HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Organization: Self-similar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:00:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.220047.20945@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
| 
| Right, and if you will reread my post, the "idiocy" I mentioned was the
| idea of allowing a single opponent to "refuse" to play the machine.  This
| disrupts the final standings enough to rankle anyone. ...

Sigh.  Only under the status quo.

| I don't want to intimidate anyone.  As I have stated repeatedly, there is
| no middle ground.  Either reject computers totally, or accept them totally.

Without falling once again into a bottomless pit of disputation over
whether machines have ``ideas'' or can ``think,'' I would merely like to
point out that this is the fallacy of the ``false dilemma.''  Clearly,
my suggestion allows the players the right to refuse all play against
machines and allows the machines to compete without muddling up the
standings in either section.  The marginal cost of running an additional
section is highest in small tournaments, but still not too onerous.

This is a suggestion you never addressed seriously choosing instead to
label any attempt to satisfy individual preferences as ``idiocy.''  Without
resorting to empty invective, perhaps you could explain what is wrong
with creating a mixed (or computer-only) section and a humans-only section?

| Don't try to muddle things up by having the "right of refusal" and such
| follies.  Such rules simply guarantee that machines will "fade from sight"
| because of the negative effect they will have on tournaments.  

This isn't clear, either, but is merely an opinion of the author.  If
nobody wants to play the machines then they will fade.  If people don't
mind or prefer playing machines then they will not fade.  There is no
necessary disruption of the tournament except that caused by placing the
machines in sections where people don't want to play them.


Regards,

-- 
Will Bralick                          |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
             wbralick@afit.af.mil     |  we must proportion our efforts to 
             bralick@cs.psu.edu       |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: oyvind@jotun.hal.nta.no (Oyvind Eilertsen)
Subject: Re: Bobby still #2?!?!?!?
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: 4 Sep 92 09:44:10

In article <1992Sep3.232716.16944@uwm.edu> sailesh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Sailesh C Akkaraju) writes:

>  The Elo rating of Bobby fischer was 2785 when he abruptly retired. And
>  the policy of FIDE in this matter is that if a rated player does not play
>  for three years , his or her name is removed from the rating list, however
>  the player does not lose his rating and whenever he decides to comeback
>  there is a reinstatement of his rating and he (or she ) gets whatever
>  rating he or she had when he or she left active play.

On the other hand, I understand that the current match is not
recognized by FIDE and thus will not lead to any rating adjustments.
Of course, if Fischer plays in a FIDE tournament, he will appear on
the lists again, but I can`t quite see that happening. But when it
comes to Fischer, everything is possible.

--
{\O}yvind.   (oyvind@nta.no)
  
     * We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary. *
     * Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.         *
From: John_Somerville@mindlink.bc.ca (John Somerville)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Checkers match
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:22:55 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

There is a full report in the board games section. Interesting reading.
rgrds john
--
john somerville B.C. Hydro
affiliations FIG Forth Interest Group
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: fischer match coverage
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:15:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.170502.19559@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
|> 
|> The sanctions must only cover financial transactions actually involving the
|> Serbians. If no money could be exchanged based on anything in the restricted 
|> area, then it would be illegal to sell newspapers that reported the war, and
|> no commercials could be sold on newscasts that covered the fighting.

  Well, newspapers don't concentrate soley on Serbia. A phone service with an 800
 number that is dedicated to an illegal event seems to be quite a bit different 
 than a newspaper which is covering the fighting and other real news. 
 I don't want to allow anyone to make $$ off of this match - or any other event
 which is in violation of the sanctions. The newspapers are NOT violating the
 sanctions. 
 
|> >PS - OF course, if they move to Belgrade or anywhere else outside of Yugoslavia,
|> >     then there's no problem!
|> 
|> What country do you think Belgrade is in?
  
  Sorry - I meant Budepest! Weren't they going to move the match there? Moving
  it to Belgrade certainly wouldn't help!! Maybe Buffalo?? ;-) 

  I'm still boycotting the match if it's in violation of the sanctions - which
  it will be if they don't move it!

-Ron


|> 
|> Bradley
From: jph@hardy.u.washington.edu (Jeff Hanson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Promoting to a B
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:32:10 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <14602@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>
>(And this problem is not, and never has been, a "ruse".)

	Ok, sorry, I was wrong.
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: chinook
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:34:18
Organization: CSUA/UCB
	<1992Aug28.010326.16786@cis.uab.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hyatt@cis.uab.edu's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:03:26 GMT


    Chesstech types have discussed something called the
    "discernibility factor" as one such idea.  The gist would be to
    know something about who you are playing (and how they compare
    with you in rating, etc.)
    ...
    These ideas will find their way into programs, but they are pretty
    "speculative" in nature.

I think that some programs have a "contempt factor" which they use
to decide whether to accept draw offers and suchlike.
I can't remember any specifics.
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky Game 2 Result
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:07:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep3.210717.15355
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <PHR.92Sep3152346@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>Could someone post the schedule for the forthcoming games?
>I know the info has appeared here before, but I didn't save it...

AP says the matches are played on Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, and
Sunday at 3:30pm Yugo time, or 9:30am EDT.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138            
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mox@vpnet.chi.il.us (William Moxley)
Subject: Looking for an email game?
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 05:30:43 GMT

 
Looking for an email game?  I'll be running a pairing service again,
so if your interested just send me the following information, and
I'll get you started ASAP.
 
Your Name
Email Address
Prefered level (Novice, Intermediate, Expert)
Number of games prefered
 
--
William Moxley
mox@vpnet.chi.il.us
From: vadim@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Spassky-Fischer  game2
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:23:03 EDT

In article <eXTJqB1w164w@wharf>, ben@wharf.UUCP (Bob Fischer) writes:
> [E80 Samisch Variation]
> Spassky-Fischer
> Game 2    9/3/92
> 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 c5 6.dxc5 dxc5 7.Qxd8 Kxd8
> 8.Be3 Nfd7 9.Nge2 b6 10.0-0-0 Na6 11.g3 Nc7 12.f4 e6 13.Bh3 Ke7 14.Rhf1 h6
> 15.e5 Bb7 16.g4 Rad8 17.Ng3 f6 18.Nce4 fxe5 19.f5 Bxe4 20.Nxe4 gxf5
> 21.gxf5 Nf6 22.Rg1 Rxd1+ 23.Kxd1 Bf8 24.Nxf6 Kxf6 25.Rf1 exf5 26.Rxf5+ Kg7
> 27.Rxe5 Bd6 28.Re4 Bxh2 29.Ke2 h5 30.Re7+ Kf6 31.Rd7 Be5 32.b3 h4
> 33.Kf3 Rg8 34.Bg4 h3 35.Rh7 h2 36.Bf4 Rf8 37.Bxe5+ Kg6 38.Ke4 Kxh7
> 39.Bxh2 Re8+ 40.Kf5 Ne6 41.Kf6 Nd4 42.Bd6 Re4 43.Bd7 Re2 44.a4 Rb2
> 45.Bb8 a5 46.Ba7 Rxb3 47.Ke5 Nf3+ 48.Kd6 Nd2 49.Be6 Rb4 50.Kc6 Nb3
> 51.Bd5 Rxa4 52.Bxb6 Ra1 53.Bxc5 a4 54.Bb4 a3 55.c5 Nd4+ 56.Kd7 Rd1
> 57.Bxa3 Nc2 58.c6 Rxd5+ 59.Bd6 draw
  
   The second game and the second time Spassky makes a big mistake:
This time it was 28.Re4??  (Should be 28.Bf4 ,for example
28...Ne6! 29.Bxe6 Kf6 30.Re4 Bxf4 31.Rxf4+ Kxe6 ==)
After this mistake Spassky played like an animal.
-V.
From: monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: fischer match coverage
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:52:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep2.175203.10991
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <SCHILLER.92Sep1155501@tira.uchicago.edu> schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:
>
[ logical reasoning deleted]
>
>others money, but rather because I can get the info for free
>by other means.
>

Hopefully, someone will post the games as they become available, with some
analysis and dialog.

Those who are morally outraged at this can always delete the article(s).


Tracy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Monaghan: arithmetic-mean, melanin-deficient, gender-advantaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: WEIRD/UNORTHODOX OPENINGS
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:44:19 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

hey folks,

i am wondering if anybody would recommend some weird/unorthodox
openings that they play (such as 1. a4  --the crab opening ).
please describe the opening name, the first few moves, and the
general theory behind it.

please include a list of books that you would recommend about
your unorthodox opening (if any exist!!!). try to include

   The book title
   the author
   the publisher and date

if not all of this information is available, then please include what
information you do have.

if the the weird opening is one that there is no known published analysis,
(because it is one of your own creation for example), then please include
the name and e-mail address where you can be reached to acquire more
information.


please send your answers to me directly because i am compiling a list.
when i get all of the responses, i'll post them on the net. 


thanks a lot !!!!

don.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Udo.Sprute@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Udo Sprute)
Subject: Re: Chess via modem
Followup-To: Doak Heyser's request
Summary: There's a program to play chess via modem.
Keywords: Modem, Windows
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:51:47 GMT

There has been a request:
>    Is there any program out there that will allow two people to play
> chess with each other via modem ?

There is such a program for Windows for IBM-PCs.
It is called "chessnet.zip", a free demo-version,
and I have uploaded it onto   valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu:/pub/chess/uploads .
Maybe that it has moved into /pub/chess/doschess now.

You can get it by FTP with login "anonymous" and your
address as password.

Udo Sprute  (sprute@unibi.HRZ.Uni-Bielefeld.DE)
--
   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: ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Go-friends' sigs (was: Re: Programming Chess and Programming Go)
Date: 02 Sep 92 10:03
Organization: Private Coherent 4.0.1 site Augsburg/Bavaria/Germany

> Justin, 6 kyu
          ^^^^^
I think this is nice a habit.  We chess players should also sign with
our rating (no sarcasm!!).

--ralf, 1700 (non-USCF)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington)
Subject: Re: Boycott
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 01:31:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.204826.12408@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.142023.7265@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:

>Which _basic principles_ of human rights have been violated in this case
>and where are they defined and agreed to by the nations participating
>in the UN sanctions?  Mr. Fischer has no _right_ to play chess wherever
>he pleases.                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^^^^^

This is so laughable to a libertarian like myself, that I hesitate to
respond... What are governments for? Clearly, according to Will Bralick, 
they exist to dictate what (supposedly) free-thinking individuals like
Fischer, you, and I can do. This reeks of totalitarianism - except in cases
where there is a defenseless victim [rape, murder, theft, et. al.]. 
It's at this point in the argument that the well meaning Bralick's of the
world respond passionately, "Yes, but there _are_ victims here...".
NOT... If you can show causality between Fischer playing chess and the 
atrocities being perpetrated (or conversely, and more to the pt - 
show that Fischer not playing will stop said acts) then sure. If you can't,
then let's go back to the question: "What were govt's organized for?"
I, like many libertarians, believe that whether this match is played or not 
is _noone's_ decision but Fischer's and Spassky's.

 --Steve Harrington
 "Live Free or Die"

 "They that can give up essential liberty in order to obtain
  a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
        ----Benjamin Franklin
From: Ron_Kownacki@transarc.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Strategic games, computational cost & implications
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:39:46 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

"Mike, 7kyu" correctly points out that we are close to getting a handle on a
world-class chess machine, but that a go machine is still a dream.  For some
reason he fails to mention that there's probably been on the order of $1 spent
on computational go for every $1000 spent on chess.  I assume that he simply
overlooked this.

Now I'm not saying that chess has greater computational complexity than go
or vice-versa.  I'm just observing that nobody knows this right now, and
suggesting that we all refrain from premature judgement or dogmatic
assertions in the absence of compelling research.  Go has a far greater
search space when counted naively, but it also has lots of regularities that
chess doesn't have.  It may turn out the game is susceptible to a completely
different kind of algorithmic approach, e.g., heavy pattern-matching.  We
don't know.

Ron Kownacki
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pjj+@cs.cmu.edu (Peter Jansen)
Subject: Re: Babson task (was Re: Promoting to a B)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:32:45 GMT


In message <1992Aug24.134433.25443@imag.fr>,
 phs@imag.fr (Philippe Schnoebelen) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug21.124456.8936@imag.fr>phs@imag.fr (Philippe Schnoebelen) writes:
>>Less than ten years ago, a Russian problem composer finally succeeded into
>>producing a situation displaying the famous Babson task. 
>>[...]
>>Sorry I don't remember the composer name but I can post more info
>>(including the position) if people are interested.
>
>I knew more info would be required, but I did not have it at hand ... :-)
>
>Leonid Jarosch produced the first (orthodox) Babson task in 1981. This was
>a tremendous breakthrough. I cannot post the position because I've lost my
>older Themes-64. However, Jarosch produced another Babson task in 1983.
>Here is the 1983 position. Of course, it has less historical interest but
>aesthetically it is better than the first one.

[later Babson deleted]

>--Philippe


Tim Krabbe' wrote a book about it: "The man who would make the Babson
task" ("De man die de Babson task wilde maken", dutch, publ: Bert Bakker,
Amsterdam, 1987). The story centers around Frenchman Pierre Drumare,
who spent 22 years of his life attempting to construct an orthodox
Babson task. He did in fact publish several tries, but all had serious
flaws (multiple promoted pieces, hopelessly illegal positions,
fairy pieces, a 'just-promoted-to-something' black pawn etc.).

According to Tim Krabbe', Leonid Yarosh made his first Babson in 1983
(Shahmati v SSSR, March 1983). This position hit the world in full
force when it appeared on the front page of "The`mes 64", with a
commentary by Pierre Drumare, who had, just a few months before,
declared the task impossible. After this first success, Yarosh made two
more Babsons. Now that some of the tricks were revealed, several other
composers, with Drumare among them, also succeeded...

Here is the first legal, orthodox, 4-move Babson:

8  - q - * - * - R
7  P - * N * - * -
6  - * - * - p - *	White: Kh2, Qb1, Rf1, Rh8, Ba1, Bh1, Nb2,
5  * - p - * p * -	       Nd7, Pa2, a7, c4, d2, f2, g3
4  - * P k - b - n	Black: Kd4, Qb8, Bf4, Nh4, Pc2, c5, f5, f6
3  * - * - * - P -		Mate in 4.
2  P N p P - P - K
1  B Q - * - R * b	 L. Yarosh, Shahmati v SSSR, March 1983.

   a b c d e f g h

The key, 1. Rxh4, is still relatively ugly, but the position is legal
and, compared to previous attempts, airy and natural looking.


Evil tongues have speculated that 'soccer trainer L. Yarosh' is a hoax,
and that the Babson was actually by the renowned problem composer A. Yarosh,
who apparently also spent a few decades thinking about it. In Cyrillic,
A and L look much alike, and a simple typo would have given someone ideas...


-- Peter
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: Marshall - ask Fischer
Summary: Oops -- ruminations were based on a typo 
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:16:26 GMT

I wrote:
>It's funny, but as soon as I saw the move order in the first game (7 ... o-o 8
>c3 d6 rather than 7 ... d6 8 c3 o-o), I started to suspect that Spassky was in
>for a hard time.
[ruminations about psychology of move order omitted]

Oops.  The more recent -- and probably correct -- versions of the game score
that I've seen did give the move order 7 ... d6 8 c3 o-o, rendering all of
that stuff invalid.  That makes more sense: Spassky may have lost some of
his playing strength, but he has *never* been a psychological pushover ...

-- 
Bill Johnson				| "This is a bit complicated, so let
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| me explain it backwards."  (first
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| line of a memo from a fellow Los
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| Alamos physicist who will go unnamed)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mox@vpnet.chi.il.us (William Moxley)
Subject: Re: Fischer Spits! 
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 04:26:46 GMT

In article <benwood.715369504@milton> benwood@milton.u.washington.edu (Ben Henwood) writes:
>
>So far, I haven't seen any mention of "the girl" who is there with 
>Fischer.  The Seattle Times reporter her yesterday, 31 Aug, as a
>19-year-old Hungarian Chess prodigy (they had her name, but I didn't
>bring in the article).  I heard that Inside Chess had some information
>on her, too.

Her rating is in the 2100-2200 range.  What else do you need to know.
:-)

		William Moxley
		mox@vpnet.chi.il.us

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Fuzzy Rules/PA State Championship Controversy
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:43:45 GMT

In article <PHR.92Sep4100904@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>    > ... the position left on the board was K+B+P vs.
>    > K+B....
>
>    Surely the situation as detailed is quite clear.  If the rule as
>    stated above is correct then it should have been adjudged a win to
>    the master. 
>
>If it is KBP vs KB, it is at best a draw for the master, who lacks
>mating material.  See USCF rulebook for details.

I have the USCF rulebook in my hands - and it contradicts this claim.

    Sudden Death Rules:
    8. The Drawn Game.  A game is drawn:
        ...
        F. if one player has insufficient material for a pos-
           sible checkmate as described in USCF Rule I.12.I;

    ...                
    I.12. The Completed Game
        ...
        I. The game is drawn when one of the following 
           endings arises, where the possibility of a win
           is excluded for either side:
            1. king against king,
            2. king against king with bishop or knight, or
            3. king and bishop against king and bishop,
               with both bishops on diagonals of the same color.

I can't find any reference to KBP vs KB.  Perhaps I've simply missed it.
Can you please provide a reference to support your claim?

On the same note: several previous postings have discussed a criterion
which revolves around whether or not it is possible (with full
cooperation by the weaker side) to construct a mate, or a mate in one,
etc.  I can't find this rule either.  Perhaps my rulebook is out of
date.  Can someone please post a definitive, authoratative reference to
this rule?


-- 
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: tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Match Predictions (how many draws?)
Date: 3 Sep 1992 01:24:02 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

I think it's pretty clear that Fischer is going to win, perhaps
by a lopsided score such as 10-0 (or maybe Spassky concedes the
match at 8-0, say), but I'm curious as to how many draws there
will be.

I'll hazard a guess that there will be 10 draws. If it was
a real tense struggle between equally matched grandmasters
at the top of their form I could see this type of match
reaching 20 or more draws, but perhaps Fischer is in better
form (and maybe with the new Fischer clock system having an
influence), leading to a reduction in the expected number of draws?

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
From: ixanian@sco.COM (Ixanian Nichols)
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Organization: The Santa Cruz Orgasmatron
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 00:55:55 GMT



Darse;

	I think you need to define the term 'strategic' a little better.
You say that rec.games.board is too diluted for those of us interested
in 'purely strategic' games, yet nowhere in your list of examples did I 
see mention made of strategic-level wargames and economic/socio-political
games. I, and probably a great many others, are going to consider such
games as A3R, Diplomacy, Civilization, 1830, Axis and Allies, Risk, 
Supremecy, and any number of wargames and conflict simulations to fit 
the description 'purely strategic'. And you can't argue that they should 
go to rec.games.board because they have boards, since so, too, do Chess, 
Go, Pente, Shogi, Reversi, Tic-Tac-Toe, and virtually all games with the 
word 'Checkers' in the name, to name just a few.

	If what you want is a newsgroup that just allows discussion of
the games you, personally, are interested in, you're going to have to 
moderate it. I understand what kind of game you're attempting to single
out, and I'll bet a lot of others do, too. I think the name you are 
looking for is something more like:

rec.games.abstract.strategy.not.involving.simulation.of.reality  

	My suggestion: leave the net alone. Start a mailing alias. 
They work just as well (or better), and can be moderated to virtually 
any extent the owner desires.




							- Ix


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess