HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: -Broadband.Network.Maintenance@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (-Broadband Network Maintenance)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: "Solvability" in Chess
Date: 25 Sep 92 06:41:46 GMT

Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.



Ok, is chess solvable?  I hope we never find out. Enjoyment from the game 
comes in part from not knowing the out come. Look at its history, the rise
and fall of openings, ideas, ect. What fun!

Not only that if chess is solved we won't be having this type of discussion
now would we? And of course we can not over look the fun in trying solve 
chess, and beat our opponet.

--Bruce

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: how many games?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:13:13 GMT

ckawecki@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>how many games can possibly be played anyhow?

An infinite number, of course!  (And they can all be
different.)
From: tmoody@sju.edu (T. Moody)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: NOW
Date: 3 Oct 92 12:17:14 GMT
Organization: St. Joseph's University


A week of so ago, someone asked about the strength of the shareware
chess program NOW.  I recently played it against Gnuchess 3.2.1
(windows) on the 16mHz 386SX machine in my office.  NOW beat gnuchess
playing black and playing white.  The time controls used were: Gnuchess
was set for 40 moves per hour; NOW was set for average move time=1 min.
30 sec.

Incidentally, despite what it says in the help file, NOW will not run on
an 8088-based machine.

-- 
Todd Moody * tmoody@sju.edu  (That's St. Joseph's Univ., Philosophy Dept.)
            "In what furnace was thy brain?"  -- William Blake
From: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: query
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:06:22 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <199228.4184.10911@dosgate> "lisa powell" <lisa.powell@canrem.com> writes:
>Having a problem finding a good line for black in the Sicilian Najdorf
>where white plays 6.Bc4. Gufeld doesn't mention it. ECO B90 6 & 7 has
>slim pickings for black with 6..Nbd7 and 6.. g6. IM Joe Gallagher's
>Trends, chapter 3, shows 4 games: 3 wins for white and 1 draw -- about
>which IM JG writes: "an absolutely fascinating game which White was
>unlucky not to win."
>
>As I see it: two possibilities: either there's a
>book out there somewhere that shows some hope for black, or the Najdorf
>is dead meat for black. Which is it?
>
>Internet: lisa.powell@canrem.com . CRS . 71036,36 Compuserve
>   
> * PMDBM  V1.75b #3 *
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


MCO-13 lists 6...e6  7. Bd3 b5  8. O-O Be7  (or 8. f4 Bb7)

John

-- 
JOHN A. SWARTZ - The MITRE Corp. Bedford, MA * John_Swartz@iegate.mitre.org
>Kill troll with sword

You don't have that!
From: tcmaint@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (-Broadband Network Maintenance)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 14 moves 1-25
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:08:43 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


I see game 14 is under way, will some body either post to the net game 13,
or send game 13 to me.

--Bruce
From: lee.matheson@synapse.isis.org (Lee Matheson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: re: F-S II gossip
Date: 19 Sep 92 21:57:00 GMT
Reply-To: lee.matheson@synapse.isis.org (Lee Matheson)
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321

JCE>Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
JCE>From: jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
JCE>Subject: re: F-S II gossip
JCE>Message-ID: <9209142047.AA00624@econ.berkeley.edu>
JCE>Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:47:43 GMT


JCE>In article 16334, fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
JCE>>Spassky's 31. Rc1 in game 8 was
JCE>>judged a good move by Robert Byrne and Deep Thought II in the New
JCE>>York Times, to which Fischer answered 31....Ncb3? 32. axb3 Nxb3. But
JCE>>Spassky followed up with the awful 33.Rc6? rather than *33.Qc3* which
JCE>>would have given him all the winning chances.

After 33.Qc3, Nc1; 34.Qa3, b4; 35.Qa4, Kf8, 36.Bf1, f6! and the game
is still very much in the balance.  I looked at many variations and
concluded there is lots of play left, with chances for both sides,
although I have seen assessments on this net saying white is better.

Also fun to look at is 33.Qc2 (instead of 33.Rc6? or 33.Qc3!).
It also seems also to be a good move to me.  After 33.Qc2!, Nc1;
34.Qd1 and I don't think black can extract his knight.  This could
continue 34. ... Rc5; 35.b4, Rc3; 36.Rc2 and white wins back material.
However I think in this line 34. ... f6! is superior, and once again
the game seems to have chances for both sides.  But I'm no master nor
expert, hence I think the B.Harpers and the other fine players on
this net will probably have the best assessment.

If Spassky's health improves, it will be interesting to see if
a Kings Indian of this variation is repeated again.

Lee Matheson, Ottawa
---
 . OLX 2.1 TD . I would strongly oppose apathy, if I cared.
From: jriechel@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: (none)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:09:03 GMT


>The symmetrical Petroff would produce a more plausible game, requiring
>no outright blunders from either side until 5...Qxe5??
>
>--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
>  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University

How about a symmetrical English?  1. c4 c5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 ...  J Riechel
From: kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca (Kees van den Doel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: DEEP THOUGHT II vs KASPAROV
Date: 30 Sep 1992 12:08:24 -0700
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca

In article <1992Sep24.175615.391@ziff.com> tennis@ziff.com writes:
>
>Blessed Bovine! 6*(10^77) is a HYOOOMONGOUS number! In fact this number is
>larger than the number of electrons in the universe, I believe!  It looks
>something like this:
>
>60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

How brilliant, someone who can count to 77. I think you need to work
a little on your sense of humor, I was merely facetious.

[The following in reply to me]
>
>And as far as pulling numbers from a hat goes, your 6 possible (reasonable)
>moves may or may not be correct, but you did pull it from your hat. ;) But
>it could be 6, could be 10. Does not matter, you will have a power failure
>before you have finished. :)
>
>Tony Ennis

No Tony, I don't even own a hat, I pulled it out of Scientific American,
october 1990, p44.

--Kees




Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: engp2063@nusunix1.nus.sg (NG CHEE MUN SIDNEY)
Subject: Chinese Chess, anyone?
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:09:58 GMT

Does anyone like Chinese Chess? Please tell me if you do.....
Anyway, let me tell you all that Grandmaster Li Lai Qun from China
would be coming to Singapore as a coach in November. 

If you have any Chinese Chess News from your university, please
contribute to this column. 

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: alopez-o@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
Subject: Re: mirror
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:52:42 GMT

In article <Sep26.225902.67938@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) writes:
> >From: miklas@thorogood.rutgers.edu (Keith Miklas)
> >
> >suppose that you are playing a novice who is quite an inexperienced
> >chessplayer.  He knows that you are a superior player, and decides to
> >mirror each and every one of your moves.  What's the best strategy to
> >play against this person?
> >
> >(ps don't play the stonewall! :)
> 
> How about:  1. P-Q4 P-Q4  2. P-QB4 P-QB4  3. BPxP BPxP  4. QxP QxP  5.
> QxQ
> 
> Or is this person too smart for this?  If so, I think it's actually a
> fairly
> interesting question.
> 

Capablanca beat somebody with apparently "sound" mirror moves in the (I
think)
four knight opening.

Alex
> Scott

-- 
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              alopez-o@maytag.UWaterloo.ca
Department of Computer Science                      University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada
From: gpylant@admin1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Kasparov speaks (Was: Re: Fischer-Spassky game 11 analysis)
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:14:35 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Memphis State University

> Also, 12...Qb6 instead of 12...Qd7 (more ??s).  I wish I wasn't so wiped
> out, or I would have wanted to see this!
> 
YES , BUT 13. Nd2! can still be played....I don't think 12...Qb6 helps at all.
If 13...Bxd4 14. Nc4   Black's Queen is in the way.
Gary Pylant
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 12 (?): comments
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:15:30 GMT
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <5871@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)  
writes:
> 
> Methinks Eric is being too generous with ... a5?  I suspect that there
> are at least 1000 players in the world who could win the game after
> that move.  I can't believe that the player of the Black pieces in that
> game has pretensions to be world champion.

Now, now, John, Kasparov has been known to hang a queen! But I 
suppose that you have a point, in that such a strategic blunder
may be more indicative of weakness than a simple tactical
oversight.

--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
                                  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Subject: query
Reply-To: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:02:01 EST

"lisa powell" <lisa.powell@canrem.com> writes:

LP>Having a problem finding a good line for black in the Sicilian Najdorf
LP>where white plays 6.Bc4. Gufeld doesn't mention it. ECO B90 6 & 7 has
LP>slim pickings for black with 6..Nbd7 and 6.. g6. IM Joe Gallagher's
LP>Trends, chapter 3, shows 4 games: 3 wins for white and 1 draw -- about
LP>which IM JG writes: "an absolutely fascinating game which White was
LP>unlucky not to win."

LP>As I see it: two possibilities: either there's a
LP>book out there somewhere that shows some hope for black, or the Najdorf
LP>is dead meat for black. Which is it?

 1.   e4    c5
 2.  Nf3    d6
 3.   d4    cd
 4. Nxd4   Nf6
 5.  Nc3    a6
 6.  Bc4    e6
 7.  Bb3    b5
 8.   f4   Bb7    0-0    Be7
 9.   f5    e5    Qf3    Qb6     f4    Bb7     f4   0-0
10. Nde2  Nbd7    Be3    Qb7     e5     de     e5    de
11.  Bg5   Be7    Qg3    Bd7     fe    Bc5     fe  Nfd7
12.  Ng3   Rc8   Rfe1    Nc6    Be3    Nc6    Qh5   Nc6
13.  Nh5  Nxh5     a3    0-0     ef   Bxd4   Nxc6   Qb6+
14. Qxh5   0-0                  Qe1   Bxe3+   Be3  Qxc6
15.                 Even       Qxe3    Qd4    Rf3   Bb7
16. Black plans
17. an exchange                White better      ??
18. sac on c3

    STEPHEN         Look through the Windows and you will see OS/2!
    ^^^^^^^    :-)  Walking and chewing gum at the same time.

 * DeLuxe2/386 1.25 #3969 * Peace and long life.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: atoenne@mpii02000.cs.uni-sb.de (Andreas Toenne)
Subject: Re: What to Buy ?
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Informatik, Saarbruecken
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:03:10 GMT

In article <880061@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com>, jqtaylor@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (John Quill Taylor) writes:
|> 
|> I'd like to buy a portable chess computer. What is the difference between
|> pressure-sensitive and auto-sensory (besides a few hundred dollars!)? Which
|> is the best one to buy? Mephisto/Fidelity, Novag, Saitek, ??? Please post
|> or write to me if you have any good / bad experience with any of these. Also,
|> is there a better place to buy than ICD? They seemed very nice on the phone.
|> I am inclined to get the Novag Diablo with auto-sense and wood pieces.

The important difference between these two kinds of boards is the way you handle
the pieces.

- a pressure-sensitive board requires you to put the piece firmly on the board.
For me this is a real drawback.
- a auto-sensory board may be one of two kinds:
a) automatic detection of pieces and their positions (does that exist already?)
b) magnetic reed-contacts in the board and magnets under the pieces. This allows
you to place the pieces like on a standard board and the system detects the
position change. Drawback: these kinds of boards are *very* sensitive to
misplaced pieces or sloppy piece movements (too narrow to the board).

Personaly I own a Mephisto Modular sensory board and the 10MHz Polgar-Module (ca.
2200 ELO). I am very satisfied with both the board and the module.
The board may operate on batteries and the module can be used without the board.

Personal advice: if you play alot with real natural-intelligence based opponents
with a real board then go for a auto-sensory board.

	Andreas
-- 

	Andreas Toenne			Voice: 	x49 681 5846272
	Max-Planck-Institut		Office:	x49 681 302 5363
	fuer Informatik			e-mail:	atoenne@mpi-sb.mpg.de

	Im Stadtwald
	6600 Saarbruecken, Germany
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: ChessBase vs. NICBase
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:35:08 GMT
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <Bv7u94.9zL@world.std.com> mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)  
writes:

>  
>    Does anybody out there have a good knowledge of both programs?  Or  
can
> anybody warn me away from one or the other?  Any relevant info would be
> greatly appreciated, email or here.  Thanks in advance!
> 
I have been using both programs pretty heavily. NIC is fine if
you don't want to add a lot of subvariations, but do want to add a lot of  
prose. ChessBase has a terrible comment windo with no word wrap,
but much nicer navigation tools, including hypertext. When writing my  
books I find myself drawn more to ChessBase, despite its many
shortcomings.

For studying games, both programs are excellent. The amount of data
available for each is enormous, and about equal. Ciustomer support
is good for each.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
                                  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Please stop
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:38:50 GMT

In article <30SEP199209431897@summa.tamu.edu> kbs4580@summa.tamu.edu (SCHAUB, KEITH BRADLEY) writes:
>	Enough already again from a different person. We are tired of
>having to read your solvability crap.

You don't HAVE TO read it, and before you call it crap look at what you are
producing.

> E-mail to each other so we can
>read something interesting.

If you want something interesting, you should switch to alt.pictures.erotica
or alt.sex.bondage instead. BTW, your posting is TOTALLY uninteresting - why
did you post it?

> Besides, I don't see any of you writing the
>program to do it. That's like saying, "We can travel at the speed of light.
>We just have't got the engine to do it yet." 

It is actually just the opposite. Your example is of a false claim. It is not
possible, even in principle, to travel at the speed of light. It is possible,
however, to solve chess, at least in principle.

And writing a program to do it is irrelevant. Suppose you claim that it is
possible in principle to commit suicide, and somebody challenges your claim.
Should you actually commit suicide to prove your claim? (To make the analogy
completely proper, say that you claim that you can commit suicide in a way
nobody has done yet, e.g. by swallowing a lot of chess pieces.)

	Sven

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: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:29:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.205045.22023@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
>
>>No. ASSUMING r[+]<r[-], THIS PART of the system is deflationary.
>
>This part IS the entire system.  Do a balance on the rating pool:
>
>         Accumulation = Input - Output + Generation
>
>dR is the accumulation, r[+]dN[+] is the input, r[-]dN[-] is the output, and
>the generation term is zero in a pure system with no bonus points, rating
>floors, different K values, etc.
>
>The generation term, NI (which should be NIdt to make the units
>consistant) is zero.  In a pure system, there is no way to generate points
>except from players entering or leaving the system.  If you gain 300 points,
>your opponents lose 300 points.  r[imp] is zero no matter what.
>If I=0, then why would r[-] be > r[+]?  Simple.  Beginners improve faster
>than veterans, so I for beginners is positive and I for the veterans is
>negative, with the overall I being 0.  After a couple of years, the beginner's
>ability levels off and his rating starts to decrease like the veterans.
>This discourages him, and he quits.  Rarely will he have the tenacity to 
>stick around long enough for his rating to drop all the way back to his
>initial rating, so r[-] is > r[+].
>
But during that time, "others'" ratings have decreased... now, those "others"
must leave the pool once (they are presumably mortal). And they will leave 
with lower ratings than when they started.

Nobody has so far posted a viable model of how a deflationary mechanism could
sustain itself in a large pool for a long time.

>
>By 1979, things had settled down.  Most of the beginners who joined during
>the Fischer boom had quit, and those who didn't quit had developed into pretty
>decent players during the intervening seven years.  I don't think there
>were THAT many more weak players than today, but the ratings at the low
>end of the scale were ridiculous.  I remember open adult tournaments that
>had class prizes for under 400, 400-599, etc.  It was not unusual for 
>scholastic players to have ratings below 100.  Four people in Tennessee
>actually got ratings of one!  I don't think things were quite that
>bad in other parts of the country (we had lots of big scholastic programs),
>but deflation was still clearly out of hand.
>
This suggests that 'deflation' is ill-defined. Example: make SAT mandatory
for all high school seniors (instead of for college-bound and only those whose
colleges require it). You'd have an avalanche of 200 scores - a 'deflation'.
So should you then compensate for deflation by raising all scores in some
fashion, thereby causing an avalanche of 700+ scores?

Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:57:52 GMT

(Renato Ghica) writes:
>There are a finite number of game positions, (even when considering
>promotions, en-passant, wether a king or a rook has moved), but...
>game positions are not important, it's the sequence of moves leading up
>to them that are. This is because given a chess position, one has
>no way of precisely determining what sequence of moves will create
>that position (indeed, there are an infinite sequence of moves
>that will create a position if there are no such things as the 50
>move rule). 

In a previous posting I rejected this argument because of the
apparent equivalence of positions that contained the same state
information (player to move, available moves of the pieces, etc.).
Chuck Carroll has since convinced me that my objection is flawed.
In fact, it would seem that there are indeed an infinite number of
possible values for the finite number of chess positions.  As such,
the game is unsolvable.

I find this astonishing.

Ed Hummel
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 25 Sep 92 22:27 PDT
Subject: Re: Question about a term
Nf-ID: #R:1992Sep24.184109.1789@nntpd.lkg.:1044007751:cdp:1451600047:000:215
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Sep 25 22:27:00 1992


Oops, in fyon KET o, there are two "o"s.  The first would be pronounced as the
"o" in the English "on"; the second would be pronounced "(English) long, but
cut short.

Sorry about that.

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Making a wood chess chess (Was: Re: Standard piece pattern?)
Summary: Woodworkers go chess bonkers!
Keywords: Chess Woodworking
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:10:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.205621.13848@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
taylor@dominy.enet.dec.com (Bruce J. Taylor) writes:
	[...]
	7. What would you charge to turn me a set?
	A: A lot. Since I won't be tooling up for a production run,
	these will all be turned freehand. Much labor and many discards.

I passed on the original post(s) about this subject, but something I heard
in the USCF office is interesting along these lines.  Somehow we heard from
some woodworking magazine, which fairly recently ran a bit about creating
your own chess set (presumably a standard lathe job).  We got mail from the
editor, saying readers of his little magazine were interested in chess from
doing the chess set, and could they include our number.  Sure, of course.
Turns out the sub count is something like 140,000, and we have been getting
dozens of calls.

Everyone knows by now how bad I am with details, so if someone is
interested, I'll tighten them up on this.

--Elliott
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: strong chessplayer parents with strong children?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:58:38 GMT

In article <BvAnEx.B83@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair) writes:
>   I read somewhere that neither of the Polgar sister's parents
>is a really strong player (unclear what ``strong'' means in this
>context, but I got the impression that neither one was ever
>master strength).  Waitzkin's description of parents of chess
>prodigies makes clear that the children are outplaying their parents
>quite early.
>

I remember reading that Daddy Polgar decided that chess would be the field
in which his children would become geniuses because he was able to teach them
to a high enough level, which he was not able in, say, music. I blieve he
should be a candidate master or a cathegory I player, i.e. roughly equal to
a U.S. expert. (Well, that does not qualify as 'really strong' anyway...)

>   This leads me to wonder about cases of parent and child both being
>strong.  According to the Oxford Companion, the grandmaster
>Milan Vidmar (I'm told he was a big deal in electrical engineering.
>Can anybody give details about this?) had a son who became an international
>master.  I think the mother of the English champion Sir George Thomas 
>won something like the British ladies' championship.  Are there other
>cases?

There was once (or many times?) a thread here about women not being attracted
to chessplayers. Maybe great chessplayers just don't have children who would
inherit their talent...

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess