HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: F-S II game 13 (comment)
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:46:05 GMT

In article <15889@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce  
Harper) writes:
> I bet Spassky will get smashed (having only seen the first 13 moves),  
but I
> like the way he's playing anyway!  I don't think anyone can say this  
match is
> dull.
Why so? Fischer's center looks ripe for hypermodern plucking with a timely  
f5, and bishop pair is bishop pair? Other than c6, what's the problem?
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
From: 86666815s@csghsg5a.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer-Kasparov Dec 1993?
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:35:58 GMT
Organization: University of St.Gallen, Switzerland

Re: Fischer - Kasparov match Dec 1993

Oct. 2, 1992

First time user, so sorry if something goes wrong.

Many thanks to all who spent their time providing us with information
in this system about the Fischer-Spassky match.

Swiss newspaper today reports about a possible future match
Fischer-Kasparov. The idea of Janos Kubat ("an director and
an 'intermediaire' between the sponsors of Fischer's comeback
and Fischer") is a match of 20 wins and 10 million US-dollars.
The match would be played on 4 different places: Japan,
Johannisburg, Chicago (or London, if Fischer can't play in the
USA), and Belgrade. It would begin December 1993 right after
the Wch match Kasparov-Short/Timman.

Kubat reports that Fischer is enthusiastic about this ideas.

Kasparov does not know yet about the ideas of Kubat, but said
last week in an german magazin that he would play against
Fischer "if the world wants this match".

Michael Haid
From: tcmaint@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (-Broadband Network Maintenance)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: chess may be solved?
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:08:19 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


Perhaps chess was solved a number of years ago; every body missed it. If 
there is a solution the game would take one move, the winning move, this 
would cause the other player to resign. (I read that on the net)

And did not Bobby Fischer play a game where he as white played 1.d4 and
the other player resigned? Have we missed something?

I hope chess is never solved, but for those who want to solve chess
I will give you a hint. There are 18 solutions, one for each possible 
opening move. Just trying to help.

--bruce
From: gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: mirror
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:59:02 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University

>From: miklas@thorogood.rutgers.edu (Keith Miklas)
>
>suppose that you are playing a novice who is quite an inexperienced
>chessplayer.  He knows that you are a superior player, and decides to
>mirror each and every one of your moves.  What's the best strategy to
>play against this person?
>
>(ps don't play the stonewall! :)

How about:  1. P-Q4 P-Q4  2. P-QB4 P-QB4  3. BPxP BPxP  4. QxP QxP  5. QxQ

Or is this person too smart for this?  If so, I think it's actually a fairly
interesting question.

Scott
From: ovel@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Ove Lundberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: more on game 11 (was Re: Kasparov speaks)
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:36:41 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
NNTP-Posting-Host: minsk.docs.uu.se

mad4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Maddex) writes:

>ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow) writes:

>>Meanwhile, note (now that you *can* get Informant 54!), that Game 162 is
>>Kasparov-Salov, Sortmund 1992, which went 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6
>>bxc6 5.O-O Bg7 6.Re1 Nf6 (which Kasparov gives a "N", which means Novelty,
>>as in Theoretical Novelty, as in TN).

The first week there were some problems to buy Informator, but now it can
be bought as usual here in Sweden, at least there are some ads on it.

>Gee, I thought 4.Bxc6 was new.

I have found 5 games which has the position after Black's 6th move, though
the usual move order is:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.Re1 e5 6.Bc6 bc.
6..dc is more common.
The oldest game was played in 1968, the newest is  Girinath-Gufeld, Calcutta
1992 - 54/(162).
Though, all the White players made 7.c3 instead of Fischer's 7.b4!?

>>So was Kasparov about to play (on 6...e5) 7.b4!?  I wish I could have been
>>there to ask him! :-)


>>--Elliott

>MADNESS

Ove Lundberg, Uppsala, Sweden.  ovel@minsk.docs.uu.se
From: clinton.wall@the_matrix.com (Clinton Wall) 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: E-Mail Chess Game
Date: 25 Sep 92 19:01:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: clinton.wall@the_matrix.com (Clinton Wall) 

To: jclemmen@napier.uwaterloo.ca

If anyone is interested in playing a game of E-Mail Chess with an average player
please let me know.

Jeff.

Jeff:

The Matrix has changed hubs since the last time I tried this.
So maybe it will work out this time. Tell me, is the chess ladder
still posted? Please take your pick of one or both games below.
Good luck.

1. d4 (d2-d4 or P-Q4) and it's your move
and
1. your move.

I will follow in whatever notation that you use.

J. Clinton Wall
09-25-1992
                     
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: John.Risk@bbs.oit.unc.edu (John Risk)
Subject: FS level of chess
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:30:24 GMT

I see many referances to F&S playing at the 2600 level, or their
performance rating is 2650, or plus or minus something in this range.  Now
I have played through some of these games and conceed that they are
playing better that my Class A level, but my question is "how do we know
at what level they are really playing"

All these calculations are based on last published ratings (or in
Fischer's case some estimate taking into account age, and lack of
tournament practice) and the results of the games.

How do "I" know they are not both playing in the 2100 level.  I wouldn't
mind some comments from the higher rated players, that the games are being
played at their level (or higher).

I suppose it is possible that both players are playing at the 3500 level,
and no one recognizes it.  It would seem that it will take subsequent
matches, particularly in Fischer's case to validate ratings, but how can
one ever validate playing performance in a match, except by concenses of
their peers?

John

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Subject: Kasparov's blunder.
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Distribution: rec
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:05:25 GMT

Schiller stated in an earlier posting that Kasparov "has been known to hang
his queen."  Would somebody be kind enough to inform me of the position, date
opponent and event etc.  Was Kasparov in time trouble?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 1. g3 Nf6 2. Bg2 d5 3. c4
From: nason@pa881a.inland.com
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:17:35 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN
Nntp-Posting-User: zaikos

In article <gary.717808909@suite.sw.oz.au>, gary@suite.sw.oz.au (Gary Corby) writes:
> 
> Has anybody ever come across an analysis of 
> this opening?  What do you think of it?
> 
> I've tried playing it several times, treating it
> like a reversed Pterodactyl variation of the Modern
> Defense.  Without exception every opponent has 
> replied 3. ... dc, after which 4. Qa4+ c6 5. Qxc4.
> The best line against it however to my mind is 
> 3. ... Bd7 4. Qxc4 Bc6, directly challenging the 
> fianchettoed bishop.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gary Corby  (gary@softway.oz.au)

I have a problem with 2....d5, so I guess I am not directly answering your
question cause your looking at move 3.  I would respond to 2. Bg2 with either
g6 or Nc6, not d5.  2...d5 is a good response to 2.d3.  (IMHO)  2...d5 leads
into the complications that you sighted.  Hey, maybe it will become a new
variant of the Kings Fianchetto opening, just get some GM's to play it:) 

Notice how I resisted saying that I am a fish, weak player, and at my rating my
thoughts are meaningless, with reference to someone elses posting on the
subject.  (Though it is true)  

__
My opinions are my own and not those of my company.  
Free advice is worth its cost.  
--- John M. Nason - NA9U ---|--------------------------------------------|
Inland Steel Company        |  -- nason@pa881a.inland.com                |
Process Automation MS 2-464 |  -- Fax:   219-399-7856                    |
3210 Watling Street         |  -- Voice: 219-399-2450                    |
East Chicago IN 46312       |"Ya can't shoot em till they stop sparklin" |
----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Budapest gambit
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:33:23 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business


Bellon is a GM in the very loose definition of the term.

Anyway, beware of any book which claims that a silly system is good
for black.

Borik isn't the first.  We also have Stefan Buecker claiming the Vulture
(1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 Ne4?) is a good idea, and we have a classic
disinformation campaign by Tseitlin, "Winning with the Schliemann" which
does not give White's best lines and misevaluates others.

As Joel Benjamin notes in his Swill articles, beware any book with
"Winning with..." in the title!

-mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Informant on CD-ROM
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:51:43 GMT

Has anyone used Chess Datarom. the CD-ROM from Bureau van Dijk?

This disc contains all volumes of Chess Informant and has fancy software
that allows searching the database by position or by opening, middle, and
end game situations.  It also allows searching by player, games between two
players, and all players within an ELO range and much more!

The only problem is that it lists for $895.

Does anyone know a source for this disc at a discount?  I would also be 
interested in buying previous versions of this disc, if any exist.

If I've whetted your appetite and you're flush with cash or work for an 
institution that will buy it, you can contact CDP at 800-MEGABYTE or
908-290-0048.

Norm
From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Morra Gambit
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:05:55 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.


	While we're waiting for F-S to resume, and to get away from the
interminable debate about the solvability of chess [how does anyone think
we should actually *play* an infinitely long game?] ....

	A while back, there was some discussion about the viability of
the Morra Gambit.  I meant then to submit the following as evidence,
though I'm not quite sure what of, but forgot, and it has just resurfaced.

A. N. Walker (Nottinghamshire) v G. M. Boyce (Warwickshire), corres., 1991.

1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd 3 c3 dxc 4 Nxc3 e6 5 Nf3 Bc5

	A Kasparov recommendation.  White reacts rather routinely.

6 Bc4 Ne7 7 O-O O-O 8 Bf4 Ng6 9 Bg3 Nc6 10 Qe2 a6 11 Rfd1 b5
12 Bb3 Qb6 13 Rd3 f6 14 Kh1 Nge5 15 Nxe5 fxe!? 16 Qh5 d6

	Capturing the f-pawn, now or later, simply opens up the f-file.

17 Bh4 Ra7 18 Rh3 g6 19 Qh6 Nd4

	... Bxf2 still allows Rf1 with a strong attack, and 19 ... R7f7
allows 20 Bf6 threatening 21 Qxg6+!, so that the R has to move away again
when White has ideas like Nd5!? or Qg5 and Rh6.

20 Bd1 d5 21 Bg4 Qc6 22 Rc1 dxe 23 Na4

	Oops!  A complete miscalculation;  but I bet it gave Black a shock.

23 ... bxa 24 Rhc3 Rc7

	Of course.  I had only looked at lines where the Q moved away, when
nasty things happen on the 7th and 8th ranks.

25 Rc5 Qxc5 26 Rxc5 Rxc5 27 Be7 Rxf2 28 h4 R5c2

	Both sides have irresistible attacks.  Black's three connected
[the wrong way!] and extra passed pawns in the centre are a mixed blessing;
they divide the board rather sharply, but they also control lots of space.

29 h5? [Bd6 is unclear] Rf1+??

	Missing his chance of glory.  29 ... e3! 30 gxh? looks to be
decisive, but 30 ... Rc1+ 31 Kh2 Rxg2+ 32 Kxg2 Bb7+ 33 Kg3 Rg1+ 34 Kh4
Rh1+ 35 Bh3 Nf5+ 36 Kg5 Nxh6 37 Bxe6+ Kg7 38 Bf6+ Kf8 39 gxh Nf7 wins
easily.  So 30 Qxe3 is forced, when ... Bb7 gives Black a very strong
and almost certainly winning attack.

30 Kh2 Rf7 31 Bd6 Bd7 32 Qg5

	32 hxg hxg [threatening ... Rh7] 33 Qxg6+ Rg7 gets nowhere;
analysis of 32 Kg3, 32 Kh3 and 32 Bxe5 is left to the reader.

32 ... Nf3+ 33 Bxf3 exf 34 Qd8+ Kg7 35 h6+

	35 Bxe5+? Kh6 36 Qh4 g5 or 36 hxg Rxg2+ 37 Kh3 Rf5 38 Qh4+
Kxg6 [not ... Rh5? 39 Qxh5+ wins] and Black wins.

35 ... Kxh6 36 Qh4+ Kg7 37 Bxe5+ Kg8 38 Qd8+ Rf8 39 Qxd7 Rf7
40 Qe8+ Rf8 41 Qxe6+ Rf7 42 Qe8+ drawn.

	Black's threats on the K-side are just as powerful as White's.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
From: jqtaylor@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (John Quill Taylor)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:27:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Go-Moku solved? [thankfully not Re: "Solvability" in Chess]
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess

I am trying to see if Siamese Grasshopper Chess is solvable on an infinite
four-colour board. Let the King file be designated by 1/2 infinity + 1. Now,
assuming that no two like colors touch, the Bishops follow a definite fractal
relationship inasmuch as the space-time continuum allows, and each Knight can
touch all squares in infinity - 1 moves, thus the entire theorum is reduced to:

    (insert equations here showing min max proof)

and results in the following 64-square position for ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS:

   White: Kd2, Rf2, h5

   Black: Kb1, a2, a6, g7, h7

White to move.

--------- Solution Below (First try on your own)









Solution: h6! gxh6 Kc3 a1=N Rb2+ Kc1 Ra2 Kb1 Rxa6 Nc2 Re6! h5 Re2 Na1 Rh2

  (silly story by me ; position and solution from Benko)
From: gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: oh no another rumor
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:02:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: yuma.Sep30.170256.69386
Organization: Colorado State University

tennis@ziff.com writes:
> Yeah, but how do you know F has spent all this time on chess?  Last I heard
> (take with a pound of salt) he was installing cable TV for a living...

Oh, no.. not this rumor again.  This started because somebody looked up
Robert J. Fischer in the phone book.  Turned out there was another person
by that name in Pasadena who was a cable-TV installer.  That poor soul
apparently hasn't had a moments rest.  

                                           Scott
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:20:16 GMT

In article <Sep.26.07.44.22.1992.24110@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>No three-position draw rule or 50-move draw rule is needed to
>show that it is solvable.  The only possible outcomes are Black
>wins, infinite game, Black stalemates White, White stalemates
>black, White wins; denote these by B, b, I, w, W and assume some
>total ordering (for example W>w>i>b>B).

I agree with this assessment, with the "minor" correction than there
can be a large (but finite) number of different outcomes for the
infinite game set.  I don't think it can be shown, in general, that
all infinte loops have the same value.  Note the implication of
the assumption: (W>w>i>b>B).  Since different orderings can be
chosen (and in fact, this becomes a very large set when i -> i_n)
the solution can be found but is a function of a large number of
undertermined parameters.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Graphic Interface for Macintosh
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:23:03 GMT

     Does anybody out there know about something that would work
like XICS, but for the Mac?  I would REALLY be happy if I could
find some!

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Subject: Re:  xiangqi
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:38:43 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <1992Oct6.081357.21389@nuscc.nus.sg> engp2063@nusunix1.nus.sg writes:

> For your info, I am considering posting a game per week starting from
> this week. However, to the large number of postings in this group, do
> you think it is feasible for us to set up a rec.games.xiangqi group?

I don't know that it would have enough interest.  But you might be able
to get something like rec.games.chess.variants, which would cover xiangqi,
shogi, and possibly such other variants as Dragonchess and bughouse.

But we have a CFV up now on rec.games.abstract, which would also be a
logical place for xiangqi discussions if it passes.

Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Mt. Juliet Capulets--Ultra Cricket
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mad4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Maddex)
Subject: Re: Kasparov speaks (Was: Re: Fischer-Spassky game 11 analysis)
Reply-To: mad4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Pranksters for Peace
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:20:05 GMT

Thanks to Mika Kukkonen (any relation to Jorma?-) for filling me in on two
games from a recent Finnish event that relate to the opening of this game.
As a related historical note (boy, if only I could put my memory to use for
$:-) the move order from those games, 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc3 3 Bb5 d6 4 b4 occurs,
w/Black's third and fourth moves transposed (I think) in a game in KURT 
RICHTER'S BESTE PARTIEN.  I don't have the book, but I've gone over some of
the games in my head off the shelf in the U of Oregon Library.  Talk about a
tactical maniac...  I don't remember exactly, but I know Richter played a very
early d4, so his approach was different from both cited games.  There is also
some precedent for an early b4 in some of Bronstein's games:  there's one
in HOW TO OPEN A CHESS GAME, in the section by Larsen, and Mednis had a 
column last year about another one.

MADNESS
















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
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:43:21 GMT

In article <Sep.26.18.30.11.1992.2404@thorogood.rutgers.edu> miklas@thorogood.r
utgers.edu (Keith Miklas) writes:
>suppose that you are playing a novice who is quite an inexperienced
>chessplayer.  He knows that you are a superior player, and decides to
>mirror each and every one of your moves.  What's the best strategy to
>play against this person?

How 'bout 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 Qxe5????
          6.Qxe5 and the mirror is cracked!

I doubt he'll mirror that one too many times.

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Solvable, but would we understand it?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 07:50:06 GMT

In article <2ac34e1dwnr070@ark.abg.sub.org> ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan) writes:
>  Hi all,
>
>regarding the recent thread about solvability of the game, it seems that
>noone has thought about implications, which are already evident from
>results in perfect endgames.

Solvability has no implications on playing the game, and the actual solution
would have very few.

>Maybe you remember the anecdote about Ken Thompson who won some $ with
>betting that GM Browne et al. could not win certain K+Q vs. K+R positions
>within 50 moves against his computer.
>And later, when several 5-pieces-endgames were solved, many endgame experts
>were surprised about the results (e.g. KNNKB).
>When GMs looked at the perfect play of the computer they didn't understand
>some/most of the moves.

The only implication here is that knowledge of endgame has improved faster
than it would have without computers. But that is a very general implication
of technology.

>Now imagine chess solved (with a draw as result), and you have the computer
>before your eyes.  You play some 5-10 moves until the computer says:
>"Don't do that!  Even with best play, it will result in a mate in 155 moves!"
>You are too frustrated by the allmighty computer that you quit playing chess
>and concentrate on singing "OM" for the rest of your life.

Why not simply commit suicide?  ;-)

Have you ever thought of playing against humans for a change?

>Ridiculous, eh?  So why be afraid of the solvability of chess??!?

What *is* ridiculous is that people like you are already considering computers
as their primary chess partners, although only a few years ago no affordable
computer could play at a decent level. Grow up! Computers are not our partners
or opponents. They are just useful tools!

How long will it be until computers become the preferred sexual partners?

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: F-S II Ratings
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:42:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.143550.14789@bnr.ca> Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca> writes:
>After 15 games, this is how they measure up...
>
>Assuming that the initial estimates (Re) are correct, Fischer would
>currently be number 8 in the world (and Spassky tied for the 20th place).
>

Gee, that guy Boris has made a lot of progress lately!   ;-)

	Sven
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: How can we assess Fischer's strength
From: <A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 20:31:05 CET
Distribution: world
Organization: SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam

In article <305@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
says:
>
>Easiest answer: wait.
 
Most people (me included) feel that after this match,
Fischer will not play again, ever.  He needed money,
that is the only reason for this 'revanche match'.
 
Frans
From: ovel@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Ove Lundberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Bluff City Open
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:47:38 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
NNTP-Posting-Host: minsk.docs.uu.se

gpylant@admin1.memst.edu writes:

>Since there is no new F - S news, here is a game from
>the Bluff City Open played in Memphis Tennessee 9/19/92.
>The following was played at game in one hour time control.

>Senn (2088) - Herbers (2060)
>1. e4    Nc6
>2. d4    e5?!
>3. d5?   ...

>These two have been playing chess as long as I have! (since 1971)
>and what a weird way to play.....Mr. Senn is known for his strange
>way of playing openings.  Many players are not use to the Nimzovich Defense..
>3. dxe5 is the right move.

>3. ...   Nce7
>4. f4 

Rest of game deleted.

I think that both 2..e5 and 3.d5 are ok. 
I would put ?! on 4.f4 and play 4.Bd3 instead with the idea 
4..Ng6 5.Be3, which prevents Bf8-c5, and white is slightly
better.

>Gary Pylant  -- Memphis State 

Ove Lundberg, Uppsala, Sweden.  ovel@minsk.docs.uu.se
From: gewis@rwa.urc.tue.nl (GEWIS)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Polgar query
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:04:58 GMT
Reply-To: gewis@urc.tue.nl

wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas) writes:


>To my knowledge the middle Polgar sister (Sofia) has one GM result --
>based on an icredible result when she was 13.  Since then she has not
>come close to another GM result.

In fact she scored 2 points over the GM-norm leaving worldclass GM's 2 points
behind. This took place in Rome, Italy. But I'm not sure what age she was. I
thought she was older than 13 (have to check my Polgar-books).
But she is not that interested in chess lately (to my opinion). So that could
be the reason for her less fascinating results lately.

Mark Huizer,
gewis@urc.tue.nl