HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The Fred Countergambit
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:27:18 GMT
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <charles.02la@Celeborn.lvunix.com> Charles@Celeborn.lvunix.com  
(Charles Slade) writes:
>      Hi!
> 
>    I'm new to the group, but I'm wondering if anyone has seen Benjamin's 
>  book of unorthodox openings, more speficaly, the Fred.  This rather 
>  dubious opening arises after 1. e4 f5?! .  Benjamin puts it under the
>  bad chapter (The good, the bad, and the ugly).  The main line he gives 
>  is 1. e4 f5?   2. ef Kf7.  It seems like its there only for commic
>  relief, but I've had considerable success (any success is considerable)
>  with  1. e4 f5!?   2. ef Nf6  in  five and ten minute chess.  If anyone
>  has seen the dubious Fred and has thought anything of it please reply! 
>  By the way, I'm 16 years old and my five minute rating is jumping
>  between 1800 and 1900.  
When Joel Benjamin and I relegate something to the trash heap in
Unorthodox Openings, it is because any opponent who is prepared for
it should chew it up. offhand success against unprepared opponents
may bring a few points, but there are so many other openings in the
book rated "good" or at least "ugly". Why play crap?

Suppose you win. What does it prove? And more importantly,
what do you learn? Playing such moves do not help you 
improve your game and lays no groundwork for future 
improvement, because the structure after 1.e4 f5 2.exf5 is
not similar to those you will encounter in future serious
games.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
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: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Immopar?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:05:05 GMT

I missed the final Immopar (or whatever it is called) results. Could
someone repost them or e-mail them to me?

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: peskin@staff.tc.umn.edu (Yury Peskin)
Subject: Rook ending question
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:38:09 GMT

Hello chess people.  Here is an endgame question for you.

Last Tuesday as White against someone 2150 USCF, I played like an idiot, but
managed to reach the time control and seal a move in the following position:

White Kf4, Rb6, Pf3.
Black Kh6, Rc2, Pg6, h5.

Alas, 45 bad moves was not enough.  I sealed 46 Ra6?  Terrible, 46 Kg3 is a
book draw.  So now Black will play 46 ... Rg2! and promote his h-pawn.  The
other players (USCF 2000-2200) present said White was probably lost.  One
person rated 2300 FIDE did not say anything; was it so bad he would not even
comment??

My thought was "I must get a draw!" (hardly an objective assessment), but how
to do it?  Passive defence with Ra1-h1 was not appealing: even if this led to a
draw, it made no demands on Black, so he could manoeuvre for hours in perfect
safety.  Finally I discovered a more forcing line, and the game resumed:

46 ... Rg2 47 Ra7!? (Forcing Black to carry out his threat of h4-h3-h2-h1Q) h4
48 Ra8 g5 (White intends the same setup in all lines) 49 Kf5 Rg3 50 Rh8 Kg7 51
Rh5 h3 (amusing - Black's rook is now paralyzed) 52 Ke4 Kg6 53 Rh8 g4 (He
admits there is no win) 54 fg4 Rg4 (54 ... Kg5 55 Rg8) 55 Kf3 1/2 : 1/2

Here is my question: did White really have a draw, or was Black's continuation
not the best?

p.s. Where can one find analysis of this ending K+R+g,h pawns vs. K+R+f pawn? 
Levenfish and Smyslov's _Rook_Endings_ has examples with the weaker side's king
not cut off (a draw), and the kings' positions reversed (a win), but not this
king-cut-off position.

Thanks.

-- 
==============================================================
We The Willing, Led By The Unknowing, Are Doing The Impossible
For The Ungrateful.  We Have Done So Much For So Long With So
Little, We Are Now Qualified To Do Anything With NOTHING.
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Exploding the Myth:  GM Benjamin speaks on F-
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:56:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov22.195628.17705
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Nov22.031441.5002@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>I wouldn't be so quick to accuse Fischer of dementia.  He's still
>capable of playing chess at a Grandmaster level.  I don't think one
>could play chess that well with dementia.

I don't think they have much to do with each other.  J. Meises
(Mieses?) played GM-level chess in the early part of this century,
while under the delusion that flies were constantly buzzing around his
head.  He'd ask friends if quiet if they saw them.  He also was
known to run from the building after every move at one particular tournament,
sit in the corner on the floor of the adjancent building, talking to
himself.  He'd get up, run back to the hall, make his move, and
repeat.

Disclaimer: I don't have a source for these stories, but I read them
someplace 10 years ago.  That's the best I can offer. 

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138
From: david_franklin@law.uchicago.edu (David Franklin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Who the hell is Solomon Hecht?
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:22:59 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov15.210520.17630@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:
> 
> I recently read an old 1930 article called "Telling off the World Champion".  It
> struck my as the most anal retentive peice of dogmatic bilge I have ever read.========
> It was meant as a "critique" of Lasker's "Common Sense in Chess".  The article
> takes Laker's five opening principals and proceed to aimlessly nitpick one of
> Lasker's example games under headers like "A Dogma Without Precedent in Chess
> History", "Unspeakable Humiliation for the King's Guard", and "The Black Bandit
> Knight, a Reckless Law-Breaker".  ...
> Did the author, Solomon Hecht, have any merit in the chess world?  Was he some
> expert in another field (a millitary man, I'm thinking) who thought he could
> lend his expertise to an ignorant chess community?  Or was he some crank who
> had an in with a publisher?
> 
> "Anal retentive peice (sic) of dogmatic bilge"?!  Jeez, talk about being 
humor-impaired!  Apparently it's unfortunate that Mr. Hecht lived before 
the advent of smileys :-) :-) :-) with which his piece would otherwise have
been generously interlarded.
(Though Lasker's inclusion of "don't pin a N with B-KN5 before your
opponent has castled" in his Five Commandments is IMHO pretty laughable.)
From: mazzarel@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Name of: 1.Nf3 d5 2.e3 ?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 08:31:00 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wish-bone.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Whimsy

In article <1992Nov15.194305.16036@sophia.smith.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
>Does this opening have a name?
>	1. Nf3	d5
>	2. e3

This is known as the Baker-Wuss Opening.

Ariel
From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Another variant of chess
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:14:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Nov19.031450.9823
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

A friend and I have played this variation on chess with some success.  It's called  
"poker chess".  Each player has a five card hand, and each piece is represented by  
these cards:

Card : Piece
K	K
Q	Q
J-10	R
9-8	B
7-6	N
A-5	P

Each turn, you first play a card, then move a piece that matches the card, and then  
replenish your hand.  But if you are in check, you may play any legal move, without  
playing a card.  If you have a card for which you have no pieces, then that card  
may not be played (variation: it must be placed face up on the table).  Stalemate  
loses for the player to move.

--
CONFIG.DAT not found.  Reboot universe?
From: lshiu@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Ling-po Shiu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Slav Exchange
Summary: follow-up
Keywords: Slav Exchange
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:10:11 GMT

In article <41137@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, lshiu@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Ling-po Shiu) writes:
> 
> In the following line of Slav Exchange:
> 
> 1. d4 d5  2. c4 c6  3. cxd cxd  4. Nf3 Nf6  5. Nc3 Nc6
> 6. Bf4 Bf5  7. e3 e6  8. Bb4 Nd7  9. Qa5 Rc8
> 

Sorry about the typos. Should be 8. Bb5 Nd7  9. Qa4 Rc8

> Black loses a pawn after
> 
> 10. Bxc6 Rxc6  11. Qxa7

If 11. ... Qc8, then 12. Qa5 Ra6  13. Qc7  White keeps the pawn.
Is there improvement for Black?


Ling-po Shiu
From: rryan@panix.com (Rob Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: USCF Rules
Keywords: uscf rules changes updates
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:32:05 GMT
Organization: Panix, NYC

I recently got the USCF's "Official Rules of Chess" and it came with a list
of changes and corrections.  The first correction says

  Page 9.  In rule I.8.E omit "When determining ... until" and replace with
  "only".

Rule I.8.E is:

  When determining whether the prescribed number of moves has been made in
  the allotted time, the last move is not considered complete until after the 
  player has punched or stopped his clock.  ...

I'm confused.  If I replace the entire phrase "When determining ...
until" with "only", I get a sentence fragment.  Does anyone know what
this rule is supposed to be?  All the other changes were pretty clear,
but this first one was a little confusing.  Am I missing something
obvious?

Thanks.

-- 
 Rob Ryan
    Internet:   rryan@panix.com or Robert_Ryan@brown.edu
    Bitnet:     ROBR@BROWNVM
    Compu$erve: 70324.227@compuserve.com
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Strength
Date: 23 Nov 1992 15:44:36 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <1992Nov22.233713.6015@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov22.204435.29696@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov18.222450.21928@midway.uchicago.edu>
|> >hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
|> >
|> >> >  I wonder if pressure
|> >> >may have caused some mistakes??
|> >> 
|> >> What f* pressure? Would YOU feel pressure if you were guaranteed $1,333,333.33
|> >> for just playing until the end?
|> >
|> >Actually, Spassky got $1.65 million for losing, while Fischer picked up
|> >$3.35 million for winning.

It all really depends on how the players think about it.  For
example, you could (putting yourself in the shoes of one of the
players) think to yourself "I get $3.35M if I win, but I still get
$1.65M if I 'lose,' so what's the big deal?"  Or you could think to
yourself "I already have $1.65M in the bag.  They can't take that
away from me.  That's in the past, for all intents and purposes. NOW,
if I win this match, they'll pay me $1.7M, but if I lose I get
nothing!"  In effect, you could say that they are paying each player
$1.65M to show up and play the match and that the winner of the
match gets $1.7M (or it's split in the case of a draw).  We don't
really know what each player was thinking to himself during the
match, so we have no way of knowing if he put pressure on himself
to win or not.

-Andy


-- 
T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: "gordon mazur" <gordon.mazur@canrem.com>
Subject: women in chess
Reply-To: "gordon mazur" <gordon.mazur@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:47:53 EST

Original Message from:George Phillies
 <1e382aINNcln@bigboote.WPI.EDU>

GDP>    Subject: Immopar

GDP>By my count, we have a tournament with 10 of the 11 highest-ranked
GDP>male players in the world, and the highest-ranked female player
GDP>(at 50-75 points below any of her competitors).  One could argue
GDP>that this is a reasonable argument for accepting the notion of separate
GDP>women's competitions.  (Of course, an extension of this rationale
GDP>leads to large prizes in Class C events, which from the net is
GDP>apparently a peculiarly American innovation.)

Anyone that would argue that would find themselves arguing with the
Polgar's & Pia Cramling amongst others. "Women's chess" should be
abolished. It implies that women cannot compete on a mental level with
men & anyone with that attitude should wake up and take a look at the
calendar. It's 1992 guys!

That there are no women presently in the top ten does not mean that there
never will be. At one time there were no black managers in baseball
because owners thought they just didn't have the smarts to do the job.
Who won the world series this year? The Toronto Blue Jays who are
managed by Cito Gaston. Another myth bites the big one!

Judit may never be world champion, but I bet she makes top ten within
10 years.

---
  SLMR 2.1a  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: ding@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (Howard Ding)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Tournament Report from Berkeley Quads last Saturday, 11/14...
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:13:11 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: wish-bone.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov19.022558.11746@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.004603.23878@pony.Ingres.COM> jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black) writes:
>>
>>...I was the lowest rated player at 1673...
>>...  This meant I would get 2 black's and a white (great). 
>
>This doesn't follow - te TD should have (and probably did) toss for
>colors in the last round of a quad.
Actually, I've been to the Berkeley Quads, and they do NOT
toss for color in the last round, although they obviously 
should.

An amusing thing happened to me there as well.  I was running low
on time (well under a minute) and my opponent still had plenty of
time (over 2 minutes left) _and_ a won position.  When I had 
about ten seconds left, we were in a K(me) vs. K+P position, and
all he had to do was make the standard win by putting his
king in front of the pawn.  Instead, he tried to force a time loss
on my part, let me in front of the pawn, and was quite dissapointed
when I assured the draw by getting my king in front of the pawn and
asking the TD for an adjudication, which was granted after I played a
few more moves showing knowledge of the drawing technique.  At the end
of the game I had 3 seconds left in SD.

Moral: If you can win without relying on the clock, why not do it?

Howard Ding
ding@math.berkeley.edu



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo)
Subject: Re: psychology
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University Mathematics Department
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:00:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.045139.24140@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu
(Paul Epstein) writes:  [I am replying to only some of the questions below.]

>I wonder whether there are meaningful tests for assessing "chess talent",
>or indeed whether there is such a thing.  

I've wondered about this for quite some time.  My guess is that being good
at mental deductive reasoning is a major plus, as is an extremely good
memory.  I feel these are actually essential at some point, certainly by
grandmaster level.  When I'm out of the "opening" (translation:  once I no
longer "remember" what I can do reasonably safely), I feel as 
though each position is like one of the problems from the analytical section
of the GRE.  That is the closest I've ever seen to thinking that resembles
chess-playing.  The entire "pruning" algorithm seems much like what I do
when solving those "match all four people with their last names, with their
home towns, and with their favorite lunches" problems.  I would say that
anyone who can solve those problems quickly in their heads, and who has a
good memory, can become a VERY good chess player.

>I heard that grandmasters are very good at mental arithmetic.  Is this true?

I have no idea.  I would guess there are exceptions.  I know that there are
some extremely brilliant mathematicians who are terrible at arithmetic.

>Is skill at arithmetic a good predictor for chess talent?

I don't think so.  I used to be very, very good at mental arithmetic, but I
don't have the kind of chess talent I've seen in some people who are terrible
with mental arithmetic.  I think that, because of the need to be familiar with
such a vast number of openings and situations, chess is best learned at a very
early age, when the mind can perform "rote memory" much more easily.  Thus,
any young child with a good grasp of deductive reasoning (that weeds out most
people) should, I think, be able to become good at chess.  Of course, chess
requires patience and a long attention span, two attributes not common among
children.  :-)  

David Caraballo
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 23 Nov 1992 09:29:36 CST
From: Howard Wachtel <U13054@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Slav Exchange
 <1992Nov18.173213.21332@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>

In article <1992Nov18.173213.21332@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) says:
>
>>> In the following line of Slav Exchange:
>>>
>>> 1. d4 d5  2. c4 c6  3. cxd cxd  4. Nf3 Nf6  5. Nc3 Nc6
>>> 6. Bf4 Bf5  7. e3 e6  8. Bb4 Nd7  9. Qa5 Rc8
>>>
>>
>>Sorry about the typos. Should be 8. Bb5 Nd7  9. Qa4 Rc8
>>
>>> Black loses a pawn after
>>>
>>> 10. Bxc6 Rxc6  11. Qxa7
>>
>>If 11. ... Qc8, then 12. Qa5 Ra6  13. Qc7  White keeps the pawn.
>>Is there improvement for Black?
>>
>>
>>Ling-po Shiu
>
>After 13. .... Qa8 (threatening .... Rc6) 14. Ne5 Nxe5
>15. Bxe5 Rc6 16. Qb8+ Qxb8+ 17. Bxb8 Ba3 18. bxa3 Rxc3
>
>Black looks in great shape to me.  [some deleted...]

   GM Glenn Flear quotes the analysis mentioned by Bradley in his
book _The Slav for the Tournament Player_, but he adds that Yusupov
in ECO (vol. D p. 76 note 57) gives 15...Bb4 and assesses the position
as slightly better for Black.  Flear agrees that 15...Bb4 is preferable
to 15...Rc6.
________________________________________________________________
Howard K. Wachtel              University of Illinois at Chicago
U13054@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU        Phone (312) 975-7970
From: jpk2581@hertz.njit.edu (joseph p kisenwether apmt stnt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Living Chess
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:58:06 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.


Suppose you're playing a game of living chess where when a peice
moves on to the same square as an enemy peice, in stead of 
capturing that peice, the two people hold some contest (say
a fight to the death) to see who holds the square. You lose
when you're king is beaten in such a contest.

How do your tactics change? How would the opening differ?
If you could rank your team from best to worst fighter, 
who would play what peice?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fischer's Strength
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:24:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.191145.29056@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gzogbi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi) writes:
>
>For those of you who are deriding Fischer's play in his recent rematch
>with Spassky, let me present a sample of "World Championship" caliber
>play from the 1978 Karpov-Kortchnoi match. In game 5, after 54 moves,
>the following position was reached with white to move.
> [diagram deleted to save space]
>    In the game, Kortchnoi played 55. Be4?

Mistakes happen in every WC match. But K-K '78 gave us several important TNs,
most notably Karpov's (actually Zaitsev's) positional piece sac in the Open
Ruy Lopez, and I think also some novelties in the French (I don't know how
important they were, I don't know much about the French). There were several
very interesting games and the overall quality was way above F-S II (although
probably somewhat below F-S I).

> which according to Keene made
>many *amateurs* in the crowd gasp. White mates rather obviously with
>55. Bf7+.  Note that this was the second day of play, after an
>adjournment.

Important info missing: how much time did Korchnoi have? This was 5 moves
before the second time control, and Korchnoi is notorious for getting into
time-trouble. In any case, adjournment is irrelevant: nobody could analyse
15 moves ahead in a middlegame position.

>    It is interesting to note the following facts about the recent F-S
>match:  1. This was the strongest chess match played for 5 million
>dollars :-).

But also the weakest.  :-)

>  2. Each game was worth $166,666.67.

That's only one way of determining the monetary value of the games, and not
a very plausible one. I'd say that half of the games (the draws) were, in the
first approximation, worth zero. But then there could be some second-order
corrections for the psychological effect of missed chances etc.

>  3. Each move was worth
>$3,639.01.

Again oversimplified. Most moves decide nothing.

>    Most GMs haven't made $3,639.01 in a whole event!

Probably not true any more, but it's a good point. 

>  I wonder if pressure
>may have caused some mistakes??

What f* pressure? Would YOU feel pressure if you were guaranteed $1,333,333.33
for just playing until the end?

	Sven
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Strength
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:02:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: uoft02.1992Nov18.170250.54
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

>                                             NM Craig Stauffer [darkhorse]
> 
> P.S. Diagram, spelling and grammar by [duckbill]
> P.S.S. "Those guys are probably eating marinated duckbills and deep-fried
>         Squidfeet." - overheard in a Toledo Chinese restaurant.
                                       ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

Which one? I *LOVE* chinese food and i'll give it a go!

don wedding
toledo, ohio

p.s. when you're from Toledo, you get *REALLY* excited when you're
     city's name is mentioned on a national scale. go figure.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Polgar NOT (yet)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:54:30 GMT

> Ben Henwood writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <1992Nov16.182703.13886@u.washington.edu>
> Posted: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:27:0
>
> Org.  : University of Washington
>
> hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>
> >Could it be that the negotiations broke down because Fischer required that
> >Judith play nude?   :-)
>
> >       Sven
>
> I find this sexist and degrading to women in general and Judit in
> particular.
> Putting the smiley at the end does not negate the negativism and the sexism
> to me; I find it is merely a '90s attempt to make a sexist remark.
>
> Judit is an extremely talented chessplayer.  I'm looking forward to many
> more years of contributions from her.
>
> Ben Henwood
>
> Applied Physics Laboratory / University of Washington
> benwood@u.washington.edu
>
>

Mr.Hauptfelds's remark is disgraceful.
Peter

--

----------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------