HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: Nigeria in Olympiad?
Summary: Results of all teams
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution:     world
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:39:47 GMT

In my usual lazy style, I've typed the 3-letter codes in.  I'm sending the
sed file to extend them into proper names shortly.


---  ---  ---- -------  ----- ------  ------
01.  RUS  29.0  461.00  12.0  393.75  331.00
02.  UZK  35.0  453.50  10.5  333.00  323.00
03.  ARM  34.5  458.00  10.5  339.75  324.00
04.  USA  34.0  453.50  10.5  332.75  320.50
05.  LAT  33.5  450.00  10.5  330.25  320.00
06.  ISD  33.5  443.00  10.5  330.25  320.00
07.  CRO  33.5  440.00   9.0  270.50  312.00
08.  GEO  33.0  450.00   9.0  281.00  319.50
09.  UKR  33.0  445.50   8.0  245.00  321.50
10.  ENG  33.0  445.50   8.0  245.00  315.50
11.  ISR  32.5
12.  BNH  32.5
13.  GER  32.5
14.  CSR  32.5
15.  SWZ  32.5
16.  PRC  32.5
17.  HUN  32.0
18.  SVE  32.0
19.  BLG  32.0
20.  COL  32.0
21.  SLO  32.0
22.  IND  31.5  425.50   7.5  223.75  305.50
23.  NLD  31.0
24.  LIT  31.0
25.  EST  31.0
26.  PER  31.0
27.  FRA  31.0
28.  BRS  31.0
29.  ITA  30.5
30.  TMT  30.5
31.  PHI A  30.5
32.  POL  30.0
33.  NOR  30.0
34.  ARG  30.0
35.  MOL  30.0
36.  ROM  30.0
37.  TRK  30.0
38.  KIR  29.5
39.  GRC  29.5
40.  RIN  29.5
41.  ESP  29.5
42.  PHI C  29.5
43.  POR  29.5
44.  PHI B  29.5
45.  KAZ  29.0  416.50   6.5  183.25  301.00
46.  AUS  29.0  416.00   7.0  199.50  298.50
47.  OST  29.0  407.00   7.5  208.50  291.00
48.  DEN  28.5
49.  FIN  28.5
50.  BEL  28.5
51.  MEX  28.5
52.  SIP  28.5
53.  VIE  28.5
54.  CAN  28.5
55.  SCO  28.0
56.  TUN  28.0
57.  CHI  27.5
58.  MON  27.5
59.  AND  27.5
60.  BAN  27.5
61.  NZD  27.0
62.  PRO  27.0
63.  SAF  27.0  349.00   7.0  155.25  267.50
64.  EGY  26.5  397.50   6.0  162.25  282.50
65.  FAI  26.5
66.  ALG  26.5  374.99   7.0  180.75  268.00
67.  UAE  26.5
68.  SRI  26.5
69.  LEB  26.5
70.  PAK  26.0
71.  LUX  26.0
72.  JAP  26.0
73.  TAI  26.0
74.  ANG  26.0  361.00   6.0  149.00  257.00
75.  WLS  25.5
76.  NIG  25.5  372.00   6.5  161.75  266.50
77.  MRC  25.5  366.50   6.5  153.75  265.50
78.  MAL  25.5
79.  QTR  25.5
80.  NCG  25.5
81.  SMA  25.5
82.  IRL  25.0
83.  UGA  25.0  346.00   6.0  138.25  244.00
84.  MRT  25.0
85.  HKG  24.5
86.  BSW  24.5  349.50   5.5  127.00  249.50
87.  NLA  24.5
88.  CYP  24.0
89.  ZIM  23.5  371.00   6.0  152.00  265.00
90.  LIC  23.5
91.  PNG  23.0
92.  MLT  23.0
93.  JAM  22.5
94.  GCI  22.5
95.  MLI  22.0
96.  BRU  22.0
97.  VUS  21.5
98.  PAL  21.0
99.  FIJ  20.5
100.  BER  18.0
101.  SAL  16.0
102.  SEY  14.0
103.  KEN  0.0
104.  YEM  0.0
105.  AZE  0.0
106.  PAN  0.0
107.  ANT  0.0
108.  GAM  0.0


--Elliott
  Elliott Winslow IM
  ekw@world.std.com
  Assistant Editor
  Chess Life USCF
From: schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Fischer rumor
Organization: Center for Information and Language Studies / University of
	Chicago
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:36:03 GMT

I am sure that there are many here, including me, who would love to 
wager on Fischer in such a match. Spassky has forgotten how to play for
a win. I would predict a shutout, with Fischer winning about 40% of
the games and the rest drawn. 

I am a bit better informed on some of the aspects of the rumors,
but have agreed not to talk about it. I don't think it will take
place, though one of my sources puts the possibility as high as
50%.

I do know that Fischer has been studying hard lately, and his
library is up to date. But I do not expect him to play again.

Just for fun, here is how I think he would do in ten game matches
against the top players:

Fischer 7-3 Spassky
Fischer 6.5-5.5 Timman
Sorry, Fischer 6.5-3.5 Timman
Fischer 6-4 Short with Short winning 1 game
Fischer 3.5-6.5 Kasparov
Fischer 5-5 Karpov
Fischer 6-4 Anand (+4 -2 =4), but maybe the other way round...

All speculation - I don't see it happening.

Eric
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:5765 soc.culture.yugoslavia:7457
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Why not Baghdad (chess as art)
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:41:03
Organization: CSUA/UCB
	<PHR.92Jul29093028@soda.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Jul31.054253.5531@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu's message of 31 Jul 92 05:42:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.054253.5531@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:

   In article <PHR.92Jul29093028@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
   >I think I am missing something in this discussion about sanctions vs.
   >the match.  If the sanctions are in place, how is the match going to
   >bring money into Yugoslavia?  Fischer and Spassky are getting paid a
   >lot, but that is a flow of money OUT of Yugoslavia.  

   Have you ever wondered why manufacturers (and others) spend millions on
   ADVERTIZING ? Did you think "Don't they want to MAKE money? So why are
   they SPENDING it?" 

Yes, exactly.  Businesses advertise to get people to send them money
(i.e. buy stuff).  However, if people cannot send money to the businesses
because international sanctions prevent it, advertising is throwing money
away, at least until the sanctions end.  So what's the deal?
From: soloway@midniteoil.Eng.Sun.COM (Mark Soloway)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: More on Fischer-Spassky II
Date: 31 Jul 1992 03:13:52 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: soloway@midniteoil.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: midniteoil

In article 14332@husc3.harvard.edu, fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.150116.18268@linus.mitre.org> jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz) writes:
>>The first half of the match will be on Sveti Stefan, a resort island in
>>Montenegro, on the southern Adriatic coast.  The rest of the nine-game
>>series will be in Belgrade. 
>
>I don't understand this.  I thought the idea was to play until someone
>wins 10 games.  And if so, how can you have "half a match"?

The match is until someone wins 10 games or until it is 9-9, in which case
the match is considered a draw and the prize money is split evenly.  Since
draws don't count (0 points), the first "half" is probably until a total of
9 points have been scored...

						- Mark

__________________________________________
\_Mark Soloway (mark.soloway@Eng.Sun.COM)_\
/_Distributed Systems Services (ToolTalk)_/
\__SunSoft (A Sun Microsystems Company)___\
From: marko@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Mark Orr)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: J. Polgar and Olympiad, NOT!
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:51:25 GMT
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland

Ben Henwood writes

>Does anyone know why Judit Polgar did not play on the Hungarian
>men's team.

The rumour I heard while I was in Manila during the Olympiad
(though not direct from any Hungarians) was that the Polgar
family had asked for the Hungarian Chess federation to meet
all their costs as a condition for Judit playing in the men's
and the other two playing in the women's. This would have meant
two extra air fares and hotel bills (for Mum and Dad) and was
refused. The result was there were no Polgars anywhere to be seen.

Mark Orr
AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: olesen@math.uiowa.edu (Martin Olesen)
Subject: Re: Fischer rusty?
Originator: olesen@sycamore.math.uiowa.edu
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:43:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA


In article <2232@unet.UUCP>, stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> While it is true that Bobby has not made a single PUBLIC appearance in about
|> 2 decades isn't it also true that just a few years ago in a special closed
|> match he played a round robin with 6 of the top players of the world and came
|> out 6-0? I remember the Pres. of our local club getting very excited about
|> this when it happened.
|> 
|> Inquiring mind wants to know!
|> 
|> Stan Knight
|> 
|> Fischer to KO Spassky in the Ohhhh 24th round or so!
|>  



     I've never heard anything about this rumour. Could you
      please post more details.

                             Martin Olesen.
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer-Spassky II
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:54:54
Organization: CSUA/UCB
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

1. This is pretty interesting.  The match is supposed to last until
someone has won 10 games, draws not counting.  This could mean
an awfully long match.  I think the probability of it *starting*
is quite a bit higher than that of it *finishing* (with someone +10).

2. Does anyone know if the match is going to be played with the "Fischer
clock"?  (That would mean no adjournments).  Also, does anyone know the
game schedule (how many days between games, etc.)?  If 1 game per day,
both of those geezers will be exhausted pretty fast, even with some
rest days.  If there is a rest day between games, the match lasts
2x longer, making it less likely to be completed before some political
calamity or player freak-out halts it.  [IMHO for all of this, of course].
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Subject: Re: Fischer
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 23:52:57 GMT

In article <3481@eastman.UUCP> levi@kodak.com (Ilia Levi) writes:
>Has there been a confirmation from Spassky? I would think that he is the
> credible party in this thing.
>--------------------
>Ilia, levi@kodak.com

CUT from earlier article:

From llpost!ll.mit.edu!xn.ll.mit.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!wupost!sdd.hp.com!hpscdc!hplextra!hpfcso!jsm Wed Jul 29 09:34:39 EDT 1992

>By Chuck Sudetic, The New York Times
>Belgrade, Yugoslavia
>Spassky, reached at a vacation home in Allemont, France, told Robert Byrne,
>a grandmaster and the chess columnist of the New York Times, that Fischer
>had agreed to the match.

this would appear to indicate confirmation on the part of boris.

the TV network news i saw showed a bearded Fischer getting into a car
somewhere, which agrees with another description here.

in rec.games.go we have an internet go server, IGS, to correspond to
your ICS, i would imagine.  the latest news for the IGS is that on
Sept. 9-10 one of the Meijin Championship games to be played in Amsterdam
(i think?) between to professional Japanese 9 dans was going to be shown
over the network on the IGS.

i immediately thought of how this Fischer-Spassky match might make its
way to the ICS, thereby getting a large segment of watchers.

could someone tell me how the ICS works?  what is the internet address?
and stuff.  does it have a port as well?

- nate, otherwise just lurking
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: torkkola@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: The Classical French ( 7 f4 0-0 )
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:31:06 GMT


        Hello You,

I'd like to hear what is the latest news about the Classical French.
What about the next opening line ?  Any good games you know played
this or last year ?

        1  e4    e6
        2  d4    d5
        3 Nc3   Nf6
        4 Bg5   Be7
        5  e5   Nfd7
        6 Bxe7  Qxe7
        7  f4   0-0
        8 Nf3    c5
        9 dxc5

and now the alternatives a) 9 .. Nc6 and b) 9 .. Qxc5

Any comments about b) variation ?
Any improvment in a) variation ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Organization: NCS/TRE             Plan:     to be and not to be
  torkkola@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi               there and everywhere
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: achut@nairobi.Eng.Sun.COM (Achut Reddy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer rumor
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:32:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: nairobi

>The best explanation I've heard for the match is that Reshevsky dying shook
>Fischer up, and Tal dying blew him away; he is snapped back by a jolt of
>mortality.

No need for such elaborate explanations.  The best explanation is:
He got tired of living in poverty.  He knows he would lose against
any top player today, but the starvation thing finally got to him,
and he figured it was time to cash in.

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of Fischer -- the Fischer of the
past before he defaulted the WC.  I too kept hoping over the years
that he would come back.  A comeback of a former champion is
always a romantic notion, but in this case a return to world
class competitiveness is sheer wishful thinking.

-achut
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:11:21 GMT

In article <92204.150925U55342@uicvm.uic.edu> <U55342@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>2) I don't think that programers are creating chess programs to become
>   fabulously wealthy (I doubt if the grants are that substantial!), and
>   chess computers are not 'taking away' our 'royal game' - quite the contrary,
>   through training against them around our 9-to-5 drudgery we can become
>   better players than we could without them. I approach chess as a sport,
>   and so I don't want to play them in regular tournaments; special
>   'human vs computer' matches would be interesting!
>
>                                                       See ya!
>                                                        Bert


Actually, Cray Blitz is a "sink", not a "source" of money!  In over 15 years
of competing, we have won two cash prizes in computer only events, and these
prizes did not cover our travel expenses, much less anything else.  We (Cray
Blitz group) have never gotten financial support, other than the machines that
Cray Research graciously provides for us to use during the tournaments.
Financially rewarding, indeed....   :^)  My wife loves Cray Blitz.  Keeps me
up late, takes me on long trips and we have to pay the travel and often long-
distance calls to boot.....

Bob
-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:44:25 GMT

>#> To the contrary, chessplaying programs in USCF tournaments do abide by
>#> the same rules as humans.  Anyone with a different opinion is welcome
>#> to point out the section in the rules where programs are treated
>#> differently from humans.

I never liked the arguments that computers cheated by using internal
books or separate boards.  This seems to me to be a quibble about a
difference in memory technology.  Perhaps that has some intrinsic
significance as opposed to being just a legalistic nuance, but I don't
see it.  The problem I have always had is that computers have a significant
advantage in being undefined.  The USCF definition is circular and
arbitrary.  This gives computers an advantage in being able to collaborate
in ways that are clearly illegal for humans.  For example, if a human
decided to add a microprocessor as an "accelerator" the human would
be clearly cheating, but a computer can link to other processors
by simple redefinition and get away with it.  A computer can use a computer
but a human can't.  Perhaps a computer can even use a human -- the rules
are not perfectly clear.
From: winders@aux.support.apple.com (Scott Winders)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Can anyone see why this move is illegal?
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:24:39 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul29.190938.1055@utdallas.edu>, cyoon@utdallas.edu (Chang
K. Yoon) wrote:
> 
> Hi!  I've been playing a game through email with a friend and recently, I
> put the moves through notation and it chocked on line 13, black (my) move.
> Anyway, I couldn't see why it said that my move was illegal, so I thought
> that maybe notation was broken, so I put it through gnuchess, and it too
> would not allow me to make the move.  Can anyone see why?  Here's the board:
> 
>     WHITE
>  H G F E D C B A
> 
>  r - - k q - - r 1
>  - p - p - p p p 2
>  p - n - p - - - 3
>  - - - p - - - - 4
>  - P P P n b - - 5
>  - - - B P N - - 6
>  P - - - - P P P 7
>  - K R - Q - - R 8
> 
>        BLACK
> 
> My move (black) was d6xc5 (taking the bishop).  Was d6xc5 illegal?  Thanks.
> 


What happened to the Bishop at f1?? How did he get out of there?
Or did one of your Knights take the f1 Bishop? From the text graphic
you show here, the move is legal. I suspect that you have made some
notational error someplace.....

Scott Winders
winders@aux.support.apple.com

"My opinions are my own, not my employer's"
From: nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:18:10 GMT
Reply-To: nash@visus.com
Organization: Visual Understanding Systems, Pgh PA

In article <1992Jul29.154854.7899@vax.oxford.ac.uk> annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk  
writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.120421.28382@visus.com>, nash@visus.com (Richard V.  
Nash) > In article <92209.184146U13054@uicvm.uic.edu> U13054@uicvm.uic.edu  
(Howard  
> 
> > Sorry for getting into this late but...
> >    Mechanical memory and human memory are fundamentally different.
> 
> This sounds dangerously close to "proof by assertion". What is the reasoning
> behind it? Of course the brain is squishy and grey, computers are hard and,
> well, grey. This one is anyway. Is this the "fundamental difference" or is
> there another one?
> 

What do you expect me to say? We don't know enough about how the brain  
physically stores information to even come close to determining the fundamental  
difference in a "provable" way. The only conclusion we can draw is from  
observing the behavior of the two machines.

Brains - Often distorts and loses information. Often believes distorted  
information has not been distorted.

Magnetic/Electrical Storage devices - Rarely distorts or loses information. And  
when they do, that loss is usually detectable.

This difference in behavior is enough to conclude that the latter storage  
system is fundamentally different than the former. I don't mean physically  
different, I mean different in behavior.

My point is that even the worst computers can be programmed to recall opening  
lines as well as, or better than, the best human player in a library of books.  
This should be recognized as what it is, using reference materials, and the  
humans it plays should have the same privilege.

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard V. Nash  | Visual Understanding Systems, Inc.         |
| nash@visus.com   | Tel. (412)-488-3600   Fax. (412)-488-3611  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,soc.culture.yugoslavia
From: gilles@damrod.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (Gilles Fayad)
Subject: Re: Why not Baghdad (chess as art)
Organization: McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:40:35 GMT

In article <CUBAN.92Jul29040952@e40-008-5.mit.edu> cuban@athena.mit.edu (Federico A Garcia) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>This whole Yugoslavia thing is more than just mere politics.  The
>nations of the world hardly ever agree on anything, which is probably
>part of the reason why you have such a low opinion of the UN.  The
>fact that they are able to agree on sanctions on Yugoslavia is an
>indication of how brutal what is going on there is; the Serb "ethnic
>cleansing" program is analogous to Hitler's drive for ethnic purity
>and a greater Germany.  This, to me, is more important than culture,
>and you would probably feel the same if you had to spend even one day
>in Yugoslavia.

Would the UN have shown the same punch *before* the collapse of the
USSR, I would agree with you. Would the UN enforce *all* resolutions,
*including* those that do not serve US interests, I would agree with
you. Until then, the sad truth is that, both financially and
administratively, the UN have become tied to the US and Europeans (and
the Europeans to the US), and provide them with the moral varnish for
its "muscle policies". As for the "tears of the western countries" in
regard of the Yugoslavian problem, their refusal of accepting refugees
(except for Germany) shows clearly the difference between moral
appearances and true interests.

May I remind you that the UN task is to avoid war, not to make peace,
and surely not to intervene in a country's internal affairs, or to
"guarantee the transportation of the belligerents heavy artillery".
Many more Somalians are dying, and wars, atrocities and occupations
are going on all over the world. Would Somalia be as close to Western
Europe as Yugoslavia, or as wealthy as Irak, you can be sure you would
hear it on the "entertainment news", and the "security council" would
have imposed sanctions.

[... and later on ...]

>As a great perpetrator of atrocities, Yugoslavia seems as undeserving
>as any country in the world of hosting the match.  Allowing the match
>to go forward there means that the sanctions against transacting
>business in Yugoslavia would be greatly weakened, and business brings
>the money needed to succesfully prosecute a war.  The connection seems
>quite clear to me.

Following your logic, sanctions should be imposed on all the permanent
members of the UN, as "great perpetrators of atrocities" throughout
history.

Never forget that winners write history, and that the world is not as
"black and white" as a chessboard.

Please, do not reply to this newsgroup, as the discussion is drifting
out of the chess subject.

Peace and Love,
Gilles


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilles Fayad			McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines
gilles@mcrcim.mcgill.edu	McGill University
tel: (514) 398-7159 (off)	3480, University Street, 	H3A 2A7
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer - Spassky II
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:52:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Jul30.135215.14320
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


One aspect of this match that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that
Fischer - Spassky I ended on Sept. 1, 1972, while F-S II starts Sept. 2, 20
years and a day later.  Of course, the rules to be followed are
largely the same that Fischer had demanded in 1974.  And Tuesday's New
York Times reported that Fischer has filed his usual long list of
demands about procedure, playing site, etc.  Since Fischer considers
himself still the world championship, I think he intends to just
continue playing the next world championship cycle in his own system,
with himself as the reigning king and Spassky getting a justified
rematch since he was the dethroned champion.  I don't mean to imply
that Fischer is crazy and doesn't realize that the rest of the world
has moved on, I mean he is going to get his way by creating his own
world.

Comments?

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.EDU
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138