HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (N Bowers)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,comp.ai,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: comp.games.research
Keywords: chess go othello games abalone
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:18:46 GMT
Organization: University of Leeds, England

In article <1992Aug18.172526.392@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) writes:
>I'd like to see a newsgroup for strategic board games in general,
>othello, go-moku, etc, but OTHER THAN commercial board games of the
>war-game or role-playing type.
>
> [...]
>
>Does this suggestion ring a bell with anyone else ?

YES!

Several times I have almost suggested rec.games.strategy, since there
seemed to be no obvious place for discussion of reversi/othello,
strategy game design etc.  rec.games.board is not the place IMHO.

Perhaps rec.games.strategy.programmer as a subgroup? :-)
	rec.games.strategy.design also implies creation of new games,
which would belong in r.g.s.

--
Neil Bowers
neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Gligoric 6.5-1.5 (Blitz) ?
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:22:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.113944.14727@husc3.harvard.edu>, elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
|> A few days ago a rumor was circulating here that Fischer beat
|> Gligoric 6.5-1.5 in an 8-game blitz match in or near Belgrade.
|> Apparently Vesna Dimitrijevic had read this in a Belgrade
|> newspaper; no scores of actual games seem to be available.
|> I'm wondering whether this has been confirmed.

   Gligoric?? Heck, wasn't Dake or Najdorf available?? ;-)  I guess it's
   good that he's playing, but certainly he can get more formidable opponents.
   Like - any GM even within 20 years of his prime!! 
 

|> 
|> --Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
|>   Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
From: terry@cbe.qut.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Rating Chess Players - Literature and Software...
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:50:58 GMT


I'm looking for references and programs on rating chess players.  I'm 
especially interested in Elo's books and papers and programs that will scoop 
up redirected output from swissys and process ratings from it...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Terry Sweetser                 + Internet:   n0678901@fitmail.fit.qut.edu.au
B.Eng. (E&CE) Student          +         OR  terry@cbe.qut.edu.au
(Who happens to work for CBE.) + Direct Phone: 864-2898 (1000-1400 AEST)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
         _--_|\                + Computer Based Education Facility
        /      QUT             + Queensland University of Technology
        \_.--._/               + Box 2434  Brisbane 4001  AUSTRALIA
              v                + Phone: +61 7 864-2111  Fax: +61 7 864-1507
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: How about a new newsgroup for computer chess?
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:47:10 GMT
Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com
Distribution: rec
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA

Many recent postings in rec.games.chess have dealt with various
aspects of computer chessplaying programs.  Although much of it may be
interesting to some readers, others would like to concentrate on the
mainstream topics of chess.

How about a new newsgroup exclusively devoted to computer chess
topics?  Readers who wanted to track both the old and the new groups
could subscribe to both.

Actually, I would like to see two new groups concerning computer
chess.  The first group (comp.chess.players) would deal with the some
of the concerns of human players such as machine purchase
recommendation, commercial chessplaying program reviews, and the
never-to-be-settled question of how computers affect human players in
tournament competition.  The second group (comp.chess.research) would
be for program authors, program tournament organizers, researchers,
and others with a bona fide scientific interest in computer chess.  A
sort of "ICCA of the Internet", this second group could be moderated
to prevent spillover or cross-posting from the first group.

Please post your responses.  If there is sufficient interest, someone
(probably other than me) could start an official RFD and CFV.

 [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
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Gligoric 6.5-1.5 (Blitz) ?
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:05:37
Organization: CSUA/UCB
	<1992Aug16.124715.10934@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com's message of Sun, 16 Aug 1992 12:47:15 GMT

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

My impression is that older players lose OTB strength due to a decline
in stamina.  This doesn't hurt them much at Blitz.  Tal was world
blitz champion a few years ago, in his 50's and in terrible health.
Najdorf (!) is also supposed to still be a very dangerous blitz
player.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Suggestions for chess program?
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:47:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.221741.20045@access.usask.ca> philip@spr.usask.ca (Tim Philip) writes:

>	Does anybody know where I can get MChess??  How about KnightStalker??

ICD.  Listed in FAQ.  --Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: darse@cs.UAlberta.CA (Darse Billings)
Subject: Re: handicap in chess
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:45:38 GMT

os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group) writes:
>Several recent posts have discussed ways to give handicaps in chess. 

I don't know if it has already been mentioned, but I've found a simple
and effective method for handicapping, which I've used when exchanging
lessons with some Go playing friends.

Simply give the weaker player the White pieces and several moves
advantage (similar to the basic idea in Go handicapping).  The greater
the difference in strength, the more moves the weaker player starts
with. You can either make it a fixed set of moves (such as 1.e4 2.d4
3.Nf3 4.Nc3 5.Bc4 6.0-0 7.Bf4) or allow the player to choose for
themselves (provided they move any piece only once).  This roughly
corresponds to the Japanese and Chinese methods for Go handicapping,
respectively.

I found this to be a very effective method of handicapping.  I am a
fairly strong chess player, but giving up six moves saddles you with a
nearly lost position.  First you must scramble to consolidate your worst
weaknesses, which also gives the less experienced player lots of
opportunity to play with the initiative.  Having survived the initial
onslaught, it is still difficult to overcome White's good position, and
many games have been decided in the ending.  And of course, as the
weaker player improves, the handicap can be reduced smoothly.

>eg: The weaker player operates under the usual rules.  However the
>	stronger player must use his knight to checkmate.  Or to make it
>	easier and reduce the handicap, say he can only checkmate with
>	his queen.

This is also known as "capped piece odds".  I've played capped knight
odds a lot in speed cheese, but it's not too difficult provided you can
promote to a capped piece (and damned near impossible otherwise!).

> [stuff regarding the stalemate rule]

Stalemate is, in my opinion, an unfortunate rule.  It is much more
logical to consider stalemate to be the ultimate form of zugzwang (ie.
compulsion to move, even when detrimental to your position), and thus
have it be a loss for the stalemated player.

I would still like to see the rule changed -- after all, chess is still
evolving, and minor rules changes are made routinely.  Yes there would
be severe consequences, especially to endgame theory, but I think it
would be worthwhile, from an aesthetic stance.

Well, thats my two binary digits worth.		Cheers,  - Darse.
--

 - Darse Billings, 2100 CM, 7 kyu.

Go is better than Chess.  Poker is more lucrative.  Sex is more fun.
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:19 PDT
Subject: Re: chess news        1/5
Nf-ID: #R:option.gba.nyu.edu:28649:cdp:1451600024:000:436
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Aug 17 19:19:00 1992


With all due respect to IM Ginsburg -- and recognizing that, in the good ol'
USA only the WOILD CHAMPEEN is worth mentioning -- it would appear to me that
an IM whom Elo has rated at 2380 for his five best years and whose rating as an
active player was 2335 at the age of 57 (whose current rating at the age of 71
is 2290) may be called a very strong player.  Of course, I'm refering to Bob
Wade.  

With all due respect.

Jerry Bibuld

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Chess Program?
Reply-To: jhc@m2lll.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:50:15 GMT

In article <loon.27@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za> loon@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (LOON M J) writes:

>>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???

Boy! how did I get into this?!  I don't have time to come up with a
best estimate.  All that I can say is that CCR gives a speed index
divisor of 4 for the 386/25 and nothing on the 286/16.  Also, they
subtract 60 points from the 486/33 to arrive at the 386/33, which has a
speed index divisor of 1.5.  Now the divisors are in relation to a
486/25, not a 486/33.  So you can see that estimating is a complicated
process.

>And how does Zarkov compare with MChess and others? 

Now this is easier.  First, Zarkov has the feature advantage of working
with Bookup, and KnightStalker works with ChessBase.  As for strength,
on a 486/33: MChess 2401, KnightStalker 2334, Rexchess 2319, Zarkov
2276/2326.  Zarkov 2.6 is supposed to be about 50 points stronger than
2.5, so I gave two figures.

MChess is stronger, although I am not sure that 60-70 points is
significant, seems nearly significant.  They all have features, and I
have not seen a good comparison of what they offer.  Of course,
interaction with your chess database makes the decision easy.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:33:08 GMT

In article <Bt91MG.L97.1@cs.cmu.edu> rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.193622.13628@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP
>(James H. Coombs) writes:
>>Psychology is part of chess.  You are supposed to do things that disturb your
>>opponent.  Lasker knew this, and so have most of the top players since then.
>>Instead of elaborating, I will simply refer readers to Benko's *Winning with
>>Chess Psychology*, an important book and an interesting read.
>
>Before I get this book, could you just mention what sort of things you mean?
>Do you mean playing disturbing moves, like deviating from an opening, or
>playing aggressively when one's opponent is playing for a draw?
>
>On the other hand, do you mean leaving the room to show the opponent that one
>is so confident that one doesn't care about the clocks?  Or do you mean things
>like banging pieces, leaning over the board, or leaning back with a smug,
>satisfied smile after making a sacrifice?
>
>The latter type of things I simply ignore.  If the disturbances are so severe
>that they affect my concentration, I would call the TD, and I would certainly
>prefer to play a computer than such an opponent; I would have more respect for
>it.
>
>Rujith de Silva.
>Carnegie-Mellon University.
>

I think he means any/all of the following (incomplete) list....

1.  scowling (Walter B. has this mastered.)

2.  slamming pieces

3.  slamming the clock

4.  moving unnecessarily aggressively.

5.  leaning OVER the board

6.  "smoke gets in your opponent's eyes" for the smokers out there.

7.  comments, smirks, etc. about your opponent's moves.

8.  comments to bystanders about the quality of your opponent's moves,
     etc. (not about the actual game, obviously)

9.  any other unsportsmanlike action you might dream up.

I have been playing chess for 30 years, and have always felt that it was
a "gentleman's game" devoid of this kind of crap.  However, I see this
behavior sporadically in every tournament I have been around.  Sort of
like tennis, I guess.  The way I was brought up on tennis and the way
current top players act are two different things....  perhaps I am thereby
distorted in my view of sportsmanlike conduct.  I don't believe that
intimidation is a part of the game of chess, but, rather something that
someone introduces to offset/cover up a weakness that he/she has.

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@ivan.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: CPU, Depth of Search, and Program Strength
Reply-To: jhc@ivan.brown.edu.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:01:31 GMT

More testing on the chess program / machine front.  I ran Zarkov 2.6 on
a game from this weekend.  The game was 65 ply long.  On an IBM XT with
Tiny Turbo (about 8.8 MHz effective), Zarkov averaged 5.4 ply; on a
486/25, 7.5 ply.

Both were given 3 minutes per move.  With Zarkov, however, this means
"at least 3 minutes" because the analysis does not stop until both 3
minutes has elapsed and the current search has completed.  By "current
search," I mean the evaluation of the move currently under
consideration.

In any case, the difference in depth is significant, and the program
finds certain critical lines only on the 486.

--Jim
From: U55342@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: 4.B:f7+
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:44:57 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

I just want ed to add something to the 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nc3 N:e4 4.B:f7+
discussion.

White can avoid the ... N:e4 stuff through the following:

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3, and here both sides can go into the Vienna after
3. ... Nc6 4.Nc3

Black has two major deviations at move 3, 3. ... d5 and 3. ...c6.

To be very brief, for a long time (since Marshall) theory has held that
3. ... d5 leaves white with an edge. The main ideas are that after
4.ed N:d5 5.Nf3 Nc6 black will have the burdens of satisfactorally defending
the e-pawn (it will come under more pressure after white castles and brings a
rook to th e-file), dealing with the pressure exertred by the bishop on c4,
and making sure that a c3+d4 break doesn't leave him/her in an embarrasing
tactical situation. (I know - "Big Generalization Here!")

As for 3. ... c6, as I recall, just a few years ago it was believed that
the continuation 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3 leaves white on top because black's center
is under a lot of pressure. (Another "Big Generalization!")

I guess I could have spent more time putting together more supporting
analysis, but my main motivation was to point out different directions
that the 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 thread could go.

                                                  See Ya!
                                                   Bert WIlson

.........................................................................
: Bertrand L. Wilson                : "Chess is a jealous mistress."    :
: Department of Linguistics         :                 Bert Wilson       :
: University of Illinois at Chicago :                                   :
:                                   : "How could I lose to this idiot!" :
: U55342@UICVM.UIC.EDU              :                 Aaron Nimzovich   :
:...................................:...................................:
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Man vs Computer Checkers Championship
Organization: Center for Information and Language Studies / University of
	Chicago
	<1992Aug21.174252.27474@cco.caltech.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:23:02 GMT

Post here, please. Ray Keene, the organizer, asked me to do so
but I have been to busy and don't have easy access to the info.
It is a one-off event and won't waste much bandwith anyway.

Ray Keene thanks you for posting!
Eric Schiller
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Man vs Computer Checkers Championship
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:20:43
Organization: CSUA/UCB
	<1992Aug22.002707.23687@tamsun.tamu.edu>
	<1992Aug22.164409.9589@cco.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu's message of 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.

Tinsley has been champion for several decades and has defended the title
many times, probably in similar matches.  I can't believe he didn't
know what he was getting into before this match started.

What bothers me more is how some of the longer games eliminated a
rest day.  That kind of thing could never happen in a world chess
championship match.  In chess championships, in addition to scheduled
rest days, each player gets a certain number of personal rest days
which he can use whenever he wants.  


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: stevena@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Steven Alexander)
Subject: Tournament design
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:14:11 GMT

I am interested in any scholarly, including empirical, articles on
the design of fair tournaments.  (Standard methods of searching
through mathematical and computer science journals came up with
nothing.  Perhaps chess periodicals have something?)  Has any work
been done on which of the common methods of pairing people in
tournaments give the 'best' results, by some measurement?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steven Alexander
Comp Sci grad student                           stevena@cs.berkeley.edu
& non-practicing lawyer extraordinaire
{I'm really wonderful at not practicing}
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Kathy Watts)
Subject: Re: Travelmaster & Fidelity
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:16:49 GMT

While I'm not 100% sure on this, I heard that the Travelmaster was a flop at
Fidelity because of CXG's problems, and that the programmer and product both
went over to Saitek (the folks who make the Kasparov line).

If this is so, then you might be able to get the product you intended to get
from Saitek.  Their US headquarters are in Torrance, California, telephone:
1-310-212-5412.

Good luck!

-Hal Bogner
 Chess Laboratories (owner)
From: lizn@uts.amdahl.com (Elizabeth Neely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Girls
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:49:09 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>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.
>> 

...

I think the best intro to tactics book is Bobby Fischer teaches chess. If you
have a good used bookstore, you can probably get it there.

			Liz Neely
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: kirk@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu (Kirk Gunsallus)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Gligoric 6.5-1.5 (Blitz) ?
Organization: Alchemy International
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 04:08:20 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

stuff about aging Gligoric vs. Fischer and other comments deleted....

>
>BTW, how much sporting opposition can a very lazy Spassky really offer?
>
>Just wondering.


Hey, even Foreman had to bop a few 'fishes' before he could take on big bad
Evander.  :-)  :-)

K
From: bruno@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Bruno Bienenfeild)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Suggestions for chess program?
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:11:08 GMT
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA

It was sugested couple of week ago:
MCHESS, REXCHESS, ZARKOV, 3000,
I am currently using ZARKOV 2.6 and am very satisfied.
Any comp. is OK, however faster the better.

from the log of AA6AD
From: jriechel@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: (none)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:51:28 GMT


|>   -----------------------------------------
|> 8 | *R |    | *B | *Q | *K | *B |    | *R |
|>   -----------------------------------------
|> 7 | *P | *P | *P | *N |    | *P | *P | *P |   P = Pawn
|>   -----------------------------------------   N = Knight
|> 6 |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |   B = Bishop
|>   -----------------------------------------   R = Rook (aka Castle)
|> 5 |    |    |    | *P |  N |    |    |    |   Q = Queen
|>   -----------------------------------------   K = King
|> 4 |    |    |    |  P | *N |    |    |    |
|>   -----------------------------------------
|> 3 |    |    |    |  B |    |    |    |    |   *'s precede Black pieces
|>   -----------------------------------------
|> 2 |  P |  P |  P |    |    |  P |  P |  P |
|>   -----------------------------------------
|> 1 |  R |  N |  B |  Q |  K |    |    |  R |
|>   -----------------------------------------
|>     a    b    c    d    e    f    g    h
|>
|> Problem #1:  White to play and draw (by repetition).

@> This is a well-known position in the Petroff.  An earlier post claimed
@> a draw by 6. Nf7 Kf7 7. Qh5+ etc.  However, black has the more interesting
@> choice 6. ... Qe7 with the threat of Nc3+.  This line is given in
@> Petroff books as drawish but there's plenty more play in that line than
@> the dull 6. ... Kf7.  Sidenote: The Qe7 line has been played by Karpov.
@> At any rate, there's no forced draw from this position.
@>
@> -Karl

True enough.  Thank you for pointing it out and keeping me honest.

Since I was planning on posting a few problems (I'll be posting one more
today), I thought I'd throw in an easy one for the novices.  Or perhaps I can
safely assume that the fish of the fish won't be reading r.g.c.?

OK, I'll try a few restatements of problem #1:

(a)  White and Black to play and draw (by repetition).  Ooops, this one has
too many solutions!

(b)  Assuming Black will play [erm] 1... Kxf7, White to play and draw (by
repetition).  Nope, this one gives away the answer.

It there a way of stating problems like this, where the player that doesn't
immediately move must make an unforced (perhaps weak) move in order for the
first player to solve the problem?  Anyway, I'll try to avoid these types of
problems.

-James

jriechel@bonnie.ics.uci.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess