HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Subject: Re: Soltis' "Winning with the Giuoco..."
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:23:09 GMT

In article <9208102338.0.UUL1.3#20523@intercal.com> hwr@intercal.com
(Hanon W. Russell) writes:
>Isaev-Gordon
>World Correspondence Championship
>1988-1989
>
>1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d4 ed4 5 O-O Ne4 6 Re1 d5 7 Bd5 Qd5 8 Nc3
>Qa5 9 Ne4 Be6 10 Neg5 O-O-O 11 Ne6 fe6 12 Re6 Bd6 13 Bg5 Rde8 14 Qe1 Qe1
>15 Rae1 Re6 16 Re6 Kd7 17 Re4 Re8 18 Re8 Ke8 19 Kf1 Kf7 20 Bd2 h6  21 Ke2
>Ke6 22 Kd3 Kd5 23 Nd4 Nd4 24 c4 Ke5 25 f4 Kf5 26 Kd4 Bf4 27 Bf4 Kf4 28 b4

	I know I'm going senile, but I don't understand Black's play in
this K&P ending.  The current position is:

	W: Kd4, a2, b4, c4, g2, h2;  B: Kf4, a7, b7, c7, g7, h6.

Why does Black retreat his King?  He has his own threats on the K-side
which are as fast as White's.  28 ... g5, threatening g4, h5, h4, h3.
Now 29 c5?? c6 is good for Black [with or without White playing b5 first],
29 a4 is too slow, and 29 Kd5 Ke3 30 Ke6? Kd4.  OK, there's more to it
than that, but I haven't found a White win.

	After instead

>Kf5 29 Kd5 Kf6 30 a4 Ke7 31 a5 Kd7 32 g4

[Position now: W: Kd5, a5, b4, c4, g4, h2;  B: Kd7, a7, b7, c7, g7, h6],
why not the obvious 32 ... c6+?  If now 33 Kc6, Kc7 and the WK is driven
out by b6+, so 33 Ke5 Kd7.  Now the pawn positions on both sides of the
board are mutual zugzwangs [h4, g6;  or h3, g5;  or c5, a6;  or a6, b6
(or bxa, of course!)], so Black retains the opposition and draws, except
for the possibility 34 b5.  Now the co-ordinating reply is 34 ... c5,
but this loses to 35 b6 and picks up the c-pawn at leisure;  so 34 ... cxb,
35 cxb, and the move has shifted.  But now Black can reply 35 ... b6, and
if 36 axb, axb the move is returned, while if 36 a6, Black need no longer
fear losing the opposition;  as long as he only permits a by-pass on the
Q-side, he can reply with ... Kc7 to Kxa7, keeping the WK bottled up.

	Well, it's not *that* trivial, because Black must be careful not
to get trapped on the K-side.  Eg 36 a6, Kf7; 37 Kf5, g6+; 38 Ke5, Ke7;
39 h4, Kf7; 40 Kd6 [g5 hxg; 41 gxh Ke7] Kf6 [... g5? 41 hxg hxg 42 Ke5
wins]; 41 g5+ [Kc6, Ke6 or Kd7, Ke5! (not ... Kf7? 42 g5 wins)], hxg;
42 hxg+, Kf5! draws.  Any other ideas?  If I've missed *anything*, it
can scarcely be worse than the actual

>					  Ke7 33 a6 1-0

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
From: ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Suggestions for chess program?
Date: 15 Aug 92 11:25
Organization: Private Coherent 4.0.1 site Augsburg/Bavaria/Germany

jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs) writes:
> In article <2590003@hpldsla.sid.hp.com> bruno@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Bruno Biene
> nfeild) writes:
> >It was sugested couple of week ago:
> >MCHESS, REXCHESS, ZARKOV, 3000,
> >I am currently using ZARKOV 2.6 and am very satisfied.
> >Any comp. is OK, however faster the better.
> 
> The original query was for someone who probably plays at the 2000
> level.  That would require an 80486 to get most of these programs up to
> 2300-2400 in 40/2.  A much cheaper solution would be something like the
> Fidelity Mach III, which ICD has been selling for about $200 and which
> plays 2200+ at 40/2.

But if he later buys a faster PC, he won't have a stronger program.
I recommend M-Chess (about U$100-150) that plays at Mach III level
even with a 286 with 12 MHz.

--ralf
------------------------They say the gods get angry if you pray too much. (nh)
From: emarkp@ocf.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup for computer chess?
Date: 18 Aug 1992 01:54:35 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <SJE.92Aug17174710@xylos.ma30.bull.com> sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com writes:
}Many recent postings in rec.games.chess have dealt with various
}aspects of computer chessplaying programs.  Although much of it may be
}interesting to some readers, others would like to concentrate on the
}mainstream topics of chess.
}
}How about a new newsgroup exclusively devoted to computer chess
}topics?  Readers who wanted to track both the old and the new groups
}could subscribe to both.
}
}Actually, I would like to see two new groups concerning computer
}chess.  The first group (comp.chess.players) would deal with the some
}of the concerns of human players such as machine purchase
}recommendation, commercial chessplaying program reviews, and the
}never-to-be-settled question of how computers affect human players in
}tournament competition.  The second group (comp.chess.research) would
}be for program authors, program tournament organizers, researchers,
}and others with a bona fide scientific interest in computer chess.  A


  Interesting, however I do believe that this group was originally created
for discussion of computer chess development.  I don't think it's necessary
to have separate newsgroups for these topics.  That's what a threaded
newsreader is for.  I think that discussion of computer algorithms, etc. is
helpful to some degree for all players (as long as it doesn't get too
technical, and you can always skip those articles), because it helps to
quantify some aspects of chess which are important to develop, and it
reminds us why the human mind can (still -- knock on wood) beat a computer.
I think that were another newsgroup created, there would be a great deal of
crossposting, which would minimalize the utility of a separate newsgroup.

-- 
E. Mark Ping
emarkp@ocf.Berkeley.EDU

  "Stand aside, I take large steps."    --Michael Dorn
  "Say, that's a nice bike."            --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
  "Pituita es."                         --Unknown Latin Scholar

And of course, this in no way reflects my views of UC Berkeley.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Organization: Center for Information and Language Studies / University of
	Chicago
	<1992Aug19.022125.17183@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Aug19.151458.2688@cis.uab.edu>
	<1992Aug19.193622.13628@cs.brown.edu>
	<SCHILLER.92Aug19180333@tira.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Aug20.054704.22158@cs.brown.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:24:52 GMT

The meeting is in conjunction with the US Open. I will try to post
the information when the time and date is set, probably in the 
spring. The agenda for 1993 includes:

Man vs. Machine (the sga continues...)
Standardizing the high-ASCII assignments for chess information 
	(we plan to adopt a standard at that meeting, I will
	post the proposal here soon).
Anything else that comes up

As far as reports are concerned, I already described what went
on at the meeting and gave the actual vote tallies.
I am not a burocrat by nature. If someone wants to take
formal minutes, fine. They are not required and I don't
see the point, since this is only an advisory body and
all decisions must be made by the USCF delegates.

Chess Life space is virtually impossible to get. Mike Nolan
and I are writing an article about INternet and rec.games.chess,
and that is, I think, a far more important issue for most
readers.

There should be a full report on what the delegates decided, but
I have nothing to do with that.

People who live too far away to participate are able to use
their USCF delegates to speak for them. What? Your state doesn't
allow you to elect your own delegates? They are all appointed on
the basis of political considerations? Hmm, I guess you are a 
typical case.

I don't want to get in to USCF politics here, but the problems
are NOT on the national level, they are at the state level. If
you have no voice, it is because it is stifled at that level.
Try to do something about it, if you can.

Any of you who feel strongly on these issues should contact
your "elected" representatives. They have much more power
than a committee chairman, who can't even vote as a USCF 
Delegate, because his vote was stripped years ago.

Eric Schiller
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Review: Knightstalker
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:43:06 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I should point out that I feel that Zarkov is a great program on its
own merits, which I didn't make too clear in my previous posting.
I enjoy playing KnightStalker, M-Chess, and Zarkov, since each has
a different feel.  Zarkov is stronger than KnightStalker, and plays
a better endgame; M-Chess is the strongest of all.  But for someone
who is serious about chess and just starting out, I'd say KnightStalker
is the best deal of the bunch.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
From: drchip@cup.portal.com (MYRON A LIEBERMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: ELO and Swiss System Software
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 23:50:45 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Jerry,
Probably the most widely used Swiss pairing software today would be
"Swiss Sys" (Commercial) and "ChessTD" (shareware) for individual
events and "Pair Plus" for team events. We can continue the discussion
via e-mail if you would like.

Regards,

Myron
.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gene@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Gene E. Johannsen)
Subject: Torre Attack
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:23:45 GMT

I was looking at the first couple moves of the Torre Attack (has it been
elevated to a system yet?) that goes: 1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bg5 4 c3 and I was
wondering just what made this thing worth anything, and I relized that
it is the Caro Kann reversed.  Really.  The only thing is that black is
prevented from playing fun things like a reversed advanced variation
or something because white has the extra move.

But, anyway, has anyone done any serious playing with this?  Does the
theory work out a lot like the Caro?  If it does I think it would be
fun to play it, since I prefer the Caro as black.  It also bears a
striking resemblence to the Colle.  Could someone post some games
of the Torre so I could get a feel for what it is like?

thanks,
gene
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: bralick@asm.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick)
Subject: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:47:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.163422.26408@sco.com> richardr@sco.COM (Richard Robinson) writes:
| 
| In article <BssAnA.Bp5@cs.psu.edu> bralick@asm.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes:
| >Arguing that by choosing to play in a tournament in which computers 
| >are allowed I agree to the rule begs the question.  The rule change
| >is UNNECESSARY because if TDs don't want the hassle of accomodating 
| >machines then they can close the tournament to computers.
| 
| It seems that given the choice between having no computers in tournaments
| and having Eric's recommendation, you would choose the former.

Yes.  If the USCF is going to be heavy-handed then I prefer it to be
heavy-handed in favor of the human participants in the tournaments.  Is
there anybody out there who would _prefer_ to play against a computer
in a tournament?  That is, if you were given the choice between playing 
a human and a machine with comparable ratings (never mind that the ratings 
may well be incommensurable) which would you choose?

| I would
| agree that perhaps there should be three choices, namely, no computer
| tournaments, computers-but-humans-allowed-to-choose, computers-humans-
| no-choice.  

Mr. Schiller stated that nobody had suggested any solution to the problem, 
but he has not yet responded to my suggestion, viz that if computers were 
allowed in a tournament then they should comprise a class consisting of 
themselves and any humans who were willing to be required to play against 
them.  The advantages of this suggestion include: that every tournament 
which allows computers will do so in a consistent fashion (unlike the three
classes of tournaments suggested above), that humans who do not want to 
play against computers would never be _required_ to do so, and that it 
would be no more difficult for the TD than splitting the entries into two 
classes which could then be paired consistently, a la the proposed rule.

I wonder which other possible solutions were considered by the committee.  
Was anything other than the status quo and the proposed rule change even 
discussed?


Regards,

-- 
Will                                  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
        bralick@cs.psu.edu            |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                      |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: darse@cs.UAlberta.CA (Darse Billings)
Subject: Re: Checkers match
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:22:23 GMT

nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash) writes:

>I thought checkers was solved. Is it not?

Certainly not.  Furthermore, it is often underestimated by snobbish chess
players (I was one) who feel it is "trivial" compared to the royal game.

You may be under the common misconception surrounding Arthur Samuel's
famous work, but his program only played expert strength checkers.

Although not as tactically complex, checkers is strategically comparable
to chess.  And having a smaller branching factor (set of reasonable
candidate moves in a given position) is compensated by deeper analysis
(or search, in the case of computers).  Perhaps checkers deserves
greater attention than it has historically received.

Of course, 19x19 Go is *much* more complex, both strategically and
tactically than either chess or checkers.

The largest game (by size of search domain) solved was previously
Connect Four, which was solved almost simultaneously by James D Allen
and Victor Allis in 1988, using very different methods.  It is a win for
the first player (and d1 is the only winning move).  For an excellent
account, see "Heuristic Programming in Artificial Intelligence -- The
First Computer Olympiad" by DNL Levy and DF Beal (editors).

In the third Computer Olympiad, in 1990, Qubic (4x4x4 Tic-Tac-Toe)
became the largest solved game, (although old analysis from around 1980
was mostly responsible for this).  It is also a win for the first player
(any corner on level one or four, or any center square on level two or
three are equivalent moves and win, whereas the one distinct alternative
does not).  Details may be found in "Heuristic Programming in Artificial
Intelligence 3", which has been recently released.

Checkers is considerably larger than Qubic, having a search space of
about 10^20 positions, with perhaps 10^18 of these being reachable in
practice.  The ultimate goal of the Chinook project is to solve the
game, but this may not be achievable for some time.  Of course, the
immediate goal for Chinook is to win the "de facto" world championship.
Jonathan Schaeffer believes it may be possible to solve the game of
checkers, particularly if all of the eight-piece endings can be computed
(and stored!).  But it seems to be near the threshold of computational
limitations, so this remains to be seen.

Chess has a search space of about 10^44 positions, and 19x19 Go is just
a tad bigger at 10^170 positions (!!).  Hence it is unlikely that these
games will be solved any time soon.
--

 - Darse Billings, 2100 CM, 7 kyu.

Go is better than Chess.  Poker is more lucrative.  Sex is more fun.
From: jriechel@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: (none)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:03:59 GMT



         #######  ##   ##  #######  #######  #######
         ##       ##   ##  ##       ##       ##
         ##       #######  #######  #######  #######
         ##       ##   ##  ##            ##       ##
         #######  ##   ##  #######  #######  #######

#######  #######  #######  ######   ##       #######  ##   ##
##   ##  ##   ##  ##   ##  ##    #  ##       ##       ### ###
#######  #######  ##   ##  ######   ##       #######  ## # ##
##       ## ##    ##   ##  ##    #  ##       ##       ##   ##
##       ##   ##  #######  ######   #######  #######  ##   ##

            For your enjoyment, edification, ect..

-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-


White:  Pa2b2c2d4f2g2h2 Nb1e5 Bc1d3 Ra1h1 Qd1 Ke1
Black:  Pa7b7c7d5f7g7h7 Nd7e4 Bc8f8 Ra8h8 Qd8 Ke8

  -----------------------------------------
8 | *R |    | *B | *Q | *K | *B |    | *R |
  -----------------------------------------
7 | *P | *P | *P | *N |    | *P | *P | *P |   P = Pawn
  -----------------------------------------   N = Knight
6 |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |   B = Bishop
  -----------------------------------------   R = Rook (aka Castle)
5 |    |    |    | *P |  N |    |    |    |   Q = Queen
  -----------------------------------------   K = King
4 |    |    |    |  P | *N |    |    |    |
  -----------------------------------------
3 |    |    |    |  B |    |    |    |    |   *'s precede Black pieces
  -----------------------------------------
2 |  P |  P |  P |    |    |  P |  P |  P |
  -----------------------------------------
1 |  R |  N |  B |  Q |  K |    |    |  R |
  -----------------------------------------
    a    b    c    d    e    f    g    h

Problem #1:  White to play and draw (by repetition).


I will post the solution in ~1 week.  Or mail me if you wish.  James

-----
jriechel@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
From: mginsbur@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: anybody with Piket-van Mil notes?
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:48:00 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Hello, would someone with a reasonable 
computer like to try this position:

1. Nf3 f5
2. e4  fe
3. Ng5 d5
4. d3  Qd6
5. Nc3 h6
6. Nb5  Qc6


Humans are having a tough time with this.  Any concrete evaluations
from machines would be interesting.

The game Piket-van Mil, Dutch Ch. 1992, saw but shed absolutely no light
on the correctness of 7. de hg 8. ed.

Thanks.

Mark
From: jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Gligoric 6.5-1.5 (Blitz) ?
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:21:25 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation

In article <1992Aug16.040820.7321@tc.cornell.edu> kirk@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu (Kirk Gunsallus) writes:
>In article <28563@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> mginsbur@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg) writes:
>>Geez, Gligoric is only about a million years old.  Wouldn't you
>
>stuff about aging Gligoric vs. Fischer and other comments deleted....
>
>>
>>BTW, how much sporting opposition can a very lazy Spassky really offer?
>>
>>Just wondering.
>
>
>Hey, even Foreman had to bop a few 'fishes' before he could take on big bad
>Evander.  :-)  :-)
>
>K
>

I find this whole thread idiotic especially in light of the fact
that Fischer and Gligo have been (at least back in the late 50's and
60's) close friends.  Sounds like some friendly speed games to me.

--Larry %)
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: chess psion versions
Keywords: psion, versions
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:40:01 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <u251014.11@hnykun11.urc.kun.nl> u251014@hnykun11.urc.kun.nl (Hans Schilderman) writes:
>Could anyone inform me about recent versions of the chess game 'chess' form 
>psion lim.?
>I am using the version of 1985 (version 1.01) and am curious to know whether 
>more recent versions are available
>
>best wishes Hans Schilderman

The version I use on a PC is 2.13 (1985).
But Psion have _just_ brought out a version of Psion Chess
for the Psion 3 pocket computer. From a cursory look it
appears to be the same program. This may be the best news
for mobile chess players since the invention of the pocket
chess set. I intend to get this program for my Psion Series
3 soon.


--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:36:55 GMT
Keywords: checkers, shogi, othello, hex, etc.

darse@cs.UAlberta.CA (Darse Billings) writes:
>I would very much like to see a newsgroup devoted exclusively to games
>of strategy -- which is quite distinct from the more general class of
>games in rec.games.board.
>
>Personally, I am interested in computer game playing of strategic games,
>and the forum provided by rec.games.strategic should prove both
>interesting and useful.
>
>There is a very definite need for such a newsgroup, and it is long
>overdue.  Here is a starting list of the games which might be discussed:
>
>Awari, Chase, 8x8 Checkers, 10x10 Draughts, Chinese Chess, Connect
>Four, Dominoes, Hex, Go-Moku, Renju, Reversi (Othello), Nine Men's
>Morris, Nim, Qubic (4x4x4 Tic-Tac-Toe), Scrabble, Shogi


And here's a list of games that actually will be discussed:

	Diplomacy, Risk, World in Flames, Third Reich, Civilization,
	BattleTech, Empire in Arms, Squad Leader, 1830, Titan, ...

							Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (N Bowers)
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies
Keywords: checkers, shogi, othello, hex, etc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:22:03 GMT
X-Posted-From: csparc2.leeds.ac.uk
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <v__n=0@lynx.unm.edu> quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) writes:
>Might I suggest that the 'How to create a newsgroup' posting in
>news.announce.newusers or news.answers be consulted before taking this
>much further?

I have already done this.  An RFD will be posted in the near future,
at which point discussion will be directed to news.groups, which
as someone else has already pointed out, is the correct place to
continue this discussion.

If anyone has suggestions or ideas relating to this, please mail
them to me: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk

Neil
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6313 rec.games.go:1644 rec.games.board:8068 rec.games.programmer:3558