HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsteele@almaden.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 6 DRAW complete moves
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:05:55 GMT
Reply-To: dsteele@almaden.ibm.com ()


   
   In the spirit of trying to turn this forum back over 
   to analysis, even though I would prefer it came
   from some highly qualified master, here is my 
   comment on game 6. 
    
   After seeing what occured in the game a possible 
   big error by Spasski was at move 24. Rc7+ 

   Better might be 24. Bxd6 and try to maintain the 
   outside passed pawn. e.g. 24 ... Nxd6   25. Rc7+ Kf6 
   26. Kf1  

   I was amazed that Fischer could draw the position 
   at move 24, down a pawn with the white rook on the 7th
   and a Night vs Bishop in a fairly open position. 
     


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ovel@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Ove Lundberg)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky - Game 4 - the mistake
Keywords: New World Champion
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:36:29 GMT

jb118@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeffrey N. Burch) writes:

.
.
>And I'd claim that Bobby's blunder in the first game against Spassky in 
>the '72 match was worse than his play in game 4 of this match.  
Bobby's "blunder" 29..Bd6xh2, in the position:
White: Kd3, Bc1, Pawns:a3,b5,e3,f2,g2,h2
Black: Kf8, Bd6, Pawns:a7,b7,e6,f6,g7,h7.
The game continued:
30.g3 h5 31.Ke2 h4 32.Kf3 Ke7 33.Kg2 hg 34.fg Bg3 35.Kg3 Kd6
36.a4 Kd5 37.Ba3 Ke4?!(a6!) 38.Bc5 a6 39.b6 f5? (e5!)
and Bobby lost in the 56th move.

In his book "Analysing the Endgame" GM Speelman concludes that,
though bad, 29..Bh2 doesn't lose. Bobby could have drawn with
39..e5!
So Bh2 is not a blunder!
>                                                      Give the 
>man a chance.  If he is truly deserving of a chance to play Kasparov 
>(never mind whether such a match would actually take place), we'll know 
>it by the end of this match...

>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^  Dr. J(effrey Neil Burch)                 jb118@prism.gatech.edu    ^
>^  Georgia Tech Research Institute                                    ^ 
>^  Electro-Optics and Physical Sciences Laboratory                    ^
>^  Atlanta, Ga.                                                       ^
>^  30332                       Inside every large problem is a        ^
>^  404-894-3628              small problem struggling to get out.     ^
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ove Lundberg, Uppsala, Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky - Game 4 - the mistake
Keywords: New World Champion
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:39:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.170901@IASTATE.EDU> haefner@IASTATE.EDU (Ralph I Haefner) writes:
>In article <palane.715900547@vincent2.iastate.edu>, palane@iastate.edu (Paul A.
>Lane) writes:
>> A battle does not make a war, a game does not make a match, an olive does not
>> make a martini . . .
>> 
>
>Once again my fellow cyclone is way off the mark.  The point is that Fischer
>wants to be considered World Champion.  For this to be legitimate he would
>have to play Kasparov.  And the only way to force Kasparov into playing him
>is to so decisively defeat Spassky that there is no question Fischer deserves
>the shot.  The current score  +1 -1 =2 does nothing to show Fischer is 
>deserving of a chance to play Kasparov.
>
>Ralph

I think it is too soon to make a judgement of Fischer's play. There are
several things which complicate matters. First of all, the unknown
variable in the match is the level of Spassky's play. Everyone on
the net seems to dismiss Spassky as a weak/washed up/has been GM. To 
some extent, Spassky has given us reason to believe this in the last few 
years. However, the years in recent memory have seen Spassky with no
will to win, and thus no will to exert himself or his willpower. It
is my contention that a Spassky that _tries_ is significantly
stronger than a "mediocre" GM. If he tries, perhaps he's mid 2600's.
It seems that he is definitely trying in this match.

AS for Fischer's play, I'll qualify game 1 as very high level - 
flashes of brilliance. Game 2 was also a good game for fischer,
although he missed a win in the endgame it would appear. The 3rd
game was completely unimpressive, but it saw an innovation by 
Spassky in the Breyer which seems to solve all of the problems
that Fischer's idea from game 1 presented. And game 4, fischer played
very weak - especially it seems in the early phases of the opening and
early middle game.

So, 2 strong games, 1 mediocre, and 1 bad by the middle-aged boy wonder.
Still too early to tell...


Steve Harrington
Texas A&M University
ICS::knife



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky - Game 4 - the mistake
Keywords: New World Champion
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:09:21 GMT

In article <18ef5qINNsva@agate.berkeley.edu> sachs@tanner.berkeley.edu (Rainer Sachs) writes:
>
>Well, isn't it about time to break off the match and arrange
>a Spassky-Kasparov match immediately?  Consider this:
>Fischer was world champion yesterday - he says so, the net says so,
>even a rich banker says so. That settles that.
>
>Spassky, unlike Kasparov, Short, Anand, Yusupov, ... has beaten
>Fischer.  Thus Spassky is now world champion.  
>Petty rules such as the FIDE uses, and befuddled officials,
>cannot get in the way of this simple and obvious 
>fact.  As world champion, Spassky can play anyone he wants.
>He will make more money off Kasparov than anyone else, and,
>having beaten Fischer, clearly will clean Kasparov's clock.
>I predict a Spassky victory over Kasparov by 10-6.  Will that
>mean Spassky's rating goes above 2700?
>
>:-)

:-)
But Spassky has also lost to Fischer. I haven't. Therefore I am the World
Champion. So I'll play Kasparov, lose 10-0 and obtain the infamous Performance
Rating of (2800-400)=2400!
:-)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: kees@cv.ruu.nl (Kees de Graaf)
Subject: Re: Prononciation Of Names
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:58:25 GMT
Organization: University of Utrecht, 3D Computer Vision Research Group

In <1992Sep10.211132.16337@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:

| In article <1992Sep10.174809.4181@cv.ruu.nl> kees@cv.ruu.nl (Kees de Graaf) writes:
| >In <1992Sep9.082131.117@ipact.com> pals@ipact.com writes:
| >
| >| I remember reading it as "peertz".  
| 
| RIGHT!
| 
| >
| >Peerch (ch as in couch).
| 
| WRONG !  WRONG !  WRONG !

Indeed Sven is right and I'm wrong. It's his language, after all.
But perhaps Jim Coombs made much sense: pronounce it such that the
others know who you mean. (When being in the UK or US I wouldn't
dream of pronouncing Euwe properly).

-- Kees de Graaf, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, kees@cv.ruu.nl
   W: Ke2,Bb2,Nf6. B: Kh8. White mates in <1 move.  ;-)
From: ST702459@brownvm.brown.edu (Jordan Schwartz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Help with esoteric Rule?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:42:44 EDT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

I am not an excellent chess player, so I am not familiar with some of
the finer points of a chess game, and there may be some rules I have
not heard of. The other night, I was playing a game against my Sargon III
chess computer on the Macintosh, and, for probably the first time in
my life, was doing well. It put me in check with its Queen, and I went
to block it/attack its queen by advancing a pawn two spaces (from the
second rank). Imagine my frustration when it did not allow me to do this!
Is it illegal to block check with a two-space pawn advance?  I know that
there are some non-intuitive rules out there (castling through check,
en passant, etc) and I suppose this could be one, but my guess is that
it saw it was losing and cheated (never trust a computer!).

Please: Can anyone set me straight? E-mail me at ST702459@BROWNVM...

Thanks...

Jordan
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: A wacko game
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:02:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

This one is Kuzmin-Dorfman, USSR (zonal) 1978.  It comes from a nice
little book by Amatzia Avni called `Creative Chess' (Pergamon, 1991).

Get a board and play this one out; you won't believe it.

	1 e4 c5  2 Nf3 d6  3 Bb5+ Nc6  4 0-0 B d7  5 Qe2 g6
	6 e5 dxe5  7 Nxe5 Nxe5  8 Qxe5 Bxb5  9 Qxh8 Bxf1  10 Qxg8 Bxg2
	11 Kxg2 Qd5+  12 Kg1 Qg5+  13 Kf1 Qh5  14 Nc3 Qxh2  15 Nd1 Rc8
	16 d3 c4  17 d4 Qh1+  18 Ke2 Qh5+  19 f3 Rc6  20 Nf2 Re6+
	21 Be3 Qh6  22 Ng4 Rxe3+  23 Kf2 Rxf3+  24 Kxf3 Qh3+  25 Kf4 f5
	26 Nf6+ exf6  27 Re1+ Kd7  28 Qf7+ Kc6  29 Qxc4+ Kd6  30 Qe6+ Kc7
	31 Qf7+ Kc6  32 d5+ Kb6  33 Re6+ Ka5  34 Qc7+ Ka4  35 Qc4+ Ka5
	36 Qc7+ Ka4  37 Qc4+ Ka5  38 Qc3+ Qxc3  39 bxc3 Kb5  40 Rxf6 Bh6+
	41 Kf3 Kc5  42 c4 Bg7  43 Re6 Bf8  44 Re8 1-0
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Mark Ginsburg <mginsbur@rnd.stern.nyu.edu>
Subject: let's make a deal
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:13:06 GMT


The poor game Rohde-Malpert has gone through such suffering.

Yet, Monte Hall-type suggestions occur all the time!

Recall that Rohde once attempted to RESIGN against Doug Root.

Root refused (!!), stating that "No, not yet, I might get a more
favorable pairing if this game is a draw."

Rohde says, "Oh, you're offering a draw?"

Root says, "No.  Let me look at the wallchart."

(from Rohde's classic Chess Chow article, "AbNORMal Behavior").

This is funny; Malpert steers Rohde to the wallchart for some gimme-a-
draw talk; Root wants to go to the wallchart without accepting
Rohde's resignation.

So, it's fair to see that Rohde has seen the full spectrum of opponents'
behavior in his long, illustrious career.

Here's another story:

I adjourn against Rohde at the US Junior Invitational 1978.  Rohde says,
"I'll bet you any amount of money I win this!"

Not knowing what was going on, I enlisted Steve Odendahl's help with the
tricky Q+P position.  Odendahl finds a miracle save; the game winds up a 
draw...no bet.

But I guess at adjournment, players have more slack over what they say.
BTW, I think Malpert missed the boat when he said something like
"I'll never offer a GM a draw again."  It's just out of line to follow
a guy around, and talk to him, when you're playing him.

Doesn't matter if the opponent is a GM or a 1000 - it's just bad manners.

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ovel@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Ove Lundberg)
Subject: Re: F-S II, game 3 update (11:03EDT)
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:34:15 GMT

sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:

>.
>.

>Also, does anyone out there with a database know whether this line has 
>been played before, or is Spassky's 16...ed4 an innovation?

The position after 16.Bd2 has been reached in 5 Informator games.
Black played 16..Bg7 in all of them - see game 1.
So 16..ed is new according to Informator, but is it really new Schiller?

>--steve harrington
>--texas a&m university

Ove Lundberg, Uppsala, SWEDEN

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: bwatkins@nyx.cs.du.edu (The God of all machines)
Subject: Re: GAME 5??? WHEN????
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 00:48:32 GMT


Games are played on Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: srivasm@meaddata.com (M. C. Srivas)
Subject: Re: F-S II game 5 comments and analysis
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:59:18 GMT

In article <15001@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
	[ some analysis deleted ]
|> 
|> It's interesting that no one seems to want to bother with analysis of these
|> games, although people don't seem to hesitate to imply that the match is fixed,
|> or that Fischer knows he's going to lose and is doing it for the money, and so
|> on.  Perhaps the heading "recgames.chess" is somewhat misleading...
|> 

I'd too like to see analysis of the games. I am rather bored and tired
of having to wade through articles that speculate
someone-or-the-other's political posturing, their mother;s religion,
whether this is the greatest event in chess, blah blah blah.  Unless
you'd rather wait for Eric Schiller's new book and read it there. Come
on folks, lets start posting about chess again!

Good work, Bruce! and Kenneth Regan! and blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)!
Keep posting your stuff, there is atleast one reader who looks forward
to such articles.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Subject: F-S match: timeouts?
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:17:29 GMT


> The word is that Spassky is ill and considered a postponement.

Are the players allowed timeouts in this match.  If so how many?
From: capsa@igc.apc.org (CAPSA)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: notation.
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:59:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:BuIssv.Bxu@nic.umass.edu:-670939120:cdp:1451600040:000:253
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Sep 13 17:59:00 1992


We may consider also that, since 1 January 1985 (despite the reluctance of the
USCF to enforce the Laws [as opposed to USCF regulations] of chess), the ONLY 
official internationally (FIDE) accepted notation is descriptive.

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mad-2@kub.nl (C. Wekx)
Subject: Re: Pronouncing GMs (was Re: Something Else, I Don't Know)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 12:10:31 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

In article <1992Sep8.170918.8508@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>In article <Bu9JLr.Gx3@world.std.com> jkenton@world.std.com (Jeff Kenton) write
>s:
>>>Anyway, what I really wanted to know is how to pronounce
>>>"Torre". Is it Torr\'e (Torr-ay) or just Tor.
>>
>>Thanks(?) to early Spanish exploration, Spanish is widely spoken in
>>the Phillipines.  I assume the Spanish pronunciation is the right one.
>
>     What about Edgar Colle, the Belgian player from the 30s.
>Is his name of French descent?  Is it Flemish?  I ca nhandle the French,
>but...   I find that most people here in the US pronounce his
>name (and the system) just like the dog (collie).  That isn't
>right is it?  How about like the mountain pass (col)?  That doesn't
>seem right either.  I really want to know, even though I don't
>think his system is worth very much.
>
>-Mark

Well, Colle doesn't sound very Flemish (or Dutch for that matter) to me.

But if it is indeed a Flemish name you should pronounce it as colluh.


Joris

-- 
"Uta'lom az ege'sz huszadik sza'zadot" La'szlo' Lugosi/Fero' Nagy

Constantijn Wekx
email should be addressed to: mad-2@kub.nl
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 7 moves 1-12
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 12 Sep 92 11:09:30 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Game 7 started without controversy, but with a wall of glass
separating the players and the ever-shrinking audience.  It was
installed after Fischer complained again of too much noise.

Today's opening is a Ruy Lopez, but note Fischer's 9.d3 rather than
the more normal 9.d4.

   Fischer Spassky
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 e5
   2. Nf3 Nc6
   3. Bb5 a6
   4. Ba4 Nf6
   5. 0-0 Be7
   6. Re1 b5
   7. Bb3 d6
   8. c3 0-0
   9. d3 Na5
   10. Bc2 c5
   11. Nbd2 Re8
   12. h3 Bf8
From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Another reason for Fischer's reappearance?
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:32:30 GMT
Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com
Distribution: rec
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA

The three main reasons given for Robert Fischer's reappearance are: 1)
a need for cash, 2) a need to annoy FIDE and various other groups, and
3) a recognition of personal mortality because of the deaths of some
of his past opponents.

I think that all of the above had something to do with his return to
play; I also suspect that he may feel that his own standard of play
has slipped and so further delay would mean an unacceptably high risk
of defeat.  But I think that there is another reason: Fischer is
afraid of the marked increase in chessplaying computer program
strength over the past several years.  Note that he has followed
computer chess from its infancy decades ago.  He once made a comment
that "Chess programs won't go anywhere unless the programmers get help
from strong players"; perhaps he has had second thoughts about this.
Also, the idea of a world class program having all ECO and Informant
online must be a little unnerving.  Other reports indicate that
Fischer has had a laptop computer for some time and is familiar with
the various commercial offerings.  He has also played the CHEOPS
assisted version of the Greenblatt program MacHack, so we know he is
not adverse to playing machines; at least not in the past.

I think that Fischer can bear a loss or two by Spasski but is too
fearful of a potential defeat by a program.  He sees the window of
opportunity shrinking for his gaining a widely, if not officially,
recognized status as world champion.

 [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: bwatkins@nyx.cs.du.edu (The God of all machines)
Subject: Re: notation.
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 23:47:12 GMT


Ahem, that doesn't help!

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky Prediction
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:48:57 GMT

In article <18qpdtINN371@iraul1.ira.uka.de> preiss@i33s1.ira.uka.de (Martin Pre
iss) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.154747.184@bnr.ca>, Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca> writes:
>|> ...
>|> Spassky's current rating is about 2600 (I do not have the exact figure as
>|> I have not been following chess closely for quite a while - could
>|> somebody post his official rating?).
>
>Spassky's rating is 2560  ( FIDE list of July '92 in Informator 54 ).
>
>I remember to read that he is not under the best 100.
>New In Chess Magazine 5/92 contains a list with the 50 best.
>No. 50 has 2595.

     Inside chess listed the top 100 men for the last rating
update.  Spassky was tied for 96-102 with a rating of 2560, as
given above.  This might not be exactly correct (I don't have the
magazine here), but I remember that Spassky was listed at #101.

-Mark
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 06 Sep 92 18:54 PDT
Subject: Re: Smythescript (was Re: chinook)
Nf-ID: #R:Bu6612.6Ix.1@cs.cmu.edu:1824148696:cdp:1451600037:000:274
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Sep  6 18:54:00 1992


This is just a guess, but the "Thrush gambit" may have been named after Tom 
Thrush, who was active in the Buffalo area a generation ago.  Certainly,
Sicherman, who also was active at that time, would be able to tell you if my
guess is correct.

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 8 Fischer wins - all moves
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:00:44 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department


   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. d4 Nf6
   2. c4 g6
   3. Nc3 Bg7
   4. e4 d6
   5. f3 0-0
   6. Be3 Nc6
   7. Nge2 a6
   8. Qd2 Rb8
   9. h4 h5
   10. Bh6 e5
   11. Bxg7 Kxg7
   12. d5 Ne7
   13. Ng3 c6
   14. dxc6 Nxc6
   15. 0-0-0 Be6
   16. Kb1 Ne8
   17. Nd5 b5
   18. Ne3 Rh8
   19. Rc1 Qb6
   20. Bd3 Nd4
   21. Nd5 Qa7
   22. Nf1 Nf6
   23. Nfe3 Bxd5
   24. cxd5 Rbc8
   25. Rcf1 Qe7
   26. g4 Nd7
   27. g5 Kf8
   28. Rf2 Ke8
   29. Bf1 Nc5
   30. Bh3 Rc7
   31. Rc1 Ncb3
   32. axb3 Nxb3
   33. Rc6 Nxd2+
   34. Rxd2 Kf8
   35. Rxa6 Ra7
   36. Rc6 Kg7
   37. Bf1 Ra1+
   38. Kxa1 Qa7+
   39. Kb1 Qxe3
   40. Kc2 b4
   white resigns

   Final positions:
   White: Kc2, Rd2, Rc6, Bf1, f3, e4, h4, d5, g5
   Black: Kg7, Qe3, Rh8, b4, e5, h5, d6, g6, f7
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II (Game 5) - analysis
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:11:41 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Fischer lost the initiative with the passive 21.Rc1 and Rb1, and withdrawing
the Knight from g3 with 23.Ne2 looked bad too.

The right continuation for Fischer would appear to have been either 21.h4!? or
21.a3!?, which both offer a positional sacrifice of the exchange on a1.
Without going into detailed variations, Black's Queenside pieces are tangled up
(his Knight on b6 is pinned, his Bishop on b7 is blocked), and the only way
Black can make sense of them is to play ...f5 as soon as possible, in order to
blast through on d5.  White should therefore play to prevent ...f5, even at the
cost of the exchange.  The Bishop on g7 is Black's best piece, and is worth
more than the Rook on a1.

If Black accepts the sacrifice, he comes under a very heavy attack.  If he
doesn't, White avoids all the problems he had in the game.  Probably 21.a3!? is
the better move, so if 21...Qf6 22.Rb1, followed by 23.Nh2-g4 or 23.h4.  By the
time Black moves the Knight on b6 or defends it with a Rook, White will have a
big initiative against Black's King.

Fischer is playing very passively, in contrast to Spassky.  The exchange
sacrifice would have been a suitable answer to what Spassky did in Game 4.
Fischer isn't playing well, it seems.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II, game 3 drawn (2:41 pm EDT)
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:01:25 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


UPI reports game three was drawn in 39 moves.  Dimitrije Bijelica,
"Fischer's long-time friend," said Spassky had better winning chances
in the game, but it was basically described as unexciting.  I don't
have the moves yet.

I'm constantly being asked where I'm getting this information. I think I've
said this before, but I'll say it again.  I get it from the AP, UPI,
and Reuters news wires on CompuServe.  It can reportedly also be had from
Prodigy and ChessLink, the USA Today operation. I don't have any
information on those.  Someone said the moves can be found on ICS, which
I know nothing about, and on the #chess channel on IRC, although I
couldn't find anyone there.

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: christos@cco.caltech.edu (Christos S. Christoforou)
Subject: gnuchess question
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:24:12 GMT

Hi!
I am having trouble with gnuchess because I don't have
a manual for it.
My question: Is there a command that will allow me play
against another human?

Please post or e-mail.

Thank you
christos
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Scoring on the Fischer, Spassky game
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:20:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23670
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <1992Sep15.115737.13028@ifi.uio.no> sigurdg@ifi.uio.no (Sigurd Gl{rum) writes:

> From what I have heard Fischer demanded that he should win
> the match in case of a 9-9 tie, effectively giving him a
> 2 point advantage since Spasskij must score at least 10-8
> in order to win.

Not true -- the score can reach 10-9 without first reaching 9-9.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com