HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thornley@nano.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer,news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Keywords: checkers, shogi, othello, hex, etc.
Date: 22 Aug 92 06:36:10 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <darse.714354066@silver-vly> darse@cs.UAlberta.CA (Darse Billings) writes:
>[I'd like a newsgroup for games of strategy.]
>
>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
>
Sounds good to me (I probably won't read it, but that's beside the point),
but I think rec.games.strategic will attract such games as Advanced Third
Reich and World in Flames like candles attract moths.  Remember, it's not
what *you* think of as a game of strategy, it's what the weregamers think
of as strategy.  Even if 99% of the people on the net think Go Moku is a
typical game of strategy, at least 95% of the wargamers will think it's
effectively rec.games.war.  Unless you want to be continually posting and
emailing "Take it to rec.games.board", with partial success, *don't* use
this name.  It's asking for trouble.

I would propose rec.games.abstract as an alternative title, since none of
the games you mentioned are representations of anything in the real world.
This will keep us wargamers off the group, and let you discuss Shogi and
various versions of Checkers as much as you want.

Followups, of course, to news.groups.

DHT
From: trt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Tom Truscott)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Checkers match
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:57:23 GMT
Organization: IBM RTP

>I thought checkers was solved. Is it not?

Checkers is most definitely not solved.
Chinook is easily the best computer checkers program that has ever existed,
yet it can lose whether going first or second.

Most people can name a world-class chess player,
yet few people can name *any* tournament checkers player,
let alone the world checkers champion (who has been champion for *decades*).
Jonathan Schaeffer even had difficulty locating
the American Checkers Federation.
Lack of information about the game has allowed for many misconceptions
about computer checkers to continue.

======================
Here are some true statements:

1.  Checkers it not solved.  It is not yet known whether the going first
wins, going second wins, or no one wins.

2.  There has never (before Chinook) been a World, U.S.,
or even U.S. state checkers champion (in title or in effect).

3.  Arthur Samuel (IBM, then Stanford) wrote a checkers program that about
thirty years ago defeated the Connecticut (US) *Blind* Checkers Champion.
This program, which pioneered many techniques including "learning",
was a great inspiration to AI researchers.
The belief that rapid progress would continue
no doubt resulted in some of the misconceptions.

4.  Chinook has won a game against the World Checkers Champion,
the first such victory ever in the game of checkers.
========================

Since the match is currently even, I would suspect that Marion
Tinsley will start to pull ahead as he learns the program's
strategic weaknesses.  Or perhaps Tinsley, who is getting old,
will become fatigued.  Who knows?!

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Chinook
is that soon it may be able to solve the game of checkers.
Chinook has been computing a huge "solved endgame" book,
and is also building up a list of "solved" positions
that can be reached by a deep search from the initial position.
When this happens the misconceptions will become the truth!
What is the status of this effort?

Tom Truscott
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Gligoric 6.5-1.5 (Blitz) ?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 12:47:15 GMT

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
>expect, offhand, that RJF would win every game?

The last FIDE rating list I've seen has Gligoric at 2465.  What would Fischer's
performance rating be (for 6.5-1.5)?

I would really like to hear anything that's known about the games.  What
openings were played?  Are any part of the scores going to be available?

Ed Hummel
From: lumme@sara.cc.utu.fi (Mikael Lumme)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Users vs MChess
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:52:18 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland

In the game Users vs MChess the move of the
MChess is 35. -  Qf1

 Game #2 so far:       1  e4    e5     13  O-O-O Na6   25  Rxf8+  Kxf8
                       2  f4    ef     14  Nd4   Ng3   26  Qc2    Kg8
 8 - - Q - - b k -     3  Nf3   d6     15  Bb5   Qe5   27  Qf5    g3
 7 - - p - r - - p     4  d4    g5     16  Rhe1  Nc5   28  Qd7    b5
 6 p - - p - - - -     5  h4    g4     17  Nb3   Nxb3  29  a3     b4
 5 - - - P - - - -     6  Ng1   f5     18  cb    a6    30  axb4   Qe7
 4 - P - - - - - P     7  Bxf4  fe     19  Bd3   Bf5   31  Qg4    Qe3
 3 - P N - - - p -     8  Nc3   Nf6    20  Bb1   Rae8  32  Qd7    Re7
 2 - P K R - - P -     9  d5    Bg7    21  Bf4   e3    33  Qc8+   Bf8
 1 - - - - - q - -    10  Nge2  O-O    22  Bxe3  Bxb1  34  Kc2    Qf2+
   a b c d e f g h    11  Qd2   Nh5    23  Kxb1  Nf1   35  Rd2    Qf1
                      12  Bg5   Qe8    24  Rxf1  Qxe3

If you want to be in on the vote for the next move,
send your suggestion (along with any comments 
that you may have) to me.  On Thursday, I will 
send copies of everyone's  suggestions and comments 
to everyone on the participants list.  
It is fine with me if a person wants to be in on the 
discussion without making an initial vote.  He or she just 
has to send me a note indicating this.

If you are participating for the first time in game #2,
Please include some indication of your chess playing strength.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: KQRKQ
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:51:58 EDT
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1331@rand.mel.cocam.oz.au>
shaneb@auzodt3.mel.cocam.oz.au (Shane Booth) writes:
>
>Does anyone have access to the optimal KQRKQ line from a maximin position?
>I understand it is 60 moves under the conversion metric, and I think 67
>moves under the ultimate metric.  I'd love to see it if you have either.

The person to ask about this is Ken Thompson, who first generated these lines.
The 67-move longest mate was printed in EG 83 about five years ago.  The
starting position is:  White Ka8, Qh8, Rb8;  Black Kg6, Qa4.  White is in
check, and remains in check for the first 54 moves, his King carefully
stepping this way and that until a couple of Rook interpositions are
achieved.  With the Rook at d5, White finally manages to interpose his
Queen at e5, whereupon Black trades Queens and gtes mated in the resulting
KRK endgames; presumably he could keep the Queens on the board for a few
more moves, at the cost of getting mated sooner.  About the only memorable
thing about this 54-move near-perpetual check is a stalemate trick at about
move 45: with White Ke4 and Rd5, Black plays Qf5+ and White must respond
Kd4 (R:f5?).  No, I'm not about to transcribe all 67 moves and equi-optimal
alternatives from that EG issue.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
From: augsburg@marble.rtsg.mot.com (Leonard Augsburger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess Chow Review
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:04:09 GMT
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)




Mark Ginsburg at mginsbur@option.stern.nyu.edu is offering free
sample copies of Chess Chow so I decided to check it out.

While I will not give an exhaustive review here are a few quick
impressions -

* Chow does not seem to be affected by any commercial interests
as are certain other chess periodicals.  As far as I can tell,
the editors are pretty much calling everything as they see it.

* Chow seems to contain a lot of inside jokes but I think after
reading a few issues and understanding what was going on that
this sort of material would probably be all the more amusing.

* Chow doesn't have a problem with either insulting or complementing
the competition.  The issue I read contained both.     

* Chow is published from the center of American chess, Manhattan.
This doesn't seem to affect the editorial content - but I like the 
idea that they are trying to make a go of it in New York. 

* Chow tries to incorporate a lot of comedy while not compromising 
serious chess analysis - if you want pure analysis go for Inside
Chess - and if you can't have fun doing something, what's the point?

* The sample copy I got contained a full page photograph of the
editor (Joel Benjamin) with his trophy from the American Open.  I
thought that was a bit self serving.  I'd rather read an entertaining
article than stare at a picture of the editor.  

Overall I would say that this is worth subscribing to.  I believe
the current rate is $25/year (6 issues).
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu
Subject: Re: Girls
Organization: Gallaudet University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:31:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.163152.6197@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, gene@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Gene E. Johannsen) writes:
> 
> Okay, there's this girl whom I desperately like (the whole thing is rather
> sick, actually) and we get together and play chess every once in a while
> and I wind up beating her easily.
> 
> Needless to say, and I know I'm not the only one who experiences this,
> but this does not make for harmony.
> 
> But, she has expressed a desire to improve.  Or at least she started talking
> to me about what she thought she was having problems with.  (I don't know if
> it was a desperate plea for help or if she was just making conversation until
> I went away)  Anyway, her problem is (say it with me) tactics.  She has 
> problems visualizing moves.  Looking one move ahead is difficult for her.
> 
> So my question to you is, do you know any good but basic (BASIC) books on
> tactics?  She needs a gentle introduction, in order for her to maintain
> interest.  If it gets too hard too fast, its all over.  And not a children's
> book, either.  That would be bad, too.
> 
> Anyway, the whole point is that we are going to be parting soon (perhaps
> forever) and I want to leave her with some gifts (I am just, like, so
> sentimental).  I think she really likes chess, so I want to get her a good
> book or two.
> 
> Thanks,
> gene
========
Sounds like a good way to start a flame war... I'm not sure if she's a real 
beginner but I think one way to learn tactics is to start with a simple 
opening book. I'm talking simple... like one by Fred Reinfeld. Other good 
books are ones by Horowitz.  

Another "gift type book" of the simple variety is "the best short games of 
chess." or maybe the 1,000 best short games of chess. I forget who wrote it 
but browse around. it's in paper back.  all of the games are 20 moves or 
less and there's a little introduction and chess lore with each one of 
them.  A fun book, not too taxing if she hasn't gotten the fever. 

As for your parting, I recommend postal chess...

rlwilliams@gallua
From: dalex@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (DAVID ALEXANDER : FOURTH)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Rich Scott - Rob Buchner's ladder
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:31:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: elaine.dalex.12
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa


Obituarys:

What the hell happened to Rich. Played 4 moves against him yesterday and has 
since disappeared - this is very unlike the man who is currently playing 27 
postal games simultaneously.
 
Alas poor Rich I knew him not at all. So this is in fond memory of the 
ascii board brud.

Survived by vbk, ray, pjl, tou, cva, jlw, kim, shm, ulf, jrq, rmc, peg, aph, 
fhm, drw, jwa, bry, bll, geu, mud, mjl, mrk, wrp, fig, sho, bat.



  Get back on your PC you lazy loafer.



                               ______
                             /        \   
                            |   RIP    |
                            |          |
                            | Richard  |
                            |  Scott.  |
                            |__________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Kathy Watts)
Subject: Re: Man vs Computer Checkers Championship
Summary: Winning now seems to be the goal  
Keywords: stamina, sport  
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:44:09 GMT

I see a new trend developing here.  Perhaps Tingley didn't realize that the
match would become an endurance contest, rather than a test to see whether he
or Chinook played checkers better.  But if Chinook wins on endurance, Schaeffer
will have no victory at all...better to slow the match down a bit and keep
focused on its purpose.

I hope that this suggestion is acted upon.

In Albuquerque last November, the panel discussion on the future of computer
chess brought out some interesting statements by Murray Campbell on behalf of
the Deep Thought team.  While some panelists were consumed by scientific or
artistic goals, DT is being optimized to try to defeat GMs.  So Murray
explained that one of their tasks is to analyze GM games and find the types of
positions in which DT could get them to go wrong - rich, complex tactical
position.  DT, of course, may be able to out-calculate GMs in these positions
often enough to win games - winning matches will depend upon bringing these
positions about frequently.

Murray was challenged by another panelist for expressing an idea which was the
very opposite of the goal of chess as an art: simplicity, or elegance.  To
which he replied, "This isn't about art, it's about winning!"  (Forgive me if
I've lost something in my paraphrase - it's been 10 months.)

I expect to see a paper in the ICCA journal entitled "Chess as Sport" or,
if Chinook simply plays Tinsley to exhaustion, "Checkers as Sport."  Although,
in fairness, there is a big difference between the DT strategy outlined above
and simply tiring out the opponent by denying adequate rest to the human
between games.

My point is really that winning has replaced solving as the goal.  A long time
ago, winning looked a way of measuring progress toward solving chess with a
machine; now that winning against the world champion seems possible, we need to
be clear on whether the initial goal is still being pursued.

Hal Bogner
From: loon@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (LOON M J)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess Program?
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:43:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: underdog.loon.27
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Undergrads).

>You need to tell us what PC.  You mean an 8088, no Turbo or anything?
>And what is "fairly strong"?  Do you have a rating?  You want something
>rated at least 200 points above you.  On an 8088 with TinyTurbo, Zarkov
>2.6 is probably playing at about 2000.  Without a TinyTurbo?  A wild
>guess: 1700.

And then how would you say Zarkov would fair on an AT 286, 16 MHz (which I 
have), and for interest's sake, a 386 25 MHz???

And how does Zarkov compare with MChess and others? 


--
Marc Loon <loon@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>
Student No: 8807871/X (just thought you'd want to know)
University of the Witwatersrand
Johannesburg

Conversation: a voice competition between two people
in which the one taking a breath is called the listener.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: US Open
Keywords: computers, freedom of choice
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:32:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.182327.17975@sco.com> richardr@sco.COM (Richard Robinson) writes:

>And, if there aren't enough tournaments of 'your kind' in your area,
>organize, organize, organize. There are always people willing to
>criticize the way things are being done.  There are only a few who are
>willing to put out the actual effort to change things.

In this case, criticizing is the appropriate effort.  If you organize
tournaments, then you cannot reasonably and fairly compete in them, so
the go-organize-your-own argument does not address the desire to play
in tournaments.

>I agree with Eric Schiller, why are people so afraid of choice?

This is a crock.  People want to retain choice, and USCF is taking it
away.  TDs today can choose to include or to exclude computers.
Players today can choose whether or not to play computers when they are
included.  In the future, TDs can still choose, but players have no
choice.  Get it?  That's a reduction in choice.  People are fighting to
keep from losing choice.  Or, if you prefer, USCF is forcing players to
make their choices not at the game level but at the tournament level,
which is a reduction in precision of choice.

--Jim
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6337 rec.games.go:1654 rec.games.board:8103 rec.games.programmer:3579
From: schraudo@cs.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Awari? (Re: rec.games.strategic)
Keywords: checkers, shogi, othello, hex, etc.
Date: 22 Aug 92 04:37:26 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.chess

darse@cs.UAlberta.CA (Darse Billings) writes:

>Awari is one of a family of games, called Mancala, which has more than
>1000 variants.  Awari is common in Africa, and is nicely described in
>articles [1] and [2].

Also known as: Kalah, Kalaha, Owari, Owerri, "African Bean Game", etc.

-- 
  Nicol N. Schraudolph, CSE Dept.  |
  Univ. of California, San Diego   |
  La Jolla, CA 92093-0114, U.S.A.  |
  nici%cs@ucsd.{edu,bitnet,uucp}   |   (this mind intentionally left blank)
From: mginsbur@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Gligoric 6.5-1.5 (Blitz) ?
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:19:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: option.28563
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Geez, Gligoric is only about a million years old.  Wouldn't you
expect, offhand, that RJF would win every game?

Let's put RJF instead in a blitz match against Ivan Sokolov, for
example, and see what happens. 

Wondering about RJF-Gligoric results is like speculating on how
Geller or Smyslov would do about now.  The 'match' sounds more
like publicity, not a seriously contested match.

BTW, how much sporting opposition can a very lazy Spassky really offer?

Just wondering.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: "lisa powell" <lisa.powell@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: opening query
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:27:54 EST
Reply-To: "lisa powell" <lisa.powell@canrem.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Looking for a Trends type book on openings with 1.g3. MCO 11 calls this
the King's fianchetto opening. Batsford 2 calls it a
Benko-Bilek-Barczay opening. IM Lawrence Day calls it a deferred Bird,
with these opening moves (for example):

 1.g3   d5
 2.Bg2  Nf6
 3.f4   g6

and:

 1.g3   d5
 2.Bg2  Nf6
 3.d3   e6
 4.f4   b6

I fed these two games into ChessBase 4, did a search mask of my
mainbase file, and came up with 68 games -- though some of that
code went back to Anderson's 1.a3 games with Morphy, and some
1.b3 games.

This all started with some chess friends telling me I was crazy to
play a 1.Nf3 KIA line, because Black can reply with a QID line --
though Smith and Hall, in their book on the KIA seem to think that
black defensive line does *not* put the 1.Nf3 KIA out of business.

Whaddya think?

Internet: lisa.powell@canrem.com . CRS . 71036,36 Compuserve
   
 * PMDBM  V1.75b #3 *
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computer Ratings/Versions
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:29:49 GMT
	<1992Aug13.175408.6815@cis.uab.edu>
Organization: CSUA/UCB
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hyatt@cis.uab.edu's message of Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:54:08 GMT


    One other point.  A few messages back, someone said they would not mind
    playing a computer, but only without any human intervention at all.  This
    has been done with robot arms.  In 1976 (I believe the year is correct)
    Chess 4.x played David Levy, and 4.x used a huge industrial robot arm to
    move the pieces and punch the clock.  Levy and the machine were in a room
    by themselves.  The Phantom is another example.

The robot method doesn't totally favor the human.  I heard a story
(probably urban myth) about strange behavior in a program that someone
hacked up to control an industrial robot attached to BELLE.  After a
particular important capture, a software bug made the robot crush the
captured piece to powder after removing it from the board!  I
personally would have found that much more unnerving than the snide
kibitzing one hears from Chesster, etc.  (Note: I know, it must have
been an awfully strong robot, or an awfully chintzy chess set).
Makes me want to forgive those obnoxious human opponents who
slam pieces down on the board...
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jlwestm@ptsfa.PacBell.COM (Jeff Westman)
Subject: Re: Girls
Reply-To: jlwestm@PacBell.COM (Jeff Westman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:26:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.163152.6197@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> gene@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Gene E. Johannsen) writes:

;So my question to you is, do you know any good but basic (BASIC) books on
;tactics?  She needs a gentle introduction, in order for her to maintain
;interest.  If it gets too hard too fast, its all over.  And not a children's
;book, either.  That would be bad, too.
;
;Thanks,
;gene

Gene -

An excellent book is "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess."  I don't know the
publisher or date, but it can be found in almost any book store.  It gradually
teaches the person more and more complex positions, starting with "Is this a
pin; can the knight move [pin against a king, for example], forks, and then it
gets into combinations and mates in x moves.  My wife read it twice and
thought it was very helpful.

Regards.
-- 
Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: massengale_m@cubldr.colorado.edu
Subject: Correct Pawn Move?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:21:47 GMT

This is a dumb question (sorry!)

On a opening move, a pawn can move ahead two spaces.  On a capture, the
pawn moves diagonally one space.  On an opening move, can the pawn move
ahead one space, and diagonally one space, to effect a capture?

Thanks for any help!

Melanie

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Subject: Re: US Open
Keywords: computer chess
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca  (justin)
Organization: y
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 05:55:05 GMT


With regards to all this controversey over whether or not computers should
be permitted in tournaments.

I'd like to engage in some light, slightly humourous speculation, which
in 20 or so years may no longer be so very humourous.

Just this -- so what happens in another couple of decades when it
becomes possible to interface computers with the human brain, a'la
William Gibson, and someone can pop a chess program into the side of
their head, which has some astronomical rating?

Does this person play?  Or do they not play?  You can argue that they
are being aided -- but then you can argue the other side by saying
"well, it's a part of him, so why not?"

Ooooh.. I see a major ethical dillema on the horizon.



Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6179 rec.games.go:1585 comp.ai:3133 rec.games.programmer:3476