HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Game 16 Opening, Spassky-Fischer
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:00:35 GMT

In article <9210072155.0.UUL1.3#20523@intercal.com> hwr@intercal.com  
(Hanon W. Russell) writes:
> 
> ECO Analysis
> 
> Well, having finally had the oppornity to do a little research,
> it seems that there was no TN by Fischer - The line as played
> is designated a lemon by ECO. For those who have the ECO series,
> it is volume E (IV), p. 334, c. 13, n. 91. The game position is
> reached via transposition (it appears Qd2 is the proper response
> to Qa5, not Bd3?).

And after a bit of research, I concur, noting that Fischer has had plenty  
of experience on the Black side of Bg5 lines. The real question is how  
Spassky could have been so ignorant of established theory -- again!
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: natalie@Chaos.mcs.kent.edu (Tim Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Fischer's Back! (alas)
Organization: Kent State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:03:29 GMT

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Back! (alas)
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Kent State University
Keywords: 

I too am pleased that Bobby is back. He was the 'god-boy-king' of my youth.
I am very interested in watching what happens. However, I will reserve all 
judgement of him until he is either crushed or defeats a greater opponent.
After all, isn't he still a 'god-boy-king' for many of us? 

Tim Sorenson
From: ccecks@nuscc.nus.sg (Chua Kong Sian (Mr))
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Novice Question - Openings/Books
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:00:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: nuscc.1992Oct16.040010.25445
Organization: National University of Singapore

asdf@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (matthew.s.chen) writes:
: In article <21413@drutx.ATT.COM> connors@drutx.ATT.COM (ConnorsPA) writes:
: >My favourite single-volume openings book is "Kurs Debyutov",
: >("An Opening Course") by Panov and Estrin. This, **very** unfortunately,
: >exists only in Russian. The latest edition that I have, the 5th,
: >was published in 1973.
: 
: I think this may have been translated as "Comprehensive Chess Openings"
: by Panov & Estrin, published by Pergamon.  I saw an advertisement for a
: new English edition by MacMillan a couple of years ago, but am not aware
: of it being published.
: 
: 						Matthew Chen
: 

I have the complete Comprehensive Chess Openings (but its at home at the
moment).  It is by Estrin and Panov and translation by Kenneth P. Neat.
It comes in 3 volumes, Vol 1 - Open games (e4 e5), Vol 2 - Semi-open
games (e4 anything-other-than-e5) and Vol 3 - Closed games (d4, c4, Nf3
etc).  I can't remember the publisher, but it is old edition (maybe 73)
is about right.  If anybody need more info, I'll be happy to go home and
look it up.

Chua Kong Sian 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Subject: GrandMaster Chess
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:43:51 GMT
Keywords: Computer chess MSDOS

I just bought an MS-DOS program called GrandMaster Chess, which
purports to be the worlds most powerful chess program.
I do not think it is, and would like to play it againsty
someone who has Sargon V or ChessMaster 3000 or some strong
chess program out there.
Anyone for an Email computer v computer game?

-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:27:49 PDT

>In <92285.142055RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
>
>>if i were to play fischer a bazillion games, yeah, he'd kick my butt every
>>time without thinking, but i would not become physically ill because of it.

Yes, but for most people, if they play against someone of similar
skills, in most any event they care at all about, they
want to do their best.  If I were to play Fischer 100 times,
and lose pitifully 100 times, I would not feel bad, he is
not of a similar skill level to myself.  But I would worry
if I lost to a lesser player even twice in a row, because it would
mean I am not performing up to par.

At the pro level, I imagine it is far more intense, FAR more intense.
If I made my living playing chess, and I lost to someone I felt
I should beat, I would work very hard to be sure it did not happen
again.  I think most people are this way.  Imagine if you failed
at the thing most dear to you, in a situation where you were
not overtaxed, it would certainly have an effect on you as well.

-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: amb@cs.columbia.edu (andrew m. boardman)
Subject: Re: any USCF or FIDE comment on FSII?
Organization: Slug Hordes of the Planet Gamma
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:21:10 GMT

eb11@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Just wondering: has there been any official reaction to FSII
>by FIDE or USCF? Are the games included in, say, CHESS LIFE?

Games one through four are in the November issue, with a promise of more
to come.  They seem, for the most part, to be suprisingly unbiased.

andrew
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Keywords: bobby, champ, hyperbole, rah-rah, nationalism, insanity
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:02:52 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Oct14.153127.20890@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
>one COULD argue that the best chess-player over the last 25 years
>has been Bobby Fischer since he is the only living player to win the
>title of World Champion and never to lose a match thereafter.

Oh my gosh!  Did Kasparov die?
From: doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Falkbeer countergambit and misc.
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:11:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

This could really be two separate postings, but here goes:

1. In response to the Falkbeer countergambit (1.e4 e5 2.f5 d5): what does the prevailing literature have to say about 3. d4. It's not in MCO-13, but when I was playing black against the Chessmaster 3000, this is exactly what it did?

2) What is considered Fischer's *worst* game performance? Kasporav's? Any other Champions or Grandmasters?

Thanks in advance, David Oliver

SIGN KIRBY PUCKETT!!!
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: lee@zeta.kpc.com (On Lee)
Subject: Chess Set Size
Reply-To: lee@zeta.kpc.com (On Lee)
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computers Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:22:45 GMT

Is there any official specification for chess set size ?
For example, how tall the king is.

If this information exists, where can I find the book
or magazine ?

Thank you very much for your help.
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: When Deep Thought Beats Kasparov...
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:58:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct9.175814.19558
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct9.145638.19563@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:

	[reposting a ~100 lines article for no reason]

>>
>>>estimates.  Feng-hsiung, Thomas, Murray, Andreas: are you reading this?
>>
>>Looking at all this garbage, I am not convinced that they CAN read.
>>
>>	Sven
>>
>
>*THEY* didn't write this garbage and your comment was completely uncalled
>far.  The only problem I see here is that your mother and father didn't do
>an acceptable job in raising you.... you lack basic politeness.
>
>
>-- 
>!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
>!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !

First of all, the person who posted that garbage was quoting them, so I
assumed they did make those assumptions using linear extrapolation. If all
linear extrapolation comes from the poster himself, than I claim he is
illiterate instead of them. (Well, he is anyway, as he uncritically posted
it, but I didn't want to be rude ;-)

Second, speaking of mothers and fathers, your ma and pa, Robert, should have
taught you not to waste other people's money, which is what you did by 
unnecessarily reposting something like a hundred lines on which you had no
comment at all. I just wonder if you are one of those people who cry and
whine about the Government overtaxing them...

	Sven
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jkenton@world.std.com (Jeff Kenton)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: Kenton Systems Corporation, Weston MA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:59:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.205247.27303@ichips.intel.com> sstrazdu@vulcan.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus) writes:
>
>Is there a good endgame book with these harder endgames?  I remember looking
>at Pandolfini's "End Game Course" in a store once, but I don't think it
>really got into the more difficult endgames.
>

There's always Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings.  It has nearly everything,
including some reported errors.  The section on K+Q vs K+R is complex.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
=			Jeff Kenton	(617) 894-4508			=
=			    jkenton@world.std.com			=
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: (book titles)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:27:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.082932.5046@jyu.fi> ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen) writes:
>There are many ways to do it, but the suggestions here may not suit to 
>your other systems. 
>
>1.c4 e6
>
>1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5
>
>1.c4 c6

The 1. ...c6 response is popular in some crowds.  A interesting
response is 2. Qa4 which puts a crimp in Black's plan of 2. ... d5.
What's the best response?
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:58:16 GMT


May I point out several incovenient facts?

Several of the players you called not exactly elite were in fact just
that: Robert Byrne would qualify for the Candidates in 1973; Sammy
Reshevsky would even three years later be included on the team which
played the Rest of the World; Leonid Stein, by your own statistics of
tournaments won, was certainly among the elite and he was widely 
considered to be one of the favorites at Sousse.

As for your claim that until Fischer defeated Spassky in the third 
game of their match, he had never defeated a world champion, it is true
but extremely misleading: he played reigning world champions only 4
times before the match: Botvinnik in 1962 (1/2), Petrosian twice in 
1966 (1/2,1/2) and Spassky in 1970 (0-1).  So he had little opportunity
to play reigning world champions and in 3 of their four games he had
Black.

Finally, Fischer never admitted that Larsen was the better player 
during the period in question; he simply admitted that Larsen had a case
and he did; that case was proven to be vastly overstated when they met
in a match.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Keywords: bobby, champ
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:15:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.195952.552@erg.sri.com>, vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad) writes:
|> Yes, he sure showed that perky 60-year-old retired bed-ridden Spassky that
|> he, Fischer, is clearly one of the top thousand players in the World.

He's showed a lot more than that.  And don't forget, Bobby is no
spring chicken.

|> >if nobody is playing or interested.  Bobby increased interest in
|> >chess far more than Kasparov. 
|> 
|> Yes. Maybe not in Moscow, Russia but in Kalamazoo, Indiana definetely. And
|> anybody living outside of Kalamazoo is not a human and does not count.

Yes, in Moscow, Russia, too!  Do you think that Bobby didn't create a big
stir in Russia by coming out of nowhere and upsetting their precious 
chess dynasty?

|> real talent. So, you really think that if, say, a physisist creates a "a world craze"
|> among th e"Natinal Enquirer" readers by doing something weird (say, expose
|> himself in public), then he is more valuable to physics than Einstein? Brilliant!

Physics is a science.  Chess is a sport.  There is a big difference. 
If you want to talk about contributions to game theory, then Kasparov
probably wins over Fischer (although people working on computer chess
programs probably win big over both of them).

I didn't reply to any of your other lame arguments because they all
were simply jokes and you obviously couldn't think of a reasonable
argument.  I guess the truth hurts.

-- 
T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Subject: Info on K+B+N vs K (Was: Re: resigning wusse
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:00:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.205247.27303@ichips.intel.com> sstrazdu@vulcan.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.142509.16384@husc3.harvard.edu> elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>>In article <23889@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>>:In article <1992Oct13.223044.3140@Princeton.EDU>
>>:carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo) writes:
>>:
>>:> At what level of tournament play does it become the "norm" for the losing
>>:> person to resign in a K+B+N vs. K endgame?  (one which is won for the
>>:> opponent, of course)
>>:
>>:... and when you're done answering that question, you might answer the
>>:same one for K+Q vs. K+R, which is even harder to win.
>>
>>Conversely, the marginally drawn R+B vs. R endgame is often played out
>>until either the weaker side falters or the 50th move is at hand.
>
>Is there a good endgame book with these harder endgames?  I remember looking
>at Pandolfini's "End Game Course" in a store once, but I don't think it
>really got into the more difficult endgames.
>

I have a copy of Pandolfini's End Game Course -- it doesn't have the K+B+N
vs. K endgame in it, however Pandolfini did write an article in Chess Life
(mid-80's) on this very subject.  The article is also included in Volume 2
of "The Best of Chess Life and Review", edited by Pandolfini.  (Sounds a
little like Pandolfini promoting himself by including his article, but I
believe it is the only one of his articles that he put in there.)

John

-- 
--JOHN A. SWARTZ---The MITRE Corporation---Bedford, Massachusetts-- 
-- "Every time I look in the mirror, all these lines on my face  --
--  getting clearer . . . The past is gone."- S. Tyler, J. Perry --
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:02:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.132507.16333@husc3.harvard.edu> fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
>
>Novices aren't the only ones who don't resign.

That's for sure.  In the last (or next-to-last) Chess Life, there as a
letter from a fellow who had finally achieved his life's ambition to
play chess in every state.  Find the letter and see who his first
opponent was in Alabama...

Now - go back into the r.g.c archives and you can see the game that we
played.  I posted it as a concrete point of discussion on "when would
you resign".  He didn't - he alowed me the great pleasure of delivering
mate on the board.

Tonight - when I get home, I'll probably post another such game (and let
you see why no one whould ever resign to me....)

Essentially the question boils down to: 
    a) the win is trivial
    b) it's not - it requires technique, or care, or ...

In case a) - if the win is so trivial, the stronger side should simply
play it out with a smile.

In case b) - why should the inferior side resign?  As long as there is a
chance to go wrong - play on!

Of course, the definition of "trivial" depends on the absolute and
relative strengths of the players.  I usually state the rule as:

    "Resign if, and only if, you know that the position is lost
      *and* your opponent has demonstrated that he knows how to win."

-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 17 moves 1-43
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:17:13 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 20:52 GMT
   Fischer Spassky
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 c5
   2. Nc3 Nc6
   3. Nge2 e6
   4. g3 d5
   5. exd5 exd5
   6. Bg2 d4
   7. Nd5 Nf6
   8. Nef4 Nxd5
   9. Nxd5 Bd6
   10. 0-0 0-0
   11. d3 Be6
   12. Nf4 Bf5
   13. h3 Rb8
   14. Bd2 Re8
   15. Re1 Rxe1+
   16. Qxe1 Qd7
   17. g4 Re8
   18. Qd1 Bxf4
   19. Bxf4 Be6
   20. Qf3 Nb4
   21. Qxb7 Nxc2
   22. Rc1 Qxb7
   23. Bxb7 Nb4
   24. Be4 Bxa2
   25. Bd2 Bd5
   26. Bxd5 Nxd5
   27. Rxc5 Nb6
   28. Kf1 f6
   29. Ra5 Re7
   30. Bb4 Rd7
   31. Bc5 Kf7
   32. Ke2 g5
   33. Kf3 Kg6
   34. Ke4 h5
   35. Bxd4 Re7+
   36. Kf3 h4
   37. Bc5 Re1
   38. Rxa7 Nd5
   39. Bf8 Re8
   40. Bd6 Re6
   41. Rd7 Nb6
   42. Rd8 Nd5
   43. b4 Re1
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Subject: 50 move rule
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 05:20:31 GMT

The 50 move rule (I assume that the various 50 move rules used by U.S.C.F,
F.I.D.E etc are all the same) does NOT of course say that a player may claim
a draw if fifty consecutive moves have been made without a capture or pawn
move, since there are positions which can only be won using such move 
sequences.

What exactly does the fifty move rule say?  
I suspect that there may be very many positions (not just endings) where the
winner is required to allow such a sequence, and that these have not been
discovered.     

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.arts.books
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject:  A semi precious gem
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:04:37 GMT

T. Andy Frakes of MIT writes of the chess player, Mr Fischer:

	"Before Bobby was good, he wasn't so good."

This has a mythic quality. May I use it in a .sig? Did you, by chance,
steal this line from Camille Paglia when she spoke before your Institute?

			Keep those pawns coming,

							Fido
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:10:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.223044.3140@Princeton.EDU> carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo) writes:
>At what level of tournament play does it become the "norm" for the losing
>person to resign in a K+B+N vs. K endgame? 

My guess is that this particular ending is so rare that it is almost
never resigned.

Can anyone find even one recent (last 10 years) game in GM practice
where this endgame was reached?

-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tusk@daimi.aau.dk (Martin M|ller Pedersen)
Subject: Bug in the Valkyries chess-server!!!
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 04:42:57 GMT

There must be a bug in the chess-server valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu.
I had a play with dave and the board was like this:




hgfedcba
       K1 
r       2
      k 3
 b    P 4
      p 5
   p   p6
ppp     7
        8
hgfedcba

Capital letter is white pieces.
 
White to play but the chess server says that white is stalemate !!!!

Why????
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: So What If It's Solvable
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:30:34 GMT

In article <266923@peregrine.peregrine.com>  writes:
>In article <BvIF2I.Cvp@mail.boi.hp.com> jqtaylor@boi.hp.com (John Quill Taylor) writes:
>>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?
>
>If alpha-beta will allow a solution that requires examining about
>square root the number of total nodes,
>then you would need to remember well under a Mole of positions.
>
>(But that's a very large if, any idea how reasonable it is?)

Hmm.. Say a super-computer puts the "solution" on hard storage. 
To be very very rough, let's say we're looking at oh, I dunno,
32^50 possibilities.

Which is... a 4 with 75 zeroes after it. (Roughly, again.)
And being generous in saying that one move could be stored in
one byte.. 

Which comes to about a 4 with 69 zeroes MEGABYTES of storage..
Which is a 4 with 65 zeroes GIGABYTES of storage.. 
Which is A LOT.

Now, if we find a way to encode data on a molecular level...
(Bonds, positions.. The true ideal.) We might be able to do it.
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:55:12 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <d+npgv@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>
>What will have to happen, presuming that Fischer continues to perform well,
>is that a Fischer-Kasparov match will have to be set, the winner emerging
>as the 'true' World Champion. I agree Fischer will have to 'prove' that his
>game is back to the level it once was, but making him go through the the
>interzonals and whatnot is silly.
>r.

I think people who claim that Fischer has a 'right' to play Kasparov simply
because he is such a legend are just silly. Let me remind you:

Like any other competition, the candidates' matches do not guarantee 'divine
justice', so the challenger is not necessarily the best player in the (world
minus the champion). If we take ratings to be the 'true' measure of one's
strength (they are not, but they are based on many games, so they are more
accurate than just the candidates' matches), we are certain NOT to see the
best possible challenger in '93. Ivanchuk is the second rated player in the
world, has been second for ~2 years, and will probably be second a year from
now. (If not, he might be behind Anand, but not behind Short.) Karpov and
Anand are also higher rated than Short. If Timman becomes the challenger, 
there will be several more higher rated players.

So does anyone think that Kasparov has any obligation to play Ivanchuk?

So why would he have to play Fischer?

	Sven

P.S. I also think people who claim that Fischer somehow did not dominate the
chess world in the 67-72 period are just making fools of themselves.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,news.answers