HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: *Spoiler* Re: 1.f3, 4.Kh4 puzzle
Date: 24 Aug 92 15:27:16 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Talking of Raymond Keene, did anyone else notice that the Independent newspaper
recently contained a chess problem strikingly similar to the one below? Or
maybe it was The Times. I can't remember.

Is it an old chessnut, or did someone just make it up?

In article <1992Aug18.013141.16042@allegra.att.com>, rjh@allegra.att.com (Robert Holt) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.105117.14585@husc3.harvard.edu> elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>>
>>Which reminds me: the standard UNIX chess program (I'm told it's essentially
>>SARGON, but I don't know this for a fact) plays so miserably that I've taken
>>some extreme measures trying to get an interesting game.  Guess what it
>>played as Black after 1.e3!? e5 2.Ke2?! Nc6 3.Kf3? Qf6+ 4.Ke4??  If you
>>have the usual implementation of /usr/games/chesstool you can reproduce
>>this experiment, because it will always play the same moves against this
>>"opening".
> 
> All right, I tried a 1988 version of /usr/games/chesstool and it
> found 4. ... Qe5+ ! , leading to a forced mate in 3 after
> 5. Kxe5 d5+ 6. Kf5 Be7+ 7. Kg5 g6++ or 5. Kd5 e4+ 6. Kc4 Qc5+
> 7. Kb3 Qb4++ .
-- 
James Annan.
                [--------------------------------------]
                [  "The only good Tory is a lavatory"  ]
                [--------------------------------------]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: alopez-o@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
Subject: Re: What defense (on e2-e4)Fischer would dislike most?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:58:06 GMT

In article <13666.2aa77fa0@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vadim@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>  I think that the most "unconvinient" defense against Fischer's e4
> would be 1)...e6 .  I remember that young Fischer alwais told that
> the position after 2)d4 d5 3)Nc3 Bb4 4)e5 c5 5)a3 Bc3 is WON for whites,
> though he (Fischer) frequently had some difficulties in this line.

He was beatten to often in this variant, considering he was playing with
white chess men and his over 50% winning against almost all players.

Calling this position "won for whites" seems more like wishfull thinking...

Alex
-- 
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              alopez-o@maytag.UWaterloo.ca
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada
From: seltzer@ics.enet.dec.com (Richard Seltzer)
Subject: Fischer-Spassky game 2
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:23:33 GMT

I just called Post Haste (202)334-9000 code 8400, and this is what I
heard regarding game 2.

Spassky    Fischer
1. d4      Nf6
2. c4      g6
3. Nc3     Bg7
4. e4      d6
5. f3      c5
6. dxd5    dxc5
7. Qxd8    Kxd8
8. Be3     Nfd7
9. Ne2     b6
(which knight?)
10. 0-0-0  Na6

The commentator on the phone indicated that this is the Samisch variation of 
the King's Indian, that it soon got out of book, and that Fischer, apparently, 
is trying something new.

Richard Seltzer  seltzer@ics.dec.com
-- or --      ...!decwrl!ics.dec.com!seltzer
-- or --      seltzer%ics.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Subject: Fischer match on ICS
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:05:41 GMT


sharring@cms.tamu.edu (Stephen L Harrington):

>I have been informed that the fischer match will be covered live
>on Prodigy. If anyone has access to the Prodigy service, the  rest
>of us here on the internet will be eternally grateful if you 
>could/would glean the info from prodigy and cross-post. Supposedly
>it is @ ~3pm Yugoslavian time, which makes it early morning for
>those of us in the United States. Real-time would be the ideal,
>but delayed slightly would still be better than nothing. Anyone
>out there have prodigy????


Im sure there are many rec.games.chess.-philes who would be quite stoked
to see this match in real time.  There was an earlier suggestion to have the 
moves played out in real time on ICS.  This could be accomplished by logging
into ICS through two separate windows, one for Fischer and one for Spassky.
There must be somebody out there with Prodigy who will be watching this match
anyway.  Is it possible to orchestrate this so that we could compensate a
volunteer for his service.  

Here's a suggestion.  Registered ICS users have their e-mail addresses
on file.  How about setting a small fee to use ICS during the match.  Players
who logged on during the match (and I guess it would be fair to first verify
that they watched the match as opposed to just logged on and off-I assume 
this is possible)  could be "billed."  Of course there will be some free
riders, but the problem could at least be minimized by preventing 
non-registered players from logging on during the match (I assume this is 
possible) abd by consistently nagging those who fail to pay with a barrage
of e-mail.  (players could be warned when logging into ICS at these times 
that they are expected to pay.)  

An even better system, if implementable, would be to have each potential
user pledge via e-mail, prior to the match, to send a check to whomever after
the match is over.  Only useres who have made this pledge would be allowed 
to log on during match games.  Under this system, players who commit 
themselves know in advance that if they fail to pay, they will be subject
to e-mail terrorism.

I bet there is enough interest in this match that the fee per individual
would not have to be too high (less than the price of a movie) to generate
sufficient incentive to supply the service.  BTW I hear that the match will
also be covered on USA Today Sports Network and Compuserve.

Jeff Ely                                    "He said the Sun's not yellow...
Department of Economics                      It's Chicken!"
UC Berkeley
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: buckmr@aix.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Girls
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:44:46 GMT

doug@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Doug Manley) writes:

>Well, the last post certainly separated the men from the choir boys
>and we certainly gained a whole new practical perspective on women and
>chess.  There seemed to be one flaw....  Sooner or later the man
>inevitably makes a key mistake.  He decides to push wood rather than
>spend time with the fair sex.  After only a milliseconds pause, the
>woman concludes the doomed male would rather spend time pushing
>inanimate wooden objects with the guys rather than <insert your
>favorite shared activity> with her.  After just another milliseconds
>thought she realizes the full impact of this choice.   

>Now she might understand if you were doing something that had some
>pretense to value, but we're talking woodpushing here.

>The male is now doomed.                                    

>It doesn't matter how often she wins, or whether you're interested in
>her game.

>It doesn't matter how well you disguise your losses.

>You're in a lost position and resignation is appropriate.

What does the above nosensical tripe have to do with rec.games.chess?
Ugh!
>Doug Manley

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. **Clinton-Gore '92!**
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door."
                                                                 -Harvey Milk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: alopez-o@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
Subject: Re: chinook
Keywords: update
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:32:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.010326.16786@cis.uab.edu>, hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>
> This same idea carries over to time trouble, etc, but most programs
> simply "dont know nor care"  Many times our computer opponents have
> gotten into time trouble (serious trouble sometimes) and Cray Blitz
> obligingly takes 3 minutes to make it's move giving them plenty of
> time to find a move on our time......  Seems pretty stupid.

Well, at least for humans the rule is:

  Don't try to play any faster because your opponent has little time.

Especially after a greatly hurried move from your opponent, chances 
are you can obtain some positional advantage by playing a very fine 
game against his non-optimal moves.

As the player realizes he/she's slipping further in the board the more
they want to think before moving, thus only increasing their time
disadvantage.

Of course this rules are for human-human game. 

Perhaps the solution is to provide Cray Blitz with a "plan", so in
situations where the opponent has little time, the program only studies
those moves according to its plan. (That is the nodes of the search
tree where program is to play have just one child --or degree 
one).

Alex

-- 
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              alopez-o@maytag.UWaterloo.ca
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada
From: slarkt@thor.cf.ac.uk (Mr R K Thacker 92)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer v Spassky
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:59:45 GMT
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway


  According to the Observer, the chap who is organising The Match is also
involved in the Serbian war effort.  Anyone out there able to confirm this
report?
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer - Spassky: The Prize
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:22:04 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Just a little thought:

We have learned that the prize fund of $5M was offered by a certain Serbian
"businessman". I don't recall any information on what his "business" is. 

You should be aware that the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia
(R.I.P., 1943-1991) was a Communist state, and that the self-proclaimed
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (i.e., Serbia and Montenegro) is dominated by
former Communists, without much change in laws regarding property and 
business.

As I lived in the SFRY until graduation from college in 1989, I can testify
that it was not possible for anyone to make $5M legally (and this gentleman
must have made a lot more if he can give away that much).

[For the would-be flamers: I can repeat the above under oath, so don't 
challenge it unless you can do the same. What follows, however, is just an
educatewd guess, so whatever you comment on it, there is no need for further
discussion.]

It seems plausible that the money comes from illegal sources. It is quite
possible that it comes from a pre-war illegal business, but as war is an ideal
background for making huge illegal profits, it is quite likely that this
money came from (a) weapons smuggling, (b) trading goods from looted Croatian
and Bosnian houses, or houses (those not burnt) themselves, (c) managing army
or irregulars' funds, possibly including the money collected from Bosnians for
a permission to escape, (d) simply getting an allowance from the government in
return for some war management services, or (e) any combination of the above.

If any of this turns out to be true, Fischer and Spassky could, in addition
to obstructing the sanctions, be charged with complicity in money laundering.

	Sven

P.S. As many of you remember, I was the first to speak on this net against
this match, and still stand by that 100%. However, I am not boycotting any
information about the match, as some people suggested we should do. I see no
point in refusing to learn of something. I will be going over the games,
although I doubt that they will be as interesting as, say, Kasparov's games.
But I also hope that Fischer will face trial when he returns to the U.S.A. -
being a celebrity is not a licence to break the law. If he doesn't face trial,
I'll be forced to admit that those who say Mike Tyson would never have been
convicted if he were white, do have a point. (I presently believe they are
wrong.) BTW, I think Fischer can successfully plead insanity and avoid going
to jail, but if he was assisted by a lawyer (any info?), that lawyer should
probably be disbarred.

I know too little about French laws to even guess what will happen to Spassky,
but I know that he is perfectly mentally healthy and has no excuse for what he
is doing.

 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Fischer is PC
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:45:43 GMT

jmcd@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John McDonald) writes:

>Would you go to a chess game played by Hitler at Treblinka
>just for the chess?  (OK, admittedly an extreme example)

What was his rating?
Jones

PS FM Luis Busquets, who is reporting on the Fischer-Spassky match for Prodigy,
tells me that Fischer was +- after only 24 moves. I'm waiting for a fax of the
score so far, and will post when I get it.....
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Fischer Wins!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:46:57 GMT

Fischer won in 49 or 50 moves(not sure), brilliantly. Details as I get them.
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
From: mginsbur@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:09:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: wissel.29081
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

I also feel sorry for the judges in this thankless task.  Returning to the
issue at hand (why is it that my question is always deflected?) I still
must question why no analytical criteria were used in this 'analysis'
category.  I am raising the point because other categories, such as humor,
naturally have a wide range of subjective judging.  Here, though,
I believe it is common for analysis to be judged on:

a.  impartiality
b.  search for truth
c.  advances over known theory (if any) or  a  good summary of what we
know so far.

I cannot agree that there is large subjective leeway in the analysis
category.  I find that the winner this time around contributed
negatively in the above three categories.  After all, when the author
omits his own losses in the variation in question to give a false
impression of its worth - isn't this a violation of journalistic
integrity?  Maybe he didn't do it on purpose.  Maybe he did.  Maybe ego
was involved.  But it's not an award winner!

To clarify what a strong player is in this context, well, a master could
do a very good job if he was so inclined.  I feel, though, that this
category for whatever reason (underpaid judges/overworked judges/thankless
task/go with the flow, vote for _Chess Horizons) has resulted in a
travesty.

--IM Mark Ginsburg
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: computers that intentionally slip up (was Re: chinook)
Keywords: update
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:46:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.184033.3283@ists.ists.ca> sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.133636.26497@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.064606.22271@ists.ists.ca> sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin) writes:
>>>However, something still bothers me about the whole idea of this.  I
>>>would rather play my best possible game, and lose; than make a move I
>>>know is wrong and win.  I get no satisfaction out of such "victories".
>>>
>>This is why we haven't done anything about this in the past.  But,
>>thinking about it, what would YOU have done in that game.  Sac'ing the
>>queen led to a sure loss (it was a queen sac'ed for a knight as I recall).
>
>If I were put in a position where I had a choice between a sure loss
>(mate in 11), and a dreadful board position (down a queen) I would 
>consider two steps:
>
>(1) What is the possibility of getting a stalemate?
>(2) There's no stalemate possible?  Ok, I resign.
>
>>I would probably evaluate a queen down and mated as the same.....)
>
>I would be inclined to do the same.  In both cases a resignation is
>called for.  Unless of course a stalemate is possible -- in which
>case I'd much rather be a queen down.
>

With a mate that deep, in a SPEED game (at least), wouldn't you at
least wait for your opponent to start the mating sequence?  All to
often you opponent starts a mating sequence (in speed chess) before
YOU or I see it.  Just because I spotted it, will he?  I like
gracious losers, but (as in poker) I would have to "call" and make
him show me he sees it also......

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6371 rec.games.go:1665 rec.games.board:8123 news.groups:17086
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:58:17 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

My suggestion would be a split something like this:

rec.games.board.classic
rec.games.board.strategic
rec.games.board.family

Classic would cover games like chess, go, checkers, shogi and other games
that are, well, classic.

Strategic would cover war games, plus railroad games, stock games, Talisman
style stuff, etc.

Family would stick to Monopoly, Scrabble and other similar games.
-- 
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
E-Mail acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mox@vpnet.chi.il.us (William Moxley)
Subject: Re: coverage
Keywords: fischer fisher spassky 
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 04:30:57 GMT

I haven't heard anyone volunteer to set up the game under ics.  Prodigy
said they will be covering it, but as I mentioned in another article
they haven't mentioned anything about the match in a week.  The match
according to people here is supposed to start Thursday.  Prodigy says
tommorrow.   We'll see I guess.

		William Moxley
		mox@vpnet.chi.il.us

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schoof@dec5.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.dbp.de (Jochen "Joscho" Schoof)
Subject: Re: FISCHER/SPASSKY...PREDICTIONS
Organization: University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:04:50 GMT

From article <1992Sep1.135556.9798@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, by dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu:
> 
> 
> Predictions:
> append your predictions underneath......
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> Fischer  10
> Spassky   2
> 
> The match will be over in under 40 games.
> 
> This prediction is based on the fact that Bobby has done 
> nothing but play chess since 1972 while Borris went skiing.
> 
> Donald Wedding
> Toledo, OH
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> 
Maybe your prediction is right: A win for Fischer, a loss for chess!
Boris Spassky is one of the most friendly GMs on earth. He is not one
of those queers, like for example Fischer. A few years back, when he
played for SG 1868 Solingen in the German Bundesliga, he had talks with
the spectators after finishing his matches and really enjoyed being with
some chess-amateurs. He absolutely does not only bother about chess but
is also enjoying his life, what make him even more sympathic. Chess does
not need half-mad Bobbies, but more players like Boris.
Unfortunately Boris is far from being that good he was from 1967 to 1972
and will therefor get trouble in winning against Bobby, if Bobby in fact
did not do anything than playing chess. But I keep hoping...

Jochen

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jochen Schoof                    schoof@sundae.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Lehrstuhl f. Informatik II +-----------------------------------------------
Universitaet Wuerzburg     | It's worse than that: he's dead, Jim!  -Bones
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II, game 2 update (2:23 EDT)
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:44:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep3.144423.15340
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


AP reports that after four hours, Spassky has K, R, 3P, and 2B versus
Fischer's K, R, 4P, N, B.  Analysts at the site say Fischer has a
slight advantage, but not necessarily enough to win.  However, they
expect him to fight to the death, as always.


David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138            
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Kathy Watts)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky news conference
Summary: Play underway!  
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:33:09 GMT

KFWB news radio here in LA reported at 9:18 AM today that play was underway,
with Fischer opening 1.e4.  They then ran a brief report from a reporter on the
scene.  

So it's really happening!

Why not get back to discussing chess....

Hal Bogner

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: charness@healthy.uwaterloo.ca (Neil Charness)
Subject: Re: Match Predictions
Keywords: elo, chess, fischer, spassky
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:23:45 GMT

Just started reading this newsgroup after hearing about Fischer's 
return.  Let me try out a bit of speculation about how strong 
Fischer should be, assuming that nothing but normal aging has 
affected his play, and that he has continued to stay abreast of the 
chess opening literature.  If he has only suffered severe personality 
problems and not organic brain disease, his chess playing level 
will reflect both current practice levels (unknown, but probably 
high) and past aging.  Using Elo's average aging function for GMs, 
we can expect Fischer to have been near (though somewhat below) 
his prime when he stopped playing chess in 1972 at about age 29, 
with a rating of about 2780.  Today at age 49, he would have been 
expected to drop about .3 standard deviations or about 60 rating 
points to an Elo score of 2720.  I'm not sure what Spassky's current 
rating is (can anyone help here?), but assuming it is about 2600, 
the expected value for scoring probability is about .66 to .34 
favoring Fischer.   In short, Fischer would be expected to win the 
match by about the same margin (3-4 games) as in 1972 when they 
were also about 100 points apart.  
 If disuse and age take a greater toll on the more able, or if
Fischer's apparent paranoia indicates brain dysfunction, all
bets are off.
  
Neil Charness       charness@healthy.uwaterloo.ca
Univ. of Waterloo   519-885-1211, ext 3313
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess