HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: re: F-S II game 12 (?): comments
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:26:55 GMT

In article <9210010350.AA10273@econ.berkeley.edu> jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU  
(Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:
> 
> 
> I think Spassky deserves credit for this win.  He won it with excellent 
> opening preparation and sheer out-manouvering.
> 
> Going over the pawn sacrifice in my previous post, I think white has a
> clear extra pawn and a good grip on the position after 11 Qxb3 c5
> 12. dxc6 bxc6 13. o-o-o Qe7 14. c5 d5 15. exd5 cxd5 16. Nxd5 Nxd5 17.  
Qxd5
> Rb8 and now 18. Bg5!  (note this is another advantage of Spassky's early  
h4
> since by responding ...h5 Fischer cannot easily drive this bishop away).
> 
> I don't think Fischer will return to the KID in this match unless he  
comes up
> with a great improvement.  (One other note:  Anyone who is familiar with
> John Watson will know that he often very conveniently gives a favorable 
> evaluation of critical lines such as this one.)  :(
> --Jeff
Seems to me (I haven't got GM Shamkovich's comments yet) that
14...a5 is simply awful, eliminating all counterplay. After that Spassky
had a free hand on the kingside. Any 2500 player should have won without
difficulty from such a position.

No serious player would abandon an entire opening system on the
basis of this 8.h4 move.

Eric Schiller
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
                                  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jam+@cs.cmu.edu (Joe Mattis)
Subject: Re: DEEP THOUGHT II vs KASPAROV
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:41:12 GMT

In article <92269.181432RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>it amazes me that you honestly believe that being able to see all possible
>moves in chess would be a DISadvantage to a chess player.

Well, suppose that a chess-omnicient computer were playing the White pieces
against a strong master.  It's White's move in the early middle-game, and the
computer has a number of drawish alternatives, *plus* a bold g2-g4 attack.
Suppose the attack is theoretically unsound (Black can survive it, and
eventually checkmate White), but only if Black finds the *one* precise line
of defense over each of the next *thirty* moves (Black's one chance of
winning involves maneuvering White into zugzwang during a pawn-promotion
struggle in the late endgame).

Furthermore, let's suppose that White is playing in a tournament, and needs
that final win to acheive an unshared first-place...a draw won't be enough.

Is it really so clear that White should play for the safe draw?

-Joe Mattis    ARPA:  jam@isl1.ri.cmu.edu
               UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!isl1.ri.cmu.edu!jam@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Sargon V rating ("they claim")
From: nason@pa881a.inland.com
Date: 25 Sep 92 09:29:57 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN
Nntp-Posting-User: nason

In article <1992Sep21.081126.125@ipact.com>, pals@ipact.com writes:
> In article <1992Sep18.091249.1@pa881a.inland.com>, 
> nason@pa881a.inland.com (John Nason) writes:
>> 
>> The Sargon V (DOS) manual claims that its rating exceeds 2300 USCF!  
>>  ...rest of my stuff deleted...
>
> Incredible.  Anytime you see excrement like this printed by a manufacturer
> on their product, take it as a big red flag that says "Don't buy me!"  Not
> only are the level (time control) and especially the hardware critical to 
> the program's performance, but the conditions under which the program was
> rated.  Is it playing blitz against exhausted humans?  Or a one-round per
> day tournament against humans at 3 minutes a move?
> 
> As for Sargon's rating being > 2300 USCF - on a Cray, 5 minute games,
> vs. sleep deprived humans.

Unfortunatley, they don't put that statement on the box.  It's buried in the
manual on page 9.  I had choice between Sargon V and Chessmaster 3000.  Too bad
for me I picked Sargon V.  For anyone following this thread, *DON'T* buy this
package.  I made a previous post sighting other problems with it, ie:

must reboot after a stalemate!
1 d4 or 1... d5 translates to P-K4 in descriptive notation????
unpleasant deviations from standard openings, tough on novices trying to learn.
virtually non-existant documentation.
Will not import saved games if you saved them in ASCII. though it claims itwill
I am still trying to figure out how to put some of the FS_II games in, without
playing them move by move!
etc.......

Get the point! 

My opinions are my own and not those of my company.  
Free advice is worth its cost.  
--- John M. Nason - NA9U ---|--------------------------------------------|
Inland Steel Company        |  -- nason@pa881a.inland.com                |
Process Automation MS 2-464 |  -- Fax:   219-399-7856                    |
3210 Watling Street         |  -- Voice: 219-399-2450                    |
East Chicago IN 46312       |"Ya can't shoot em till they stop sparklin" |
----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jriechel@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: S for solvability
Date: 3 Oct 92 09:36:53 GMT


This is my first (and last) post on solvability (is there such a word?)

It seems to me that w/ respect to the practical business of solving chess
it really doesn't matter if there are an infinite # of *games*, e.g. the game
continues to each players infinite-th move because neither player choses
to claim a repeated position or 50-move rule or etc.

Unclaimed repeated positions are *uninteresting*.  For example, instead
of recording the following *uninteresting* game as:

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Ng8 3. Nf3 Nf6 dot dot dot

Why not use instead:

(1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng2 Ng8) \ b 3. and the game continues here

There natural number b indicates the # of times the ()'ed moves were
repeated.  This would be just "for the record".  The number of
*positions* is finite, even if games are allowed to be *infinite*.

James
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: DragonChess and other chess variants
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 00:57:15 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> Griffon			'extended' Knight		'large' L shape.
>							3 then 2 (instead of
> 							knight's 1 then 2.

There should be a special Griffon that can move from the third level to the
first level, where it splits into several regular Griffons.  This would
be called the MIRV Griffon.
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 10:31:19 GMT

<RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>"in fact, it would appear that there are an infinite number of values for
>the finite number of chess positions..."
>
> WHAT?
>
> care to share your wisdom with us?

When a position comes up for a 2nd time, we ASSUME it has the same
value as the 1st time it came up.  (That is why we create loops in
the graphs.)  In fact, it is clear that there will be multiple
values (e.g., the right to draw after the 3rd repetition).  If we
call the positions with different values "different positions"
(which has been the proposed solution) we have no way of PROVING
that the value continues to repeat as the position repeats.
(I.e., the value of the position can be sequence dependent.)  So we
are left with to permit either infinite positions or infinite
values to finite positions.  In either case, its unsolvable.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Teri A Meyers <tasst2+@pitt.edu>
Subject: Query on 6. Bc4 Najdorf
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:41:37 GMT


In article 7278, a request is made for a line against the 6.Bc4 option
which has done well recently against the Najdorf.  I presume the line you
are concerned with is 1e4, c5 2.Nf3, d6 3.d4, cd 4.N:d4, Nf6 5.Nc3, a6
6.Bc4, e6 7.Bb3, b5 8.0-0, Be7 9.Qf3 (although 9.f4 or 9.Be3 can also pose
problems).  One recent game where Black did well against this line was
Alexander Ivanov - Kamsky from the most recent U.S. Championship.  The game
was in Chess Life within the last year; I don't know the exact issue, but
probably the one with Kamsky on the cover, or the issue before that.  Also
possible is a transposition into non-Najdorf lines of the Sozin, which can
be achieved by playing 7...Be7 or 7...Nc6.  Lastly, 7...Nbd7 has been revived
in recent years; check recent issues of the Informant for its status.  No, 
the Najdorf has not been refuted!
Jerry Meyers
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Strategy or Tactics?
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:40:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.222931.27245@midway.uchicago.edu>  
mad4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Maddex) writes:
> 
> I think the right attitude toward strategy is Suba's.  In Dynamic Chess 
> Strategy he says:
> 
> 		"Strategy is not the opposite of tactics; it is the
> 		theory of tactis.  It tries to clarify the general
> 		lines of tactics as well as its directions.  In other
> 		words, it gives pointers for discovering plans, and 
> 		plans, in their turn, direct the moves in given 
> 		positions."
> 
> He goes on like this, pointing out that both strategic and tactical  
rules
> are directed toward find the correct move.  As Bruce said in that  
interview:
> though a mistake is strategic, the refutation will always be tactical,  
one
> may lose a piece moving it to a bad square, etc.
> 
> MADNESS

Bill and I disagree a lot. Amazing we can live a block from each other and  
not only co-exist, but even write books together. I found Suba's book  
fascinating nonsense, with a perverted view of strategy.

There is a common link between strategy and tactics in that each relies on  
an understanding of weak points. But strategy takes a much braoder view,  
involving the creation of weaknesses in the opponents position. Tactics is  
the exploitation of the weaknesses. Many good strategic plans have no  
tactical point at all. Seizing an open file is good, whether or not there  
happens to be any weakness to be exploited. Good strategy places the  
pieces in an optimal position to take advantage of any possible future  
weaknesses. More importantly, it places constraints on the opponents play. 

Conflating these ideas renders the whole concept of tactics moot. One  
might as well say that chess is just a matter of exploiting mistakes (and  
there are those who do hold this opinion.). I think it is only confusing  
to beginners to try to unify the concept.

Drawing from my own field, linguistics, on could say that language is just  
a matter of syllables, since the syllable is a relevant unit at most  
levels of analysis (morphology and phonology, for example, and even, on
some theories, syntax). But to say that morphology and phonology are not  
different from each other is, in my view, just silly.

Eric Schiller
(whose views are more fully explicated in Strategy for Advanced Players,
Chess Digest 1992).

--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
From: Noshir.Patel@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Noshir Patel)
Subject: Solvability
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:12:38 GMT

No!  All of you please shut up about solvability!

Mathematicians have been through all this, found chess to be solvable,
and published their work where if it was wrong their peers would ridicule
them until they died of embarasment or starvation after their employers
let them go!

I just read a rediculous post which said "you have no justification for
assuming that the game is a draw just from the fact that neither side can
force a win".  The whole point is that the solution is one of the 
following:
White can force a win.
Black can force a win.
Neither can force a win.

Chess is a draw is not even part of the question since that assumes something
about the skill of the players.  A computer with the solution would force
a win if possible.  It would not allow its opponent to win unless the win
was forced.

Once again, chess is solvable.  I hate to say this (actually not after I
have had to endure ten thousand posts on the subject), but those of you
who are still claiming chess is unsovable from a theoretical standpoint
are just making fools of yourselves in front of the entire world.  If you
don't understand, GO FIND A MATHEMATICIAN AND HAVE HIM EXPLAIN IT TO YOU!

This, by the way, if you hadn't noticed is a mass flame!

Now talk about chess!  That's something I'd like to know more about.

Arrrggghhh.
Nosh

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: bruhn@uxe.wu-wien.ac.at (Peter Bruhn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: xics for mac?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 10:08:08 GMT
Organization: Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: exaib.wu-wien.ac.at

Does anyone know if there is a xics like interface for the
mac existing or under construction?

Any comments are appreciated.


Thanks

Peter
From: djbailey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Theory of Bobby's Return
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:42:56 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center

My own thoery is that Fischer would have backed out of the match except
that the U.S. Government told him not to play. Bobby insists on doing
things his way.

-- Don J. Bailey
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: Chessmaster 3000 features??
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:30:48 GMT

Re: The in-depth discussion of CM-3000's features.  One question: does
this discussion include both the Windows and DOS versions, or are there
significant differences (i.e., which should I buy if both are available)?
Thanks muchly!
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: king's gambit
Summary: Mea Culpa! <pound pound> Mea Culpa!
Keywords: grandmaster
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:45:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Oct5.142246.17000@hemlock.cray.com>
hgk@cray.com (Hans-Georg Kleinhenz) writes:
>In article <BvMxwo.3LJ@world.std.com>
>ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow) writes:
>>Not to be overly critical of what might just be a typo, but Joe Gallagher is
>>something like 2150 last time I looked, which was a few days ago.

>>Another case of Winslow possibly completely screwing up the data, but that
>>is what I remember.  Perhaps the author is thinking of the Gallagher from 
>>Europe?

>Yes, GM Joe Gallagher from England (Europe) now living in Switzerland, 
>whose last Elo is 2510 is really writing a book on the KG. He plays the KG 
>against opponents of all strengths and for example beat GM van der Sterren 
>(Elo 2530) with it in San Bernardino (Switzerland) two weeks ago. [...]

The player I was confusing him with was James Joseph Gallagher, from Texas,
and in fact he *is* a US master, 2263 on the October rating supplement.
Posting from the hip, pardner.

--Elliott
  Elliott Winslow IM
  ekw@world.std.com
  Assistant Editor
  Chess Life USCF
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Subject: Re: Progressive chess (mate in 5?!)
Organization: University of Limburg
Distribution: rec
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 17:55:34 GMT

tho@tik.vtt.fi (Timo Honkela) writes:

>jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
>>In article <Sep23.031051.84792@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) writes:
>>>jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) tries to negate my analysis via:
>>>>In article <Sep20.195726.83424@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) writes:
>>>>>tho@tik.vtt.fi (Timo Honkela) writes:
>>>>>>jtol (white) - tho (black), 18th of September, 1992
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. d3
>>>>>>2. f6 d6
>>>>>>3. f3 e4 Be2
>>>>>>4. e5 Ke7 Nh6 g5
>>>>>>5. d4 dxe5 Bxg5 Nc3 exf6+
>>>>>>6. Kf7 Qxf6 Qxg5 Qc1 Qxa1 Qxd1+
>>>>>>7. Bxd1 e5 exd6 d7 dxc8Q Ke2 Qxc7+
>>>                            ***             NOTICE!  ATTENTION!
>>>>>>8. How does black mate?
>>>>>8. Kg6 Bc5 Nc6 Rad8 Rxd1 Rhd8 R8d2++ (doesn't even require all moves).
>>>>Rxd1 is check, so this isn't legal.
>>>
>>>I think my original line stands.  The king is not in check if it's on e2.
>>
>>Right you are...sorry about that!

>In the original game:
>8. Nd7 Rg8 Rg3 Rxf3 Bb4 Bxc3 Nf5 Nd4++

>But what about this: (from jtol-tho)

>1. d3
>2. Nf6 d5
>3. f3 Bg5 Kd2
>4. h6 hxg5 Rxh2 Rxh1
>5. Mate in five (or less) moves?? (It's possible!)

5. c4 Nc3 Nb5 Qa4 Nd6 mate

Dennis Breuker
(breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl)

>--
>P.S. Progressive chess is serious intellectual activity. Not all
>the tactics and intuitions from "normal chess" are valid, but
>one must (at least should) take into account the changes in the
>real life, too. And it seems that you and me are better in
>progressive chess than any program is :-) (Please inform if you
>know a program for progressive chess!)
From: kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca (Kees van den Doel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Problem
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:27:26 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca

This problem was composed 30 years ago:

White: Ke1,Ra1,Re8
Black: Kg2,Qh3,g3
White to play and win.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jarmo@ae.tut.fi (Jarmo Sorvari)
Subject: Helsinki Open
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Finland
Distribution: rec
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:59:30


The Helsinki Open tournament ended last Sunday.  It was an
exceptionally strong tournament (for a tournament held in a Nordic
country).  Of the 116 participants, 52 had 2500 or more ELO points,
and five (if I remember correctly) above 2600. The tournament was
arranged by the Chess Union International (founded by Kasparov) and
the Finnish chess federations.  Kasparov himself opened the
tournament.

Players above 2500 were invited, which explains the high level.

One of the two winners was a real surprise: the 53. seeded Neverov.
Once again we see the enormous breadth of the ex-Soviet chess scene,
much of which was never seen outside the Soviet states during the
communist years.

Loek van Wely made a GM norm, among some others.

1.-2.	GM Valeri Neverov (Ukraine), GM Vladimir Tukmakov (Ukraine): 7 of 9

3.-10.	Evgeni Vladimirov (Kazahstan), GM Oleg Romanishin (Ukraine),
	GM Alexey Vyzhmanavin (Russia), GM Konstantin Lerner
	(Ukraine), GM Smbat Lputian (Armenia), GM Semen Dvoirys
	(Russia), GM Lembit Oll (Estonia), GM Thomas Ernst (Sweden): 6.5

11.-18.	GM Gulko (USA), IM Savtshenko (Ukraine), IM Sherbakov
	(Russia), GM Ehlvest (Estonia), GM Sturua (Georgia), GM Serper
	(Uzbekistan), GM Gufeld (Georgia), GM Kovalev (Byelo-Russia): 6
:
and some interesting samples:
:
GM Sveshnikov, IM van Wely: 5.5
GM Dreev, GM A. Sokolov, GM M. Gurevich, GM E. Geller, WWC Jun Xie: 5
GM Kuzmin: 4


I wish I could have played there!  I would have had some memorable
bruises! :-)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Jarmo Sorvari                         Control Engineering Laboratory      !
! jarmo@ae.tut.fi                       Tampere University of Technology    !
--------------------------------------- BOX 527, 33101 Tampere, Finland -----
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: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:45:25 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). 

So far you have pointed out that there is more information in the
sequence than in the game position.  This does not prove they are
"more important".  The significance of the position is determined
by the location of pieces and some amount of state information
(e.g., player to move, ability to castle, enpassant, etc.) 
If you drop the 3-time and the 50-move rules, you reduce the amount
of needed state info.  This does not seem to make sequences more
important.  The parameters for what state information is important
is spelled out explicitly in the rules of the game.  The only place
the rules refer to sequences seem to be in the sections relating to
the recording of moves.  Is that what you are referring to?

>ie:
>A chess player remembers "positions" and associates winning or losing
>with them,but he is lost if he has no idea how they come about.

Huh?  Here you have lost me.  It would seem that a player has
everything she needs if she knows the state information associated
with the position.  The only exceptions are "impossible" positions.
But once a position is shown to be possible by one sequence, it
doesn't matter that there are an infinite number of other sequences
that can give rise to the position.

>Try again.
From: ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: how many games?
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:03:46 GMT
Organization: Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden

In article <1992Sep30.021313.7632@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>ckawecki@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>>how many games can possibly be played anyhow?
>
>An infinite number, of course!  (And they can all be
>different.)

And most of them will be indifferent :-)


-- 
Anders Thulin       ath@linkoping.trab.se 	013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
From: prsa@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: post
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:59:54 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Is anyone interested in a long distance game from Oxford. I'm a graduate
student looking for some diversion from the monster--read thesis. I rated 1900
by the Canadian Chess Federation. Please send e-mail reply.
   Sorry I didn't mention anything about 'is chess solvable'. It seems to be
the topic of nearly every recent contribution. But as an innocent aside: would
anti-realist logic--that knowledge and truth are tied to the constraints of
inquiry--mean that the practical impossibility of cranking out the solution has
priority over the theoretical possibility of completing the task?
   My e-mail is PRSA@vax.ox.ac.uk.   
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: loon@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (LOON M J)
Subject: Computer programs again
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Undergrads).
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 11:49:19 GMT

A few weeks/months ago there was a discussion about the superiority of 
certain chess programs over others. Can someone tell me if any form of a 
consensus was reached? What are the top few, and is there any ceding?

BTW, how does ChessMaster rate?
--
Marc Loon <loon@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>
Student No: 8807871/X
Elec Eng. University of the Witwatersrand
Johannesburg

Conversation: a voice competition between two people
in which the one taking a breath is called the listener.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess