HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 8 Fischer wins
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:32:05 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Fischer won today in 40 moves, amidst continuing speculation
about Spassky's health.  Reuters reports he has a prostate problem,
noting that he left his seat 27 times during game 7.

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: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Rating of Radio Shack 1650
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:14:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.194148.22778@exu.ericsson.se> exudtn@exu.ericsson.se writes:

>What is Sargon rated at?  Of the PC based chess games which is the
>best? They all claim to have beaten the other.

I see a Sargon ARB 2.0 (MGSII) at 1645.  I don't see anything else on
Sargon.

"MChess consistently dominates every program except Zarkov."  After
MChess and Zarkov, it is Rexchess, KnightStalker. and Psion.

Best is to read CCR from ICD at 800-645-4710.  --Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Chessmaster 3000 - questions
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:10:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.172550.2233@jyu.fi> ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen) writes:

>By the way. What's the rating of CM3000?

CCR says about 2174 on a 486/33.  Subscribe to CCR from ICD at 800-645-4710.

--Jim
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II gossip
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:12:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep8.211224.15478
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


The daily tidbits:

The AP passed along an interview with Spassky today. In it he said he
felt a personal tragedy when Fischer retired from chess.  "You know
that we have a chess kingdom. In the world of chess there is no
democracy. We have a monarchy, and Bobby was a very good king.  And
when he left the chess world, all of us became like orphans.  Do you
understand what I mean?"  He said he lost interest in chess after that
because the Soviet champions were not kings of chess for him, they
were just Communists.

He revealed that he met with Fischer four or five times during Bobby's
excile.  When Fischer offered the rematch Spassky agreed immediately
and left Bobby to decide the millions of details that he is so
concerned with.  Boris is also a big supporter of the new Fischer
clock.

Having Fischer back is a dream come true, he said.  "Psychologically,
I feel extremely comfortable here.  Bobby's coming for me is this
fantastic festival."  He even apologized for Fischer's weak play in
games 3 and 4: "Bobby is somehow handicapped because he considers
himself the champion.  He feels fantastic responsibility, exactly the
same feeling I had 20 years [ago] in Rejkjavik."

Also, Kasparov gave a phone interview to Reuters.  He called the match
a mediocre contest of has-beens.  "There is confusion between the
legend and the level of chess nowadays.  I find this match well below
expectations.  The game is quite mediocre under 1992 criteria."  He
claimed Fischer won the first game only after Spassky made a "gross
mistake."

Kasparov belittled Fischer's claims to the title.  "It shows he is
sick. In order to be the champion, you have to beat your
contemporaries. But Fischer has only played three of the world's top
100 players.  He is the champion of 20 years ago."  What about the
charges of cheating? "It is not necessary to answer such paranoia."

He also said he would never play in Serbia under the present political
climate. "My opinions would forbid me to play in that country."
Kasparov was glad the match was drawing attention to chess, but he was
afraid it would backfire if Fischer's outbursts continued.


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
Subject: Re: Spassky-Fischer #8, by Zarkov & me.
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 15 Sep 92 08:31:12 EDT
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Sep15.042354.3529@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.uucp (James H. Coombs) writes:
>I thought 15.O-O-O looked good in part because of 16.Qxd6.  I played through
>with Zarkov and did not find any problems.  If Black exchanges Queens, then
>White heads toward the endgame up a pawn.  If Black plays Qa5, White's
>retreat to d2 leaves Black with a ways to go before building up an attack.

Byrne says 16.Qd6 Qa5 17.Qa2 b5 gives Black a "tremendous attack."  

>This move [18...Rh8] mystifies me.  Why would Fischer want his Rook 
>over on h8?  Is it really needed over there for defense?

Yes.  It protects h6 in event of a possible Nef5 from White.

>Or let's take Zarkov's move: 33.Qc3.  Inferior would be 33...Rxc3,
>which allows the equalizing 34.Rxc3 Nc5 35.b4 Qa7 36.bxc5 dxc5.  Now
>37.d6 gives White an advanced passed pawn.  On the other hand, Black
>has triple connected passed pawns.  Zarkov scores them about even.

Well, in this line White has the material advantage of a N, B, and R
for Q and 2P, plus the Black R is temporarily stuck, as you point out,
and the White knight is head for d5 and f6.

Byrne and DT give 34.Rc3 Nc5 35.b4 Nb7 36.Rfc2 Nd8 37.Rc7 Qf8 38.Rc8
as winning by, for instance, R2c7 and Rd7. 

>Better is 33...Nxc1 34.Qa3 b4 35.Qxa6 Kf8 36.Nc2 b3 37.Kxc1 Ra7 38.Qd3
>bxc2 39.Rxc2 Ra1+ 40.Kd2 Rh1.  Black has given up a passed pawn for the
>exchange and the initiative.

Better is 33...Nc1 34.Qa3 b4 35.Qa4 Kf8 36.Bf1 and the Black knight
falls and White has the material edge. (Byrne/DT)

>This sacrifice [37...Ra1] also seemed strange to me, but I certainly 
>was not able to improve by going for a mate.  I guess by giving 
>back some material, Fischer eliminates counterchances.

It forces Spassky's resignation in four moves by invading his position
and disrupting further his already disrupted pieces.

> 40.       b4       -308   8   e3f3  f1g2  f3e3  c2d1  h8a8  d1c2  a8a1  c6c8 

"White had to lose more material because 41.Be2 b3 42.Kc1 Ra8 43.Ba6
Ra6! 44.Ra6 Qc5 45.Kd1 Qc4 either wins a rook or gives 46...Qf1 mate."
(Byrne)

Another sample line that shows the situation is 41.b3 Ra8 42.Ba6 Ra6
43.Ra6 Qb3 44.Kc1 Qc4 and 45...Qa6.    There are oodles of variations
that end similarly.

I think Jim's getting a little carried away with his Zarkov analysis,
obviously, when comparing lines based on one evaluated at +21 and another
at +23.  While I have respect for DT II in tactical positions as an 
adjudicator of the truth, I don't think even it should be relied upon
solely in most situations, and I don't think Zarkov should be considered
*too* seriously in a game between Spassky and Fischer.  It missed,
for instance, the sac 37...Ra1 and then 40...b4 as the finisher.

Again, I apologize for the typo which caused so much confusion.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: GAME 5??? WHEN????
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:15:57 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

hey,

when is game 5???? i thought they were going to play today.
what's the deal?????

anybody know?????? please post!!!!!!

don wedding

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:42:14 -0400 
From: Ron_Kownacki@transarc.com
Subject: Lose Pieces and Loosing Moves

Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhh!  I can't stand it anymore!  I have
reached my personal breaking point!  Maybe you think this is just
nitpicking, but I'm the kind of guy who always balances his checkbook.

You don't "loose" games, you lose them!  Moves don't "loose", they
lose!  Now a N on a4 may well be loose, and you could easily lose it!  But
you can't "loose" it if it's already loose!  You can only lose it!
You don't hang a convicted killer using his nose, you use a noose!

Come on people!  Why oh why are the chances of this misspelling
appearing in this group even greater than those for a TV commercial
with a chessboard having a black square on the right??  Why oh why?
It's got to be over a 50% error rate!


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Prononciation Of Names
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:39:53 GMT

In article <65640@cup.portal.com> wms@cup.portal.com (W Mark Schneider) writes:

>Oh, and to answer my own question, Dr. Euwe claimed then that
>it was impossible to pronounce his name correctly in English
>as that language did not have the correct sound.

FINALLY!  We just need to pronounce these names in a manner that
enables us to communicate with each other.  Americans especially have
this provincial worry over "correct" English.  (I have a Ph.D.  in
English and an M.A. in Linguistics.)  I have always been impressed by
the practice in England (at least frequently) of ignoring the "proper"
pronunciation of even simple foreign names.  Byron, for example, wrote
*Don Juan*, with the clear intention of pronouncing the name not as in
Spanish (wahn) but as in English (dzhoo'-ahn).  Just one example.

The way we trip all over ourselves about this is nothing short of
silly.  And those of us who have some capabilities in a particular
foreign language delight in pronouncing names and words better than
everyone else, leaving them to feel like bumpkins.  How should we
pronounce "croissant" when ordering in a restaurant?  How many years
should we dedicate to learning French so that we get it right?

Relax!  The sanctimonious snit who wrote to Chess Life about "Colle"
not rhyming with dog should be left to his own snittery.  When I
ordered a book on the opening named after Colle, I asked, and they said
"kow'-lee".  So that's what it is.  Try to talk to someone about the
"koo'-luh" opening, and it will take you a while to make your referent
clear.  Then you can stand there talking about linguistics instead of
chess, when you probably know a lot more about chess than linguistics.

Now that I am adding to this discussion of all things but chess, I am
still looking for the first of the 1.d4 Fischer-Spassky games.  There
were two, right?  Thanks.  --Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schoof@dec8.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.dbp.de (Jochen "Joscho" Schoof)
Subject: Re: WHAT'S WITH BOBBY?!?!?!?!
Organization: University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:38:45 GMT

From article <1992Sep9.181523.9899@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, by dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu:
[some lines deleted]
> i might have to restate my prediction....
> 
> spassky 10
> fischer 2
> 
> don wedding

Aaaah! Seems we're getting serious again. Maybe it won't be 10-2, but I
start believing Boris can really do it. In my opinion he simply
underestimated Fischer in the first games, but now he knows he can not
do too easily.

- 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: jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: re:  Game 6 ... WHEN???
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:42:18 GMT
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)




>Well, I just want to know when they play the next match.

Fischer will win this match by a 4 game margin, will hold an interview saying
"All I want to do is play more chess."  Pundits everywhere will speculate on
the surge of popularity chess is bound to enjoy, then Fischer will go into
hiding for 20 years before they play the next match. :-)
From: watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer games in Informator?
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:03:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


>Here's a thought.  Given that FIDE doesn't recognize this match,  
>Will any of these games be considered for inclusion in Informant?

Yep, they'll definately be included, since the Serbians are the
ones who publish the Informants.

Bradley
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Subject: Re: Kasparov vs. Letterman 1990
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:46:15 GMT

In article <9209091924.AA25383@econ.berkeley.edu> jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:
>
>During the '90 World Championship match, Kasparov played a correspondence game 
>against David Letterman on Late Night.  Does anybody have the moves to that
>game?
>

I don't know for sure, but the moves might have been published in Chess
Life -- remember an article on the game in there.  I think Kasparov, played
1. e4 where Letterman then remarked, "I'm screwed!"  Letterman then played,
1. ...a5, saying, "What do you think of THAT!?".  Kasparov said, "It's BAD",
and allowed Letterman to play another move instead.  Letterman then played, 
1. ...d5, and Kasparov said, "MUCH better".

-- 
JOHN A. SWARTZ - The MITRE Corp. Bedford, MA * John_Swartz@iegate.mitre.org
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
 One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."  J.R.R. Tolkien
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: marcusc@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: shogi
Date: 7 Sep 92 02:29:39 GMT
Organization: New York University

write
In article <Bu0Joo.EKs@casper.cs.uct.ac.za>, mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock) writes:
> 
> I recently discovered an apparently ancient Japanese board game
> called Shogi (I think). I know very little about it except that it bears
> some resemblance to chess. It is apparently still very popular in Japan.
> 
> If anyone knows the rules and a little about the game, I would
> greatly appreciate the info.
> 
> You can mail to me directly at the address given below (if you like).
> 
> 
> Brian Pinnock
> 
> Computer Science Dept.       | 
> University of Cape Town      | 
> South Africa                 | 
> mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za | 
> 
> 
Shogi is as you say a japanese version of chess.  Sets are available.  VEry
briefly
the board is 9by 9 and one colour, not black and white.  The pieces are much
less powerful, each sied has 9 pawns (that capture one square ahead as they
move, two lances that move only forward in a straight line two knights which
abgain move only forward in the chess kt's move if you see what I mean. two 
silvers and two golds that move to adjacent squares except silvers cannot
move horizontally and directly back golds can not move diagonally back. 
EAch side also has a rook and a bishop as in chess, and a king as in chess
  All pieces can promote by entering the promotion zone (last three files)
lances knights and silvers promote to golds rooks promote to a piece that
can move like a rook and one square diagonally, bishops when promoted
can move one square like a rook.  The big difference with chess is that when
you
capture a piece you can use it on your side.
You win by mating the opponents king.
There is also another variation of the game which has more pieces but you
cannot
"drop" them (drop meaning use them on your side)
And that, very briefly, is that
Clifford marcus
marcusc@acfcluster.nyu.edu
     if nbaqyaola
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II (Game 5) - analysis
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:03:34 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

In answer to:

Withdrawing the B to c3 made sense because the only point I can see to
the sacrifice is to gain pressure on the dark squares. After the BQ
moves, I don't understand how the B on a5 is tying down more than one
piece, let alone "Black's entire army". Besides, there is black's
"other" other counterplay: ...c4.


The explanation is that the Bishop on a5 attacks the Knight on b6, which can't
move until the pin is lifted.  If the Queen moves to e7, the Knight on d7 can't
move because it's the only piece defending the Knight on b6.  The Knight on b6
can only move to c8, which prevents ...Bc8.  The untangling process, therefore,
involves ...Qe7, ...Rb8, ...Bc8, ...Nf6 or Ne5, and finally ...Nbd7.  If Black
tries to take a short cut with ...c4?!, then White can attack the Knight on b6
with Qd4.  But at what point does Black try for play with ...c4 - if he
untangles for a few moves, White happily withdraws the Bishop to c3 and takes
over the long diagonal, but it's wrong to throw away the paralyzing effect on
the Bishop on a5 prematurely.

So a possible continutation might be:

21.a3!?   Bxa1
22.Rxa1   Qe7
23.h4     Rb8
24.h5     Bc8
25.hxg6   fxg6
26.Bc3

although the best way might be

21.Qd2    Bxa1
22.Rxa1   Kh7
23.h4

or

21.Qd2    b4
22.a3

and now 22...Bxa1 23.Rxa1 costs Black a Pawn (23...bxa3 24.Qxh6).  But if the
exchange isn't taken (22...bxa3 23.Rxa3), it never will be and White has a good
game without any sacrifice.  So a critical line may be 21.Qd2 b4 22.a3 Nc4!?
23.bxc4 Qxa5 24.axb4 Qxa1 25.Rxa1 Bxa1 26.bxc5 Nxc5 27.Qxh6, but now it's Black
who has sacrificed and I doubt that the a Pawn will balance White's Kingside
attack (h3-h4-h5).

But I will admit one thing - it's easier to suggest lines like this than play
them (especially for a million dollars!)
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Informmant Problems (Was: Fischer games in Informator?)
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:38:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Sep5.180336.20788@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
>>Here's a thought.  Given that FIDE doesn't recognize this match,  
>>Will any of these games be considered for inclusion in Informant?
>
>Yep, they'll definately be included, since the Serbians are the
>ones who publish the Informants.

Note well: The Informants are being published and mailed from Serbia, which
means that they come under the sanctions.  The attempt to move operations to
Cyprus turned out to be a dummy One-Man-One-PO-Box deal.  So right now the
USCF has a real problem with the Yugoslav Chess Federation, and anyone else
selling Informants may be liable.  How does $250,000 and 10 years for
Kasparov's notes to Ivanchuk-Kasparov sound?

They sent the usual review copy (which contributors also have received); if
I post excerpts here am I then under arrest?

What a world.

--Elliott
  Elliott Winslow IM
  ekw@world.std.com
  Assistant Editor
  Chess Life USCF
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: olesen@math.uiowa.edu (Martin Olesen)
Subject: Re: fischer-spassky
Originator: olesen@sycamore.math.uiowa.edu
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:50:36 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA


In article <1992Sep9.224734.21830@leland.Stanford.EDU>, dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
|> In article <BuBwxJ.1wv@cs.dal.ca> hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep9.181559.28959@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, bwatkins@nyx.cs.du.edu (The God of all machines) writes:
 
|> Go back 25 years to a much more repressive Soviet government in
|> a sport that is crucial to national self-esteem. And set it up
|> where one of the best players is from your sworn enemy, the US.
|> And 6 out of the next 10 or so top players are from the USSR. And 
|> Fischer didn't qualify.
|> 
|> And you really think the Soviets didn't cheat?
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
|>       There's something in my library to offend everybody.
|>         --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship



    
   Fischer didn't qualify in

               1962 - because he wasn't good enough yet

               1964 - because he elected not to play
            
               1967 - because he withdrew from the interzonal when leading

   Finally in 1970-71 he beat his worst enemy, himself, and qualified
    for the title-match.

                Martin Olesen
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II Game 8 (analysis)
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:43:42 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

The position after 31.Rc1 is critical.  There are three
questions:

1. Was 31.Rc1 the best move?
2. What's going on after 31...Ncb3?
3. Was 31...Ncb3 the best reply?


1. Was 31.Rc1 the best move?

If White instead plays for the f4 break, with 31.Bg2, Black's
idea seems to have been to run the King to the Queenside: 31.Bg2
Kd8 32.f4 Kc8 33.f5 Kb8 34.fxg6 fxg6 35.Rf6 Rg8, and it looks as
though Black has more ways to improve his position than does
White.

2. What's going on after 31...Ncb3?

The suggestion, after 32.axb3 Nxb3, of 33.Rc3(?) must be a typo.
After 33...Nxd2+ 34.Rxd2 Rxc3 35.bxc3, White is clearly lost.
Deep Thought must have suggested 33.Qc3!, which looks like the
best move.  If 33...Rxc3 34.Rxc3 Nc5 35.b4 Qa7 36.bxc5 dxc5
37.d6, and Black has a difficult defensive task.  Better is
33...Nxc1 34.Qa3, and the Knight is trapped, although there are
no immediate threats and it looks as though Black has time for
Kf8 and Kg7, followed by ...f6.  What was Deep Thought's analysis
of this position?

3. Was 31...Ncb3 the best reply?

Maybe not - 31...Rh7 maintains the tension, threatening 32...Ncb3
under more favorable circumstances.  The position is very tense,
but Black looks better.

Did time trouble cause a double blunder in the key position of
Game 8?  It looked like the most interesting game yet, but it is
hard to say that the chess is at a world championship level when
most of the games seem to be decided by blunders.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen)
Subject: game 6 draw?
Originator: mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:36:05 GMT

It looks as if game 6 should be drawn by repetition of position. With white to
move on moves 34, 36, and 39. I would assume one player would have to make the
claim. Is this correct or is my position off?

mrosen
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky II
Reply-To: jhc@m2lll.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 06:43:21 GMT

In article <1574@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> mjn@ukc.ac.uk (M.J.Neish) writes:

>If Fischer's Elo rating were wiped clean, then how decisively will he
>have to beat Spassky to achieve a performance rating equivalent to his
>old rating of 2785?

Exactly the same as if his rating were not wiped clean: your current
rating does not have anything to do with your performance rating.

>with Black. What performance rating would 14.5-4.5 in favour of Fischer
>be theoretically?

That would be about a 76% win score for Fischer, which, according to
the tables, indicates a rating difference of about 200 points.  So just
add 200 to Spassky's rating, and that will give you an approximate
performance rating for Fischer at 14.5-4.5.

--Jim