
>being stronger than the human Master -- winner take all.  That is one way to

>motivate a starving chess player.


Yeah, right.  But what about us starving chess program developers?  This
has been an ongoing struggle.... and misconception....  all of us are not
supported by companies with big advertising budgets.  Cray supplies us
with machine time and that's it...  the rest of our money comes out of
our pockets (the cray blitz team here).

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Chess Chow Review
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:44:49 GMT

In article <9208172304@opal9> augsburg@marble.rtsg.mot.com (Leonard Augsburger) writes:

>* Chow is published from the center of American chess, Manhattan.
>This doesn't seem to affect the editorial content - but I like the 
>idea that they are trying to make a go of it in New York. 

An anecdote.  I was in New York a couple of weeks ago visiting
friends.  They work at a jingle house in Manhattan.  The attendants in
the parking lot across the street were playing chess outdoors on their
tournament equipment---but these were clearly amateur chess lovers, no
tournaments.  When I got back, I read that the new chess center will be
opening---just a few doors down the street.  So, chess lovers will find
a friendly place to park.  I suppose that the chess center may be
extending its influence even before it opens, but then this looked like
a well used board.

--Jim
From: rfh2y@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Russell Haddleton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer vs Treasury Dept.
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:47:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department

Haven't seen this previously in r.g.c, so...
From Sunday's (8/16) N.Y. Times:

        The Treasury Department has alerted a lawyer 
      representing Bobby Fischer that the reclusive
      chess master would violate American economic
      sanctions against Yugoslavia if he went ahead
      with his planned return match with Boris Spassky
      beginning Sept. 2.
        A Treasury Department official said today that
      if Mr. Fischer decided to "disregard the law and
      regulations, we would then have to take appropriate
      enforcement action." Mr. Fischer, who is said to 
      be in Yugoslavia, could potentially face fines or
      even imprisonment.
        American sanctions, part of a broader United Nations
      effort, prohibit travel for business purposes, the
      official said, and the $5 million match would be
      considered a commericial transaction under Treasury
      regulations.

Is it back to the Pasadena Jail House for our hero?
From: richardr@sco.COM (Richard Robinson)
Subject: Re: US Open
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:34:22 GMT


In article <BssAnA.Bp5@cs.psu.edu> bralick@asm.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes:
>In article <SCHILLER.92Aug9152221@tira.uchicago.edu> schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:
>| 2. That we recommended that as of 3/1/93, if a tournament
>| allows computers to play, then a player must play against a
>| machine if so paired. 
>| 
>| This is NECESSARY because refusing to play against machines
>| is playing havoc with pairings and prize distributions. 
>
>Sigh.  Yet another rule promulgated for the (supposed) convenience of 
>the TD (and let the player be damned).  Turn it around ... if allowing 
>machines at chess tournaments with appropriate regard for a human's 
>preference to play against another human is such a hassle then the 
>TDs should disallow computers rather than disregarding the human's desire.  

I am more often a player than a TD (much more often).  It seems that if
you want to play unofficial, offhand games then you can do so on your
own.  If you want tournaments which imply some level of organization
and planning both on a pre-tournament basis and on a round-by-round basis,
then due consideration has to be given to the TD's.  The third option
you mention causes great hassles for the TD which hurts everyone's
enjoyment of the tournament.  

>
>Arguing that by choosing to play in a tournament in which computers 
>are allowed I agree to the rule begs the question.  The rule change
>is UNNECESSARY because if TDs don't want the hassle of accomodating 
>machines then they can close the tournament to computers.

It seems that given the choice between having no computers in tournaments
and having Eric's recommendation, you would choose the former.  I would
agree that perhaps there should be three choices, namely, no computer
tournaments, computers-but-humans-allowed-to-choose, computers-humans-
no-choice.  
If a TD, and the players, are willing to put up with the likely hassles 
choice #2 entails, great!  But, organizers and TD's should be given the
choice of organizing under the no-choice rule to protect their own sanities.
As always, this would be part of the Tournament Life announcement and
players could make their own choices accordingly.
Lastly, those who felt that there were not enough tournaments of their
kind are always welcome to put their own mental health on the line and
organize and direct their own tournaments!

richardr
richardr@sco.com

>
>
>Regards,
>
>-- 
>Will                                  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
>        bralick@cs.psu.edu            |  we must proportion our efforts to 
>                                      |  his powers of resistance.
>with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz


-- 
blah blah
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Kathy Watts)
Subject: Re: Tournament design
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:00:21 GMT

I read with great interest the old article in the Minnesota Chess Journal (or
whatever it was called) about Diesen's pairing system, and was quite impressed.

But the previous post only described one of its two intended functions, which
was reducing the chance of multiple perfect scores in a large field with very
few rounds (the report I saw was on a 100-player 4-round event, and there were
0 or 1 perfect scores!).

Most interesting to me was the idea that players with middling scores would be
paired against players with similar ratings (within 100 or 200 points, and this
WAS numerically defined - no seat-of-the-pants guesswork needed by the TD - in
the article).  Players who were performing above expectation (low-rated players
with high scores) would be paired with high-rated players who were performing
below expectation (i.e., had lower scores).

The most interesting thing to me was the level of satisfaction of the
participants, as measured in a survey accompanying the report.  Despite the
event being a held in a single section, an incredibly high percentage of the
games were played between players rated near each other, thus giving both
players a chance to win, and to improve their ratings.

The report was reprinted in the BINFOs circulated to the USCF policy board at
that time.  Maybe someone can find it?

-Hal Bogner
 International Arbiter

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: fhh@watson.ibm.com (Feng-Hsiung Hsu)
Subject: Fischer match game starting time
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:55:15 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Forgot to add this.

The games are supposed to start at 3:00 pm local time, or 9:00 am
Eastern time for people in the US east coast.  CompuServe and USA
Today Sports Center might both cover it.  Any volunteer to enter
the moves on ICS?

At least one TV tabloid show (A Current Affair?) is said to be
planning a special on Fischer right before the match.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Travelmaster & Fidelity
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:23:25 GMT

In article <26732@life.ai.mit.edu> cracraft@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Stuart Cracraft) writes:

>Fidelity has pulled another number on the American chess-playing
>public and its own customers. 

I have a good impression of Fidelity.  Have there been problems other
than the TravelMaster?

>Instead, what comes in the mail later (less than 4 weeks later)
>is a forced exchange for either the weak Marco Polo (and a lousy
>peg set at that) or the ugly Fidelity Designer with the over-
>hyped Mach III program. The Travelmaster is, in effect, confiscated.

So just keep the TravelMaster.  Or is it broken and you want one that
works?  That hardly constitutes "confiscation."

I would have gladly kept my TM if I had known that they would
eventually give me a Mach III in exchange.  That would be at least 1/2
off the Mach III.

>I am curious what other Travelmaster owners have experienced in
>the last couple of weeks. Have any of you decided never to buy
>again from Fidelity like me?

Not me.  I rejected my TM immediately.  It was obviously a piece of
junk.  A better company would have realized its mistake and never
marketed the machine, but perhaps Fidelity has learned something.  I
also am disappointed that I.C.D. didn't just reject the machine.  When
I returned mine, I got the impression that a lot of them had been
returned immediately.  I would be more concerned if I were taken in by
machines that seem good but keep breaking.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Subject: How to not have to play the computer
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:06:57 GMT

   So with the new FIDE rules if you are paired against a computer you
have to play the computer.  I would insist then that the computer have to
*play* you.  This means:  the "computer" moves its own pieces, the
"computer" physically punches the clock etc.  You have to play the
computer, not "the-computer-and-the-humanoids-who-move-the-pieces".  Now
is someone wants to be gracious towards the machine and let it have help
from humans to play its game, that's ok.  But if you are forced to play
it, you should have the option to force it to play you unaided as you play
unaided against it.  TD's out there:  do you agree?
     -Andy
ajpierce@med.unc.edu

P.S.  This occurred to me this morning while playing Gnuchess on ICS.
Gnuchess got confused and stopped moving even though its clock was
running.  When time expired, I called its flag.  I thought about giving it
a break but then realized that if I had had a brain hemhorrage, or had to
go to the bathroom or something like that, it would likely have shown me
only a very poor quality of mercy.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: t-jcisek@microsoft.com (Julius Cisek)
Subject: Chess illiterate's question on ratings...
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:40:27 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation


I am working on a non-chess computer tournament and I would like to use
a scoring system like the rating system for chess players.  (By non-chess
I mean it has nothing to do with chess, but the tournament is set up in
a similar way).  I understand the basics of the rating system, but I would
like some information on the expected percentage calculation.  I've heard
that the expected rating is based on charts.  Who makes these charts and
what criteria do they use?  What are some statistically sound ways to
calculate the expected score?  Any and all help will be most appreciated.

Please e-mail me : t-jcisek@microsoft.com as I do not normally read this
news group.  Thanks again!
-- 
Julius Andrew Cisek                ,_,
t-jcisek@microsoft.com   "Joy!"   /oo \  _.-.   "Quiet, you bloated
One Microsoft Way     //          <>__| /- O O       idiot!"
Redmond, WA 98052   \X/           |  U|    \|
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.programmer
From: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: comp.games.research
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:17:50 GMT

neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (N Bowers) writes:
>>that is so because these are the games that people are interested in.
>>If there is so little traffic on these games, then a new group is even
>>less necessary.
>
>Not a valid conclusion.  If someone is new to usenet, and wants to
>ask a question about Halma say, (s)he'll eventually find the rec.games.*
>hierarchy, and guess that r.g.board sounds good.  After wading through
>a couple of hundred articles they'd probably conclude that they were mistaken.

Sorry, but high volume in existing newsgroup or mailing list is the only
valid reason for creating a new newsgroup on Usenet.  You cannot justify
a new newgroup by saying that there might be interest in it, you must
show that there is interest in it.

>>> Several times I have almost suggested rec.games.strategy,
>>
>>This is a completely misleading title, apart from the fact that I do
>>not think a new group is warranted for.
>
>Misleading to you perhaps.  The type of games we're talking about here
>are often referred to as `strategy games'.  I reckon this would be obvious
>to a lot more people than plenty of other groups.

Misleading to 99% of Usenet readers.  If a group with that name is
created with that name on Usenet all you'll see pretty much the same
articles as are posted to rec.games.board.

							Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
From: darse@cs.UAlberta.CA (Darse Billings)
Subject: rec.games.strategic
Summary: new newsgroup
Keywords: checkers, shogi, othello, hex, etc.
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:41:06 GMT

I would very much like to see a newsgroup devoted exclusively to games
of strategy -- which is quite distinct from the more general class of
games in rec.games.board.

Personally, I am interested in computer game playing of strategic games,
and the forum provided by rec.games.strategic should prove both
interesting and useful.

There is a very definite need for such a newsgroup, and it is long
overdue.  Here is a starting list of the games which might be discussed:

Awari, Chase, 8x8 Checkers, 10x10 Draughts, Chinese Chess, Connect
Four, Dominoes, Hex, Go-Moku, Renju, Reversi (Othello), Nine Men's
Morris, Nim, Qubic (4x4x4 Tic-Tac-Toe), Scrabble, Shogi

This does not preclude discussion of those games already having
specific newsgroups:

Backgammon, Bridge, Chess, Go

rec.games.board is too diluted by other games to be usable by those of
us interested in purely strategic games.  Note that such games may not
be played on a board at all.  For example, Awari and other games
contested in the Computer Games Olympiad are not really defined in terms
of the board they use.  Nim is another example.

Nor are all interesting strategic games necessarily deterministic.
Backgammon, dominoes, and many card games, such as bridge, hearts, and
poker, have elements of randomness and hidden information, but the
strategic elements of such games may deserve a special place for discussion.

The confusion surrounding the distinction between groups is easily
handled by posting a charter of the intentions of the newsgroup at
regular intervals (say monthly).

If you support the formation of this new newsgroup, send your ideas and
contributions to Neil Bowers (neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk).  If you see a call
for votes, please take the time to cast your YES vote.  Thank-you.
--

 - Darse Billings, 2100 CM, 7 kyu.

Go is better than Chess.  Poker is more lucrative.  Sex is more fun.
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6192 comp.ai:3137
From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,comp.ai
Subject: More thoughts on comp.chess.research (or comp.ai.games)
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:53:32 GMT
Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com
Distribution: rec
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA

On looking for a new group for computer chess researchers:

Although there already exist some related groups in the rec hierarchy,
none of them are really appropriate for computer chess research
because: 1) they are unfocussed, 2) their unmoderated status allows
clogging of research oriented threads with non-research issues, 3)
research is not a proper topic for the rec groupings (but comp or sci
would be okay), and 4) the plethora of gamers' video and roleplaying
posts would overwhelm those sites that have limited retention storage
resources.

I think that comp.chess.research and a sister group of
comp.chess.players are still the best.  The best alternative I can
think of for comp.chess.research would be comp.ai.chess.  Perhaps a
comp.ai.games would attract interesting topics on related AI research
on go, checkers, and Chinese chess.  As all of these have appeared in
the _International Computer Chess Association Journal_ without
complaint, then I suspect that they would be okay in a comp.ai.games
newsgroup.

The 1992.06 issue of the ICCAJ gave a headcount of some 600 worldwide
members with some 230 in North America.  Surely enough of these have
net access to make for a successful vote.

I maintain that comments about unresolvable soapbox issues about
computer tournament participation be put in a separate newsgroup from
the research group.  Perhaps an entry in the talk hierarchy would be
best.

 [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == (508) 294-3484              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6296 rec.games.go:1635 rec.games.board:8051 rec.games.programmer:3544
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Awari? (Re: rec.games.strategic)
Summary: description, please
Keywords: checkers, shogi, othello, hex, etc.
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:23:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug20.222354.14964
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <darse.714354066@silver-vly> darse@cs.UAlberta.CA (Darse Billings) writes:
>Awari, Chase, 8x8 Checkers, 10x10 Draughts, Chinese Chess, Connect
>Four, Dominoes, Hex, Go-Moku, Renju, Reversi (Othello), Nine Men's
>Morris, Nim, Qubic (4x4x4 Tic-Tac-Toe), Scrabble, Shogi

I've heard of most of these except Awari and Chase (and may need
a refresher course on Renju).  Are these games simply enough defined
that you can post the specs to rec.games.chess?

Note that Dominoes falls under the nondeterministic category as well,
though that's no reason to exclude it from your list.

Nine Men's Morris!?  Surely *that* is completely solved by now?
There are only about 18 billion possible positions modulo the
8 board symmetries.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: olesen@math.uiowa.edu (Martin Olesen)
Subject: US Open, final standings
Originator: olesen@sycamore.math.uiowa.edu
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 04:42:23 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA





     The US Open ended Friday night with the following final
       standing


      1.  GM Kaidanov 10/12
    2.-6.  GM Fedorowicz, IM Strauss, IM Finegold, GM Lein, Burnett 9.5/12
     7.- ?  GM Kudrin, IM Ivanov, IM Basin, Tsemekhman etc.  9/12     

      So yet another triumph for Kaidanov who seems to be unstoppable -
       among others he crunched yours truly ......




                                    Martin Olesen

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess