HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lake@cs.UAlberta.CA (Robert Lake)
Subject: Man vs. Machine World Checkers Championship (day 5)
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: checkers
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:59:46 GMT

Results for day 5 (Friday August 21) of the (40 game) Man vs. Machine World
Checkers Championship in London are 1 victory for Chinook and 3 draws.
After 16 games the match stands:

			Chinook 8.5 pts.
			Tinsley 7.5 pts.

They will be playing four more games on Saturday and have a rest day on
Sunday.

With regards to the questions about Chinook's endgame database: currently
all 6 piece positions , 7 piece 4 vs. 3 positions, and 40% of the 8 piece
4 vs. 4 positions have been solved.  We expect to finish the balance of the
8 piece positions within the next 6 months to 1 year.  Jonathan Schaeffer's
e-mail address is jonathan@cs.ualberta.ca.  He returns to his office on
September 7.
					Rob Lake (lake@cs.ualberta.ca)
					University of Alberta
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Re : Lasker at odds
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:14:49 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I believe the actual story involves removal of the Queen's Knight, with Lasker
telling the confused club champion that the tempo saved for bringing the
Queen's Rook into the attack was clearly more important than the Knight.  It's
hard to see how even Lasker could convince someone that a Queen was a
disadvantage (other than the Bishop-Queen problem, of course...)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: scridd@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JEFFREY RIDDLEBAUGH)
Subject: Re: 1. A4   WARE OPENING
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 18 Aug 1992 09:36 EST  

In article <1992Aug14.114333.12139@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, pmbarlow@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Dan Fielding) writes...
>In article <13AUG199215390887@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>scridd@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JEFFREY RIDDLEBAUGH) writes:
>> It's named for a 19th century player named Preston Ware, who played
>> 1. a4 or 1... a4 quite a lot.  1. a4 is also called the Meadow Hay Opening.
>           ^^^^^^^
> 
>You realise, don't you, that this is impossible in almost every type of
>annotation...

I should have written 1... a5.  Sorry about that.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: scridd@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JEFFREY RIDDLEBAUGH)
Subject: Re: Girls
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 13 Aug 1992 15:54 EST  

In article <1992Aug12.163152.6197@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, gene@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Gene E. Johannsen) writes...
> 
>Okay, there's this girl whom I desperately like (the whole thing is rather
>sick, actually) and we get together and play chess every once in a while
>and I wind up beating her easily.
> 
>So my question to you is, do you know any good but basic (BASIC) books on
>tactics?  She needs a gentle introduction, in order for her to maintain
>interest.  If it gets too hard too fast, its all over.  And not a children's
>book, either.  That would be bad, too.
> 
>Anyway, the whole point is that we are going to be parting soon (perhaps
>forever) and I want to leave her with some gifts (I am just, like, so
>sentimental).  I think she really likes chess, so I want to get her a good
>book or two.
> 

Two books I remember from my youth are Winning Chess and Logical Chess 
Move by Move.  I believe both are by Irving Chernev.  The first is devoted
to tactics with numerous illustrative positions.  The second goes over a
number of games with each move explained.

Incidentally, a good alternative to letting her win by weak moves (which
she might easily see through and be unimpressed to put it mildly) would 
be to give her odds (ie. a material handicap).
From: ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Computer ratings & speed
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:43:00 GMT
Organization: Private Coherent 4.0.1 site Augsburg/Bavaria/Germany

jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs) writes:
> 
> I don't know.  CCR vol. 2 no. 2 p. 4 says that the Fidelity Designer
> 2325 is about 2.4 times as fast as the 2265, which "should imply a
> rating difference of about 90 points."  As I understand it, the 2325 is
> a 20 MHz 68020, while the 2265 is a 16 MHz 68000.  Seems that Kaufman
> is giving over 60 points for a 100% speed increase.

Yes, I was wrong there.  Though it's not easy to give numbers, it's
definitely over 50 and below 100.

BTW, the Fidelity 2265 (= Mach III) is rated in the Svedish rating list
as about 2000 ELO (non-USCF), and the 2325 (= Mach IV) as 2085 ELO.
So don't trust the blurb from the ads.

--ralf
------------------------They say the gods get angry if you pray too much. (nh)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rray@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (Randy J. Ray)
Subject: Re: Fischer vs Treasury Dept.
Organization: US WEST Communications, Inc. -- Denver, CO
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:31:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.204707.8295@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rfh2y@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Russell Haddleton) writes:
> Haven't seen this previously in r.g.c, so...
> From Sunday's (8/16) N.Y. Times:
> 
>         The Treasury Department has alerted a lawyer 
>       representing Bobby Fischer that the reclusive
>       chess master would violate American economic
>       sanctions against Yugoslavia if he went ahead
>       with his planned return match with Boris Spassky
>       beginning Sept. 2.
>         A Treasury Department official said today that
>       if Mr. Fischer decided to "disregard the law and
>       regulations, we would then have to take appropriate
>       enforcement action." Mr. Fischer, who is said to 
>       be in Yugoslavia, could potentially face fines or
>       even imprisonment.
>         American sanctions, part of a broader United Nations
>       effort, prohibit travel for business purposes, the
>       official said, and the $5 million match would be
>       considered a commericial transaction under Treasury
>       regulations.
> 
> Is it back to the Pasadena Jail House for our hero?
> 

More like he'd drop out of sight in Europe or apply for political asylum in 
another country. Just what we need, for the treasury Department to run off
the guy, after he finally resurfaces. And why did they wait so long to make
this statement? It's been news since before Bobby even made it to the
country. What are they going to do if he goes on with the match. Try to take
hime from Yugoslavia?

Randy
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Randy J. Ray -- U S WEST IT/CSD         rray@{lookout,uswat}.it.uswc.uswest.com
I'd rather talk religion with Charles Manson than discuss ethics with Congress.
     -me                                                   Phone: (303)595-2852
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Rating Chess Players - Literature and Software...
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:14:46 GMT

In article <terry.3@cbe.qut.edu.au> terry@cbe.qut.edu.au writes:

>I'm looking for references and programs on rating chess players.  I'm 
>especially interested in Elo's books and papers and programs that will scoop 
>up redirected output from swissys and process ratings from it...

Chess Digest (in FAQ) recently had a batch of Elo's *Rating of
Chessplayers*, Second Edition.  It's out of print.  Costs about $10.
Call now if you want it.

I wrote a program that gives performance and cumulative ratings.
Cumulative suffers from the inaccuracy of using the most recent
published rating instead of the actual rating at the time of playing
the tournament.  Even if you were to compute one player's ratings
successively, you would still not know the current ratings for all
players.  I mean, for myself, I could feed the rating after each
tournament into my rating at the start of the next, but I can't do that
for my opponents.  At higher levels, where ratings are more stable, the
error would be less.  For people who played no events other than your
own, then I guess the ratings would be accurate, but you also have to
decide which players to rate first (as USCF does).

I don't distribute my program.  I think the results are interesting,
and I would consider distributing it for a good purpose if I knew how
to do it.  As much as anything, I consider the standard deviations and
probable errors important, and it displays them along with the
ratings.  I think it would be good for tournament players to have some
guidelines for interpreting their results.  I played this weekend, and
people worried over their wins and losses as if it told them something
about their abilities.  Well, losing the first two games tells you very
little, probably nothing, especially for that fellow who had recently
been laid off.

If you are interested in ratings, the best approach is to read Elo's
book and write your own program.  Then post your results, questions,
etc., and those of us who have done the same will be happy to compare,
correct, whatever.

--Jim
From: mazzarel@hilbert.berkeley.edu (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Computers in tournaments (was Re: US Open)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:06:20 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hilbert.berkeley.edu

Subject changed to protect the innocent.

Ariel
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:25:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.193622.13628@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.151458.2688@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.022125.17183@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Aug18.022521.2346@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>
>>if the majority agree that having computers in tournaments is a good thing,
>>then the minority is either going to have to go along or play elsewhere.
>
>Big word there, IF.  I did not know the that the majority had been
>polled.  I was not given a chance to vote.  Or do you mean the majority
>of the minority, that is, the members of a committee, which members
>were chosen by, well, by what process?  I was not given a chance to
>vote for members of the committee (or was the vote just before my
>time)?  Well, if the committee consists of something other than elected
>representatives, then we seem to be getting more of an oligarchy than a
>democracy.
>
>You did say IF, but you did not say what majority and what minority.
>Seems to me that perhaps the majority of committee members will be
>deciding, but the "minority" that will have to go along consists of
>thousands, not a few dissenting members of the committee.  In other
>words, your minority is thousands greater than your deciding majority.
>

Here, I meant a REAL majority of tournament players, not a majority of
the USCF board or whatever (I doubt I would trust their vote on anything...)
My feeling is that if most tournament players want us, then the rest are
going to have to take us without the "I don't wanna play you" business.
If the majority of the tournament players don't want us, then that choice
ought to be allowed to become "law" as I agree that it is untenable to
force computers into tournaments.  If the USCF and FIDE would put their
unabashed greed aside, and forget the commercial machines (which should
be banned except as "fill-in's for local tournaments) and make the decision
that best fits the entire USCF all would be well.  Now why do I have the
feeling that this is NOT going to be the case?????

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Torre Attack
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:56:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.192345.29043@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> gene@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Gene E. Johannsen) writes:
>I was looking at the first couple moves of the Torre Attack (has it been
>elevated to a system yet?) that goes: 1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bg5 4 c3 and I was
>wondering just what made this thing worth anything, and I relized that
>it is the Caro Kann reversed.  Really.  The only thing is that black is
>prevented from playing fun things like a reversed advanced variation
>or something because white has the extra move.

Actually this has been tried; a recent game was Adams-Short from the
recent SWIFT rapids.  Note too that it has to come out of an unusual
(veresov, not Torre) move order, since after Nf3 ...e5 is not possible.

1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 c6 3.e3 h6 4.Bh4 Qb6 5.Qc1 e5 6.c3 Nd7 7.Nf3 e4 8.Nfd2 f5
9.Bg3 Ngf6 10.c4 Nh5 11.Nc3 Nxg3 12.hxg3 Nf6 14.a3 Be6 14.b4 Qd8 15.Be2
Be7 16.c5 O-O?! (better 16...Kf7 intending ...h5 etc - Seirawan in
Inside Chess) 17.Nb3 b6? 18.O-O Rb8 19.Qc2 g5 20.b5! bxc5 21.dxc5 Qc8
22.bxc6 Bf7 23.Nd4 f4 24.Ncb5! f3 25.gxf3 Qh3 26.Rfb1 exf3 27.Bxf3 Ne4
28.Bxe4 dxe4 29.Qxe4 Bxc5 30.Rc1 Bb6 31.Nd6 Bxd4 32.exd4 Bh5 33.c7 Ra8
34.c8=Q Raxc8 35.Rxc8 Rxc8 36.Nxc8 Qxc8 37.Re1 Bf7 38.d5 Qd7 39.Rd1 Qd6
40.Qe3 a5 41.Qc3 h5 42.Qc6 Qe5 43.d6 Qe2 44.Qc8+ 1-0.

An interesting, and related discussion to this thread would bear on the
relative worth and results of the Veresov and Torre, as well as hybrid
systems between the two.  Anyone want to bite?



-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jpgraham@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John P Graham)
Subject: Re : Lasker at odds
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:08:43 GMT


I have heard the story of Lasker taking odds and loosing
deliberately , and then winning to confuse and amaze his
unexpecting opponent by giving the same odds in return ,,,
But , as I heard the story , odds were built up to a
queen at which point Lasker 'turned the table' .

John Graham (of the late NIHE Dublin aka DCU ).

.....................
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Checkers match
From: barryp@otago.ac.nz
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:13:57 +1300
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

In article <1992Aug20.210155.16691@visus.com>, nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.172712.24197@watson.ibm.com> msc@watson.ibm.com (Murray  
> Campbell) writes:
>> There is currently a match going on between Marion Tinsley (sp?),
>> who has been world checkers champion for many years, and
>> "Chinook", a checkers program out of the University of Alberta written
>> by a group headed by Jonathan Schaeffer.  The match is taking
> 
> I thought checkers was solved. Is it not?
> 
If Checkers is solved the Chinook is the solution.  As you can see it still
managed to lose a game.  I have read a description of the program which shows
that it does fall short of a complete solution.  Essentially it starts with
an opening book, continues by reading a full width search until it hits the
end-game database.  the endgame database consisted of all positions with 6
or fewer pieces and it couldn't guarantee to hit it each time so had to have
an evaluation.  as the endgame database grows the solution will become more
complete.  Anybody have an E-mail address for Schaeffer to confirm progress.

Barry Phease
From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Soltis' "Winning with the Giuoco..."
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:53:22 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.

In article <1992Aug13.122309.20086@maths.nott.ac.uk> I wrote:

>[Position now: W: Kd5, a5, b4, c4, g4, h2;  B: Kd7, a7, b7, c7, g7, h6],
>why not the obvious 32 ... c6+?  If now 33 Kc6, Kc7 and the WK is driven
>out by b6+, so 33 Ke5 Kd7.  Now the pawn positions on both sides of the
>board are mutual zugzwangs [h4, g6;  or h3, g5;  or c5, a6;  or a6, b6
>(or bxa, of course!)], so Black retains the opposition and draws, except
>for the possibility 34 b5.

	Oops!  I should have realised it wasn't *that* simple.  If 34 h4,
g6? 35 g5 h5; 36 b5! and wins either the c-pawn or the g-pawn.  Instead,
34 ... b6! seems to hold.  Analysis left to the reader.  Black can be
forced to yield the opposition, but, as far as I can judge, only in cases
where his g-pawn is still on g7 and his K will still have enough room to
defend it.  34 ... a6 may also be sufficient.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
From: 035UBS1@witsvma.wits.ac.za (Dodger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: (none)
Date: 19 Aug 1992 08:24:51 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Simon Hudson (Dodger)                P.O.Box 145303
University of Witwatersrand (WITS)   Brackenhurst
South Africa                         1452, South Africa

035udg1@WITSVMA.wits.ac.za OR
035ucw1@WITSVMA.wits.ac.za OR
035ubs1@WITSVMA.wits.ac.za

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ' I didn't do it, Nobody saw me do it, You can't prove anything '

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to play chess by email or real mail send first move
or address to mail to.

thanks

simon (dodger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
From: quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 02:51:42 GMT
Organization: Space and Planetary Image Facility
Keywords: checkers, shogi, othello, hex, etc.

Might I suggest that the 'How to create a newsgroup' posting in
news.announce.newusers or news.answers be consulted before taking this
much further?

Furthermore, when I think of 'strategic' games, I tend to think of
'strategic level military simulations'.  But that's just my twisted
mind.

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  quirk@pioneer.unm.edu
 I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                          what I have now...
From: direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Kathy Watts)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Man vs Computer Checkers Championship
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:42:52 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In article <darse.714347815@silver-vly> darse@cs.UAlberta.CA (Darse Billings) writes:
>
>>Does anybody has more information on the match?
>
>We here at the U of Alberta are receiving daily updates of the match.  
>
>I will speak to the sources and see if they will provide this
>information to rec.games.chess (they are posting it locally already).
>(Incidentally, if this doesn't seem to be the appropriate newsgroup,
>then be sure to vote 'yes' to the creation of rec.games.strategic).
>
> - Darse Billings, 2100 CM, 7 kyu.
>
>Go is better than Chess.  Poker is more lucrative.  Sex is more fun.

Darse, thanks for the info, but please realize that this is a one-time
occurance.  There will likely not be another match like this in checkers again.

This group ir not rec.games.checkers, but we are very interested because of the
obvious similiarities to the more difficult questions of computers and chess.

Please don't go using this as an excuse to over-generalize the match into the
basis for an unneeded (IMHO) new newsgroup.

I myself don't find the traffic in this newsgroup overwhelming, and enjoy the
number of subjects that come up.  And it's easy enough to skip things that
don't interest me.

If any campaign is needed, it's one aimed at getting clear descriptions into
the subject lines (short, sweet, and to the point; and with a clear indication
of whether or not a new subject is being introduced on the heels of a dying
one.

-Hal Bogner
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Suggestions for chess program?
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:40:54 GMT

In article <2590003@hpldsla.sid.hp.com> bruno@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Bruno Bienenfeild) writes:
>It was sugested couple of week ago:
>MCHESS, REXCHESS, ZARKOV, 3000,
>I am currently using ZARKOV 2.6 and am very satisfied.
>Any comp. is OK, however faster the better.

The original query was for someone who probably plays at the 2000
level.  That would require an 80486 to get most of these programs up to
2300-2400 in 40/2.  A much cheaper solution would be something like the
Fidelity Mach III, which ICD has been selling for about $200 and which
plays 2200+ at 40/2.  A stronger machine would be better, but the Mach
IV costs about $500, I think, and is only about 100 points stronger.

ICD is listed in FAQ, and you can get the catalog from them, complete
with ratings.  Also, CCR costs only about $10 a year, and you can get
back issues.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Organization: Center for Information and Language Studies / University of
	Chicago
	<1992Aug11.163422.26408@sco.com> <BsxCzH.F6t@cs.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:12:30 GMT

How difficult it is to get people to understand the problem!

It has nothing to do with "convenience to the organizers".

It has to do with prize distribution and pairings.

The suggestion of splitting off computers into a class with
willing humans is no more than suggesting that an organizer
hold two events, one under the new rules with mandatory play
and one with no computers allowed. Would you force organizers
to do both? If not, what is the point of the suggestion, since
it implies that the new rules could be implemented without
a problem?

The objection is to the existence of tournaments which allow
computers to play but do not require humans to play against them.

In one case brought to my attention, there were 4 computers of
varying strengths playing in a 20 player swiss, where many of
the participants, especially the stronger ones, refused to
play the computers. The result was that the computers received
very artificial pairings, and so did some of the humans. Screwed
up the tournament for everyone.

Let me reiterate: allowing right of refusal will not cause
problems for a competent TD, who will just pair according to the rules and
avoid certain pairings involving the computers. The problems will
be for the human participants, who will receive artificail 
pairings which can GREATLY affect the distrivbution of class
prizes.

I would prefer to ban both computers and class prizes, but 
the votes never go my way...

Eric Schiller
Chairpersonplaceandthing
USCF Computer Chess Committee
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6341 rec.games.go:1656 rec.games.board:8104 rec.games.programmer:3580 news.groups:17062