HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glickman@husc10.harvard.edu (Mark Glickman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischers performance - rough calculation
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:49:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct14.084937.16378
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <arc5.63.718997647@chempc1.york.ac.uk> arc5@chempc1.york.ac.uk (Alastair Cargill) writes:
>With reference to the various calculations been given to show Fischers grade
>for the match - I have plugged the figures into the BCF way of calculating 
>grades and it shows that Fischer is playing at a grade 88 Elo better than 
>Spassky - whatever level you choose for him. This is only a rough calculaton 
>based on Fischers score of 11/18 i.e. 61%. If anyone finds fault with this 
>please dont flame as this was done on back of an envelope over a cup of 
>coffee!!
>Al

I get a rating difference of about 79 points (this was done on the front of a
TI-55 calculator, so no flames here either! :-)  ).  This assumes
the USCF rating assumptions.

I think it's difficult to estimate Fischer's and Spassky's current
abilities using their FIDE ratings as useful information (this is 
clearly true in Fischer's case, and debatable, I suppose, in Spassky's
case).  But the game outcomes from the last two months provide evidence
that Fischer and Spassky's abilities convert to a rating difference
of less than 100 points.  And if you believe that Spassky is no
better than 2550 (his most recent FIDE rating?), then simple arithmetic
tells you how strong Fischer probably is now.

              - Mark Glickman
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Kudos to David Fry!
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:30:29 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Oct15.152142.7105@math.utexas.edu>, epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
> tycchow@athena.mit.edu (Timothy Y Chow) writes:
> 
>>I think David Fry deserves a standing ovation for his up-to-the-minute
>>coverage of the F-S match!
> 
>>Tim Chow
> 
> I agree

hey, i was going to post that!!!!! :-)

i think that after the match, we should declare an official

"David Fry appreciation day"

i'm serious too!!!!!


don wedding
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Longevity of Lasker
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:16:23 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <9210121917.AA07927@hplwk.hpl.hp.com> albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert) writes:
>
>Just speculation, but there does seem to have been a big gap between
>Lasker and Capablanca.  Lasker remained champion into his 60's, not
>so much out of domination, as from a dearth of competition.

Hey, hey! One of the most famous games of all times is Lasker - Capablanca
from 1915. Lasker had been champion for 21 years, but still looked very
impressive.

	Sven
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:14:00 GMT

In article <92287.085248IOR@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Thomas Hyer,
IOR@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:

  >Peter,
  >
  >[...]
  >  On the other hand, saying Fischer has a 50% chance to beat Anand
  >is essentially saying that there is a 50% chance that Fischer is
  >now a stronger player; the length of the match doesn't affect that.
  >So using Fischer's rating (however you determine it) is a mistake.
  >
  >Tom Hyer

Tom,

saying that Fischer has a 50% chance to beat Anand means that their
estimated strength (rating) is the same.  I do not see how using the
rating is a mistake.

   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:24:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.185053.855@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.014623.22533@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I still think that deflation caused by this effect will in the long run simply
>>even out the ratings of entering and leaving players, so that the steady state
>>is neither inflationary nor deflationary.
>
>Are negative ratings allowed?  If not then a steady state will be
>reached at some low rating.
>
>Ed

I see no reason why negative ratings would not be allowed.

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:16:21 GMT


>now i know that this is because not everyone wants to play to the bitter
>end, when the outcome is guaranteed (barring random brick attacks).  so
>i don't want an explanation of why this is so.

>what i want to know is this: if i join some chess club, and get my
>buttocks whupped, will people be mad if i don't resign?

Annoyed, possibly. To resign an obviously lost position shows a measure of
respect for your opponent. Every great chess player resigns when he feels
the conclusion is obvious. Do you fancy yourself better than them?
From: gewis@rwa.urc.tue.nl (GEWIS)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Idiotic rating calculations
Summary: Stupid rating system
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:02:45 GMT
Reply-To: gewis@urc.tue.nl

I've read al lot of the calculations on FS II. And I found that some stupid
things happened. I know the ELO-system, but still this is wrong.

At the score 6-3 somebody calculated that F's performance was 2630 and S's
performance was 2640. (Sorry if the numbers aren't the real ones, but it's the
idea that counts!)
OK: F has a high rating, S not. But it means that S has actually played better
than Fischer (better performance) being 3 points behind...
Something to think about?

Greetings Mark Huizer
gewsi@urc.tue.nl
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: FS2.16 TN?
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:16:23 GMT

In article <BvsGnq.DG0@world.std.com> ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C  
Winslow) writes:
> 
> Spassky,B - Fischer,R
> Belgrade m16 [various], 1992
> 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 d6 4.Nc3 g6 5.e4 Bg7 6.Bg5 h6! 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3 Qa5
> 9.Bd3
> 
>    [9.Qd2 Nh5 10.Be2 (10.Bd3 Nd7 11.Nge2 a6 12.O-O Ne5 13.a3 Bd7
>    14.f4!? gxf4 15.Bxf4 Nxf4 16.Nxf4 h5 17.Be2 Bh6 =/oo Nagy-Adamski,
>    Budapest 1961) Nxg3 11.hxg3 Nd7 "OK" Martin,A]
>    [9.f3 "Too slow" Martin O-O 10.Bd3 a6 11.Nge2 (11.Kf1?! e6 12.dxe6
>    Bxe6 13.Nge2 Nc6 -/+ Kavalek-Littleton, The Hague 1966) b5!]
> 
> 9...Nxe4! 10.Bxe4 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxc3+ 12.Kf1 f5 13.Rc1
> 
>    [13.Ne2 Qf6 14.Bc2 f4 15.h4 Rf8! 16.hxg5 hxg5 17.Nxf4? gxf4 18.Bh2
>    Nd7 19.g3 Ne5 20.Qh5+ Kd8 21.gxf4 Ng4 22.Re1 Rh8 23.Bh7 Qg7 0-1,
>    Stein-Geller, USSR tm ch, Moscow 1966]
>    ...
Such a nice job, let's complete the picture. The line originated in the  
late 1950's. Black delayed ...g5 but played the same Nxe4 trick in  
Zirngibl-Moehring, West German Championship 1961. The correct move in the  
line is not Bd3, but Qd2, as played in Nikolayevsky-Stolyarov, USSR 1958.  
There was an improvement for Black in Letelier-Rubinetti, Buenos Aires  
1964, though Minev improved on that game, too.

I'd like to post more detail, but I am a bit constrained, since I am  
writing an "insti"-book with Shamnkovich, and don't want to give my  
competitors (there are at least 2 other books coming out on the match) all  
of my opening research. But I will at least try to point to the relevant  
games, leaving others to dig them up.

And I will not let any misleading or inaccurate stuff get posted without  
replying. I hope that is enough.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
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: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: When To Resign
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:18:26 GMT

In article <56502@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>, fredl@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Fred Leffingwell) writes:
|> 
|> 	I have a few personel observations that I will share.
|> 
|> 	First: Why should anyone be upset at needing to play out
|> 	       a won position?


	(1) Boredom
	(2) Fatigue
	(3) Need to get lunch before next round.

	All of these are described in more detail in a previous
	post.


|> 
|> 	In answer to my first question, the only thing I come up with
|> 	is fear.

	Somehow I don't think you tried very hard. Imagine being
	the exchange and two pawns up (both passed) with queens
	exchanged and your opponents pieces passive.  Now imagine
	that it's the last round of a weekend swiss, you're from
	out of town, the other three people who rode with you are
	waiting, and your opponent has an hour on his clock....

	Unfortunately, I don't have to *imagine* that, memory
	serves quite well.  The winning player won the game, all right,
	but the loser managed to use his full hour.  Probably thought
	it was a moral victory.

						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: wrt@acsu.buffalo.edu (William R. Tallmadge)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Championship Games 13-18
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:08:28 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Oct13.144517.6860@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>Paul A. Lane writes:
>
>	What the devil is Smythescript?
>
>Better ask:
>
>	Who the hell is Col. Sicherman?
>
>							Fido

I'm astonished that there is anyone unfamiliar with the exploits of Colonel G.L. Sicherman.  Here is a brief biography touching only the high points.

As founder of the Kentucky Fried Fox cartel, the Colonel made his first fortune selling KFF pencils bearing the motto, "You get what you deserve!"  A corporate jingle that received wide recognition went:
"When eating chicken gives you the pox.  Run right out and pick up a box.
Of delicious, nutricious Kentucky Fried Fox!" 

The Colonel's only national chess exploit (prior to Smythescript) was a 
multi-page article in CHESS LIFE circa 1967 annotating a games so full
of typos that only a future Smythescripter could have made sense of it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Styles - "Masters' Forum"
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:26:26 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

In Chess Canada Echecs, there used to be a regular feature in which four or
five annotators were given the score of a game, without being told the
identity of the players.  They annotated the game and estimated the strengths
of the players.  The results were very interesting - both the assessments of
the positions and of the strengths of the players were all over the place.

If someone wanted to try this as an experiment, post a game and give people a
week to estimate the strengths of the players.  Then try to find a
correlation between the estimates and the ratings of the people making the
estimate (too bad a Fischer-Spassky game can't be used...)
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 16:14:10 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
 <1992Oct13.223044.3140@Princeton.EDU> <23889@alice.att.com>
 <1992Oct14.142509.16384@husc3.harvard.edu>

someone, in some post, used the phrase, "another resignation that i
accepted".  does this imply that you have the right to refuse your
opponent's resignation? so my opponent says, "i resign," and i say
"too bad, keep your butt in that seat"?

i realize that this would be awfully impolite, i just want to know if
i have the right to do it or not.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: kees@cv.ruu.nl (Kees de Graaf)
Subject: Contacting Louis Blair
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:47:02 GMT
Organization: University of Utrecht, 3D Computer Vision Research Group

Sorry folks, for spoiling bandwidth with a personal msg:

Louis, you cannot be mailed at CMU anymore! Do you have an e-address
in South Carolina?  --Kees de Graaf
(PS I'm almost done with the article - need advice on the epilogue).
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Dominating Players(was Fischer being put to rest)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:31:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.192127.16257@husc3.harvard.edu> fry@tara.harvard.edu (Dav
id Fry) writes:
>
>As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of players who ever had
>"complete domination", all champions: Morphy, Capablanca, Alehkine,
>Tal (very briefly), Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov.  I suppose Lasker
>might be added to this list, but I don't personally think so.
>

Would anybody include Akiba Rubinstein?  I know that Lasker (and then
Capablanca) was around, but he didn't play in too many tournaments
during Rubinstein's best years, did he?  I know there was one they
both played in (St. Petersburg(?) 1909) where Rubinstein played one
of his two famous Qc1 maneuvers.  They shared top prize in that one,
but didn't Rubinstein dominate many of the tournaments between 1907
and 1912?

I would also add Lasker to the list.  After his "setback" at Hastings
1895 he generally won everything he played until Rubinstein and
Capablanca appeared.

I would like to point out that I agree with everything else in David
Fry's argument.

-Mark
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: STOP BASHING ALEKINE
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:21:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct13.142155.16336
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Oct13.064837.7421@linkoping.trab.se> ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin) writes:
>Steinitz was, I believe, quite decent about losing to Lasker. He even
>proposed a cheer for the new word champion! That might very well be
>both a chess first as well as a chess last.

I think his sportsmanship has already been noted here, but Spassky is
also quite decent in this regard. After Fischer's beautiful win in the
6th game of the '72 match, Spassky walked away from the board and
joined the crowd in applauding his play.  Fischer was embarrassed and
bolted from the theater.  In his car he gushed to his handlers about
what a great guy Spassky was, but then was upset later that he was
feeling something other than hate at his opponent, since that was
reportedly what he needed to feed his killer instinct.

I think this explains his request that Spassky not eat at the same
restaurants, not be allowed to sit until he has, and the eye visor in
this match.  He really likes Spassky, but he feels he has to put it
out of his mind.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:10:58 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <92286.201954RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
> i don't like to resign, even when i am pitifully far behind.  sure, my
> opponent would have to get suddenly hit in the head with a brick for him
> to mess up, but who knows, maybe he'll suddenly get hit in the head with
> a brick.
>

well, i remember about 10 years back i was playing in a tournament
and i was crushing some guy about my own ability (plus or minus) and
just before i was about to deal my stunning winning attack, i notice
that he had a mate in one and that i was a fool for neglecting my
defenses.

of course i resigned on the spot. 

then he said "why did you resign"

i said, "you have a mate in one" which suddenly i realized that i
had been halucinating or something (it was a LONG tournament). anyways,
he didn't have a mate in one and was himself about ready to resign.

that was the LAST tournament game i have ever resigned. 

has anybody else out there experienced a like situation or am i
unique?

 
> but when i look at all these chess games posted, i almost never see
> "checkmate."  everybody resigns.
> 
> now i know that this is because not everyone wants to play to the bitter
> end, when the outcome is guaranteed (barring random brick attacks).  so
> i don't want an explanation of why this is so.
>

there is a certain courtesy involved. nobody like to have to go 
down and queen a pawn then chase your king around the board ripping
your pawns then mating you. its fun once in a while but a nuisance
because you have to be careful not to allow a stalemate.

of course, in a tournament i don't have such manner. i make the guy
im playing beat me...i fight to the bitter bitter end.
 
> what i want to know is this: if i join some chess club, and get my
> buttocks whupped, will people be mad if i don't resign?
>

YES!!!

in offhand speed chess or just for fun games...most players like to
get as many games in as possible. i resign when the guy is up a rook
or just is beating me in general.

when i play somebody like that, i usually only play one game then
i find a new opponent.

so as a rule, when playing offhand games, a resignation is appropriate.
when playing in a tournament...do what makes you happy
 

don wedding
 
> 
>
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Back! (alas)
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:34:57 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Yes, Alekhine was afraid of Capablanca and smart enough to know it.
Peter

--

----------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II (level)
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:33:48 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

The people who are running down the quality of play in the match are
forgetting two things:

1. The quality of play in the Candidates' semi-finals was pretty low too, but
no one went around saying the players weren't rated 2600+.  In a tense match,
the quality of play will suffer.  (And in tournaments too - if you've ever
looked at a tournament book, it's surprising how mundane the games of someone
like Alekhine sometimes were the day before and the day after his greatest
brilliancies.  Chess players are human, except when they're on the
sidelines).

2. Both players are coming up with some profound ideas, but are making
tactical errors implementing them.  Even Fischer's ...a5 and ...c5 in the
King's Indian he lost had a deep idea behind it - had he organized the
defense with ...Ba6 followed by ...Bxb5 and ...Ra7, instead of the
time-wasting ...Rb8 and ...Rb7, he might have been able to win the Pawn on g5
and have a better game.  In other words, that game wasn't as one-sided as it
looked, but many people don't want to give either player y credit.

I have heard a GM express the view that the play is 2600+ - plus how much is
the hard part.  It is obviously impossible to deduce from these games how
Fischer would do against some of the top GMs (or Spassky, if he were trying,
for that matter).  Isn't patience supposed to be a virtue among chess players
- let's wait and see.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@ivan.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: 1/4 K becomes 1/2 K??
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:17:50 GMT

The November Chess Life [p. 4] states that "noting the relatively low
popularity of Quarter-K Action events, the Delegates voted to raise the
'fractional' option to Half-K, effective February 15, 1993."

Does anyone know what this means?  It seems to say that the time
control will not change but that the K used in ratings computations
will be doubled.  I see from P. 64 that Quarter-K now Half-K is not the
same as Quick Chess, which is actully 0.6K?!  So does 1/N K go to
particular time controls or to particular tournaments?  My guess is
G30.

And, I wonder, is the "relatively low popularity of Quarter-K" due to
the reduced ratings exposure or the time control?  USCF seems to assume
that people are more interested in increating their ratings exposure
than in increasing their time to think.  Or, perhaps, USCF is doubling
the exposure to test the theory.  As I recall, the 1/4-K was to
encourage people to play action chess.  Who knows?

--Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: olesen@math.uiowa.edu (Martin Olesen)
Subject: Re: Fischer's 60 memorable games
Originator: olesen@walnut.math.uiowa.edu
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:04:07 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA




    I believe Fischer will now refuse to play on the Chess-server,
    since his 60 games has been published here without paying royalties :-)

                                Martin Olesen
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: FS2.16 TN?
Summary: a cheep reference for the rest of you
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:59:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.195323.13720@midway.uchicago.edu>
schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu writes:
>Caveat: I haven't really checked transpositions. This is just a 
>gut reaction. Interestingly, I recall a Larsen-Reshevsky game from
>Santa Monica 1966 was somewhat similar, and I think Reshevsky
>also defended the line at Sousse Interzonal, While Larsen was
>Black in a Hastings game in the mid(?)-1980's. I'll look this
>stuff up later, unless anyone else chimes in first.

Here's Game 16 with a few references stuck in.


Spassky,B - Fischer,R
Belgrade m16 [various], 1992
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 d6 4.Nc3 g6 5.e4 Bg7 6.Bg5 h6! 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3 Qa5
9.Bd3

  r n b - k - - r
  p p - - p p b -
  - - - p - n - p
  q - p P - - p -
  - - P - P - - -
  - - N B - - B -
  P P - - - P P P
  R - - Q K - N R

   [9.Qd2 Nh5 10.Be2 (10.Bd3 Nd7 11.Nge2 a6 12.O-O Ne5 13.a3 Bd7
   14.f4!? gxf4 15.Bxf4 Nxf4 16.Nxf4 h5 17.Be2 Bh6 =/oo Nagy-Adamski,
   Budapest 1961) Nxg3 11.hxg3 Nd7 "OK" Martin,A]
   [9.f3 "Too slow" Martin O-O 10.Bd3 a6 11.Nge2 (11.Kf1?! e6 12.dxe6
   Bxe6 13.Nge2 Nc6 -/+ Kavalek-Littleton, The Hague 1966) b5!]

9...Nxe4! 10.Bxe4 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxc3+ 12.Kf1 f5 13.Rc1

   [13.Ne2 Qf6 14.Bc2 f4 15.h4 Rf8! 16.hxg5 hxg5 17.Nxf4? gxf4 18.Bh2
   Nd7 19.g3 Ne5 20.Qh5+ Kd8 21.gxf4 Ng4 22.Re1 Rh8 23.Bh7 Qg7 0-1,
   Stein-Geller, USSR tm ch, Moscow 1966]

13...Qf6!

   [13...Qg7 14.h4 gxh4 15.Qh5+ Kd8 16.Rxh4 fxe4 17.Rxe4 +=]
   [13...Qb2! Barden,Yudovich (in Martin) 14.Rc2 (14.Bc2 f4 15.h4
   fxg3 16.hxg5 Rf8 17.gxh6 Rxf2+ 18.Ke1 Qc3+) Qf6 15.h4 fxe4 16.Qh5+
   Kd8 17.hxg5 Qa1+ 18.Ke2 Qd4]

14.h4

   [14.Qh5+ Kd8 15.h4 g4 16.Bd3 f4 17.Bxf4 Qxf4 18.Ne2 Qf6 =+ 
   Radovici-Timoshchenko, USSR 1976 "Black's king is safer and his plan is
    Nd7-e5 and Kc7" (Martin)]

14...g4 15.Bd3 f4 16.Ne2 fxg3 17.Nxg3 Rf8 18.Rc2

  r n b - k r - -
  p p - - p - - -
  - - - p - q - p
  - - p P - - - -
  - - P - - - p P
  - - - B - - N -
  P - R - - P P -
  - - - Q - K - R

18...Nd7 19.Qxg4 Ne5 20.Qe4 Bd7 21.Kg1 O-O-O 22.Bf1 Rg8 23.f4

  - - k r - - r -
  p p - b p - - -
  - - - p - q - p
  - - p P n - - -
  - - P - Q P - P
  - - - - - - N -
  P - R - - - P -
  - - - - - B K R

23...Nxc4 24.Nh5 Qf7 25.Qxc4 Qxh5 26.Rb2 Rg3 27.Be2 Qf7 28.Bf3 Rdg8
29.Qb3 b6 30.Qe3 Qf6 31.Re2 Bb5 32.Rd2

  - - k - - - r -
  p - - - p - - -
  - p - p - q - p
  - b p P - - - -
  - - - - - P - P
  - - - - Q B r -
  P - - R - - P -
  - - - - - - K R

32...e5! 33.dxe6 Bc6 34.Kf1 Bxf3 0-1
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess