HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mapmef@gdr.bath.ac.uk (M E Fletcher)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: STOP BASHING ALEKINE
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:06:53 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>hey,
>
>although i'm no big fan of alekine as either a chess player or
>as a person, i'm sick of all these people complaining about how
>he was ducking capablanca.
>
[deleted]
>so anyways, don't go bashing alekine unless you do so in the same
>breath that you bash capablanca and lasker...and what about the
>worst of them all....sir howard staunton.
>
>
>don wedding

Well why don't you stop bashing Staunton then? Staunton hadn't been an
active player for several years when challenged by Morphy and his
refusal to play was a tacit admission that Morphy was far the stronger
player. The bad feelings that arose between them were virtually entirely
down to the efforts of Morphy's "adviser" Edge who deliberately stirred
it up. There was no question about Morphy's supremacy and Staunton's
disinclination to play didn't dent it in the slightest. Staunton always
seems to get a terrible press (in the US?! :-) ) and you might try reading
the Oxford Companion to Chess for a more objective account.

Matt
From: tsau@cae.wisc.edu (Johne Tsau)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:11:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: doug.1992Oct13.211122.8131
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin--Madison

No, I really doubt people would be mad at you if you resigned.  But
what it does do is:
  1: Saves time (play another game?)
  2: Shows respect

Actually, some people might want you to stay in.  It allows them
to have the final satisfaction in saying "checkmate".  But really,
I doubt anyone would really care, unless they wanted to leave :)

--
Johne...   Kariel the Margrave

UNIX Address            : tsau@cae.wisc.edu
Real World Address      : 5348 Brummel St, Skokie, IL 60077
Real World Phone        : (708) 674-2947
From: mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Longevity of Lasker
Date: 13 Oct 1992 20:21:51 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <9210121917.AA07927@hplwk.hpl.hp.com> albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert) writes:
>
>Just speculation, but there does seem to have been a big gap between
>Lasker and Capablanca.  Lasker remained champion into his 60's, not
>so much out of domination, as from a dearth of competition.  My belief
>is that Pillsbury was the missing champion between Lasker and Capablanca,
>the champion that never came to be after Pillsbury's premature death,
>to syphillis, if I'm not mistaken.
>

Apparently Capablanca had pursued a championship match with Lasker beginning
at least in 1911. So they negotiated for ten years before playing the
fateful match. 

mrosen

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: paolini@TOR01.CSELT.STET.IT
Subject: subscription
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:58:07 GMT



	Please add me to the chessnews mailing list.

	Thanks in advance (and sorry for my bothering the list, but I can't
get any answer from chessnews-request).

+-----------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Maurizio Paolini                                    |                       |
| CSELT - Centro Studi E Laboratori Telecomunicazioni |  WORK IN PROGRESS     |
| Via G. Reiss Romoli, 274                            |   WORK IN PROGRESS    |
| I 10148 Torino - Italy                              |    WORK IN PROGRESS   |
| Phone #: +39 11 2285259                             |     WORK IN PROGRESS  |
| E-mail: paolini@scvs6.cselt.stet.it                 |                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 20 comments
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:32:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct16.003235.16436
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


There is a little excitement behind the scenes today.  Fischer was
apparently quite disturbed at not winning game 19.  There was a motion
today to postpone game 20 since the previous one ended at 11:30pm.
Fischer demanded that it not be postponed, and then had a complaint
for Spassky.  Spassky has been spending a lot of time in his cubicle
offstage.  He said he did it because he thought it made it harder for
Bobby to concentrate.  Apparently he's right, and Fischer complained
about the coming and going and suggested that each player be allowed
a limited number of trips to their cubicles, or maybe requiring that a
player make six moves before he can rise!  Spassky refused this, and
Fischer said, "we'll talk about it later" as play began.

About the game itself, Spassky felt he "got some advantage in the
opening" and that "it was difficult for black to find a plan." For his
part, Fischer felt Spassky could have won even quicker, but still felt
he had "a reasonably good game."  The AP says he was visibly upset
when he left the hall.

It stands now at 7-4.

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: gzogbi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi)
Subject: Blitz rules
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:33:45 GMT

I've got a question on blitz rules that's probably been asked before.

If, in a five minute games, you mate your opponent and then he(she) notices
that your flag is down, can you claim a win?  I've had some masters tell me
that in order to claim a win after mating someone, you have to stop the clock
with your flag up.  Others have said that a mate on the board takes precedence
over the clock.

Does anyone out there know for sure?  Thanks.


                                                    George
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: burgin@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Robert Burgin)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:14:11 GMT

In article <Oct13.054537.50464@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) writes:
>RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu asks:
>>
>>what i want to know is this: if i join some chess club, and get my
>>buttocks whupped, will people be mad if i don't resign?
>
>You should consider several points in this regard:
>
>1) if you are playing offhand games, why play on and on in a hopelessly
>   lost game when you could just resign and start a new and probably
>   more interesting game?  It's just a waste of time not to.

	This is a very good point.  If your purpose in
	playing chess is to learn something about the
	game and to then play better, then resigning a
	lost game and moving on to a new game where you
	can learn something new is obviously better than
	carrying on with a game that has little more to
	teach you.

	Of course, if your purpose is to win, play on
	and hope that your opponents gets struck by
	lightning.  But don't expect to learn anything
	except a lot of new adjectives to describe
	your behavior.

	--rb
From: annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:51:05 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

> In article <1992Oct7.202413.15165@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
>>Sven Hauptfeld writes:
>>>Nobody has so far posted a viable model of how a deflationary mechanism could
>>>sustain itself in a large pool for a long time.
>>
>>OK, I'll try to explain this one more time:
>>
>>1. Chess is a game of skill, so the average beginner is weaker
>>   than the average experienced player.  This will be true from
>>   now to eternity no matter how big the rating pool is.
>>
>>2. Strong players at any time T will have higher ratings than weak
>>   players at time T.  This will also be true forever and no matter
>>   how big the rating pool is.
>>
>>Thus, the beginners entering the rating pool today will be weaker
>>and lower rated than the experienced players who are leaving
>>the rating pool today through death or retirement.  Tomorrow's
>>beginners will be weaker and lower rated than the experienced
>>players leaving tomorrow, and the beginners entering the rating
>>pool 500 years from today will be weaker and lower rated than
>>the experienced players who'll be quitting 500 years from today.
>>
>>Since the retiring players leaving the pool have higher average
>>ratings than the beginners entering the pool, we have more points
>>going out of the pool than going in.  No matter how large the
>>rating pool is, if you remove more than you put in, you're going
>>to have deflation 

As far as I remember, to counteract this problem, junior players in Scotland
have their ratings automatically increased each year up to a certain age.

But I might be wrong.

Don't other countries do the same?

-- 
James Annan.
                [--------------------------------------]
                [  "The only good Tory is a lavatory"  ]
                [--------------------------------------]
From: wellerd@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (David Weller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Looking for traveling chess computers
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:35:25 GMT
Organization: Ada Joint Program Office

I am looking to purchase a simple chess computer to take with me while
I travel.  Before I decide on the choices below, I thought an opinion
(or two thousand) might help me decide.  Here are the boards and
their prices:
	Saitek Traveler: $34.99
	Saitek Advanced Trainer: $69.99
	Fidelity 6121 ("Marauder"):$79.95
(All prices US$)

I'm not a very strong player.  My FIDE rating would probably be
measured in negative exponents :-)  Which of these might be best
for me?  (E-mail or netnews replies accepted)

Sidenote:  The subject title, "Looking for traveling chess computers"
might imply I'm looking for roving chessboards carrying luggage.
I assure you, that is not the case. :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Weller,         | Space Station Training Facility: Like the real
CAE-Link,             | thing, only you can step outside for a breath
Space Technology Div. | of fresh air!
----I'm the Ultimate International Masochist: I speak Ada AND Esperanto!-----
From: ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen)
Subject: Richter-Rauser, Sozin
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:18:31 GMT


What books have been written on the next line:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6

Now 6.Bg5 is most popular, but I have only one very old Batsford
book form the 70's. 6.Bc4 is being played more and more often, but
here too only Kasparovs SIS e6+d6 systems is available (being printed
1n the beginning of 80's). How about 6.Be2?

It is surprising that there are so few books on this interesting opening.
Can anyone help me?

Antti
From: mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Alekhin-Rubinstein
Date: 11 Oct 1992 22:30:24 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct11.210023.28200@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
> 
>The independent accounts that I have read (Ed Lasker, Schonberg, Fine)
>seem to indicate that the match dodging was Alekhine's doing - for the
>most part.
>
>>Finally, Rubinstein was mentioned as one of the dominant players of his
>>time. I'm not sure you could say that he dominated the game but he sure
>>was a genius at the game. I don't have the game score handy, and the
>>opposition wasn't great, but Rubinstein-Rotlewi (1908?) is one of the
>>most incredible punishments of passive play that I've ever seen. BTW,
>>Rubinstein apparently died of starvation during WWI.
>>
>
>Yes, the game is beautiful, BUT it's Rotlewi-Rubinstein.  Rotlewi
>wasn't really as bad as you seem to indicate, although he was no
>Spassky! :^)
>

My description of Rotlewi's opposition was in reference to that 
particular game, I don't know anything about him other than that. 
I already responded to the Rubinstein's death error in another post, it
was an inaccurate recollection.

I've found a passage by Alekhin in 107 GREAT CHESS BATTLES describing his
position in regards to Capablanca before and after the 1927 match. His 
brief comments allude to the required prize fund of "10,000 gold dollars"
as a way to set obsticles in the paths of would-be challengers and the
primary reason that no one was able to challenge Capablanca until
Alekhin met him in Buenos Aires. Alekhin continues to relate that
Capablanca sought to obtain new conditions for a title match through
F.I.D.E. without consulting Alekhin. Because of the dispute "there arose
a coolness and difference between us."

Obviously, Capablanca, as challenger, would not be avoiding the match. My
statement was to the effect that it was not simply a matter of Alekhin
hiding from Capa. 

mrosen
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:24:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct14.172457.28918
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct14.143447.17929@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
>
>The main difference between Fischer's claim to a WC match and
>everyone else's is that Fischer won the title and never lost it.
>It was taken away from him.

It is interesting how many people think that Fischer 'never lost' the title,
yet I haven't seen any of them posting, for example, that Fischer 'never lost'
the 2nd game of the first match (for which he failed to show up). And then,
how many of you "never lost" people REFUSE THE POINT when YOUR opponent 
doesn't show up? Maybe your opponent just didn't like the rules of the
tournament...

	Sven
From: tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Keywords: bobby, champ, hyperbole, rah-rah, nationalism, insanity
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:59:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.220252.18071@craycos.com>, jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct14.153127.20890@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
|> >one COULD argue that the best chess-player over the last 25 years
|> >has been Bobby Fischer since he is the only living player to win the
|> >title of World Champion and never to lose a match thereafter.
|> 
|> Oh my gosh!  Did Kasparov die?

You know what I was talking about.  Kasparov doesn't count because
he wasn't at the world class level 25 years ago (just liike Fischer
wasn't at the world class level when he was still learning the game
in the 50's)
-- 
T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)
From: fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088})
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:41:41 GMT
Organization: Computervision, A Prime Computer Company, Bedford, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct7.202413.15165@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
|> Sven Hauptfeld writes:
|> >Nobody has so far posted a viable model of how a deflationary mechanism could
|> >sustain itself in a large pool for a long time.
|> 
|> OK, I'll try to explain this one more time:
|> 
|> 1. Chess is a game of skill, so the average beginner is weaker
|>    than the average experienced player.  This will be true from
|>    now to eternity no matter how big the rating pool is.
|> 
|> 2. Strong players at any time T will have higher ratings than weak
|>    players at time T.  This will also be true forever and no matter
|>    how big the rating pool is.
|> 
|> Thus, the beginners entering the rating pool today will be weaker
|> and lower rated than the experienced players who are leaving
|> the rating pool today through death or retirement.  Tomorrow's
|> beginners will be weaker and lower rated than the experienced
|> players leaving tomorrow, and the beginners entering the rating
|> pool 500 years from today will be weaker and lower rated than
|> the experienced players who'll be quitting 500 years from today.
|> 
|> Since the retiring players leaving the pool have higher average
|> ratings than the beginners entering the pool, we have more points
|> going out of the pool than going in.  No matter how large the
|> rating pool is, if you remove more than you put in, you're going
|> to have deflation (unless you put in something like bonus points/
|> rating floors, etc. to pump in new points and counteract this natural
|> deflation.)
|> 
|> That's as clear as I can make it.  If you still don't understand,
|> you'll have to read Elo's book.
|> 
|> Bradley

The problem with what you have presented is that many of the beginning and
average players leave the game, in greater numbers than the strong players.
This tendency pushs up the average ratings, and the available spread of points
that can be available at the top. 
   

frank
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:55:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct12.185528.9468
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct12.144507.29624@news2.cis.umn.edu>  
bedwards@nextear4.psych.umn.edu (Brent Edwards) writes:
> I'm a novice myself and have been reading a wide variety of books,  
> including ones on openings, and I've never seen an author plainly say  
what  
> the strategy and objectives of various opening lines are. Are there any  
> good books that discuss standard openings and don't just list hundreds  
of  
> variations?
> --Brent Edwards
> bedwards@nextear.psych.emn.edu

Yes, there are plenty of such books. As for good ones, I can't say, since  
I have written some and can't be objective. But the key is to look for  
books where there is a high ratio of words to moves. Often these have "How  
to play..." or "Understanding..." in the title. Among the best are the  
series published by RHM in the 1970's (no, none by me).
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Subject: Re: A question about chess copyright law...
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
Distribution: rec
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:37:00 GMT

In article <23857@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>In article <DUBACH1.92Oct9181732@husc10.harvard.edu> dubach1@husc10.harvard.edu (joev dubach) writes:
>
>> Is there any legal reason why someone could not extract the games from
>> the Informant CD-ROM, save them as text, and make them available for
>> FTP? 
>
>Well, there's this thing called `collection copyright.'  Even though individual
>items might not be copyrighted, it is possible to copyright the whole collection,
>so that wholesale reproduction would require permission from the copyright holder.

So copying them all isn't allowed, huh?  I'm pretty sure copying them in 
the same order is illegal too.  So why not copy every other game and
randomly order them?  Then do the same for the other half :-)


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:38:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.230222.5364@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct14.143447.17929@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
|> >
|> >The main difference between Fischer's claim to a WC match and
|> >everyone else's is that Fischer won the title and never lost it.
|> >It was taken away from him.  This is where the controversy is
|> >being generated on this thread of legitimate claims to a match.
|> >Spassky and Botvinnik lost their titles fair and square, but
|> >Fischer's title was taken away over disagreements he had regarding
|> >the politics and rules (or lack thereof) for rematches.  Until
|> >Bobby loses a match with ANYONE, there will always be a fairly
|> >legitimate claim by some that he is the best chess player in the
|> >world (which is not necessarily the same thing as "World Champion",
|> >although the terms are sometimes used interchangably).
|> >
|> >
|> >-- 
|> >T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)
|> 
|> The FIDE giveth, and the FIDE taketh away.  By playing in the FIDE system and
|> accepting the FIDE title, Fischer was implicitly submitting to FIDE rules.
|> If he doesn't like that, he can start his own chess federation (Garri did,but
|> that's another story. :-) ).  The FIDE was started to standardize the world
|> championship process and prevent match ducking.  Fischer didn't complain
|> (relatively speaking; Fischer always complains) when the FIDE gave him a shot
|> at the title.  If fact, as I recall, one of Fischer's criticisms of the FIDE
|> is that title defenses are too infrequent, and that if he were champ, things
|> would be different.  That being the case, he should just as happily accept
|> matches as champs as he did as challenger.  He didn't, and lost his title 
|> "fair and square", under the same rules he won it.  He has no more claim to
|> the title than Ivanchuk, Anand, Karpov, or Short, or even Spassky.
|>  

I've mentioned this a few times already, but I'll point it out again.
I haven't mentioned anything about claims that Fischer is still "World
Champion."  Read the article again.  I specifically noted the
difference, but apparently some people can't read or are too trigger
happy in their bobby bashing to pay attention.
-- 
T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jpgraham@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John P Graham)
Subject: UnorthodoxOpenings
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:08:24 GMT

For the many people that enquire wrt 'good or not too well documented'
replies to the massive array of currently topical openings .....

give the book 'Unorthodox Openings' a try ... by J.Benjamin and E.Schiller
.. I'm not too sure who publishes it in the USA ,, but when I lived in
Ireland I got a copy published by BATSFORD ,London.

I tried many of the 'good/ugly' variations with amazing success at club
level (150 - 1800 USCF) games ... probably ~ 7-1.
 A wee bit of a surprise can put an opponent off of his favourite opening
for a while ... even if it isn't the 'best' line.
Just a suggestion ..... John Graham.