HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: Bobby's openings
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:37:26 GMT

In article <ldoggfINNi8@coltexo.cs.utexas.edu>, varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
|> In article <92287.224101JCW10@psuvm.psu.edu> <JCW10@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> >Does anyone think, as I do, that Bobby is playing openings that 
|> >he would not use against Karpov or Kasparov?
|> 
|> ... 
|> Two points here.  First, Capablanca used to play about 5 games
|> for draws at the beginning of a tournament while looking around
|> the room and scouting out the latest opening theory.  Then he
|> would start beating people.  It was suggested that he was too
|> lazy to study openings, but I think in fact he was just awfully
|> isolated from the mainstream of chess because of living in Cuba.
|> Fischer may be doing something similar.

  Ridiculous! Fischer has never lived in Cuba!!

;-)


|> Second, when I play against a weak computer program with a good
|> opening book, I win fastest by getting it out of its book.
|> (Against Sargon II and III g3 works well.)  I suspect Fischer
|> plays openings "freehand" a lot better than Spassky.
|> 
|> I'm inclined to believe Fischer's opening choices are directed
|> toward winning this match, not toward concealing repertoire.

  I have to agree. Getting Fischer to play in 1 match is one thing - 
but to think that he is thinking of future matches and is thus
hiding his opening theory, seems rather dubious. I think you're correct that
he is playing openings he thinks Spassky is not well prepared for - and
it seems to be working.

-Ron
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PER
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:31:01 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1bceueINNs85@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU>, Robert_Ryan@brown.edu (Rob Ryan) writes:
> In article <winders-121092095923@130.43.4.71>, winders@aux.support.apple.com
> (Scott Winders) said:
> 
>> ...
>>
>>Logically, you are correct.  But logic does not explain why so many of
>>Fischer's opponents became sick while playing against him.  Look at the
>>men Fischer played on the way to the World Championship in 1972.  It
>>appears that most of his opponents were "sick", mentally or physically
>>at some point.
> 
> If we're talking about Spassky getting sick, aren't we getting a little
> carried away attributing this to Fischer?  Didn't Spassky recently have
> to drop out of a French tournament because of liver ailments?  Spassky's
> problems have more to do with his age and general poor physical condition
> than they do with Fischer.
> 
> I can't comment about most of Fischer's opponents getting sick, though, and
> perhaps he does have this affect on players.  But given the lack of evidence
> of this within the past 20 years, the argument seems a little thin.  If the
> rumored match with Polgar takes place, perhaps this would be an interesting
> test of the theory.
>

ya, but then they'd probably call "Fischer PMS" :-)

don wedding
 
> -- Rob
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Rob Ryan, internet:   Robert_Ryan@brown.edu or robr@brownvm.brown.edu
>            bitnet:     ROBR@BROWNVM
>            Compu$erve: 70324,227
>  Brown University, Providence, RI
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: oliveira@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Jorge-Nuno Oliveira Silva)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer's back! (alas)
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:06:08 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: lhasa.berkeley.edu

in Article 17867 of rec.games.chess, 

 rgp@mpd.tandem.com (Ramon Pantin) writes about Fischer:


>The only chess champion that didn't even attempt to defend his title!
>that is really his place in chess history, he won't be much more than
>a psychological curiosity.  

>...

>There have been LOTS of chess players with more interesting
>chess production than Fischer's, quite a few of them never became
>world champions.

>...

>it seems as if he was "throwing" the
>game to Fischer, am I the only one that thinks that Spaski is just
>being paid to show up AND loose?  Their last game looked like "profesional
>wrestling" act, [...]

>...

why are some people so hard on Bobby Fischer? 



jn
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest (LONG)
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<2621@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>
	<1992Oct13.164959.16343@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:25:54

    >By the way, did you know that Fischer *** NEVER *** won a single
    >game against a world champion until his match with Spassky?

    Why, yes, I did!

Everybody realizes that he blew a won game against Bottvinnik at Varna
1962.  But I've heard Fischer has recently claimed to have a bust to
Kasparov's drawing line Rc4 for that game.  Anyone know more about
this?
From: JCW10@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Bobby's openings
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:41:01 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Does anyone think, as I do, that Bobby is playing openings that he would not use
against Karpov or Kasparov?  Byrne said that Bobby only used 3. Bb5 against the
Sicilian once before in 1970 against some player who is currently located in the
" where-are-they-now file."  I don't recall him using the QGA before and Kaprov
and Kasparov have been playing all those Grunfeld's.  He has only used the
exchange Lopez once in this match--a 21 move crush--which was one of his old
weapons, although he did not always play the exchange.  Does anyone know if he
ever tried that weird a6 line of the King's Indian before?

If I were in Chicago, I would make use of Eric Schiller's extensive library to
answer these questions, but I will settle for anyone with Wade and O'Connell's
book of Bobby's complete games.  I would not go so far as to say that he threw
any of the games in this match, but I think that he is concealing a good portion
of his repertoire.  I do not think that he has simply become less aggressive in
his old age.  So, I want to know what Gary has to say about all of this.
Perhaps roisterous Bill Maddex, Illinois' newest master, can answer some of
these questions.

Jonathan Hanen, Connecticut's newest A-player...


Respond via:  Jackson Wilson    jcw10@psuvm.psu.edu"
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 19 comments
Date: 15 Oct 92 07:37:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct15.033723.16408
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Fischer was very upset that he didn't win the nearly-nine-hour game
19.  "I had a very easy win and messed it up," he said.

Analysts at the site thought Spassky's 23...Nc8 was a mistake. They
preferred 23...Rc8, according to the AP.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 18 moves 1-11
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:06:33 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 16:27 GMT
   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. d4 d5
   2. c4 dxc4
   3. Nf3 a6
   4. e3 Nf6
   5. Bxc4 e6
   6. 0-0 c5
   7. dxc5 Qxd1
   8. Rxd1 Bxc5
   9. Nbd2 0-0
   10. a3 b5
   11. Be2 Bb7
From: gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:45:37 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University

RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu asks:
>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?

You should consider several points in this regard:

1) if you are playing offhand games, why play on and on in a hopelessly
   lost game when you could just resign and start a new and probably
   more interesting game?  It's just a waste of time not to.

2) People resign partly out of respect for their opponent.  It's
   something of a "cut" to imply, for instance, that your opponent
   doesn't know how to checkmate you with a rook and king.  Of course,
   if you think your opponent can't do it, it's perfectly fine to make
   them prove that they know how to win it.

3) Nobody ever WON a game by resigning.  If you think that you have any
   play left whatsoever, DON'T RESIGN!

4) If your opponent has played a brilliancy that will force mate in a few
   moves, it is sometimes considered polite to let him/her play it out
   to the checkmate.  It makes the game "prettier".  This is a special case.

5) If you insist on playing out every game to the gruesome end, some
   players in the club might no longer want to play you.  Why?  Because
   they know that even if they gain a crushing advantage, the game will
   drag on for a long time.  They start thinking: "yuck, I could be
   playing another game now".

I have a story about #5 to illustrate my point.  There was a new player
to our club that was very stubborn about NEVER resigning.  After about
a month, nobody wanted to play him anymore.  So I decided to break his
stubborn-ness once-and-for-all so he could get some opponents.  What I
did was offer to play him a few games.  As soon as I obtained a crushing
position (i.e., I was a queen up or some such), I asked if he intended
to continue to play this game.  When he said yes, I said "ok, then I
resign.. congratulations on your win".  He then asked why I resigned
when I was winning, I said "because this game is no longer interesting
to me, I'd rather we play another".  After this happened a few times,
he realized that winning is not the only pleasure of chess, that maybe
the PLAY, or the FIGHT, is where the fun is.  When the fight is over and
you're just scooping up dead bodies, the game is over.

Tournaments, where there is money and rating points at stake, is another
matter.  You can play on until the last dog is hung if you want.  But
remember that if you're CLEARLY going to lose a game anyways, you might
consider resigning and getting some rest for the next round.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT ----  the most important rule is NEVER RESIGN
PREMATURELY.  There's nothing so frustrating as learning that you
resigned in a drawable (or worse yet, win-able!) position.

                                              Scott
From: jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 16 comments
Date: 9 Oct 1992 19:09:31 GMT
Organization: Econometrics Laboratory, U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily4.berkeley.edu

I think its interesting that this line with 5. Bg5 c5 6. d5 h6 7. Bh4 etc. is
given a whole column in the original ECO E, but is mentioned only in a footnote
in the second edition.  not only that, but the line with ...Qa5 as in the
game is not even mentioned.  Anyone have any guesses why?

I was thinking maybe they've moved this line into the Benoni classification
(that's in another volume) but even then you would expect a note indicating
a possible transposition.  Maybe Spassky doesn't have the old ECO volumes!? 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jd@slc3.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:51:24 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia


	Relax all you Fisher fans. There is only one World champion and tha is
Kasparov. If the two ever meet Kasparov will blow Fisher off the board!
									jd
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:02:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.143447.17929@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
>
>The main difference between Fischer's claim to a WC match and
>everyone else's is that Fischer won the title and never lost it.
>It was taken away from him.  This is where the controversy is
>being generated on this thread of legitimate claims to a match.
>Spassky and Botvinnik lost their titles fair and square, but
>Fischer's title was taken away over disagreements he had regarding
>the politics and rules (or lack thereof) for rematches.  Until
>Bobby loses a match with ANYONE, there will always be a fairly
>legitimate claim by some that he is the best chess player in the
>world (which is not necessarily the same thing as "World Champion",
>although the terms are sometimes used interchangably).
>
>
>-- 
>T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)

The FIDE giveth, and the FIDE taketh away.  By playing in the FIDE system and
accepting the FIDE title, Fischer was implicitly submitting to FIDE rules.
If he doesn't like that, he can start his own chess federation (Garri did,but
that's another story. :-) ).  The FIDE was started to standardize the world
championship process and prevent match ducking.  Fischer didn't complain
(relatively speaking; Fischer always complains) when the FIDE gave him a shot
at the title.  If fact, as I recall, one of Fischer's criticisms of the FIDE
is that title defenses are too infrequent, and that if he were champ, things
would be different.  That being the case, he should just as happily accept
matches as champs as he did as challenger.  He didn't, and lost his title 
"fair and square", under the same rules he won it.  He has no more claim to
the title than Ivanchuk, Anand, Karpov, or Short, or even Spassky.
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: alacron!adb@uunet.UU.NET (alan brunelle)
Subject: "Winning with Neat Chess Book Titles"
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:29:45 GMT



"Paul Rubin" writes:

> My favorite is "How to Defeat a Superior Opponent", by Mednis I think.
> I haven't read it yet, but if it really works, I won't have to study
> any more!

You would probably be taken aback by it's original title: "How to Beat
the Russians". The story as my very forgetful mind remembers...

Following the '72 Fischer-Spassky (I) title match, Mednis claims that the
Soviet chess establishment was very concerned (to put it mildly) about
the downfall of Soviet chess supremacy. Thus he takes all (?) of the
games lost by "Russians" (Soviets) to "outsiders" in '73 and subjects 
them to some analysis. His assumption is that, at the time, the Soviets
in general were "Superior" chess players, and well motivated, and thus 
their losses would be instructive. The original title was created by 
the publishers back in the hay-day of the Cold War. (Can you remember 
living back then? It seemed like it was so long ago!) The newer title 
isn't really all that accurate as well, because I believe some of the 
losses were by 2nd tier Soviet GM's to 1st tier non-Soviet GM's.

---

1. My apologies to GM Mednis if I have mis-stated anything.

2. I would recommend this book, especially if you like Mednis' writing - which
   I do. Note that it is a little bit out of date with regards to opening
   lines, but the book does do a good job of annotating the games, and the
   psychology involved in playing "Superior Opponents" - stuff that is
   never out of date.

			Alan D. Brunelle

Alan D. Brunelle, M.Sc.
Principal Software Engineer
ALACRON, INC.
71 Spitbrook Road, Suite 204
Nashua, NH 03060
Phone: (603) 891-2750		FAX: (603) 891-2745

adb@alacron.com
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:55:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct13.175539.11924
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In a Swiss tournament with 2-3 games per day, playing on for hours
nearly guarentees that you'll lose the next game due to exhaustion.
That's your lookout.  However, it also nearly guarentees that your
opponent will lose her next game due to exhaustion, which hardly seems
sporting.  This is one big reason why people who don't resign are looked
on with such hostility.

The Anchorage Chess Club used to have an Ann Landers column tacked up on
the wall; it said, among other things, that you know you're getting old
when a game of chess tires you out.  Got a pretty good laugh at the
club.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II (misc)
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:36:45 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University

From: John.Risk@bbs.oit.unc.edu (John Risk)
>I see many referances to F&S playing at the 2600 level, or their
>performance rating is 2650, or plus or minus something in this range.  Now
>I have played through some of these games and conceed that they are
>playing better that my Class A level, but my question is "how do we know
>at what level they are really playing"
>
>How do "I" know they are not both playing in the 2100 level.  I wouldn't
>mind some comments from the higher rated players, that the games are being
>played at their level (or higher).

To answer this specific question, I'm 2100, and they're way above my head.
Any 2300's out there care to go next?
                                                Scott
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jph@stein.u.washington.edu (Jeff Hanson)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: Hardly any
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:29:17 GMT

In article <PHR.92Oct14203844@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>I think it was GM Nick DeFirmian who said somewhere that studying the
>KNB vs K mate was useless because it comes up so rarely in practice.
>Your results will improve more if you spend the time studying K+P
>endings or something instead.  Apparently many Russian grandmasters
>don't know how to mate with N+B (though they might be able to figure
>it out over the board).
>
>On the other hand, Capablanca in "Chess Fundamentals" said figuring
>out KNB vs K was worthwhile because it taught you about the power
>of the different pieces.  He too didn't imply that it was a situation
>you were likely to see in a real game.

Capa is right.  I spent some time studying this endgame and found it
helped in middle games that involve bishops & knights; especially
open or semi-open middle games.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Info on K+B+N vs K (Was: Re: resigning wusse
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:13:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.104229.16440@husc3.harvard.edu> elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.035356.2493@cis.uab.edu>
>sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>>[...]
>>Endgame 17 "Mate in Three"          W: Kf7,Bf5,Ne5 B: Kh8
>>[.....]
>
>Is this right!?  Kh8 is in the wrong corner to be mated, no?
>Perhaps Bf5 belongs on f4.

Sorry - that was *my* typo.  It should be W: Kf7,Bg5,Ne5 B: Kh8

But, there's Pandolfini type, too...the diagram given has the Black K
(incorrectly) on h7.

Just in case I've mis-typed again, here's a bonus - the commentary and
moves for this ending.  Then, everyone can figure out the correct
initial position for themselves.

"In this scenario, the Knight sets up the death blow, and the Bishop
deals it.  The three pieces line up chorus-line fashion in the end,
though the Bishop could be equally ruthless on b2, c3, d4, or e5.
Meanwhile, the light squares are held by the tandem King and Knight."

1. Ng6+ Kh7
2. Nf8+ Kh8
3. Bf6  mate

Sharp eyes, Noam!

Bonus problem for the student:  start from the diagram, which shows

W: Kf7,Bg5,Ne5 B: Kh7

and mate in FOUR.  (Hint: Noam has already given you one possible key
move...) [in the immortal words of Soupy Sales, "tempo, tempo!"]



-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 18 moves 1-30
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:20:05 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Fischer reportedly spent 25 minutes thinking about 9...0-0.

As of 19:00 GMT
   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. d4 d5
   2. c4 dxc4
   3. Nf3 a6
   4. e3 Nf6
   5. Bxc4 e6
   6. 0-0 c5
   7. dxc5 Qxd1
   8. Rxd1 Bxc5
   9. Nbd2 0-0
   10. a3 b5
   11. Be2 Bb7
   12. b4 Be7
   13. Bb2 Nbd7
   14. Rac1 Rfc8
   15. Nb3 Rxc1
   16. Rxc1 Rc8
   17. Rxc8+ Bxc8
   18. Nfd4 Nb8
   19. Bf3 Kf8
   20. Na5 Bd6
   21. Ndb3 e5
   22. Nc5 Ke7
   23. h3 Nfd7
   24. Nd3 f6
   25. Be4 g6
   26. f4 exf4
   27. exf4 Nb6
   28. Nb7 Bc7
   29. Nbc5 Nc4
   30. Bc1 Nd7
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: 'wusses'
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:51:50 GMT

In <16881100EF.I0060301@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I0060301@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Klaus Blumberg) writes:

>can someone explain the term 'wusses' in plain english terms?
>probalbly even add where it is derived from?
>i must also have missed the explanation of 'fish'. volonteers?

Wuss, noun, A term used to describe a player lacking killer instinct. E.G.,
	    plays quiet openings, avoid combinations he/she cannot calculate
	    a definite win from, looks for drawish positions. Term usually
	    used with derision by a player who can't get the win he wanted.

Fish, noun, An easy mark. Naturally, this is a relative term. Also a term
	    used with derision. Usually by those of us analyzing games of
	    GM's we couldn't beat with a three piece advantage.

:)

Paul
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:59:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct12.185941.9652
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <Bw0pCK.422@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu  
(Eric Eaton) writes:
> In article (Brent Edwards) writes:
> Another book that I've heard of is Bradford's Chess Openings.  I may be
> wrong on the first word of the title.  I know it starts with a 'B'.
> It is similar in nature to MCO, but I don't know much about this one.
> 
> -Eric Eaton
> 
> gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu

That's BATSFORD Chess Openings, aka BCO. The first edition was compiled by  
me and edited heavily by Gary Kasparov and Ray Keene. the second edition  
was compiled by Kasparov himself (the handwritten manuscript has been made  
available for all to see on numerous occasions) and edited by Ray and me.  
In each edition, Jon Tisdall provides excellent prose introductions to  
each opening. BCO I is available from American Chess promotions, Macon GA  
(1982). The second edition (1989) was carried by Macmillan, but I  
understand that Holt is taking over distribution (there will be a few  
touch-ups in the Holt edition, including restoration of my name to the  
cover). The 3rd edition will not appear for some time, we won't even start  
on it until after Kasparov's title defense next year.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
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