HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric Eaton)
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:29:35 GMT

(Chet Anderson - Emp. Services) writes:
>I've seen much discussion here, and references to
>many books, about the relative merits of various
>openings.  What I don't understand is, how do you
>know what opening you'll play?  Doesn't the response
>of your opponent change your plan?
>
>The reason for my question is that the introductory
>material I've seen says to learn one or two openings,
>just to get started.  But it seems that you can't learn
>just one opening--there are too many variations to
>expect to play exactly those moves.
>
>Any advice would be greatly appreciated....
>
>Chet  
>
>chet.anderson@corp.sun.com

Chet,

When you go to learn an opening some good advice is to try to learn what
the opening is trying to do rather than JUST memorizing moves.

For example, know that the idea of the Roy Lopez Exchange variation attempts
to get the game into an Endgame quickly by trading all of the pieces.

Look for key moves in the openings, but if you have the general idea of what
you're doing, you don't have to die the moment that your opponent deviates
from your chosen opening.

Hope that helps.
-Eric Eaton
gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
From: jhs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (John Stanback)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Zarkov 2.6 Rating Feature
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:32:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In rec.games.chess, <U36846@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>    I have a question about Zarkov 2.6's rating feature.
> Supposedly, the Novice level plays at about 1200, the
> Intermediate at 1600, and the Expert level at about 2000.  Does
> anybody know how accurate these estimates are?  Does  CPU speed
> make a difference in the playing level of Beginner thru Expert?
>    I'm using Zarkov with a 486/25 with 4 meg ram.  It rates its
> Master level at about 2372.
> 

I wrote the Zarkov program and here's what I did to create the
different playing levels.  The program runs a quick test when it
is loaded to determine the speed of the machine it's running on.
For all levels except Expert and Master it adds a delay at each node
so that it only computes about 100 nodes per second.  On Expert level
I think it runs at about 300 nodes per second.  On Master Level it runs as
fast as it can.  For Expert and Master levels, the machine speed
is taken into account when computing the rating.

In addition to slowing the machine down I limited the depth of the
quiescence search, added randomness into the evaluation function,
and added a "blunder generator" which causes the program to
randomly "miss" moves.  I adjusted these factors for each level
by playing games against itself to try and get a win percentage
over 90% between Expert and Intermediate, Intermediate and Novice,
and so on.  I also "calibrated" by auto-testing the Expert level against
the Saitek Maestro 'D' module, the Intermediate level against the
Base program in the Saitek Leonardo, and I hand played about 15
games between an old Fidelity Sensory Challenger mostly at the Novice
Level.  The Master level rating comes from many games against
Novag Diablo, MChess, Fidelity Mach3, Mephisto Mondial and other
programs.  The estimated ratings for these machines  (and thus
for the different Zarkov playing strengths) comes from Larry
Kaufmans Computer Chess Reports.

Having said all this, I really don't know how well it works in
practice -- I'd be glad to get feedback!  One thing to mention is
that the user is allowed to take more time than the machine and/or take
back moves and still use the game for a rating calculation. 
Doing this will, of course, give the user an inflated rating.

John Stanback
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: Inside Chess, Oct, 12, 1992 issue
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:04:39 GMT


                           INSIDE CHESS
                         October 12, 1992
                        Volume 5, Issue 20

As might be expected, editor Yasser Seirawan's continuing 
coverage of the Fischer-Spassky match dominates the latest issue 
of "Inside Chess." As noted in the review of the last issue, the 
annotations, coupled with the chess insights provided, are again 
superb. Along with the text of the third and fourth press 
conferences, Yasser shares his day-to-day experiences while in 
Sveti Stefan. There can be no doubt that getting this kind of 
terrific match coverage to the readers so quickly is IC's 
trademark in chess journalism. 

This is all well and good. However, critically speaking, the 
conflagration swirling around the playing site, in the form of 
the tragic civil war, is only mentioned a few brief times in 
passing. In addition, no mention whatsoever is made by Yasser 
himself about Fischer's outspoken personal views. Surely the 
best course for a reporter and player of Seirawan's stature 
should not be ignoring issues.

This issue also contains a warm, if not belated tribute to 
Mikhail Tal by his friend Edward Pariants. Although occasionally 
rambling, it is a successful attempt to show the human side of 
the late tactical genius.

A somewhat expanded version of "Inside News" is rounded out 
nicely by Ftacnik's opening theory article on the Exchange 
Variation of the Gruenfeld.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
INSIDE CHESS, PO Box 19457, Seattle, WA 98109
    Editor: GM Yasser Seirawan
    Managing Editor: Michael Franett
    Associate Editor: IM John Donaldson
    Frequency of publication: Bi-weekly, 26 times/year
    Page size: 8.5"x11"
Regular departments:
    Editorial
    Letters
    Inside News
    Tactics by IM Nikolay Minev
Subscription information (U.S. subscriptions):
    6 months, 13 issues, $25
    1 year, 26 issues, $45
    2 years, 52 issues, $80
    3 years, 78 issues, $110
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This review reflects the opinion of and is proprietary to Hanon 
W. Russell. Copyright 1992 Hanon W. Russell, All Rights Reserved


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:25:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.185053.855@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>...
>Are negative ratings allowed? 

Yes.

... If not then a steady state will be
>reached at some low rating.

Perhaps.  Notice that "ratings floors" have a slight effect in this
direction. 

[actually, any system with a floor admits interesting game-playing by the
players - who can conspire to raise ratings to any desired level.  If
you postulate a floor, you also have to consider the "social" effects on
the behaviour of the rating pool.]

Also - note that it is more likely that the deflationary pressure will
be countered by *some* inflationary measure long before the system is
allowed to settle to the steady state.  The point of pointing out the
deflationary pressure is to elicit ideas on how best to add a
counterbalancing inflationary mechanism which does not do extreme
violence to the behaviour of the players.


-- 
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: gerbaudo@jorasses.inria.fr (Pascal Gerbaudo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: editing games
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:02:55 GMT
Organization: INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis (Fr)

I get METAfiles for TEX/LATEX to build chess articles
with diagrams.
But no one here, is able to Install them.
So, IS THERE SOMEONE ON RGC WHO IS ABLE TO BUILD SUCH ARTCILES?

If so, please send me something simple to install, with a makefile
aand all the sources in the same directory.
I would like to type 'make' and use it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: F-S II Ratings (20)
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:53:09 GMT

After 20 games, this is how they measure up...

          Re   Pe    G  W  L  D    S   Pa    Rn

Fischer  2700  64%  20  7  4  9  11.5  58%  2675
Spassky  2600  36%  20  4  7  9   8.5  43%  2625

Re  Estimated rating before the match
Pe  Expected performance
G   Games played
W   Wins
L   Losses
D   Draws
S   Score
Pa  Actual performance
Rn  New rating

Assuming that the initial estimates (Re) are correct, Fischer would
currently be number 8 in the world, and Spassky tied for the 21st place.


   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: qazqaz@Muir.Stanford.EDU (Mike Perkins)
Subject: Kasparov vs. the Winawer countergambit
Originator: qazqaz@Muir.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Ye Olde Pawn Shoppe
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:42:37 GMT


In the Chess Olympiad this year Kasparov-Nikolich started

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e5 4.de5 d4 5.Ne4 Qa5+ 6.Bd2 Qxe5 7.Ng3 Qd6 8.Nf3 Nf6
9.Qc2 Be7 10.o-o-o o-o 11.e3

I was sent a clipping from the L.A. Times in which IM Jack Peters wrote
"Kasparov rejected 11.Bc3 c5 12.e3 because 11.Bc3 dc3 gives Black plenty
for his Queen."

Q1: I don't see Black's "plenty." I see 12.Rxd6 cb2+ 13.Kxb2 Bxd6 but don't
    see what Black's plan would be to use his extra pieces. Anyone see it?

Q2: If Black doesn't play dc3 would he really play c5 instead? Isn't
    11. ... Qf4 and the following queen trade better for him?

Q3: If black does play 11. ... c5, then he can answer 12. e3 with Qa6. After
    some pawn trades he may have to take time to get his Queen back out of
    a2, but is he losing?

I must admit, however, when I played through the game and quickly chose the
moves I'd make before looking at the text, I did choose 11. Bc3 figuring to
win a pawn.
From: fredl@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Fred Leffingwell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: When To Resign
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:33:46 GMT
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino CA, USA


	I have a few personel observations that I will share.

	First: Why should anyone be upset at needing to play out
	       a won position?
	Second: Never resign until you are lost!  This means never
               resign until you know how to win from the other side.
	       If you don't know how but know you are lost, play on
	       and learn.  Maybe he doesn't know how to win.  
	Third: Chess is a game of hope (and skill and experience and
 	       luck and ...) both sides are nearly equal at the start.
	       Play on until you have no hope.

	In answer to my first question, the only thing I come up with
	is fear.  And I have seen the anger of "better" players who 
	carelessly threw away a win to a draw, or a draw to a loss 
	it seems to me that playing a game of chess means being able
	to play in all phases of the game.  The end is checkmate or
	resignation, resignation because the person has no will to
	continue not because the position is lost.

	So if you are in a won position and your opponent plays on just
	win.  Thats all you need to do.  But be careful, overconfidence
	can give you a loss in some amazing ways.  And if you think he
	"should" resign you can attempt to prove it by playing at blitz
	speed and every once in a while you will learn a bitter lesson
	about won positions.

	Fred Leffingwell

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 09:26:16 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Oct14.005143.29396@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:
>In article <d+npgv@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>I agree Fischer will have to 'prove' that his
>>game is back to the level it once was, but making him go through the the
>>interzonals and whatnot is silly.
>Why the hell not?  What if Spassky, or, for goodness sakes, Botvinnik, wanted
>a world champion match? 

Because they don't, or didn't ever have, the same sort of rating that Fischer
commanded. Read what I said above- I agree that Fischer will have to prove
his playing is back up to where it once was- if he can do this outside of
the FIDE system, good for him. And if (or when) he does, he will have as
much claim to the title of World Champion as does Kasparov, and that will
make a title match between F and K for the title a legitimate thing.

>Fischer is somehow "outside" of the current system (which make suck, but is
>better than the match ducking days of old), then I claim the world championship
>for myself, and will consider my self such until beaten.  Of course, there
>will be a few terms to the match....

Congratulation on your World Championship, then.
Of course, Fischer earned his WC, albeit 20 years ago, but he did earn the
title. Personally, I don't view Fischer as the World Champion- that honor
belongs to Kasparov, but what I am saying is that if Fischer can prove that
his game is back up to par (and he is, I must say, off to a pretty good
start- all the Fischer-bashers around here yelp about how he is beating up
a 'poor helpless old man', but I would imagine there is a very very very
small percentage of people in this group who could beat Mr. Spassky at any
time), then he will have added a big chunk of legitimacy to his claim that
he is still World Champion, and the World Champion don't need to play in
the beginning rounders :)

r.
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Youngest GM/IGM in 1970?
Keywords: chess trivia youngest-GM Fischer Polgar Karpov
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:36:09 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Oct9.033859.26393@adobe.com> shauck@adobe.com (William R. Shauck) writes:
>
>gk>Anyway, the question was: "In 1970 he became the youngest person to
                                  ^^^^
>gk>attain the title of International Grandmaster."  Multiple choice
>gk>answers were Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov, Spassky and one other.
>
>Chronology:
>
>9 March 1943, Robert J. Fischer (RJF) was born.
>
>10 September 1958, RJF tied for 5th at the 4th Interzonal Tournament
>held in Portoroz, Yugoslavia.  He was automatically awarded the GM
>title under regulation (b) listed above (my guess is it wasn't
>conferred "*by decree*").
>
>13 April 1963, Garri Kasparov (GK) was born.
>
>At the Caracas tnmt in 1970, AK (age ~19) earned GM title.
>
>23 July 1976, Judit Polgar (JP) was born.
>
>Somewhere around December 1991 to January 1992, JP achieved her final
>GM norm.  [Does anyone have the exact date/tournament?]
>
>In June 1992, the FIDE Congress, upon recommendation of the
>Qualifying Committe, voted to award the GM title to JP.
>
>So, Fischer was the youngest person ever to hold the GM title.
>Polgar was the youngest person ever to meet the requirements for the
>GM title, and is currently the world's youngest GM.
>
>William R. Shauck                   Internet: shauck@mv.us.adobe.com

So BACK to the Question:

Fischer became IGM in 1958, not 1970.  Judit Polgar wasnt even born yet.
THEREFORE the answer to the question is Anatoly Karpov, because of all
the players who attained GM status in 1970, he was the youngest (~19).

we are missing when garri kasparov attained GM status.  however he would
have been 7 years old in 1970 - and thus certainly there would have been
an even larger story of his rise to the top!!  so it has to be Karpov.

- nate
(thanks to William R.Shauck for the data i never have seen!)
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Is Spassky 2600?
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:15:41 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

While Spassky's rating before the match was around 2550, I don't
think it's at all unreasonable to think that he is playing at a
higher level because he's motivated.  I agree that this might not
be so for many players, but Spassky isn't just anybody, and
Fischer isn't just any opponent.  For one thing, Fischer isn't
going to agree to any courtesy draws, in contrast to many of
Spassky's opponents in tournaments.

So while I agree it's not particularly useful to try to calculate
Fischer's strength using performance ratings from the match
(looking at his moves gives a better indication), I think Spassky
is clearly playing above 2550, and it would be surprising if it
were otherwise.

It wouldn't surprise me if Spassky were Fischer's second in the
next match.
From: achut@nairobi.Eng.Sun.COM (Achut Reddy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:59:24 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: nairobi

In <92285.142055RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:

>if i were to play fischer a bazillion games, yeah, he'd kick my butt every
>time without thinking, but i would not become physically ill because of it.

Clearly you are not competitive enough :-)

You are seriously underestimating the intense competitiveness that
exists at the top levels of any sport.

-achut
From: hansb@cs.ruu.nl (Hans Bodlaender)
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:39:29 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science
Keywords: bobby, champ

In <1992Oct13.230901.5858@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:

>Anyone who knows anything about chess and Bobby knows who
>the real champ is.  These two piddly K-dudes are totally
>outclassed in chess ability.  One of the reasons Bobby quit
>chess is out of boredom.  It takes a lot of fun out of the
>game when no one out there can give you a good mental work-
>out.  Before he quit, he had nothing else to prove.  He was
>the best and he knew it.  He could have hung around a

(etc. etc. etc.)

>There wouldn't be any controversy over who is the champ if
>Kasparov would just be a man and quit ducking Bobby.  Bobby's
>willing to let Kasparov take his best shot at the champ if he
>wants, but he keeps hiding behind the Candidates' Matches that
>everyone knows Bobby has no intention of wasting his valuable
>time with.  People are willing to pay a lot more money to see
>the REAL champ play.

(part deleted here)
>
>It's been a long time coming, but I'm glad Bobby finally came out
>of retirement to remind the rest of the world where the best chess
>is really played....The United States of America.  Some of the
>other countries may have more and better chumps than the US, but
>there is only one CHAMP and that's Bobby -- made in the USA. 
>
>-- 
>T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)

I'm confused whether the writer of this is really serious.
If not, he should have used some :-). So, let's assume he really means what
he says.

I always suspected that part of the support for Fisher was out of
nationalistic reasons. In general, people in the US are quite nationalistic.
Now, the article by mr. Frakes confirms this. If I were a nationalistic
American, I wouldn't be so proud of this strange person, who also disobeys the
laws of the US itself (by playing in `Little Yougoslavia').

The `best chess is really played in the US' ... really? Compared with the
Sovjet Union, the US brought only a very small number of world champions.
This claim seems to me unsupported, and mainly driven by patriotism.

Most of the statements of mr. Frakes lack the logic, that one would expect
from someone with mit.edu in his email address. For instance, if the time of 
mr. Fisher is so valuable, such that he cannot play the Candidates Matches,
why did he do so little in the last decades? If Fisher is really so great,
then he should easily defeat all these minor piddly (what ever that word
means) opponents he would get on the way to regain his title...
I doubt that Fisher would be able to go the entire Candidates Matches track
and become world champion again.

			  Hans Bodlaender
			  hansb@cs.ruu.nl
			  Utrecht, the Netherlands

P.S. Out of purely nationalistic reasons, I'm very eager to wait for the
Timman-Short match...
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Subject: Re: Lasker-Pelikan
Originator: jcbokar@c00582-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Keywords: Sicilian
Reply-To: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:34:56 GMT


In article <1b4rgsINN4l3@agate.berkeley.edu>, jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:
|> Path: taco!gatech!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!think.com!ames!agate!econ!jeff
|> From: jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
|> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
|> Subject: Re: Lasker-Pelikan
|> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:53:48 GMT+5:00
|> Organization: Econometrics Laboratory, U. C. Berkeley
|> Lines: 30
|> Sender: jeff@econ (Jeffrey C. Ely)
|> Distribution: world
|> Message-ID: <1b4rgsINN4l3@agate.berkeley.edu>
|> References: <1992Oct9.194243.18692@ncsu.edu>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: emily4.berkeley.edu
|> Keywords: Sicilian
|> 
|> In article <1992Oct9.194243.18692@ncsu.edu>, jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> Does anyone know if the Lasker-Pelikan has been refuted, and or what is the best line of play against this opening?
|> |> Thanks,    jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu
|> 
|> I really like the lines following
|>  
|> 	1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.Nd5! Nxd5 7.exd5
|> 
|> Black players usually don't know this line as well as others, but they should
|> because IMHO it gives white an excellent positional advantage and requires
|> black to take risks on the K-side in order to try to counter white's
|> simple and risk-free plan on the Q-side.  I think black's best is:
|> 
|> 	7. ...Nb8 8.c4 Be7 9.Bd3 a6 10.Nc3 o-o 11.o-o
|> 
|> But unless they know this line, they rarely make the retreat to b8, instead
|> they'll play something like:
|> 
|> 	7. ...Ne7 8. c4 Nf5 9.Bd3 Be7 (...a6? 10.Qa5) 10.o-o a6 11.Nc3 o-o
|> 	12. f4! 
|> 
|> when white gets the kind of attack one usually must sacrifice a pawn for.
|> 
|> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|> Jeff Ely                         |    "He said the Sun's not yellow...  
|> Department of Economics          |     It's Chicken!" 
|> UC Berkeley        
|>  
|> 	
|> 

Isn't this opening called the Neo-Schvesnikov?  I was refering to:

1. e4    c5
2. Nf3   Nc6
3. d4    cxd
4. Nxd4  Nf6
5. Nc3   e5 .....

But thanks for the help on this similar opening.
Also, note that 10.Qa5 should be 10.Qa4
jcb
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess