HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: md85-epi@dront.nada.kth.se (Urban Koistinen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Xics ....
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:11:48 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <1992Apr16.171013.26748@hellgate.utah.edu> mmoore%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
[quoted text removed]
-
-	Given that xics is currently an X program, it would belong
-on export.lcs.mit.edu in /contrib.  You can put it there yourself via
-anonymous ftp.  The only problem I see with this is that there should
-DEFINITELY be a warning that xics loggs you out after you quit.
-
-	Also, we really need to get a tournament organized for the
-internet.  I think Desmodus may be willing to develop a system for
-it on ICS.  What say you, Aaron?
-
-	-Michael 
-
-
--- 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-| Michael Moore (mmoore@peruvian.utah.edu)  Phone : (801) 359-6552     |
-|          University of Utah, Computer Science Department             |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have made some small changes to xics and placed it at
export.lcs.mit.edu in /contrib/xics.epi.small.tar.Z
Changes:
Move by point-push-point-release.
Castle by moving e1-g1 etc.
Automatic color recognition of piece moved.
Removed all buttons but "quit".
Half as big pieces, (smaller window).

-- 
Urban Koistinen - md85-epi@nada.kth.se
From: ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: books on fischer
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:02:36 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


  The Dragon Variation is by Anthony Glyn.  I enjoyed it, but did not think
anyone was really modelled on Fischer.  I haven't read Master Prim (forgot who
wrote that), but think it is much closer to Fischer.
From: DCBCS@canal.crc.uno.edu (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: ICS
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:48:00 GMT

Could some kind soul e-mail me the address of the various chess servers?
Also, there was an ICS help post earlier on rec.games.chess, which 
unfortunately, I didn't save.  If someone could e-mail me this as well
I would be much grateful and I would possibly sacrifice a virgin to
the gods!  (I'm kidding, I'm kidding.)  What happened is I finally got
access to Telnet on one of my CS accounts -- chess servers here I come!
Yahoo! 8^)

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: 50 out of 100?
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:02:34 GMT

In article <0dv3YdT0BwxKIW7ohf@transarc.com> Ron_Kownacki@TRANSARC.COM writes:
>>> 100 coin tosses: 50 heads out of 100 is a better bet than 1 head out of 1.

>If you really believe this, I'd like to invite you over to my house for a

Ok, so what did I miss?  The probability of 1 head out of one toss is
1/2.  What is the probability of 50 heads out of 100?  I'm afraid that
I would have to review the theory before I could give an answer, but my
recollection was that the probability of 1/2 heads starts to approach 1
as the number of tosses increases.

In any case, to bring this back to chess, the idea is that I can go to
a tournament and win 4/4 one week and 0/4 the next week, but over the
long run I am likely to win 2/4 (assuming that I am playing against
people of comparable strength, and the ratings system is supposed to
help in finding those people).

--Jim
From: dwake@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (B. Douglas Wake)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Shortest/Longest Games
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:04:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr11.190414.19676
Organization: University of Hawaii



In the book _Grandmasters of Chess_, Harold Schonberg says the longest
game was between Pilnik and Czerniak at Mar del Plata 1953, 191 moves,
ending in a draw. The longest game ending in a win was between Wolf
and Duras, Carlsbad 1907, 168 moves over a 22.5 hour period.

Edward R. Brace in _An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess_ gives some 
interesting "shortest games."  Frank Marshall once jokingly said
"I resign" after his opponent played 1 e4 (at the New York Championship).
His opponent held him to it.  Blackburne once did the same thing after
his opponent played 1 e3. "Ah, now I resign," he said.  He was also held
to it. Finally, in the Luton Chess Congress of February 1974, S. Reuben
and A.J. Miles agreed to a draw without making any moves at all.


+-----------------------------------------------+
|                                               |
| B. Douglas Wake                               |
|                  dwake@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu |
|                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------+
From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (perlman eric)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: More Reshevsky
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:31:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr15.173141.13411
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <nolan.703356222@helios> nolan@helios.unl.edu writes:
>mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
>
>>Sometimes I wonder why high-level chess hasn't adopted a signaling system for
>>reducing draw-offer shenanigans -- something like the bidding cards used in
>>tournament bridge or backgammon's doubling cube.  One hears enough bizarre
>>stories involving draw offers that it might be worth some prophylaxis.
>
>In fact, International Arbiters Eric Schiller and Carol Jarecki have proposed
>such a method.  Carol was talking about using it at last year's U. S. Women's
>Championship, but I never heard whether it was used or how well it worked.
>(Carol is on the FIDE Rules Commission, so you don't get much closer to the
>source for having it proposed for use in international events.)
>---
>Michael Nolan
>nolan@helios.unl.edu, nolan@tssi.com

It can also be made clear to the players by the organizers beforehand, a
method I would much prefer.  If memory serves, the Linares organizers
this past year made it very clear to the participants that short draws
would not be tolerated.  The result was a very high percentage of
decisive games, and some of the most imaginative chess of recent memory.


-- 
"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> or <eric@lyra.Colorado.EDU> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Subject: Re: Time Out!!
Reply-To: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Organization: NASA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:58:30 GMT

In article <01GIUNAYRUHS8X2S8D@canal.crc.uno.edu>, 
helios!canal.crc.uno.edu!DCBCS@tssi.com (Dennis Baker) writes:
> Path: 
> > Geez, it's hard to believe all the turmoil I seem to have caused today!
> 
> I mean I do enjoy a spirited discussion!

Me too.

> Ok... I'll be back in a moment with some chess.  No more off-topic 
meanderings,

I make the same promise.


> I promise... uh, to try!  And no, I'm not an atheist, as some of you have 
> accused me in e-mail.  I'm too stupid to be an atheist.  Atheists have to 
make
> up their minds!? :)  (I'm an agnostic with logical positivist leanings --  
>I'm too stupid to call myself an LP.  Again, it requires a decision!?)
> 
> Just because I don't think what you think doesn't mean
> *I'm* the idiot.

That goes both ways! :) 

> 
> Sheesh, sorry everyone.  Now can I be forgiven and can we get back to just
> chess.

To err is human, to forgive is... Sorry, couldn't resist...

I apologize for posting another Re: sticking to your principles, I shall 
cease and desist. I'm taking this to the e-mail. 

------------------------
       John Paul Phillips   
             "Azjohn"         
         NASA/Langley        
azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Shortest GM game (was Re: Goldman analysis)
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:49:14 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <ru96uINNifj@agate.berkeley.edu> goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) writes:
>In article <8084@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> nayak@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Krishna Nayak) writes:
>)This reminds me of the record of the shortest GM game of all time.
>)I just thought I'd share it...
>[6-move game deleted]
>) 
>)it's good to know that GMs blunder big-time too...
>)
>)--
>)Krishna Nayak 
>
>	That may be the shortest game ending in mate. But there are shorter.
>Shirazi-Peters was only between IMs, but it was in the US Championship.
>
>1. e4  c5
>2. b4  cb
>3. a3  d5
>4. ed  Qxd5
>5. ab  Qe5+ 0-1

I recall reading an anecdote about a game between two top-level players
around the turn of the century (one of them might have been Blackburne,
but I don't really remember) that went like this:

1. e4   e5
2. Nf3  Nf6
3. Nxe5 d6
4. Nf3  Nxe4
5. d3   Be7 and resigns

It seems that black was expecting the usual 5. d4, and automatically
played the usual 5. ... Be7 without really paying much attention.
Once he realized what had happened, he resigned.

Of course, the shortest master game of all time (from Chernev's old books)
went like this:

1. d4      Nf6
2. Nd2     e5
3. dxe5    Ng4
4. h3??    Ne3
5. resigns

It was a casual game between two minor masters, but interesting nonetheless...
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: etcmng@iitmax.iit.edu (Michael N Goldshteyn)
Subject: where can I order the ECO books/
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 05:21:20 GMT



















Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Dennis Baker <helios!canal.crc.uno.edu!DCBCS@tssi.com>
Subject: Short-Karpov 4 (adjourned)
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 13:54:00 GMT


Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 12:30:00 +0200
From: Peter Rice <Peter.Rice@EMBL-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject: Short-Karpov 4 (adjourned)


At last I have found the moves of game 4 - at least up to the adjournment which
should have been played yesterday. Short pur Karpov under far more pressure
than in game 2, and after Karpov gave up the exchange Short steadily picked up
the extra pawns to leave what should be a winning position.

However, the adjourned position has a lot in common with the infamous second
adjourned position in game 16 of the last Kasparov-Karpov match. Karpov is again
Black, with B+N against R+B, with his King stuck on the back rank and his Knight
trying to hold the fortress together. This time, however, the Bishops are on
the opposite colours so Short cannot trap the Knight and all the pawns can be
attacked by the bishops. For comparison, that position was:
White: Kc6, Re7, Be5, pg5; Black: Kf8, Nh5, Bf5, pg6

Short has at least less worries over the 50-move rule, as the last pawn move
was only 10 moves ago (51...f5) and both players have a pawn free to move.
One can understand, however, why he may prefer to postpone game 5 to have more
time to look at this one (and to know how many risks he needs to take in game 5
of course).

White: Nigel Short
Black: Anatoly Karpov
Candidates Semi Final game 4

+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   |...|   |...|   |.K.|   |...| 8
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|...|*R*|...|   |.B.|   |...|   | 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   |...|   |...|   |...| P |...| 6
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|...|   |...|*B*|...| P |...| N | 5
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   |...|   |*K*|   |*P*|   |...| 4
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|...|   |...|   |...|   |*P*|   | 3
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   |...|   |...|   |...|   |...| 2
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|...|   |...|   |...|   |...|   | 1
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
  a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h


1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 c5 6.0-0 Nc6 7.c3 cxd 8.cxd Nge7
9.a3 Be4 10.Nbd2 Nf5 11.b4 Qb6 12.Bb2 Be7 13.Re1 Rd8 14.Bf1 a5 15.Nxe4 dxe4
16.Rxe4 axb 17.axb Bxb4 18.Rb1 Qa5 19.h4 0-0 20.Bd3 Rd7 21.Rf4 g6 22.h5 Be7
23.hxg hxg 24.Be4 Ng7 25.Rg4 Rfd8 26.Qc1 Nf5 27.Bc3 Qc7 28.Qb2 Nfxd4
29.Nxd4 Rxd4 30.Bxd4 Rxd4 31.Bf3 Rxg4 32.Bxg4 Nxe5 33.Qxb7 Qc2 34.Bd1 Qd3
35.Bf3 Bf6 36.Qe4 Qc3 37.Be2 Kg7 38.g3 Qc5 39.Kg2 Nc6 40.Rb7 Nd4 41.Bd3 Qh5
42.Rd7 Nf5 43.Qxe6 Nh6 44.Bc4 Qe5 45.Qxe5 Bxe5 46.Kf3 Kf8 47.Ke4 Bf6
48.Rd5 Be7 49.f4 Ng4 50.Ra5 Nh6 51.Kf3 f5 52.Ra7 Ng4 53.Be6 Nh6 54.Rc7 Ng4
55.Rb7 Nh6 56.Ke3 Ng4+ 57.Kd4 Nf6 58.Rb8+ Kg7 59.Rb7 Kf8 60.Bd5 Nh5 Adjourned
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: etcmng@iitmax.iit.edu (Michael N Goldshteyn)
Subject: ECO books by mailorder, where???
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 06:23:28 GMT

Hi, I would like to know where I can mail order all of the most recent
versions of the ECO (Encyclopedia of Chess Openings) books? Please leave me 1800 numbers or addresses
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: 1.Nf3 f5 2.e4!? Gambit
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:54:48 GMT

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

I've been told that the Gambit which goes 1.Nf3 f5 2.e4 fe 3.Ng5 has been
discussed on the net, but I missed it! If anyone has this analysis, please send
it to me via email or post it!! Has anything new come on this line to improve
the ECO analysis? As Black, I prefer 3...e5, and think Black equalizes despite
what ECO says. Any informatin on this line will be appreciated! Thanks.

-Ron
 ron@osf.org
From: lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:07:26 GMT
 <4077@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu><YdtY=U600VoiE43UZ3@andrew.cmu.edu>
 <92104.104229U55342@uicvm.uic.edu> <4dupZdW00VB7E3XVc1@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<92105.210232U55342@uicvm.uic.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I wrote:
>How should black play after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 de 4 Nxe4 Nd7
>5 Bc4 Ngf6 6 Qf3 ?
>
>My reason for being worried about this position
>
>r - b q k b - r
>p p - n p p p p
>- - p - - n - -
>- - - - - - - -
>- - B P N - - -
>- - - - - Q - -
>P P P - - P P P
>R - B - K - N R
>
>is that Warren Goldman wrote a book that devoted 4 1/2
>pages to a discussion of this position, coming to the conclusion
>that it was good for white.

Bertrand L. Wilson wrote:
>I'm wondering, is 6. ... Nb6 followed by ...Q:d4 too dangerous?

I wrote:
>Goldman's suggested response to 6 ... Nb6 is 7 Bd3.  After 7 ... Qxd4,
>he suggests 8 Ne2.

Bertrand L. Wilson writes:
>Well, yes, but does white have enough for the pawn after black
>retreats the queen to d8, or perhaps more enterprisingly, to d7
>with the idea of hassling white with ... Qg4 ? Remember, that
>d-pawn that white gave up is a nice piece of change! I don't
>mind sac-ing wing pawns speculatively (I play the Benko
>Gambit), but you should be more carefull about giving up
>center pawns!

Goldman does not consider 8 ... Qd7.  (Is this, perhaps, his key
mistake?)  After 8 ... Qd8, he suggests 9 Nxf6+.

To John Tomas:  Thank you for your comments on the
position.
From: drchip@cup.portal.com (MYRON A LIEBERMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The New, Sanitized Reshevsky!
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 01:01:48 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Once again please consider what you are doing. The sarcasm and negativism
does nobody any good. Even if Reshevsky was guilty of all of the negative
traits that you valiantly accuse him of after his death, is that what he
has left to American chess? You know better than that. #lease leave this
topic open to the discussion of the impact he made on American chess and
move the character attacks from the net to the media (where I am sure there
is profit available from a public hungry for dirt, sleaze, scandal, exposure,
etc.). I am sure he didn't create or invent cheating methods, etc. They have
been around seemingly from the start. What he did create, and leave as a
lasting legacy to the world of chess, is a number of extraordinary games.
Reportedly he was once Bobby Fischer's hero. Might there have been a reason?
Humanize Reshevsky? How can a grandmaster seem more human than when he drops
a queen in interzonal competition? It shows that anyone can make a mistake.
Please move the negative thread to alt.journalism.yellow or some such group.
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Draw offers (was Re: More Reshevsky)
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:29:35 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Apr15.185125.13679@cis.uab.edu>, Kenneth Sloan writes:

> I have heard (credible) stories revolving around a grandmaster(!)
> not knowing the details of castling.

I believe you are refering to Korchnoi, who didn't know if it was
legal to castle if the rook was attacked.
-- 
Chris Long, 272 Hamilton St. Apt. 1, New Brunswick NJ  08901  (908) 846-5569

"The proofs are so obvious that they can be left to the reader."
Lars V. Ahlfors, _Complex Analysis_
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:37:36 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
	<4077@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>

I wrote:
>How should black play after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 de 4 Nxe4 Nd7
>5 Bc4 Ngf6 6 Qf3 ?
>
>My reason for being worried about this position
>
>r - b q k b - r
>p p - n p p p p
>- - p - - n - -
>- - - - - - - -
>- - B P N - - -
>- - - - - Q - -
>P P P - - P P P
>R - B - K - N R
>
>
>is that Warren Goldman wrote a book that devoted four and
>a half pages to a discussion of this position, coming to the
>conclusion that it was good for white.
>
>After 6 ... e6 7 Bg5 Be7 8 O-O-O O-O, Goldman suggests 9 h4
>with the comment, "A sharp continuation which establishes
>an outpost for the White knight at g5 and presages an attack
>on the castled king."  After a page and a half of analysis he
>concludes that white has "the superior game".

John Tomas writes:
>Wouldn't it simply be easier for Black to play Nxe4 before
>playing 0-0?  That would involve the elimination of a couple
>of minor pieces after Bxe7 Qxe7 Qxe4 Nf6 and now Black
>should have a rather easy game, I would think.

Goldman devotes a page of analysis to the position after 6 ... e6
7 Bg5 Be7 8 O-O-O Nxe4 9 Bxe7 Qxe7 10 Qxe4 Nf6 and comes
to a somewhat different conclusion.  At this point Goldman
suggests that white play 11 Qf3, claiming, "for Black the
position is, despite its surface placidity, not easy."
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: markis@ms.uky.edu (Markis Landis)
Subject: chess tournaments
Keywords: big or semi-big
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:26:57 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Bytes: 

USCF has messed up on my mailing label and I haven't received a Chess Life
in a while could someone email me all the big (use your discretion(sp?))
chess tournaments within about a 300 mile radius of Lexington (ie. Chicago
is max.).  Thanks in advance.  Since this is my first posting to this 
newsgroup I might as well introduce myself.  Markis Landis (Gardner) 
2006 (speed rating 2002).  I tied for first at the 1991 National Open,
I wish there was someone good close to Lexington I could study from!
.

-- 
*******************************************************************************
** Many people say that I drive like I own the road, well I do and soon I    **
** will own the sky with my flying.  Now nowhere is safe, on ground or sky!! **
*******************************************************************************        
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: GM Walter Browne
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:03:00 GMT

Gulf Coast Open
Metairie (3-28-92)
Queen's Indian Defense
GM Walter Browne (2600) - Nat Riley (2150)

1.d4 (:01) Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 (:01) 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.O-O O-O
7.Nc3 (:02) Ne4 8.Bd2 Nxc3 (:03)

    Riley, who is a friend of mine, and with whom I've played a lot of
    speed chess, didn't really know what he was doing anyway!?

9.Bxc3 Be4 (:04) 10.d5 (:07) Bf6

    He saw it... the Qd4 threat.

11.Nd4 Bxg2 (:07) 12.Kxg2 e5 (:09)

    It looks like Black had no choice.

13.Nf5 (:12) d6 14.e4 (:15) Nd7 (:14)

    Time to take stock.  Black has the bad bishop, and the knight looks
    pretty on f5.  But it's not so easy to crack Black's position -- at
    least, not with Browne's plan.

15.h4 (:21) g6 (:22) 16.Ne3 (:24) Bg7 17.h5 (:31) Nf6 (:25) 18.hxg6
fxg6 19.f3 (:40) Nh5 (:35) 20.Rh1 (:42) Qg5 21.Ng4 Qe7 (:44) 22.Bd2
(:45) Rae8 23.Rh3 (:57)

    Browne spent 12 minutes on this rook move, but this is going nowhere.
    Perhaps he's trying to bluff Black on the kingside before he switches
    to queenside action.

23...Qd7 (:51) 24.b3 (:60) Re7 (:53) 25.Nh6+ (:65) Bxh6

    So White gets the bishop, but then it was bad anyway.  Still, one
    mustn't take White's "long-ranger" lightly.

26.Bxh6 Ng7 (:56) 27.Qd3 (:69)

    I might add that now Black has a basically passive setup.  All he can
    do is await events.  White has plans like b4, Rc1, c5 (watching for any
    Black queen penetrations), h-file stuff (which doesn't look promising --
    but it's there) and... well that's all I see at the moment.  But even
    so, it's not "easy easy" for White.  BTW, the time control is 35/90, and
    that now starts to loom.

27...Ref7 (:64) 28.Rf1 a6

    Ouch.  This seems like it can only help White.

29.Rhh1 (:73) b5 (:71)

    Ouch, ouch!

30.Rf2 Re8 31.Rc2 (:84) Ref8 32.Rf1 Qe8 (:80) 33.c5 (:87)

    With 3 minutes to go till time control, Browne makes the big D to
    plow ahead.

33...dxc5 34.Rxc5 Qe7

    This actually looks like Qe5 on the scoresheet, but ce n'est pas
    possible!  So...  Anyway, Black's position is now starting to look
    "cheesy."

35.Qe3 Qd6 36.Rc6 Qa3 37.Rf2 (:93) Re8 (:91) 38.Qc3 (100) Ree7 39.Bc1

    Oops!

39...b4 40.Qc5 1-0

    Browne said something to Riley at the end, who, feeling a little
    haughty, like Browne hadn't beaten him badly enough, said, "Well,
    you're the grandmaster!"

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Oops Department
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:23:22 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Apr8.161656.23402@cs.brown.edu>, James H. Coombs writes:

...
> Reinfeld just says that White wins the knight; there is no requirement
> in this book that one achieve a winning advantage,

Well, the title of the book *is* _1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and
Combinations_.  It could be argued that White's best move is to
resign.

> and White is certainly better off after winning the knight.  I checked
> last night and nothing is missing from the diagram, but the original
> poster did not give us Reinfeld's analysis accurately.

Apparently I made a mistake in my own analysis, but I gave it accurately
(I thought c4 was a blunder).
From: nayak@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Krishna Nayak)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Oops Department
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:15:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: sun13.8086
Reply-To: nayak@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Krishna Nayak)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips) writes:
>clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>> In _1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations_ (#3), Reinfeld
>> gives White to play and win in this position:
 
>>          8 r - - k - - - -
>>          7 - p p - - r p p
>>          6 p n - b - p - -
>>          5 - - - n - - - -
>>          4 - - - - - - - -
>>          3 P - - - - N B -
>>          2 - P P - - - P P
>>          1 - - K R R - - -
>>            a b c d e f g h
 
>> His key is 1. c4! Ne7 2. b5; did he overlook something?
                            ^^ typo -- c5
 
>  Looks to me that Reinfeld overlooked 1. ---  Nb6xc4, which would
>turn 1. c4! into 1. c4?   Most embarrassing blunder, I would say.

I don't think so, if 1...Nxc4, 2.Rd5








--
Krishna Nayak  --  nayak@scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
Florida State University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess