HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Pillsbury(was Longevity of Lasker)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:58:59 GMT

In article <Bw37zD.7u@cs.dal.ca> hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
>In article <1bfb4vINNpr8@uwm.edu>, mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rose
n) writes:
>|> >Just speculation, but there does seem to have been a big gap between
>|> >Lasker and Capablanca.  Lasker remained champion into his 60's, not
>|> >so much out of domination, as from a dearth of competition.  My belief
>|> >is that Pillsbury was the missing champion between Lasker and Capablanca,
>
>    Well, he was never in his life as good as lasker (except possibly
>    at Hastings) and after Capablanca reached maturity, he was
>    never again as good as capablanca.  

     In fact, he was DEAD!  Capadoodie didn't do anything major
until he beat Marshall in 1909.

>    Pillsbury was unlucky in more
>    ways than one.  Born a few years earlier he might have been the
>    one to defeat Steinitz, as he was clearly much better than
>    Steinitz in 1895, or if Lasker's typhoid had struck a few months
>    earlier Lasker-Steinitz I would have been postponed, perhaps
>    giving Pillsbury his title shot.  Note that the (american) press hailed
>    Pillsbury as the new world champion after hastings.  Sound
>    familiar?

No, it doesn't really sound familiar.  The last time the American
press did it (that I can recall) is when Fischer beat then
champion Spassky in 1972.  The press really isn't favorable
to Fischer here either.

Pillsbury really was unlucky, but at no point in his career
was he as good as Lasker.  He contracted syphilis at the 1896
St. Petersburg tourney (so I've read), so the rot set in early.
Too bad, Lasker-Pillsbury would have been an interesting collection
of games.  Surely better than Lasker-Janowsky.

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pquince@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Quince)
Subject: Re: ICBM chess (was Nuclear Chess)
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:52:41 GMT

dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug) writes:

>I propose a variant with just one tiny, modest change -- etc.

forgive me, I couldn't help mentioning a tension release variant
on the nuclear theme, useful for when one grows tired of thinking.

Play for ICBM chess proceeds as follows:

First player picks up one of his pieces and throws it at the board.
Second player picks up one of his pieces and throws it at the board.

Play proceeds until at least one player has no remaining pieces on
the board.  The last player to move is declared Carl Sagan for the
day and must recite the homily about two guys in bathtubs filled with
gasoline throwing matches (with appropriate accent) *immediately* or 
else he/she is DQ'd and must pick up all the pieces.

A net variant features swapped programs which drive the opponents bell 
speaker at various resonant frequencies, causing the opponent's disk drive 
to shatter like a dropped champagne glasses.

pquince
--

"I thought that if I can do anything to make sure that George Bush doesn't get 
 elected again--up to and including shaking hands with Tipper Gore--I'll do it.
                      -Frank Zappa, LA Times 10/1/92
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: albert@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Joseph Albert)
Subject: Re:    Can Black Force a Win?
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:38:26 GMT

In article <92281.102542BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> writes:

>Assume the second player can force a win.  The first player makes any
>random move on their first move, and thereafter follows the alleged
>winning strategy of the second player.  In the event that at a subsequent
>point in the play, the correct move (copied from the second player's
>alleged winning strategy) cannot be made because it has already been
>made, then make another random move and continue as before.  Therefore,
>the first player can force a win by copying the second player's alleged
>winning strategy, and the assumption that the second player can force a
>win is false.

what you are proving is that the 2nd player cannot force a win from every
legal position, which is already obvious.  every time you apply the assertion
that the 2nd player can force a win (assumed for contradiction) you are 
applying it to a new position-- the one played after the 1st player has had
to make a random move.  so, you need to have the initial hypothesis (that
you assume for contradiction) be that the 2nd player can force a win from 
any position so you can apply it during the proof every time the 1st player
has to make a random move.  indeed, you can prove with such a technique that 
the 2nd player cannot force a win from every legal position using your 
technique, but, so what?

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
From: pope@walnut.kpc.com (John Pope)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:20:50 GMT
	<PHR.92Oct14203844@napa.telebit.com>
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.

(Paul Rubin) writes:
> Apparently many Russian grandmasters don't know how to mate with N+B

Many? Can you name a couple? even one? I doubt it.

--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Keywords: bobby, champ
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:50:29 GMT

Yawn! Dull. 

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Subject: Re: Cochrane gambit.
Originator: jcbokar@c00582-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:39:13 GMT


In article <1992Oct9.212315.4670@math.utexas.edu>,
epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
|> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
|> Path:
|>
taco!rock!stanford.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!news.dell.com!mat
th.utexas.edu!rene.ma.utexas.edu!epstein
|> From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
|> Subject: Cochrane gambit.
|> Message-ID: <1992Oct9.212315.4670@math.utexas.edu>
|> Sender: usenet@math.utexas.edu
|> Nntp-Posting-Host: rene.ma.utexas.edu
|> Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
|> Distribution: rec
|> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 17:23:15 GMT+5:00
|> Lines: 9
|> 
|> Has anybody got any opinions on the gambit in the Petroff's defence
|> -
|> 1e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7? 
|> 
|> Bronstein has been quoted as saying that this is just as strong as
|> the
|> more usual 4 Nf3.  However I have not seen this gambit in a recent
|> grandmaster game.  Has it been refuted?
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
I think New in Chess 18 has some good analysis on this opening too.  Of
course this won't help if you don't have this book.  I can maybe send
some of the games listed.....

jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game (analysis)
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:01:44 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Despite Spassky's inspired defense, doesn't 53.Kg4 win fairly easily?  If
53...Qd7+ 54.Kg5, and 54...Qxd3 loses to 55.Qg6+.  The other point is that
one would think a trade of the Pawn on d3 for the Pawn on c5 would result in
a winning Q + P ending.  Has anyone run this through a computer?

It's no surprise that Fischer's kicking himself over this one, wherever the
win(s) were.  But Spassky has been fighting hard from some bad positions (but
he's had a lot of them).
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sjaak@cca.vu.nl (Jacques Schuurman)
Subject: Re: Tilburg
Organization: VU Amsterdam - dienst CCA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:55:38 GMT

Teri A Meyers <tasst2+@pitt.edu> writes:

| Does anyone have any news of the recently started Tilburg tournament? I
| understand (my source is GM Shabalov) that the format has been changed for
| this year.  First they are having a competition open to the top 100 players
| in the world, and then a playoff among the top 6 finishers.  Play was to
| have started a few days ago, so I am anxious for early results.
| Jerry Meyers

The format of the tournament has been changed drasticly.  A first round
scheme was with ~100 (actually, it might have been 94) chess players,
playing a double knock-out match.  If the result would end up with 1-1,
some kind of blitz game would decide.

The winners of these first round games, 47, were joined together with
17 seeded players to start the real competition, in a tennis-like
scheme of 64-32-16-8-4-2.  Of course, the intention was to have 16 seeded
players, but after Karpov announced that he would not come, they had to
find a substitute.  Eventually, Karpov did come.

One of the biggest surprises was Karpov who got knocked out in the 2nd
round.  Also Gelfand, seeded as 5th or something, lost against Smyslov (!).

I could get some more specific results, if there is some interest in them.

sjaak

-- 
Jacques Schuurman VU Amsterdam |    [             ---/\---             ]
Telefoon +31 20 548 26 63      |    [ Mirko, pazi metak! Hvala Slavko! ]
Email sjaak@cca.vu.nl          |    [             ---\/---             ]
From: epstein@pelican.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: recognition of styles
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:05:09 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

Suppose a group of grandmasters were given the moves of a random collection
of games played between the leading fifty players or so.
If they had not seen these games before, how accurately do you think they'd
be able to guess at the participants by observing the styles alone.

(We can ignore the quibble that grandmasters can remember the games of their
rivals by assuming either that the games are informal, or that the moves are
being transmitted on a screen at the time of the test.)

My guess is that most of them would do very poorly.  If I am correct then 
the concept of "style" in chess is rather meaningless, unlike in music
or writing for example.

Paul Epstein     epstein@math.utexas.edu
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:12:16 GMT


The question of the world championship does not depend on whom you 
accept as world champion right now; it depends on whether you think
the world championship is the exclusive property of the person who won
it once.  If you do, then you are obliged to call somebody the world
champion if he never loses his title even if he has avoided all 
challengers for 20 years (we know that no such thing could happen, of
course).  If instead you believe that the title belongs to no one
player, you will act differently.

And please no **** about other players avoiding this hypothetical
player who refused to play in public for 20 years.  Talk to the people
who tried to set up matches with this hypothetical player over the last
20 years.  Whatever I may think of him personally, there is a world
champion and he is clearly the strongest player in the game right now:
his name is Gary Kasparov.  There are about 15 players in the world
with better claims on a world championship match than a reclusive
lunatic.  If that match comes off anytime soon, it will only be 
because there is money in it.  I hope Gary gets his share of it, but I
would much rather see an Anand-Kasparov match.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Tilburg news - Karpov knocked out
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:32:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.195547.16395@husc3.harvard.edu> fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
>
>Karpov was knocked out in the second round at Tilburg by 63rd out of
>64 ranked Alexander Chernin.  I don't understand this listing very
>well, but here are the 2nd round results and 3rd round pairings from
>CompuServe.
>
Well, it seems to me that chess tournaments are beginning to resemble
tennis tournaments. But the scores are really unclear. So does anybody
know, are they playing to first win, or to first non-drawn score from an
even number of games, or what?

>
>Predrag Nikolic (No.14) (Croatia) 1 - John van der Wiel (Netherlands)

As much as I'd like to have Nikolic on the Croatian team, he is from Bosnia.

>Anthony Kosten (Britain) 1 -  Ivan Sokolov (Bosnia- Herzegovina)

@#$%^&*!

>Nikolic-Nogueiras

A historical note: Nikolic destroyed Nogueiras (and Zuniga Granda) in the
play-off after the Zagreb Interzonal in 1987, but he was unsuccessful in
the Candidates' matches.


	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: English (was book titles)
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:23:37 GMT

In article <Bvs0Gp.98L@news.orst.edu> linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin) writes:
>In article <PHR.92Oct7162046@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:

>Winning with 1 c4 b5!! or something like that.  Seriously though, I am
>looking for a good way to reply to 1 c4.  In a recent tournament, I 
>tried both 1...g6 and 1...b6.  How is it possible to prevent White's
>setup with c4,d3,e4 ?  Or how is it possible to take advantage of it?

How about: 1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5.  On 3.d3, I would consider 3...cxe4 4.dxe4,
exchanging a flank pawn for a center pawn.  Helps if you play the
Caro-Kann!  I worried about having to prepare for the English until I
saw several transpositions in the CK books.

--Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky II, game 20 (comment - analysis)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:05:00 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I was surprised by David's posting that Spassky thought he had a better
position out of the opening in Game 20.  I prefer Black's position, both
before and after White captures the Pawn on a5.  Is White's spacial advantage
really sufficient to launch any kind of real kingside attack?  His Knight is
on the a file, his Rook is stuck at a2, and the Bishop on g1 looks only at
the Queenside.

Instead of Nc6-e7, Black should continue with ...g6 and ...Bg7, possibily
combined with ..6.  Black retains the possibility of a central pawn break and
also has pressure down the c file.

Since Fischer was upset at losing, he might agree that he had at least an
equal, if not better, position, although it's easy to be upset at losing no
matter what.  What does seem clear is that Spassky outplayed Fischer once
concrete variations cropped up.  I wonder if Fischer is getting tired.

Instead of 8-3, the score is now 7-4.  Could things get interesting again?
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Yaz tapes (was: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books)
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:21:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: afit.1992Oct13.022103.7368
Organization: Self-similar

In article <1992Oct12.162026.7948@u.washington.edu> monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
>One good book on chess strategy is "Play Winning Chess" by Yassar Seirawan.

Speaking of Yaz, didn't he star in a couple of video tapes called Pro Chess: 
Video Chess Mentor in the late 80's?  I understand that several tapes were 
planned ... did any more ever get made?


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick					wbralick@afit.af.mil

Standard disclaimers apply.  Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<PHR.92Oct12181225@napa.telebit.com> <12712@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>
Distribution: rec
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:00:38

In article <12712@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> tcmaint@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (-Broadband Network Maintenance) writes:

   Netters,

   Did Bobby play 1.d4? 

   Did not Bobby play a game where he played 1.d4 and the other player
   resigned.

   Yes, I remember reading about this, don't remember all the details. 

One of the shortest scores on record, but Bobby didn't play d4 in this one.

R. Fischer-O. Panno
Interzonal, 1970 (?)

1. c4	Resigns
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Recommendations, please
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:21:01 GMT

In article <BvqA3p.A1s@sju.edu> tmoody@sju.edu (T. Moody) writes:
> 
> I'd like to ask people to recommend some books to study. ...I'm not  
exactly a beginner, but I'm not advanced either. 
> Please recommend some useful sources to study for a non-advanced
> non-beginner.

Again I find myself tightroping the ethics of the board, since I am an  
author. But I would say that Neishtadt's Test your tactical Ability and my  
Strategy for Advanced Players (despite the title) might help. As for  
openings, pick up a repertoire book or two and don't waste too much time  
on this aspect of the game. Chess Digest publishes a lot of these,  
including my stuff. The Torre Attack might suit you for White, very easy  
to learn. Books with "How to Play..." or "Understanding..." are also a  
good bet. But basically, you will advance by buying game collections and  
playing through them.

Fischer: My 60 Memorable Games
Tal (anything)
Kasparov: Fighting Chess (but NOT test of time, that's for pros)

would be a good place to start.

DISCLAIMER: Most of my income comes from my books on chess, I try hard to  
be objective, but I do think of my own work first!
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
From: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: king's gambit
Date: 7 Oct 1992 07:24:27 GMT
Organization: The Sinister Icy Black Hand of Death Club
Reply-To: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu
Originator: goldfarb@tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct1.152954.1093@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
)
)Why do grandmasters almost never play the king's gambit as white despite
)its popularity in previous times?  

	David Bronstein had something to say about this in his book of the 
candidates tournament at Zurich in 1953. (This is from the Dover edition,
translated by Jim Marfia, p. 207.)

	"...where pieces and pawns were formerly sacrificed on the second
or third move, nowadays such early skirmishings in the center are avoided.
It's certainly not because players fear risk -- in plain terms, the King's
Indian is a greater risk for Black than the King's Gambit for White. 
Nevertheless, not one of us is afraid to play the King's Indian, while the
advocates of the King's Gambit grow fewer and fewer, as do those of the
Scotch, Italian, and Vienna Games. The problem with all these openings
is that after a short fight in the center, the pawn structure simplifies,
and the fight which follows becomes flat and featureless. Players of our
day know how to sacrifice a pawn or a piece as well as Morphy or Anderssen
did; but it is a characteristic of the present state of the art that 
sacrifices must be postponed while shielding one's combinative yearnings
behind a mask of positional play."

-- 
   David Goldfarb          | "Think of the ragged poverty of a language that 
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu  | has to make one word do the work of six, and a
goldfarb@UCBOCF.BITNET     | poor weak thing of three letters at that."
                           |  -- Mark Twain, "The Awful German Language"
From: roberto@oliveb.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Roberto Ricca)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: K+B+N vs. K
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:36:27 GMT
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino CA, USA

>In article <1992Oct13.223044.3140@Princeton.EDU> carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo) writes:
> At what level of tournament play does it become the "norm" for the losing
> person to resign in a K+B+N vs. K endgame?  (one which is won for the
> opponent, of course)

An International Master didn't resign against me (rating: Italy 2048;
US 2135). It happened in the fifth round (out of nine) of the qualification
tournament to the Italian Championship.

Not resigning was a good idea, because I didn't know how to win the
endgame. Unfortunately (for him) he entered that endgame just the move
before adjournment, so I could look up the winning plan all night long
(well, quite) and easily win the day after. He retired from the
tournament after that defeat (third in a row for him).

So far it is my only victory against an IM.

########################################################################
# Roberto Ricca                 Email:      roberto@oas.olivetti.com   #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
#           1993:   GO GIANTS  (magic number:  163)                    #
#                   Anybody but the Dodgers                            #
########################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:20:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.123208.23321@linus.mitre.org>, jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz) writes:
|> I'm sorry, but Fischer RESIGNED the title -- he did not have it "taken away
|> from him".  In a letter or telegram by Fischer, he states (don't quote me
|> exactly on this, I'm doing this from memory) that by not accepting all of
|> his match terms, FIDE has voted against him, and therefore he resigns his
|> title.

Thank you (and the other person) for correcting my misnomer.  The
point was that Bobby didn't feel he had much choice in the matter
and was disgusted with FIDE and and finally gave up trying to fix
a Russian-dominated system that didn't want to be fixed.  No one
is arguing about who the "World Champion" is!  Any one who doesn't 
believe, can call up FIDE and ask them who holds the title for proof.
The only thing that is being argued is who is the best chessplayer
in the world, which is nearly impossible to determine.

|> If Kasparov was playing the final game of a title match where he needed a 
|> win to keep the title (such as in '87 against Karpov), and he resigned the
|> last game, does anyone think that he could later claim that the championship
|> was still his?

Obviously not, but no one is claiming anything like this.

|> Fischer resigned.  End of title.  Hey, I'm as excited as anybody about his
|> return to chess, but let's call a spade a spade.

And call a champ a champ!  Go Bobby! ;)

|> Maybe we should recognize Alehkine as World Champion -- after all, he died
|> before anyone beat him for the title.

We couldn't say that he is the World Chamipion, because Kasparov has
the title, but one could argue that he is still the best player in
the world if he were still alive, but he's not so the point is moot.

|> John
|> 
|> -- 
|> --JOHN A. SWARTZ---The MITRE Corporation---Bedford, Massachusetts-- 
|> -- "Every time I look in the mirror, all these lines on my face  --
|> --  getting clearer . . . The past is gone."- S. Tyler, J. Perry --

-- 
T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess