HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jriechel@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: (none)
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:28:12 GMT


   Subject:  Internet Chess Server
------

   I think I might (might) have a good suggestion for the ICS located @
valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu.

   At the moment on ICS, if your clock runs out you lose --  regardless of
whether you can demonstrate a forced mate.

   My suggestion:

[1] prevent one's opponent from calling your flag until 1 minute since your
clock expired.  That is, modify the flag command to not work until the
opponent's clock "reads" -1:00 (negative one minute).

[2] Create a new command (sample details below) that you can use once your
clock has expired, and before your clock reaches -1:00.  This new command
might have the form:

   forced in [number] by [move-sequence]

Where [number] is (perhaps) the number of half-plys it will take you to
carry out a forced mate from the current possition.  And [move-sequence]
is the sequence of moves that leads to the forced mate.

[3] This new command would necessitate that ICS have some searching
mechanism to verify forced mate claims.  It ~shouldn't~ be TOO time
consuming as only forced moves need be considered.  (Maybe there could
be some threshold such that moves that lead to the opponent having more
than threshold # of legal moves would be rejected.  This might be too
simple, but it can probably be done.)

-----

This could be made simpler by reducing the new command to:

   forced in [number]

if we assume the player knows the move-sequence, and the computer need
only verify the move number at which mate is deliveried.  Which [number]
would the computer search for?  The earliest possible or the latest (in
which case your opponent delays mate as long as possibel)?  The latter,
of course.

Thoughts?
James Riechel
jriechel@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:01:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.123217.3463@gwinnett.COM> terry@gwinnett.COM (Terry J. Gardner) writes:
>>
>>when he faces Gary in december of 1993, he will publicly embarrass him with
>>an unheard of 10-0 score.
>
>Bobby can beat Kasparov, but more like 10-9!

You are both silly. I'll bet everything I have that NOBODY OLDER THAN GARY
will ever beat Gary in a match. And I'll bet twice that much that Gary (and
nobody in their right mind) will play a match to 10 wins. (This doesn't mean
that Spassky is not in his right mind; he is just sufficiently weak that this
won't become a quagmire.)

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: eb11@quads.uchicago.edu (Ernest Barreto)
Subject: any USCF or FIDE comment on FSII?
Reply-To: eb11@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:16:40 GMT


Just wondering: has there been any official reaction to FSII
by FIDE or USCF? Are the games included in, say, CHESS LIFE?

E
From: epstein@pelican.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:29:12 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:

>Besides, any decent player would sac one piece for one (or more) pawns and
>win with a queen.

Why?  The majority of strong players have studied this ending and so can
win it without thinking.  
You seem to be assuming that because the ending is difficult for you, it is
difficult for everyone.

Paul Epstein
From: phillies@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (George D. Phillies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Polgar/Anand/Ivanchuk
Date: 8 Oct 1992 01:40:57 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

Re Anand-Polgar-etc.

An interesting phenomenon:  my mailer daemon returns my messages 
to most of the people who have commented favorably on Anand's 
chances in 1996.  wrto baarniy@iasatte.edu, I suggest that most 
contributors seem to be more sympathetic to either J. or Z. 
Polgar's chances at the world championship than is necessarily 
merited for a pair of players with ratings below 2600.  On the 
other hand, the youngest person ever to compile three IGM norms 
must be taken at least somewhat seriously as a potential world 
champion  (She did beat Anand, the one time that they played.)  
(If memory serves Fischer played for the world championship, for 
the first time, within a few years of becoming an IGM, so perhaps 
a repeat of the sight of a non-adult playing for the world 
championship should not be ruled out for 1996.) 

George Phillies
phillies@wpi.wpi.edu
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:51:42 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <92285.142055RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
> there seems to be an attitude of "fischer's opponents get sick because
> fischer's incredible desire to win every game wears them out..."
> 
> gimme a break.
> 
> 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.
> 
>

well, "Fischer Fever" is NOT an opinion...it's a historical fact. when
grand masters play long drawn out matches with bobby, they start to
get sick...this usually happens when bobby starts really kicking their
butt and they are unable to even eke out a draw with..."The Chess God"
(that's just to bug eric shciller ;-) ).

anyways, i don't think that i would become physically ill getting my
butt kicked by bobby a "bazillion games" either, that's because i
would consider it an honor...i suppose its all in the way you look
at it. it's tuffer to absorb a bazillion losses when you're ranked in
the top hundred in the world as opposed to me absorbing a bazillion
losses since i'm ranked in the bottom hundred in the world :-)

don wedding
From: saba@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (John Saba, Univ. of Ariz. Computer Center)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Traps in Fianchetto Openings
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:37:57 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-User: saba

Someone asked about the following book:

     _200 Modern Chess Traps in the Fianchetto openings_
     J.B. Howson
     A.S. Barnes & Co.
     1970

-- 
John Saba
saba@ccit.arizona.edu
saba@arizvms
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: oyvind@nta.no
Subject: Re: 1992 U.S. Championship
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 09:36:59 GMT

-text follows this line--
Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen) writes:

>   > Hanon W. Russell writes:
>   >
>   > 1992 U.S. Championship Field Set for Durango, Colorado
>   >
>   [Much deleted]
>
>   Two questionspoints
>    1, What are the players current FIDE ratings?
>    2, What format does the tournament have?
>   Peter

(Incomplete) answer to question 1:

                                Rating
                            US(*)     FIDE(**) 
GM Gata Kamsky             2739        2655
GM Alex Yermolinsky        2696        2615
GM Alexander Ivanov        2678        2570
GM Joel Benjamin           2675        2570
GM Boris Gulko             2675        2610
GM Sergey Kudrin           2669        2580
GM Patrick Wolff           2665        2590
GM Roman Dzindzichashvili  2653        2565
GM Yasser Seirawan         2642        2605
GM John Fedorowicz         2641        2560
GM Larry Christiansen      2635        2625
GM Michael Rohde           2638        2585
GM Michael Rohde           2638        2585
GM Walter Browne           2618        (***)
IM Igor Ivanov             2616        (***)
GM Nick DeFirmian          2614        2570
IM Alex Sherzer            2604        (***)

(*)  : According to Hanon W. Russell's post

(**) : As of 7/92

(***): < 2560. Unfortunately, I only have the ratings of the ~100
       best players (2560+)

-- 
{\O}yvind.    (oyvind@nta.no)

  -- Beware of the quantum duck. Quark! Quark! Quark! --
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:21:26 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <2611@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> rgp@mpd.tandem.com (Ramon Pantin) writes:
>There have been LOTS of chess players with more interesting 
>chess production than Fischer's, quite a few of them never became
>world champions.  Players are remembered by their games, the number
>of tournaments that they completely dominated, the years where they
>had complete domination of the chess scene. 

I'd be interested to see your list of "quite a few" non-champions
who did this at all, let alone more than Fischer.  Please also include
the tournaments they dominated and the years in which they had
domination of the chess world.

As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of players who ever had
"complete domination", all champions: Morphy, Capablanca, Alehkine, 
Tal (very briefly), Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov.  I suppose Lasker 
might be added to this list, but I don't personally think so.

Other players have had great tournaments, but that's not enough.

>                                          Fischer only reached that
>level in the candidates matches and in the world championship match.

Not true at all. Fischer sparkled occasionally throughout the early
60s, having the odd poor result due to immaturity, and then really
dominated virtually everything he participated in after 1966.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138            
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: Re: FS level of chess
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:08:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.054528.26414@cis.uab.edu> Kenneth Sloan,
sloan@cis.uab.edu writes:

  >Personally, I doubt that it is possible to estimate chess strength "by
  >concensus".  I'm not aware of even an attempt to construct and test
such
  >a rating system.  If anyone knows of such a beast, I would be very
  >interested in hearing about it.  If anyone would like to try it - I'd
be
  >happy to contribute a sampling of games played at a wide range of
  >official ratings.  I would be *very* impressed if anyone could take 10
  >games (say, at 100 point "current rating" intervals") and correctly
rank
  >order them.  

If and when the perfectly playing chess computer becomes available, it
could analyze each move and assign some value to them.  It may be
possible then to deduce playing strength by applying a defined function
on these values.

This is not rating by consensus, but something similar anyway.  One could
approximate the above approach by taking, for example, Informant games
annotated by GMs, assigning values to the supposedly strong (!), weak
(?), doubtful (?!), and so on, moves, then calculating a final value
based on these numbers.  I wonder if such a method would yield consistent
results.

Something to think about.

   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: amb@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU (andrew m. boardman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer in the News?  Where?
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:12:03 GMT

I usually get my news from the BBC, but I've heard *nothing* about the
Spassky match.  Is it just not news outside of the US and the chess
world, or is it not being reported for reasons having to do with them
violating UN sanctions or somesuch?

(I've got access to all the game scores and analysis I could ever want on
the games; I'm just curious about the politics surrounding the story, and
more information on/transcripts of Fischer's amazing diatribes.  If
someone could point me in the direction of anything substantial that's
shown up in print about this side of things, I'd be appreciative...)

cheers,
andrew
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Longevity of Lasker
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:58:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.041623.7851@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
|> In article <9210121917.AA07927@hplwk.hpl.hp.com> albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert) writes:
|> >
|> >Just speculation, but there does seem to have been a big gap between
|> >Lasker and Capablanca.  Lasker remained champion into his 60's, not
|> >so much out of domination, as from a dearth of competition.
|> 
|> Hey, hey! One of the most famous games of all times is Lasker - Capablanca
|> from 1915. Lasker had been champion for 21 years, but still looked very
|> impressive.


	I think you mean 1914.  Still, if Capa were not around Lasker would
	have remained champion until circa 1925.  He was still clearly
	better than Alekhine in 1924.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer/Spassky: Will they really collect the prize money?
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:11:17 GMT
Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com
Distribution: rec
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA

Given the current uncertainty regarding the stability of the remnant
Yugoslavian nation accompanied by international sactions, do people
really think that either Fischer or Spassky will collect their share
of the reported US$5 * 10^6 prize fund?

If the money already exists somewhere as cash in a bank, couldn't it
be liable for seizure if located outside Yugoslavia?  If it is
unattachable, could it be exchanged or converted into something the
match participants can spend in their own countries?  (What are the
home countries anyway?  Fischer may never return to the United States,
and officials in France are reported to be none too happy about their
adopted son Boris playing in Yugoslavia in spite of a general EC ban.)
What if the sponsor of the match has a change of mind and decides not
to pay?  I don't see any reasonable chance for legal action by either
player to force collection as neither appears to have any real
backing by their home countries.  If the fund is currently made up
from Yugoslavian gold deposits (as reported by some), will the
Yugoslavian government consent to the exit of (even private) reserves
from the country?

And what of the Yugoslavian government itself with respect to taxes
and confiscation?  If they are unimpressed by current international
condemnation about their civil war, then I doubt if they will worry
about the public opinion drop if they spring a surprise income tax of
ninety nine percent on chess championship match players.

 [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == (508) 294-3484              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Championship Games 13-18
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:45:17 GMT

Paul A. Lane writes:

	What the devil is Smythescript?

Better ask:

	Who the hell is Col. Sicherman?

							Fido

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tycchow@athena.mit.edu (Timothy Y Chow)
Subject: Kudos to David Fry!
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:10:14 GMT

I think David Fry deserves a standing ovation for his up-to-the-minute
coverage of the F-S match!

Tim Chow
From: empcomm@empserv.Corp.Sun.COM (Chet Anderson - Emp. Services)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 13 Oct 1992 18:53:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: empserv.corp.sun.com


As a novice, I've been confused by games where one player resigns
because he's a pawn or two down.  I realize that that's usually
sufficient to win at the master level, but at my level, the game
ain't over til it's over.  If I blunder away my queen, what's to
stop my opponent from doing the same?

Seriously, if one player is better than the other, and gets an
advantage, they shouldn't be offended if their opponent doesn't
recognize the position as lost as quickly as they do.  After all,
if they were so good at recognizing positions, they wouldn't be losing.


Chet

chet.anderson@corp.sun.com
From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Richter, but not Rauzer, Question
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:26:42 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

IMHO, in the Rauser 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cd 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6

6. Bg5 e6 7. Ndb5?! is not well motivated; the continuation 

7...a6 8. Bf6 gf 9. Nd4 lands black in a Pelikan-type position without

any hole on d5, and with easy development in view.  However, I think

that the 'gambit' 7...Be7 8. Bf6 Bf6?? 9. Nd6+ lands black in a 

very dubious situation, and worse yet, there was no reason for it.

I am sure that if I checked the ChessBase opening disks, I could find

7. Ndb5, but I'm not near them right now.

-mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: STOP BASHING ALEKINE
From: rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:07:44 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct12.200606.23866@u.washington.edu>
cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
>In <1992Oct12.110653.23931@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mapmef@gdr.bath.ac.uk (M E
>Fletcher) writes:
>>Staunton always seems to get a terrible press (in the US?! :-) ) and you
>>might try reading the Oxford Companion to Chess for a more objective
>>account.
>
>I can't imagine calling the Oxford Companion to Chess "objective."  Just read
>what it has to say about Bobby Fischer.  It portrays him in a very bad light.
>Of course, much of what it says is correct, but hardly objective.

Hell, forget about being objective, I'll settle for correctness.

Rujith de Silva.
Carnegie Mellon.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Subject: Re: Fischer's Knights
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:50:06 GMT

wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta) writes:


>Is it just my imagination, or has anybody else been noticing
>how often Fischer is keeping his Knights together in most of
>the games so far?  It's as if Rain man were playing...

>And he also seems to want to Castle as rapidly as humanly
>possible.

And the utter disregard he seems to exhibit on occasion for his bishops.
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 18 moves 1-20
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:57:56 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 18:03 GMT
   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. d4 d5
   2. c4 dxc4
   3. Nf3 a6
   4. e3 Nf6
   5. Bxc4 e6
   6. 0-0 c5
   7. dxc5 Qxd1
   8. Rxd1 Bxc5
   9. Nbd2 0-0
   10. a3 b5
   11. Be2 Bb7
   12. b4 Be7
   13. Bb2 Nbd7
   14. Rac1 Rfc8
   15. Nb3 Rxc1
   16. Rxc1 Rc8
   17. Rxc8+ Bxc8
   18. Nfd4 Nb8
   19. Bf3 Kf8
   20. Na5 Bd6
Date: Sunday, 11 Oct 1992 14:20:55 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
 <1992Oct9.200627.23168@midway.uchicago.edu>
 <1992Oct10.153244.10434@uoft02.utoledo.edu>

there seems to be an attitude of "fischer's opponents get sick because
fischer's incredible desire to win every game wears them out..."

gimme a break.

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.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: STOP BASHING ALEKINE
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:00:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.214138.10452@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>about the only TRUE champion when it came to defenses was william
>steinitz. he used to risk his title any time any place to anybody
>who was a legitimate contender. he was a real sportsman.
>
How about Euwe?  He offered Alekhine a rematch after only a year, and then
said he lost to a superior oppenent.  That's a chess first, especial when
you consider how most champions act (Staunton, et al).  He may have been
the weakest of the World Champs, but in manners, he is in a class by himself.

>
>don wedding
>
-T

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: F-P gossip
Organization: Dept.Medical Cybernetics&Artificial Intelligence,Univ.Vienna,Austria,Europe
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:11:42 GMT

From the Austrian newspaper "Der Standard" (translation by me).

It is said that Fischer will play the best female player of the world, the 
Hungarian Judit Polgar, in December in Monte Carlo. Her father/trainer confirmed
to the Hungarian press agency MTI that a Dutch sponsor is providing a million
Dollars for the match. A yugoslawian bank wants to contribute another 1.5 million
Dollars. This is the sum that goes to the winner of the match.

Sounds pretty official!??

Does anyone know if Fischer has said anything about this?

					--- Juffi


-- 
Johannes Fuernkranz                                    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5320652(Fax)
Schottengasse 3, A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe     juffi@ai.univie.ac.at 
--------------- "Life is too short for Chess." -- Byron -----------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:24:13 GMT

Sven Hauptfeld writes:
>Nobody has so far posted a viable model of how a deflationary mechanism could
>sustain itself in a large pool for a long time.

OK, I'll try to explain this one more time:

1. Chess is a game of skill, so the average beginner is weaker
   than the average experienced player.  This will be true from
   now to eternity no matter how big the rating pool is.

2. Strong players at any time T will have higher ratings than weak
   players at time T.  This will also be true forever and no matter
   how big the rating pool is.

Thus, the beginners entering the rating pool today will be weaker
and lower rated than the experienced players who are leaving
the rating pool today through death or retirement.  Tomorrow's
beginners will be weaker and lower rated than the experienced
players leaving tomorrow, and the beginners entering the rating
pool 500 years from today will be weaker and lower rated than
the experienced players who'll be quitting 500 years from today.

Since the retiring players leaving the pool have higher average
ratings than the beginners entering the pool, we have more points
going out of the pool than going in.  No matter how large the
rating pool is, if you remove more than you put in, you're going
to have deflation (unless you put in something like bonus points/
rating floors, etc. to pump in new points and counteract this natural
deflation.)

That's as clear as I can make it.  If you still don't understand,
you'll have to read Elo's book.

Bradley