HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer and sanctions
Date: 29 Jul 1992 04:55:56 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.chess
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University

In article <Bs2Mqr.Ktr@world.std.com> jmm@world.std.com (Jones M Murphy) writes:
>sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
>
>>that the match will affect one way or another the human rights problems that
>>are taking place (there or anywhere else in the world)? Any relationship 
>>between chess and politics is contrived.
>
>That statement is utterly moronic. It was difficult for young Jewish masters
>imprisoned in Nazi death camps to improve their game. Politics and chess
>are organically related, even on the most trivial level of, say, USCF politics,
>where 99% of Federation members cannot vote in elections.

What?! Please tell me you're kidding... If the above isn't a perfect example
of a contrived relationship, then it's time for me to hit the showers. By
your logic, _everything_ is "organically" related to politics. Please show
me an innate bond between chess and politics; clearly they can exist without
one another. All the USCF bureaucrats in the world (or FIDE bureaucrats) cannot
keep me from playing chess with a willing adversary. You can pass legislation
banning respiration, but - thank you - I'll still breathe.

>
>>I suggest that those who attempt to tie art and politics together look at
>>historical attempts to do same. If a man isn't free to pursue art, which 
>>clearly victimizes noone, then what _is_ he free to pursue?         
>
>Many men aren't free to pursue art. That's just the point.


So, by prohibiting another man from pursuing art, this somehow ameliorates
the situations of those who are living in scenarios that exhibit the contrived
relationship? .....NOT
>
>>Art uplifts all, denigrates none; art is the ultimate human rights advocate,
>>because it eloquently expresses man's ability to _create_ rather than his
>>over-used ability to _destroy_.
>
>Sounds good. Now explain that to some talented kid starving in a South African
>township.
>Jones


Better yet, explain to said starving kid how prohibiting Fischer from
playing helps him or fills his stomach.                    


-----------Peace, Steve
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:07:01 GMT

In <1992Jul23.154713.205571@cs.cmu.edu> rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva) writes:

>In article <palane.711820878@pv7428.vincent.iastate.edu> palane@iastate.edu
>(Paul A. Lane) writes:
>> When I go to a concert, I expect to hear live musicians, even though someone
>> could put together a sound system and play a recording. When I go to a chess
>> tournament, it's to play a person.  At $5/game, I deserve better.

>Although several people have stated the above sentiment, I don't understand it
>at all.  When you sit down to play a game at a tournament, does it make a
>difference who/what is `seated' opposite you?  I know that you play the
>opponent, and not the pieces on the board, but as long as the opponent gives
>you a decent game, does it matter whether it picks its nose or is plugged into
>a wall socket?

>I'm not cricizing the wish to play a human, but merely trying to find the
>reason you prefer to do so.  Personally, I would respect a worthy opponent
>irrespective of its construction.

>Rujith de Silva.
>Carnegie-Mellon University.

A valid point. The quickest response is that I can get a free game against a
computer any time I wish. Arranging games with other people, particularly with
extended time controls is more difficult (the local chess club meets only twice
a month and usually runs action or quick play). In other words, a chance to
play a number of games against good opponents is a moderately unusual event.

Some of it is psychological. I enjoy competing against someone else. While I
enjoy various computer games (Tetris, etc.), a game against people (whether
cards, a boardgame, or whatever) involves me emotionally. I simply don't put
in the effort or make the same emotional investment against a computer.
It's rather fun to make a move and set your opponent to thinking for ten or
fifteen minutes.

It's also true that as a low-rated player (~1400), I can challenge and defeat
players rated much higher than I am. The inconsistency of human play opens up
the possibilities of a victory. The consistency of a chess computer at that
level means the best I am likely to be able to do is a draw. (The same goes
for lower rated players and a computer on a low setting. The possibility for
an upset is greater.)


Paul A. Lane
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: [Castling and] Check
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:34:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Jul26.113451.14186
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Jul26.052303.16511@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>
wang@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
:>elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
:>>[...] Dinort goes one further suggesting that for instance with
:>>WKf5/BKe8,Qd8,Bf8,Ng8 White mates in two with 1.Ke6 and 2.Ke7!!?
:
:Dinort is clearly mistaken, since Black escapes by capturing the
:checking piece with 2. ... Nxe7.  :-) :-)

Isn't there a rule that the King cannot be captured?

:                                       But then I think technically
:the game would be drawn, because White now satisfies the definition for
:stalemate!  (i.e. if you've got no pieces at all, obviously you can't
:legally move any of them!)

...and White's King is not in check. :-)

:(I think Norman already got FIDE to panic-convene once when he pointed
:out the flaw in the B/(~B)+P 50-move draw rule -- apparently, the side
:with just the B could claim the draw as soon as the 50 moves were up,
:even if the B+P side was about to promote with mate!  Has this been
:fixed?)

I haven't heard about this one --- what is the "B/(~B)+P" rule?
At any rate, it would seem that if you allow an exception if there's
a mate-in-one after 50 moves then what you really have is a 50.5-move
rule; it isn't clear to me why this would be any more desirable than a
50-move rule.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: logan@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Richard Scott)
Subject: FISCHER BACK?
Summary: let's keep our fingers crossed
Keywords: WAY COOL
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:34:29 GMT

I hope this is true.  He was a childhood hero and it would be great to
see him back again and follow the matches.  Bobby back in circulation
would be very good for chess.

Imagine if he is still just as good a player

Fischer-Kasparov match  (no wouldn't that maybe shake up FIDE?)

These two on the same side may be able to do quite a bit.

Let's all keep all our bodily appendages crossed that this will happen.

Richard

-- 
Eric Clapton is God!
Mike Singletary, Walter Payton and Neal Anderson form the Holy Trinity
______________________________________________________________________ 
Richard Scott (logan@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au)
From: Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:28:02 GMT

>Both a human and a computer are limited by budgets. The computer by what its
>designer can afford in the way of RAM and disk space; the human by how much
>he can blow on books. If you wish to make an equivalence, establish a space
>limit for both sides (the computer gets so many bits, the human so many pages).
No.  When I'm playing correspondence and I want to look up an opening in a book
that I don't have, I go to the library or borrow from a friend.  No budget.
No limit.  No equivalence.

>Simple solution. Computers are for training. When I go to a concert, I expect
>to hear live musicians, even though someone could put together a sound system
>and play a recording. When I go to a chess tournament, it's to play a person.
>If I want to play a game against a computer, I'll whip out my copy of CM2100
>or Sargon and sit down at the computer. At $5/game, I deserve better.

What a simple solution, indeed.  No computers in tournaments, ever.  Can't
believe I didn't think of this.  Could have saved 25 years of trouble.
(Reminds me of the ``simple solution'' to acne involving a guillotine.)
From: capsa@igc.org (CAPSA)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Australia in Olympiad
Date: 21 Jul 92 04:05:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:spam.ua.oz:1586:cdp:1451600011:000:347
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Jul 20 21:05:00 1992


Australia's men finished 29-27, to tie for 45-47 with Kazakhstan and Austria.
GM Ian Rogers won the second brilliancy prize for his game against GM Gilberto
Milos (Brazil).  The Australian women scored 21-21, to tie for 36-39 with
Germany, Norway and Philippines-A.  (The "men's" Olympiad had 102 finishers,
while the Women's ended with 62 teams.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Chess tournaments held by bad guys
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:30:09 GMT

In article <Bs293M.3L1@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair) writes:
>   There are definitely precedents for chess tournaments conducted by evil
>regimes, although what you count depends on your definition of evil:
>
>(1) Alekhine, Keres, and probably others played in chess tournaments under
>Nazi auspices (Euwe refused to do so)

This is the only good analogy you have presented, in terms of similarities of
the countries (invasion and genocide perpetrated by both Nazi Germany and
today's Serbia, or "Yugoslavia"). And indeed, Alekhine was boycotted by the
rest of the world's chess elite afterwards. This should be a good warning to
Fischer and Spassky. That is, if they care (as one is crazy and the other old).


>
>(2) Some people might consider the 1978 World Championship in the Phillipines
>as an example.
>
>(3) Smyslov played a match in Abu Dhabi (I think.  In any case, I must admit
>this isn't a really strong example)
>
>(4) Lasker wrote during World War I about Germany ``On our side fight 
>morality and science.''
>
>(5) Reshevsky and Fine played in tournaments in Russia in the middle 30's,
>when the purges were in progress.

(2),(3) and (5) are only examples of regimes which were bad to their own 
people (i.e., not similar to Serbia) and against which no sanctions were
imposed. As of (4), there were no "good guys" in the WW I, so the concept of
"bad guys" can hardly apply.

>(6) There was a big uproar over attempts to bar Quinteros from tournaments
>after he played in South Africa.

Depending on when that happened, he might have really violated the law.

>
>   I would be curious as to whether Fischer's playing would actually violate
>any laws.  This is not the same as shipping arms or computers.

The sanctions forbid any trade or business with "Yugoslavia" (and this match
would certainly be business) as well as cultural or scientific exchange.

Sven
From: pals@ipact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: What is the Colle system?
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:32:11 CDT
Organization: IPACT, Valparaiso IN

In article <SCHILLER.92Jul21164758@tira.uchicago.edu>, 
schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:

> IMHO the Colle is complete crap which should be avoided like the plague.

C'mon Eric - stop beating around the bush and tell us what you
really think!  :)  :)  :)

> It is clearly inferior to the Torre Attack because the dark-squared
> bishop is confined to quarters for most of the game. 

Although I'm not as critical of the Colle, I also like the idea of
getting the QB in the game.  I used to play the Colle, but had more
success after I started playing Bf4 early (London System - reversed).
Although the London has not been played as much by strong GMs as the
Torre has, it has been used at that level.  David Bronstein used it
occasionally, and there was a flurry of interest in it among contemporary
world-class GMs (including Kasparov) some years back as a system against 
the King's Indian.  [This makes sense, as the London System with the
Black pieces is a system against the King's Indian Reversed, so the
London System Reversed is a system against the King's Indian!]

Also, it's only fair to the Colle to mention that there is a variation
(Zukertort) in which White gets his QB going by playing b3 and Bb2
(and not playing c3 as in the normal Colle).

> Bottom line: Not one single strong player uses it. [the Colle]

I don't have my chess materials close at hand, but I could have sworn 
that Yusupov uses it *occasionally*.
 
> Go with the torre, which involves the same pawn structure and similar
> ideas, but which has been used by many champions and grandmasters.
 
What has happened lately with the variations where Black plays Qb6
and Qxb2 in the Torre?  Wasn't that once considered a critical line?

-- 
Randy Pals                |pals@ipact.com
IPACT, Inc.               |
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ace3@quads.uchicago.edu (Tony 'LLama' Acero)
Subject: Tal games extractor
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Keywords: Tal, Zarkov, extract
Reply-To: ace3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:24:52 GMT

If you have not received a copy of the small program that I wrote to
extract games from the Tal games database recently made available via
FTP please send me mail.  I had an unforunate accident with my mail file
and have lost most of the requests I had archived :-(

Thanks for your indulgence,

tony acero
ace3@quads.uchicago.edu


Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:13:43 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: What is the Colle system?
	<SCHILLER.92Jul21164758@tira.uchicago.edu>

Eric Schiller writes:
>IMHO the Colle is complete crap which should be avoided
>like the plague. ... Bottom line: Not one single strong player
>uses it.

For an opposing point of view, here are some quotes from
a book on openings that was published just a few years
ago.  It classified the Colle as "good ... endorsed for use in
tournament play. ... the Colle ... packs a lot more punch
than it seems to. ... It is fully recommendable and is fortunate
in having a fine literature penned by George Koltanowski,
... Black ... must not underestimate the power of the Colle.
Korchnoi and Spassky include it in their repertoires."
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer rumor
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:30:20 EDT
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Jul31.110012.27561@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mapmef@gdr.bath.ac.uk (M E Fletcher) writes:
>Fischer's understanding of clear cut positions is immense and is unlikely
>to have declined much, but Kasparov is much better at calculating variations.
>How many Fischer games can you think of where he sacrificed more than a 
>pawn? The only Fischer piece sac that comes to mind is his loss against
>Tal in My 60 Memorable Games. [Please don't bother posting all the Fischer
>sacrifices you can find!]

I can't let this stand.  Fischer was regarded as the best calculator
of his day, perhaps matched at times by Tal or Larsen, but no one did
it better consistently.  I won't post all the sacrifices, but he
certainly sacrificed more than a pawn on many, many occasions.  What
about D. Byrne - Fischer (1956, "The Game of the Century"), 
R. Byrne - Fischer (1963, which was probably better than the Game of
the Century), and any number of other games where he sac-ed a piece?
But beyond the sacs, Fischer played many games where he triumphed
because of his superior calculations; the first game of the 1971 Larsen
match may be the best example.

Kasparov's style is closer to Tal's than Fischer's, in that he sacs
expecting to end up better than his opponent later.  He does not
always have the results calculated through and a some of his sacs
have resulted in little or no advantage or even a disadvantage because 
his opponent saw through the complications just fine (this has 
happened against Karpov a few times).

Kasparov is the best calculator of today, and he may be better than
Fischer is now (he probably is), but I think the best of Fischer was a
better calculator than Kasparov, and the styles are different.
Kasparov plays complications like an art (a great one), whereas
Fischer played them like a science.

>Kasparov's games are full of the most unfathomable complications
>with pieces, exchanges even queens sometimes on offer in return for
>initiative and dynamism. It's not enough to be able to find errors
>in Karpov-Kasparov games after months of study, you have to find
>Kasparov's errors at the board, with the clock ticking, and a move to
>be made every couple of minutes. I don't think Fischer at his peak 
>would have been able to cope with Kasparov's style and after so long
>out of practise of finding good move after good move quickly, he wouldn't
>stand a chance. 

Fischer had trouble with the young Tal (albeit Fischer was even
younger) so you may be right.  But Tal (and Kasparov now) wasn't
calculating out all the variations either.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.EDU
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138
From: cracraft@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Stuart Cracraft)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer to play Spassky (according to international press...)
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:07:03 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab


The world press and newswires seem to be reporting that
Bobby Fischer will play a match with Boris Spassky in
Europe. The match is for a purse of 5.0+ million U.S.
dollars. The total required wins seemed to be 10 with
a limit to the total number of games.

Also, Spassky was said to have received verbal confirmation
from Fischer that the match will be played at the arranged
time and arranged place (although I understand this is
parts of what used to be Yugoslavia and the United Nations
has questions about this.)

	Stuart
From: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: What is the Colle system?
Date: 30 Jul 1992 07:35:46 GMT
Organization: The Sinister Icy Black Hand of Death Club
Reply-To: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu
Originator: goldfarb@tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul28.151753.6653@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
)I believe that Smyslov used this system at least once in the
)1953 Zurich tourney (against Averbakh? - memory fades).  Bronstein
)mentions that he has "pirated points with this variation" for some
)time.
)
)-Mark

	Smyslov did play a game with Bf4 and (I think) e3. However, he
played c4 in that game, so it's not really one of the systems under 
Discussion. Bronstein commented that Smyslov played that system when
he didn't want Black to have the slightest chance of gaining an initiative.
The variation with which Smyslov "'pirated' points" was a Closed Sicilian.

-- 
   David Goldfarb          |"I'm going to die if you touch me one more time.
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu  |Well, I guess that I'm going to die no matter what."
goldfarb@UCBOCF.BITNET     |          -- They Might Be Giants
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Fischer rumor
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:21:21 GMT

In <1992Jul29.183652.7258@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein) writes:


>Since Fischer's back in the news again, I was wondering whether he's
>overcome his neo-Nazism.  If not, then we should all be boycotting this
>match.
>-- 
>bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu

This all reminds me of the debate in Israel regarding the playing of Wagner's
music. Evidently, one must not only be a great chess player, but PC to deserve
attention.

A great many individuals with despicable viewpoints are responsible for
great achievements. To appreciate the achievement while being aware of
the flaws is not impossible.

Paul A. Lane
From: met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot)
Subject: Re: Why not Baghdad?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 02:49:56 GMT
Keywords: disgust

sears@netcom.com (Daniel Sears) writes:

>Bobby Fischer was one of my idols as I grew up.  But his decision
>to come out of retirement to play a match in Serbia is repugnant.
>I wonder how he can reconcile this decision with religious beliefs.

>--Dan
>-- 
>Daniel Sears

>E-mail:     sears@netcom.com
>Phone:      415.695.0650
>Address:    2440 16th Street #283
>            San Francisco, CA 94103-4211

My guess would be that the money was a much bigger factor than the location,
and since the prize fund is being put up by a Yugoslav bank...
From: scott@sparc6.cs.uiuc.edu (Jay Scott)
Subject: AEGON game
Keywords: Go Bronstein!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:53:53 GMT


This game was played in the 1992 AEGON human-computer tournament.
David Bronstein won the tournament with a perfect 6-0 score.

It's an Evans Gambit. "Pawns? Sac 'em, they just get in the way."

GM Bronstein - Heuristic Alpha (round 1)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 B:b4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 e:d4 7.o-o Nge7
8.Ng5 d5 9.e:d5 Ne5 10.Bb3 d:c3 11.Qe2 f6 12.Ne4 N:d5 13.Ba3 c6
14.Nd6+ Kd7 15.f4 Ng6 16.B:d5 Qb6+ 17.Kh1 c:d5 18.N:c3 B:c3
19.Rab1 Qc6 20.Qd3 d4 21.Nb5 Rd8 22.N:c3 Q:c3 23.Qb5+ Qc6
24.Qb3 Rh8 25.Rbc1 Qe6 26.Qc2 Qb6 27.Bc5 Qc6 28.Qb3 Kd8 29.B:d4 Qe4
30.Qc3 Be6 31.Rfe1 Qd5 32.Rcd1 Ke8 33.B:f6 Q:d1 34.R:d1 g:f6
35.Q:f6 Bf7 36.f5 Rg8 37.Qd6 B:a2 38.f:g6 R:g6 39.Qd7+ Kf8
40.Q:h7 Rg7 41.Qh8+ Bg8 42.Rf1+ Rf7 43.Qh6+ Ke8 44.Re1+ Re7
45.Qh5+ Kf8 46.Qh6+ Ke8 47.Rf1 Rf7 48.Rd1 Rh7 49.Qd6 Re7
50.h4 Be6 51.Qe5  1-0

Does anyone have all the AEGON games online? I hope you'll post them.

	Jay Scott
	scott@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jmm@world.std.com (Jones M Murphy)
Subject: Re: Fischer and sanctions
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: rec.games.chess
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:32:50 GMT

sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:

>that the match will affect one way or another the human rights problems that
>are taking place (there or anywhere else in the world)? Any relationship 
>between chess and politics is contrived.

That statement is utterly moronic. It was difficult for young Jewish masters
imprisoned in Nazi death camps to improve their game. Politics and chess
are organically related, even on the most trivial level of, say, USCF politics,
where 99% of Federation members cannot vote in elections.

>I suggest that those who attempt to tie art and politics together look at
>historical attempts to do same. If a man isn't free to pursue art, which 
>clearly victimizes noone, then what _is_ he free to pursue?         

Many men aren't free to pursue art. That's just the point.

>Art uplifts all, denigrates none; art is the ultimate human rights advocate,
>because it eloquently expresses man's ability to _create_ rather than his
>over-used ability to _destroy_.

Sounds good. Now explain that to some talented kid starving in a South African
township.
Jones