HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 50 out of 100?
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:12:37 GMT
	<1992Apr16.180234.5960@cs.brown.edu>
Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA

In article <1992Apr16.180234.5960@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs) writes:

# In article <0dv3YdT0BwxKIW7ohf@transarc.com> Ron_Kownacki@TRANSARC.COM writes:
# >>> 100 coin tosses: 50 heads out of 100 is a better bet than 1 head out of 1.
#
# >If you really believe this, I'd like to invite you over to my house for a
#
# Ok, so what did I miss?  The probability of 1 head out of one toss is
# 1/2.  What is the probability of 50 heads out of 100?  I'm afraid that
# I would have to review the theory before I could give an answer, but my
# recollection was that the probability of 1/2 heads starts to approach 1
# as the number of tosses increases.
#
# In any case, to bring this back to chess, the idea is that I can go to
# a tournament and win 4/4 one week and 0/4 the next week, but over the
# long run I am likely to win 2/4 (assuming that I am playing against
# people of comparable strength, and the ratings system is supposed to
# help in finding those people).

	Here's the answer:

	The probability of getting k heads from tossing n fair coins
is given from the formula for binomial coefficients: 

	(n! / ((n - k)! * k!)) * (2 ^ (-n))

	Therefore, the probability of getting exactly 50 heads from
tossing 100 coins is about 0.0795892373874 which is equal to about one
chance in 12.56, which is not equalt to one chance in two.  While the
expectation of the toss is fifty, it does not been that the
expectation will be made in half the trials.

	This was noted by Blaise Pascal, and the above equation is
used to define Pascal's triangle.

	The probability of getting exactly k heads from n = k * 2
tosses decreases as k increases, although the rate of increase
decreases.  For k = 100 and n = 200, the probability of exactly k
heads is about 0.0563484790092 or about one chance in 17.75.

 [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: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Botvinnik Autobiography
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:34:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: canal.01GIN0AY3I9C8X2I3V

This is just a note to let Hanon Russell know his "Botvinnik Autobiography"
posts are much appreciated.  In fact, I'm still waiting for Mike Nolan to
catch up with his "Best of Hanon Russell" series so I can bring my collection
up to date.  (Hint, hint :)

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
From: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: More Golden Age Dynamics
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:47:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: canal.01GINJKP1ZOW8X3436

Another gem from _Paul Morphy and The Golden Age of Chess_ by
William Ewart Napier:

Steinitz - Barry, Pillsbury, and Snow
Boston 1891
King's Gambit Declined

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.Qe2 Qe7 7.d3
Bg4 8.f5 O-O-O 9.b4? Bxf3! 10.gxf3 d5!! 11.exd5 Nxb4!! 12.d4
(12.cxb4 would be answered by 12...Bd4) 12...Bb6 13.Ba3 Nfxd5!
14.Qe4 (If 14.Bxd5 Qh4+ etc.) 14...Nxc3! 15.Nxc3 Rxd4 16.Qe2
Qh4+ 17.Kf1 Rxc4! 18.Bxb4 Rxb4 19.Ne4 Rd8 20.Kg2 Rxe4! 21.fxe4
Rd2! 22.Qxd2 Qg4+ 23.Kf1 Qf3+ 24.Ke1 Qxh1+ 25.Ke2 Qxa1 0-1

Now, considering an earlier post of mine on Romanovsky's discussion
of dynamics, did anyone notice any waiting moves by Black, any
restraining moves, any blockading?  Nooo!

Romanovsky:  "The struggle for the dynamic realisation of a plan
consists of looking for the shortest way and the most energetic
means of achieving the objective."

So which do you want to do?  Wait, restrain, and blockade?  I think
not!

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:17:23 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Shortest/Longest Games
	<1992Apr11.190414.19676@news.Hawaii.Edu>

>In the book _Grandmasters of Chess_, Harold Schonberg says
>the longest game was between Pilnik and Czerniak at Mar del
>Plata 1953, 191 moves, ending in a draw. The longest game ending
>in a win was between Wolf and Duras, Carlsbad 1907, 168 moves
>over a 22.5 hour period.

Both of these records would appear to have been surpassed.
According to Andy Soltis, Stepak and Maschian played a
game of 193 moves at the Semifinals of the Israeli Championship
in 1980:  "It took six sittings and 24 1/2 hours before White, who had
been a piece ahead since the 59th move, could break through a
granitic wall of White and Black pawns.  Black had brilliantly sacri-
ficed a bishop to establish the blockade but later made several
minor errors that permitted the final transition - on move 181 - to a
lost Q+K+P vs. Q+K endgame."
From: gilles@Damrod.McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Gilles Fayad)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Mapping ply-depth with ratings
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:01:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: thunder.1992Apr15.200117.19677
Organization: McGill University, McRCIM

I was wondering whether there was a known mapping from a ply-depth
(let's say 6) to a USCF or ELO rating (let's say 1750 USCF). It would
be nice to be able to determine your rating while playing against computers.

gilles
From: lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Deafness (was: Re: Women and chess)
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:04:24 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

MYRON A LIEBERMAN writes:
>It was indeed Petrosian and not Korchnoi whose hearing
>was impaired. As a matter of fact Petrosian routinely avoided
>distraction during games by turning off his hearing aid.

Nobody denies that Petrosian had hearing trouble.  The
question is whether or not Korchnoi ALSO has hearing
trouble of some sort.  I can confirm that the 1978 book,
The World Chess Championship:  Korchnoi vs. Karpov,
DOES say on page 6 (in the English edition), "While
playing chess Korchnoi ... lives in a world of his own
construction.  His absolute concentration is aided by
deafness which helps him to exclude the external world
from his inner consciousness."  This book was written
by Raymond Keene who was one of Korchnoi's seconds
during the 1978 match.  On the other hand, Keene has
not always been the most careful writer in the world.
I can't help wondering if Keene was being metaphorical
or perhaps exaggerating a slight Korchnoi hearing
problem.  I have never seen any mention of a Korchnoi
hearing problem anywhere else.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: 50 out of 100?
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:36:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.180234.5960@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>In article <0dv3YdT0BwxKIW7ohf@transarc.com> Ron_Kownacki@TRANSARC.COM writes:
>>>> 100 coin tosses: 50 heads out of 100 is a better bet than 1 head out of 1.
>
>>If you really believe this, I'd like to invite you over to my house for a
>
>Ok, so what did I miss?  The probability of 1 head out of one toss is
>1/2.  What is the probability of 50 heads out of 100?  I'm afraid that
>I would have to review the theory before I could give an answer, but my
>recollection was that the probability of 1/2 heads starts to approach 1
>as the number of tosses increases.
>
>In any case, to bring this back to chess, the idea is that I can go to
>a tournament and win 4/4 one week and 0/4 the next week, but over the
>long run I am likely to win 2/4 (assuming that I am playing against
>people of comparable strength, and the ratings system is supposed to
>help in finding those people).
>
>--Jim


another thing here:  taking your "the probability of 1/2 heads approaches 1
as the number of tosses increases".  The probability of 1/2 heads on one
toss is EXACTLY ONE anyway.....  The probability of 1/2 heads on 100 tosses
is no better than for 1 toss....

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Viswanathan Anand
Date: 5 Apr 92 19:03:39 GMT

In article <9204050246.AA01218@barred.owlnet.rice.edu> pvr@rice.edu (Narasimha Pvr) writes:

>In article <9204050235.AA01034@barred.owlnet.rice.edu>, pvr@rice.edu (Narasimha
>Pvr) writes:

>> tournament? I know that he defeated a few GMs in some tournaments with time
>> constraint (as in a 30-minute-per-game tourney just before Linares, in which

>Oops, I meant "normal time constraint" by "time constraint".

>--------
Yes, I recall that he defeated Defirmian in precisely that fashion
when he was still quite young, and there are other examples as well.
From: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Another nutter butter peanut butter Wolff game
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:18:00 GMT

Gulf Coast Open
Metairie 1992
GM Patrick Wolff (2646) - NM Dany Miller (2222)
Petrov's Defense

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.O-O O-O
8.c4 c6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bg4 12.Rb1 b6 13.Rb5 Bc7
14.h3 a6 15.hxg4 axb5 16.Bxh7+ (Oh really??) Kxh7 17.Ng5+ Kg6?

    Sure.  Why bother testing the sac with 17...Kg8?  NM Mark
    Schulingkamp got this game score from Miller, and also gives
    the following notes.  I can't tell you whose they are or
    where they came from!  17...Kg8 18.Qd3 Re8 19.Qh7+ Kf8 20.Qh8+
    Ke7 21.Qxg7 Kd7 22.Nxf7 Qe7 23.Bg5 Qf8.  Gee, I don't know.
    How does White continue?  Anybody got any information about
    this stuff?  I haven't found anything in my analysis for
    White.

18.Qd3+ f5 19.Re1 Qxg5 (This is very quickly becoming a non-game.)
20.Bxg5 Kxg5 21.Qe3+ Kg6 22.Qh3 Kf7 23.Qh5+ Kg8 24.g5 Bf4 25.g3 Bd2
26.Re2 Rxa2 27.Kg2 Bxc3 (That's what my score says.) 28.g6 1-0

    Why do I get the feeling Wolff took his 2222 opponent for a chump?

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: helios!intercal.com!hwr@tssi.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: Maxwell Macmillan Chess, March, 1992
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:12:43 GMT


                        Maxwell Macmillan
                              CHESS
                           March, 1992

With the appearance of the March issue, received in the colonies 
by air freight at the end of the March, it appears that the 
scheduling problems that affected the publication dates of the 
magazine for the first two issues of 1992 have been resolved. As 
the editor Paul Lamford points out, "We return to a more normal 
publication date for this issue as we recover from the problems 
caused by the collapse of the Maxwell Communications 
Corporation."

We continue to be amazed at the extent of the detailed analysis 
given each month in the "Beat the Masters Comments." This is an 
article which presents positions and solicits analysis by 
readers. A panel of GMs and IMs then submit their individual 
annotations. The final result is a piece which, when reviewed 
carefully by the conscientious student, should greatly assist in 
the development of middle game analytical skills.

IM Malcolm Pein has looks at some "Opening Novelties" which he 
briefly runs by the reader, including TNs in the Nimzovich 
Defense, Slav, and Marshall. Readers will note that Pein is the 
author of the 1990 "Trends..." pamphlet on the Marshall Counter 
Gambit, recently reviewed by us.

A tournament report by Chris Baker about Reggio Emilia falls 
short of expectations, considering the significance of the 
competition. His focus on other concurrent tournaments at the 
same site barely holds our interest. A much more detailed look 
is given the Investbank Tournament by IM Zoran Ilic. Readers may 
recall that was held in Belgrade at the end of 1991 and won by 
Gelfand followed closely by Nunn and Kamsky. The Hastings 
Premier and Challengers events are then covered by GM Hodgson 
and IM Crouch respectively. Solid if not brilliant tournament 
coverage is the order of the day by the latter while we note 
that Julian Hodgson's writing continue to more than hold our 
attention.

In the same vein, we did enjoy Hodgson's follow-up to his 
tongue-in-cheek "Secret Diary of John Major". All in all, with 
the exception of the surprisingly mediocre coverage of Reggio 
Emilia, another fine issue of "Chess."

Subscription information: Maxwell Macmillan Chess, London Road, 
Wheatley, Oxford, OX91YR, England. 1-yr: $44.95

Copyright 1992 Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:42:16 GMT


No, it doesn't really mean that I'm lucky: I've suggested that I think
that Black is better in the position.  If it turns out that Black has
resources it means that my judgement that Black should be alright if 
it hasn't made any mistakes is right.  As I've said: I don't play this
and I have no axes to grind.  

I think the distinction between luck and intuition is a useful one, by
the way.  If you guys want to debate the accuracy of my judgement and
want to use the position for training games, be my guest.  I've got
other things to do and positions to study in lines I *do* play and a
limited amount of time.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: How Do You Increase Speed?
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:05:54 GMT

In <1992Apr3.134826.13128@visus.com> nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash) writes:

>I am a relatively new D rated player with a frustrating problem.

>In tournaments with time controls G/90 and above I can hold my own against even  
>B rated players. But when the speed is turned up to G/60 or, god forbid G/45, I  
>completely fall apart and loose to players rated below 1000. In my last  
>tournament I even fell into a stupid mate-in-one after 11 moves.

>I know I can't expected to play as well at G/60 as G/90, but it seems everyone  
>else gets marginally worse, and I take a quantum leap into total incompetence!

>Does anyone else have this problem? Can anyone suggest exercises to improve my  
>calculating speed?
>--

Your problem (if you fall for mate in 1) is not calculation speed, it is
just the speed of your pattern recognition entity. There are no books
to help with that. In my opinion there is only one cure: Speed chess, speed
chess, speed chess.

					--- juffi




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| DI Johannes FUERNKRANZ                          Dep. of Computer Science |
| juffi@cs.uchicago.edu                           University of Chicago    |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: albert@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Joseph Albert)
Subject: rec.games.chess.etiquette
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:48:29 GMT

Many of you who have spent much time at all reading various newsgroups on the
net are probably very weary of the ranting, raving, arguing, abusiveness, and
general immaturity that plagues many newsgroups.

Until recently, rec.games.chess has been virtually free of this sort of
discussion-- a tradition that many old-timers know goes back even before
that days of nntp to the old net.chess when uucp was the modus operandi.

Rather, net.chess, and, it's descendent, rec.games.chess has generally
offered its readers a pleasant forum for chess enthusiasts ranging from
beginner to master to discuss things relevant to chess, ask questions,
and disseminate information about the royal game.

In the last several days, we have seen this tradition of treating people
with mutual respect, a tradition that has existed on this forum for over
a decade, be broken. Let's not let rec.games.chess go the way of other
newsgroups. Rather than pointing fingers at who may or may not be to blame,
maybe we all could take a minute to think about how much we enjoy this forum,
and make a personal committment to keep it the pleasant newsgroup that it
has been for so many years.

Joseph Albert
From: lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Good-bye Reshevsky stuff
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:59:22 GMT
	<1992Apr17.041556.6074@panix.com>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

It would certainly be a relief if the search-for-"nasty"
-stories debate is now over.  I don't want to say too
much about the controversy specifically, but I thought
that some general comments on the reliability of chess
history books might be of interest.  Here is some of what
Edward Winter wrote in a 1976 article, "Historical
Blunders", for the magazine Chess.


     `Factual' books on the great chess champions of the
past need to be treated with the utmost wariness and
scepticism. ... Reuben Fine ... wrote in The World's
Great Chess Games (page 112): "As far as style goes,
there were three Capablancas.  The first was the boy
who, like every aspiring youngster, thought of brilliancies,
attack at all cost". ... Reuben Fine, this time from The
Psychology of the Chess Player (page 51):  "He never
seems to have gone through the romantic attack at all
costs period which so many young players go through".

     The comments in these two books which were published
within five years of each other provide a striking example
of a direct self-contradiction by a chess `authority' but a
brief survey of other biographical works shows that
irresponsible writing and carelessness are far from being
rarities. ...

     it is ... important to consider what has frequently happened
after an individual has gone to great lengths to clear up
historical inaccuracies and discrepancies.  The results of his
work are published, then completely ignored or promptly
forgotten. ...

     There is too much sameness in books on chess history
particularly in the dozens of works which race through
the history of the world championship with skimpy
biographies of the contenders plus a few lightly annotated
games.  Having little or no historical judgement and being
unable to cut their way through the trivia, these authors
serve up banal helpings of tired anecdotes which are often
demonstrably fallacious anyway.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Eric Schiller <helios!tira.uchicago.edu!schiller@tssi.com>
Subject: Spanish (was Game of Century)
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:27:44 GMT


It is a typo for 10.Be3, perhaps. 10.d5 is somewhat more promising
in my opinion. 10.Re3 makes very little sense, and there is certainly
no reason to capture the knight until White plays h2-h3, and even then
the bishop should retreat. Black should not give up the bishop pair
unless he gets distinct compensation, and Romanishin even played
lines where he gave up a pawn just to get rid of the enemy bishop.
The best coverage of the line is in the German "bis" series, though
BCO  has sufficient material. One of these days I will get around
to writing a book on 9.d4, which I have played for a decade or so.

Eric Schiller
National Master

(For those new to the discussion, the line is:
1. e4  e5, 2. Nf3  Nc6, 3. Bb5  a6, 4. Ba4  Nf6, 5. O-O  Be7, 6. Re1  b5,
7. Bb3  O-O, 8. c3  d6, 9. d4  Bg4, 10. Re3
)
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 10:42:29 CDT
From: <U55342@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
 <YdtY=U600VoiE43UZ3@andrew.cmu.edu>

I'm wondering, is 6. ... Nb6 followed by ...Q:d4 too dangerous? I've
played the poisoned pawn variation of the Najdorf, and there black goes
through quite a bit of trouble (both in opening preparation and
over-the-board) just to get a b-pawn !

                                         This is just my 0.02 cents,
                                          Bert


.........................................................................
: 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   :
:...................................:...................................:
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Draw offers (was Re: More Reshevsky)
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:57:38 GMT
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

In article <1992Apr16.192727.10985@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blaire) writes:
>I wrote:
>
>>>   There are two separate things (1) danger of honest misunderstanding,
>>>and I certainly agree that this is a risk with AYPFAW, although less so
>>>among highly experienced players (2) a dispute about whether a draw offer
>>>was made in any form, which means one of the two players is deliberately
>>>lying.  
>
>>>..I get the impression that the incident that started this thread
>>>was a case of (2), and restricting the phrase used to offer a draw would
>>>not have helped.
>
>   Ken Sloane replied:
>
>>Ah - here we differ.  
>
>   Can anyone tell us whether, in the original incident, the player who
>denied making the draw offer (if you don't know who that is already, I'm
>not telling!) denied saying anything, or claimed he had been misunderstood?

The original incident (at least, the one I started with) didn't get that
far - since the "draw offer" was refused.  Other incidents have been
cited where the player simply denied making an offer.  In the version
given here, it's not clear if he claimed not to have said anything at
all, or if he claimed that what he said did not constitute an offer.

Back to my seminal incident:  I have since been politely informed that
it has been (or at least was) the accepted custom to make an offer by
asking a question.  I can only guess that this quaint custom may have
originated through a (mis-)translation of the customary phrase in some
other language, perhaps French or Russian or Polish.

If, indeed, everyone (*everyone*!) agrees that the phrase "Are you
playing for a win?" is an unequivocal offer of a draw, and means the
same as the English sentence "I offer a draw", then I fold up my tent
and go gently into the night.

On the other hand, as a native speaker of English, I maintain that this
equivalence is purely a fiction of the international chess scene.
Anyone who believes otherwise probably believes that the race between A3
and Kanza last week was a legitimate sporting event.

In the extremely unlikely event that any internationally ranked player
ever offers me a draw, I'll be sure to consult my chess-phrasebook
before replying.  

Now...can someone who uses the Kasdan System tell me of any situation
where a player has responded "I'm playing for a loss."?  If not an
actual situation, can you construct a *reasonable* situation where this
might occur?

-- 
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
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:00:04 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
	<1992Apr13.160523.107@cs.brown.edu>

I wrote:
>r - b q k b - r
>p p - n p p p p
>- - p - - n - -
>- - - - - - - -
>- - B P N - - -
>- - - - - Q - -
>P P P - - P P P
>R - B - K - N R
>
>
>Warren Goldman wrote a book that devoted four and
>a half pages to a discussion of this position, coming to the
>conclusion that it was good for white.

James H. Coombs writes:
>Ok, so what book is this?

New Ideas in Old Settings by Warren H. Goldman