HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dubach1@husc10.harvard.edu (joev dubach)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II: Complete Scores of Games 7-12
Date: 4 Oct 92 01:29:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.DUBACH1.92Oct3182959
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: gls@windmill.ATT.COM's message of Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:28:07 GMT

WTF?!

Never mind, I don't even want to know.

Joev
--
_____________________________________________________
DDDDDDDDD   JJJJJJ      | Joev Dubach
     D      J     J     | dubach1@husc.harvard.edu
     D      J     J     | North House
D    D      J     J     | Harvard University
DDDDD    *  JJJJJJ  *   | Cambridge, MA 02138
From: gerbaudo@jorasses.inria.fr (Pascal Gerbaudo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: gnuchess
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:28:39 GMT
Organization: INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis (Fr)

I have gnuchess but not the book of openings.
where can I find it.
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Nimzovitch Defense
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:12:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T


 (Kevin Stokker) writes:
> ... Dunne showed me the following gambit:
>2. d4  d5
>3. Nc3 ed
>4. d5  Ne5
>5. Bf4 Ng6
>6. Bg3 f5
>Ok, so, what now?  Are there people out there with experience in
>these lines? 

I've always thought that old gambit was unsound.
Here's a game I played in 1984.  It had some interesting moments.

Ed Hummel-Mike Blechar
 1. e4	Nc6
 2. d4	d5
 3. Nc3 de4
 4. d5	Ne4
 5. Bf4	Ng6
 6. Bg3	f5
 7. Bb5	Bd7
 8. h4	c6
 9. dc6	bc6
10. h5	cb5
11. Nd5	f4
12. hg6	fg3
13. Rh7 gf2
14. Kf2 Nh6
15. Rh8 Ng4
16. Ke1 Be6
17. c4	Qd6
18. Ne2	Ne5
19. Nf6	gf6
20. g7	Qb4
21. Nc3	Ng6
22. Qh5	o-o-o
23. Rd1	Rd1
24. Qd1
     1-0
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Subject: Re: F-S Match, ratio wins/draws. WHY?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:00:27 GMT

mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:

>I'm a total chess moron, with a rating of 0 (i.e. I never managed to
>avoid losing, even to babies).


>But looking at this F-S matchm compared the last couple of world
>chatmpionship matches, there seems to be a very high ratios of wins/draws.


>WHY?

>Doug McDonald

I think it's been explicitly stated elsewhere that neither party is
interested in draws. Fischer, certainly, always seems to disdain playing
for a draw, which is part of what makes him such an exciting player to watch.

RB
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Subject: Games in progress
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:58:05 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

When you post moves from a game in progress, could you add a diagram of the
pos. rached at the bottom?



Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
"Strangers ain't come back down Rocky Top / Reckon they never will."
From: Paul.A..Lane@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Paul A. Lane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: OPEN POST TO EVERYBODY
Date: 25 Sep 92 04:20:57 GMT

Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <90279@netnews.upenn.edu> lobaugh@a.chem.upenn.edu (John Lobaugh) writes:

>In article <1992Sep22.225140.10088@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>just don't keep appologizing because you're afraid of being flamed. 
>>we just don't do that type of thing on this news group.
>>>thanks,
>>don wedding.
>Hey don who made you the net god?

With apologies to Venus Flytrap:

I'm on the net? I AM the net!

:-)

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: What is this notation? Smythescript?
Keywords: Smythescript
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:54:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct1.225450.16006
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Oct1.161047.16934@midway.uchicago.edu>
eb11@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
:In article <1992Oct1.022807.28789@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
:gls@windmill.ATT.COM (The Ace and Deuce of Programming) writes:
:>Paul Morphy might still be alive today ... if he had known SMYTHESCRIPT!
:>
:>  Game 7       Game 8       Game 9       Game 10      Game 11      Game 12    
:>Bobby Boris  Boris Bobby  Bobby Boris  Boris Bobby  Bobby Boris  Boris Bobby  
:>F     F      A     7XXI   F     F      A     7XXI   F     N      A     7XXI
:>7XXU  7XS    N     S-     7XXU  7XS    N     F-     7XXU  7XS    N     S-
:>34    T-     7XN   31     34    T-     7XN   34     34    S-     7XN   31
:
:Would somebody post a note briefly explaining this notation?

Better yet, a program to translate standard notation to this Smythes-crypt,
and then stop this silliness once and for all (so we can concentrate on
more interesting topics like whether Bughouse is solvable :-))?  You might
as well run algebraic notation through "compress | uuencode".  Alternatively,
for a really compact and opaque notation, list the legal moves from a given
position in your favorite lexicographical order, so any move may be specified
by a single character indicating its place in the lexicographic list and
a 40-move game may be listed in one 80-character line.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jqtaylor@boi.hp.com (John Quill Taylor)
Subject: So What If It's Solvable
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:49:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Okay, even if chess is "solved," just how much memory would a chess
computer of the future need to hold this "solution," such that it always
draws, or wins as White (or Black!), according to the solution?
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 25 Sep 92 22:08 PDT
Subject: Re: Polgar query
Nf-ID: #R:92268.113726AER107@psuvm.psu.edu:1675138094:cdp:1451600045:000:414
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Sep 25 22:08:00 1992


Zsuzsa Polgar was the first member of the family to gain the GM title.  Judit
followed.  Zsofia is an IM with, I believe, one GM norm.  (However, she is far
from the FIDE 2500 rating required for the title.

Their last published FIDE ratings (Jul/92) were:
  Judit    2575 (1st woman and tied for 71-75 in world)
  Zsuzsa   2540 (2nd woman)
  Zsofia   2445 (tied for 6-7 among women).

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ace3@quads.uchicago.edu (AA Acero (Tony))
Subject: Re: Uploaded to valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Summary: giics140
Keywords: GIICS, ICS
Reply-To: ace3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:54:12 GMT

GIICS 1.40 has been uploaded to valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu.   It should
soon appear in the directory pub/chess/ics-clients.

The new board style `8' is now supported -- it should reduce the move
lag time by at least a factor of 2.

Please re-run the configuration program, giicscnf.

If you have a particularily challenging configuration, it would
behoove you :-) to print out your working copy of `giics.cnf' and
refer to it as you re-configure.

Enjoy!

tony 



-- 
Anibal Antonio Acero (tony) | University of Chicago | `To baldly to go where
ace3@quad.uchicago.edu      | 5640 S. Ellis Ave.    |  no one has gone before'
(312)702-8214 (lab)         | James Franck Inst 340 |  what Patrick Stewart
(312)702-8387 (office)      | Chicago, IL 60637     | _should_ be saying
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Subject: John Penquite games
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
Distribution: US
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:08:50 GMT

In the recent issue of Chess Life, Alex Dunne's postal article
deals with John Penquite and his 2900+ postal rating!  John's
rating may seem a little high, but he has the record to show
for it, 49-0-0.  Doesn't Alex's article seem slightly negative?
Here's a couple more of Penquite's games for those interested.
Someone asked for them quite a while ago; sorry for taking so long.
Games copied from NorthWest Chess.

Joe Eggertsen-John Penquite 

1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 c4 Bg7 4 Nc3 d5 5 cxd5 Nxd5 6 e3 o-o 7 Bxc4 Nxc3
8 bxc3 c5 9 o-o Qc7 10 Qe2 Bg4 11 Ba3 Bxf3 12 gxf3 Nd7 13 Rab1 Rfd8
14 Rfc1 e6 15 f4 Rab8 16 Bb5 Bf8 17 Bxd7 Rxd7 18 Qb5 Rd5 19 Qa4 b5
20 Qd1 Qa5 21 Qb3 c4 22 Bb4 Bxb4 23 cxb4 cxb3 24 bxa5 bxa2 25 Ra1 b4
26 Rxa2 b3 27 Ra3 Rdb5 28 Rb1 b2 29 Ra2 a6 30 Kf1 Kf8 31 Ke2 Ke7
32 Kd3 Kd6 33 Kc3 Kd5 34 Ra3 Ke4 35 Ra2 Kf3 36 Raxb2 Rxb2 37 Rxb2 Rxb2
38 Kxb2 f5 39 Kc3 Kxf2 40 Kd3 Kf3 41 d5 exd5 42 Kd4 h5 43 h4 Kf2 
44 Kxd5 Kg3  0 - 1
     
John Penquite-Harry McAndrew

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 c6 5 h3 Nbd7 6 f4 b5 7 Bd3 b4 8 Nce2 Bg7
9 Nf3 o-o 10 c4 bxc3 11 Nxc3 e5 12 Qd2 Re8 13 o-o Bb7 14 Rad1 Qe7
15 dxe5 dxe5 16 fxe5 Nh5 17 Bc4 Ne5 18 Nxe5 Bxe5 19 Bxf7+ Qxf7 20 Rxf7 Kxf7
21 g4 Ng7 22 Qd7+ Re7 23 Rf1+ Bf6 24 Rxf6+  1 - 0

   
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jrb7056@zeus.tamu.edu (BUSCHE, JOSEPH RAY)
Subject: post
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:19:00 GMT

Please disregard this.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jtk@solan.unit.no (Jan Terje Kval|y)
Subject: How will it end?
Keywords: F-S 
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 11:31:44 GMT

I guess the final result of the F-S struggel will be a 10-7 victory for Fisher,
assuming Spassky stays healthy and Fisher stays alive.  
Other suggestions?
From: marcelk@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Marcel van Kervinck)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: A question about simple endgames
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:51:24 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

David G. Caraballo (carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
: 
: In each case below, what is the smallest number, N, such that White can 
: force mate (White moves first) in N moves, regardless of position?
: 
: Here, I mean in "at most N moves", not exactly N moves.
: 
: a)  K+Q v K   
N=10

: b)  K+R v K
N=16

: c)  K+B+B v K
N=18

: d)  K+B+N v K   
N=33

These are the numbers published in the literature, and these are the
numbers I got when I calculated the databases for those endgames.

--
Marcel van Kervinck
marcelk@stack.urc.tue.nl
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Strategy or Tactics?
Date: 3 Oct 92 23:58:56 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I didn't understand Eric Schiller's posting on this topic.  In fact, I'm not
sure I understood my own - it seems I may have changed my mind in 15 years.
Another way to learn is to study endings, which aren't really "tactics" as
people normally use the term, but where each piece is used to its full
potential and players can really learn how they work because they're used in
isolation.

I suspect I'm better at minor pieces generally because I went through Basic
Chess Endings from the beginning and my mind only stopped working by the time
I got to the Rooks...

But don't confuse what's interesting and what's important.  I have never
found tactics interesting, but if you want to win some games you have to know
something about them.  A more reasonable view might be that if all the
tactics in a position are unfavorable, the strategy which you used to get
that position was probably wrong.  This logic applies to games other than
chess as well.

Originally the question was whether players should concentrate on tactics or
strategy when they start playing.  It's probably best to stick to that
question or the answers will go all over the map (including this one).
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Strategy or Tactics?
Date: 26 Sep 92 14:55:10 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I reply to some of the interesting points raised by James Coombs:

Sorry if this is an old topic - a number of other people raised it.  I
think the question "What should I study to get better?" is a fair one, and
I think people are justified in knowing the reason for the answers they
might receive.  Jim's arguments are very philosophical, but I think they're
wrong anyway.

I stand by what I said - and disagree with the analogy between tactical
chess and bloodletting (although that may depend on whose games are being
considered).  The idea isn't to play "planlessly" - the question is what
type of plan.  I would begin with Morphy, because he was the first one who
really understood the open game (although there were some good
combinational players before him).  Jim may have found Morphy's games
"ratty" and "naive", and only ocassionally "most impressive", and his
opponents "naive", but beauty may be in the eye of the beholder: to quote
from Fischer's press conference (September 1, 1992):

"Q: Are you still inspired by Morphy's games?"
"A: Yes."

(But perhaps everything Fischer says is controversial now.)

Players trying to improve from 1500 to 2000 will also find their opponents'
play "naive", although they will still be unable to beat them until they
themselves improve.

As for Lasker, I doubt that any player below Master level can understand
him.  His play was very psychological and, apart from his endgame play, he
isn't a good model for players learning the game because he was too good.

Anyway, I'll bow out of the discussion now, because I'm told it has all
been done before.  I still think players learning the game should try to
understand what has happened in chess over the past 150 years, preferably
in sequence.  A lot of good ideas are buried in the past (such as the one
Fischer used to win the final game against Spassky in 1972).  Many books
take this approach, but why not use primary sources (the old games
themselves) and get a sense of chess culture as well.  I think there are
quite a few reasonable players around who don't know who people like
Rubinstein and Tarrasch were (although having an opening variation named
after you helps...)
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: worrying
Organization: Dept.Medical Cybernetics&Artificial Intelligence,Univ.Vienna,Austria,Europe
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:18:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.190930.21794@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
>During games I spend a lot of time wishing that I had played stronger moves,
>and even analysing positions that would have occurred but no longer can.
>This is part of the reason why I often get into time trouble.
>Can anybody offer any advice about this?

What do you want to hear? Don't do it!
A friend of mine used to do that too and he lost more games in time trouble than
he gained insights. It's not worth it. Analyze your mistakes with your opponent
and you'll learn much more.

-- 
					--- Juffi

Johannes Fuernkranz                                    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5320652(Fax)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black)
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:44:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.204910.5068@sdc.com> norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman) writes:
>>John Black wrote:
>>
>>What would you recommend against someone who decided to copy your moves, but
>>wouldn't copy them if you made a move which required them to hang a piece (as
>>the above does) or get mated in one move?  I realize this isn't a very precise
>>definition, but you know what I mean... what would you have recommended to me
>>when I was 12 years old and my friends were copying my moves?  Winning combos
>>have to be at least a couple moves deep or they'll be detected...
>
>Fine gives in "The Ideas Behind The Chess Openings":
>
>Four Knights' Game
>
>1  e4  e5
>2 Nf3 Nc6
>3 Nc3 Nf6 (Symmetrical, but not mirrored OK?)
>4 Bb5 Bb4
>5 0-0 0-0
>6  d3  d6
>7 Bg5 Bg4?
>8 Nd5 leading to a won game for white.
>
I'm not sure it's obvious from here; Soltis (in "Understanding the Open Games")
continues:

8.  ...   Nd4
9.  Nxb4  Nxb5
10. Nd5   Nd4
11. Qd2   Qd7
12. Nxf6+ gxf6
13. Bxf6

and now Black is lost since the threats of Qg5# and Qh6 are overwhelming.

john//
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:45 PDT
Subject: Re: Polgar query
Nf-ID: #R:ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu:5783:cdp:1451600049:000:71
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Sep 27 19:45:00 1992


That accords with my (defective?) memory.

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: yding+@pitt.edu (Yijun Ding)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: GIICS question
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:19:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

GIICS is the PC client program I downloaded from valkyries.cmu.edu.  In
the document, it said "move a piece by press left mouse button, move to
the square, then release" (some thing like like).  I never able to do
this.  By trial and error, this is the way: move the first square, click
mouse, move to the second square, click mouse, then press return.  This
does not work with casstle, but I can type o-o.  After while, I may have
some red squares all over my board.  And occationally, the mouse refuse
to work, but click 'resynchronize' usually fix it.  The right mouse
button supposed to show last piece moved.  This never worked for me.
Also, it work only from my vms account, not from my unix account.  

It is a very nice program, and I am essentially can play without big
problem.  Little problems may cost a blitze game though :).  I would 
like to know that I am using it the right way.  If
some one has similar experince, I appreciate if you drop me an e-mail.


-- 
//Yijun Ding, Pittsburgh //Go your way, be happy.
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: What to Buy ?
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:52:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23782
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <880061@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> jqtaylor@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (John Quill Taylor) writes:

> I'd like to buy a portable chess computer.

I would appreciate it if people who feel like answering this
would also comment on the various MS-DOS chess programs available
as an alternative.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Solvability solved - on to new things.
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:04:53 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Jerry Bryan's proof certainly convinced me.  Too bad there won't be any more
postings on the subject.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: Wait -- is THIS the sort of thing that the solvability opponents
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:56:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.181446.17822@news.acns.nwu.edu> alper@sushi.psych.nwu.edu (Theodore M. Alper) writes:
>have in mind?
>A and B  are playing in a tournament. They each need
>1 point to earn a prize. Their utility function is:
>sitting-and-continuing-to-play:    0
>winning-the-game:                  1
>drawing:                          -0.2 
>losing:                           -1
>
>They reach a repetition of postions -- whoever diverges first
>will lose, but they'd rather sit and repeat the moves forever than
>claim the draw and go home losers.

Looks like you get the idea (although, strictly speaking the argument
so far has been in terms of payoffs rather than utilities).  The point
is that the payoffs for the "sitting-and-continuing-to-play" case
are arbitrarily determined and so in the general case the
solution depends upon some additional parameters.  It is still
solvable -- so "solvability opponents" is not quite accurate.

BTW, the usual practice of payoff(win, loss, draw) = (1, 0, .5)
can also be adjusted in various ways, with interesting results.
Note that Article 17 of the FIDE rules assigns these payoffs (i.e,
win=1, loss=0, draw=.5).  It is an understandable oversight on the
part of FIDE (and the other Federations) that they have failed to
assign payoffs to the cases of "infinite games".

 

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:49:10 GMT

Someone writes:

>
>What would you recommend against someone who decided to copy your moves, but
>wouldn't copy them if you made a move which required them to hang a piece (as
>the above does) or get mated in one move?  I realize this isn't a very precise
>definition, but you know what I mean... what would you have recommended to me
>when I was 12 years old and my friends were copying my moves?  Winning combos
>have to be at least a couple moves deep or they'll be detected...

Fine gives in "The Ideas Behind The Chess Openings":

Four Knights' Game

1  e4  e5
2 Nf3 Nc6
3 Nc3 Nf6 (Symmetrical, but not mirrored OK?)
4 Bb5 Bb4
5 0-0 0-0
6  d3  d6
7 Bg5 Bg4?
8 Nd5 leading to a won game for white.

Norm
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...
Organization: The Ohio State University
 <1992Sep28.144835.11168@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:58:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.144835.11168@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs
.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:

>Nxe4 could be an uncommon blunder for novices.  Note that Black
>could also blunder on the 4th move with 4.-Nf6? 5.Nd6+.  I've
                                                 ^^^^^^^

Oops!!  Nc6+ of course.
>
>-Mark

-Mark