HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Keep it up and I will come back!
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:51:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: life.1ifnp8INNgkr
Distribution: world
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan5.202400.4057@cis.uab.edu>, sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan5.141257.838@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
|> >...
|> >I admit that humans can still beat the chekers machine.
|> >...
|> 
|> Actually, the best evidence is that precisely *one* human can beat
|> Chinook.
|> 
|> Can't you get *anything* right?
|> -- 
|> 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

Make that "...at least one human..."

================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: scott@cs.uiuc.edu (Jay Scott)
Subject: Re: Latvian Gambit
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:23:41 GMT

In <1ffcwwcp511@tweekco.uucp> 11-5054%wwiv@tweekco.uucp (John Dwyer #11 @5054) writes:

> H. Repp (ICCF 2360) - Paschitta, corr. Germany 1991
> Latvian Gambit         (ECO C40)

> 1. e4     e5           11. Be3 (c)   Qa1          21. Qb5    cb5
> 2. Nf3    f5           12. Qg5       Kc7          22. Be4    1-0
> 3. Bc4    fe4          13. Nf7       Be7 (d) 
> 4. Ne5    Qg5          14. Bf4 (e)   Kb6
> 5. d4     Qg2          15. Na4       Ka6
> 6. Qh5    g6           16. Bd3 (f)   b5
> 7. Bf7    Kd8          17. Nc5       Kb6
> 8. Bg6    Qh1          18. Nd6       Na6
> 9. Ke2    c6   (a)     19. Nc4       bc4
>10. Nc3    e3   (b)     20. Na4       Kb7

The Book (_The Latvian Gambit_ by Kon Grivainis, 1985) gives 12... Kc7
a "?". It suggests 12... Be7 13.Nf7 Ke8 = (A2.73, p18).

>(d) 13...b5 14. Nb5 cb5 15. Bf4 Kb6 16. Qd8 Kb7 17. Qc7 Ka6 18. Qc8 Ka5
...
>    31. Qh2 Kb3 0-1, Lundis-Pupols, corr. 1966

The Book cites this game as Lundin-Pupols, and marks 14.Nb5?. Correct
is supposed to be 14.Qd8. Here's the game it gives:

A. Grava - L. Alberts
correspondence Betins 1968

...
14.Qd8 Kb7 15.Ne4 Nf6 16.Qa5 Na6 17.Nd8 Kb8 18.Bf4 d6 19.Nc6 Kb7
20.Nd8 Kb8 21.Qb5 Kc7 22.Qa5 Kd8 23.Nf6 Qb2 24.Nc6 Kb7 25.Be4 Nc7
26.Na7 1-0

This is only fun if you play white. :-)

	Jay Scott
	scott@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: this has got to stop
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:34:54 GMT

It's a matter a will power.

I've only broken my New Year's Resolution once.  And I haven't posted on this
topic at all since Jan 1 - nothing to it....urk.

Anyway, I agree with the eloquent statement.  In the meantime, Bruce
Leverett, whoever he is (USCF 23something) challenged both dmc and me to a
match.  I accepted.  I don't know if our friend did.

So some good came out of it - a two-game postal match against a master will
either help get me into form again or make me give up chess for another 10
years.  Either way I come out ahead!

I like the guy who has volunteered to drive to Toledo (USCF 16something) to
beard the lion in his den.  I'm even getting along with Sven now (a Sven-dmc
match, which is what I originally proposed, didn't happen.  Probably Sven
wanted dmc to play nude...)

Well, the next time you want to respond to a dmc posting, just write me
instead.  I'm always happy to hear from you!
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: 2267 rating for ten year old
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:28:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.223643.4255@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <C0EAJ3.Ayo.2@cs.cmu.edu> jaa+@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (James Altucher) writes:
>>
>>   
>>   How old were Ilya Gurevich and Stuart Rachels when they 
>>became masters. ...
>
>Jim Rachels (who was there) reports:
>================================================================
>Hi Ken--Stuart made master at age 11 years 10 months.
>This was the youngest ever, and 12 years later the
>record still stands.  (The "10 months" sticks in my
>mind because kids shooting at the record need the
>precise date.)    --Jim
>================================================================

And further:

================================================================
Ken, about the 10-year-old experts business:  Stuart
was an expert at 10, but my search for others came up
empty.  There are currently no such beasts; no one is
even close.  I looked at "Top 50" lists for 10-year-olds
for the past few years and found no experts.  But my
search went back only 6 or 7 years.  I'm sure there
must have been a few over the years, but the list will
be very short.  --Jim
================================================================

over to you Elliott.  It would be interesting to see a retrospective
study, showing the highest rating achieved at every age.  One year
increments ought to be easy to do from past Ratings Lists and
Supplements.  Fine points like "11 years ad 10 months" is probably much
harder.

I'm also (perversely, I'm sure) interested in the *oldest* player to
(first) achieve each class level.  I thnk that the shape of this curve
would be rather interesting.  For example - what's the oldest that a
USCF player has (first) reached Master?  Senior Master?  Expert?

Any anecdotal reports out there?  Can anyone think of the oldest geezer
they know who finally made Master?

-- 
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: dao4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DONALD A. O'SHALL)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: recommendation for beginner book
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:48:29 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <C0LInn.4Dr@world.std.com>, mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser) writes:
>v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr) writes:

For a beginner, I would recommend Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. It tripled the
quality of my play practically overnight when I first read it. It is so simple
and step by step that it is astounding that it makes the necessary concepts of
the endgame apparent. It is readable for beginners, which I did not find to be
the case with most books I tried back then.

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not licensed to practice Law or Medicine in any State, so my opinions are
just that!         DAo4@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU      (Don)
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: F-SII, Game 2 - Endgame Analysis
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:36:59 GMT

GM Suttles also wondered about 50...Nxc4 (instead of the supposed error
50...Nxb3), giving 51.Bxc4 Rxc4 52.Kxb6!? Rax4 53.Kb5 Ra2 54.Bxc5 Kg6 55.Kc4
Kf5 56.Kc3.  This is the same sort of idea as the one suggested.  The only
book I had handy was Basic Chess Endings, which says that all positions are
won if the Bishop is of the wrong color, but neither of us could see a clear
win.  Any chess computers out there willing to figure this out?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: alacron!ai386u!adb@uunet.UU.NET (Alan David Brunelle)
Subject: Hyatt summary of Cray Blitz evaluation function
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:13:15 GMT



To add to van der List's request (vanderlist@fccc.edu): Yes, could you please
post the troff source for this summary? Thanks in advance!
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Scoresheets
From: pmbarlow@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Pete Barlow... 'The Candy Guru')
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:35:00 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <19452@mindlink.bc.ca>, Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen) writes:
> Recently I was questioned regarding the OWNERSHIP of scoresheets. I really
> had no satisfactory answer. The subject has come up numerous times i.e.
> Lasker vs Capablanca match and more recently with Gata Kamsky. Is there
> somebody on the net who can give an educated opinion?
> Peter

Insofar as I know, unless s/he says otherwise, all original copies of the
scores of a tournament or match game are the property of the tournament or
match organiser.  This may or may not be in ORC... I don't know.  At the very
least, that's what Gata got into trouble over some time ago.

Anyway, my information MAY be wrong, but I think the above statement is, in
fact, the case.

TCG, pb.
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!
Date: 5 Jan 1993 18:32:07 GMT
Organization: UW Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: red2.cac.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan4.203742.822@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1iafvtINN4vd@shelley.u.washington.edu>, monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
>> 
>> Your knowledge of current events (checker's champion is still human) is as
>> suspect as your ability at chess.
>
>Listen idiot, did I say the current champion was a computer???
The current checkers champion, a human, beat the top rated checkers
computer program for the would title.

YOU STUPID IDIOT!!!!

[Gawd that felt good. My apologies again, but when one ignores e-mail,
even if they claim in public not to ignore e-mail...]

>
>Christ, the way some people can leap from a simple statement into their own
>(wishful thinking) version of the world is fascinating.

Check YOUR facts.

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Tue,  5 Jan 1993 10:11:55 -0500 
From: Bruce_Leverett@transarc.com
Subject: Re: this has got to stop

Egg on my face.

I did indeed suggest games with Mr. Harper and Mr. Cosgrove.  This was intended
to be a completely friendly offer--no stakes, few conditions, and I promised
not to post anything to r.g.c. that would embarrass either player.  It seems
that I may have failed to prevent Mr. H from using my offer to try to
embarrass Mr. C.  (And, of course, Mr. C made a counter-move.)  My sincere
apologies to both.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: checkers
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:18:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.225624.826@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.022113.3309@cis.uab.edu>, sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan4.203742.822@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>...
>>>Listen idiot, did I say the current champion was a computer???
>>>NO! I said that no human can beat the programs we have out there for checkers!
>> 
>> A very well publicized match was held recently between the generally
>> accepted best computer checkers machine and the generally accepted best
>> human checkers player.  The human won.
>
>I would be curious to know who went first most of the time. Checkers may be
>a game with a 'forced mate' in X moves, depending upon who goes first.
>
>> 
>>>It is finished. They don't even work on the programs anymore as the maximum
>>>number of permitations is EASILY crunched by your average home PC.
>> 
>> Checkers is still an active area of research for several people.
>> Including the folks who built the machine which lost the match to the
>> human.
>>
>
>Hmmm... according to one of the AI programming profs here, the issue is dead.
>Perhaps it is that the home PC still does not have enough braun to run the
>program, while a mainframe can, and they are trying to build the
>machine/program more and more compact.
> 


It is not finished yet.  Chinooks great strength comes from a combination
of forward searching and backward searching.  They have an enormous database
of solutions to all the cases which have 7 or less checkers (total for both
sides) -- (I believe this is the right number.... Jonathan???)  and they are
currently working on 8.  This means that when chinook finds a position with
7 or fewer checkers in it, it can look the position up in the endgame database
and find the perfect move.

It's strength comes from a deep forward search from the given board position
that often results in finding positions in the perfect-play endgame database.
When they complete the 8 piece endings, they might find that most (if not all) 
of the searches they do end up in one of the databases, resulting in perfect
play.  As for crunching thru the entire game (the "it is solved" quote above)
that is a long way from happening, particularly on "your average PC".

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
From: wayne.mendryk@freddy.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Wayne Mendryk) 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Paris IMM m rapid 1992
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:57:00 GMT
Reply-To: wayne.mendryk@freddy.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Wayne Mendryk) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Freddy's Place BBS - Edmonton, AB - 403-456-4241

I just got issue#8 of New In Chess Magazine today. Contents include an
article on M.Adams win at Interpolis, an interview with Ivan Sokolov,
and an article on Kasparov's win at "Trophee Immopar". The latter was a
tournament with a rather "bizarre" format. Each round consisted of two
twenty-five minute games. If the score is tied after these games, the
'tiebreak Immopar' decides; a blitz game in which White has six minutes
against Black's five, but which White has to win to go through to the
next round.

Here are some of the games from the tournament:

Game1 Gelfand-Shirov  Match:Game 1  Slav Defense
(Gelfand loses despite a "brilliant attack". Gelfand supposedly analyzed
this game for hours after, and in NIC the annotations amount to over a
page! (Sorry if you want the annotations you will have to subscribe)

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.g3

Gelfand deliberately plays this to avoid the Botvinnik  and Meran
Systems and transpose into a pseudo-Catalan.

5...dc4 6.Bg2 b5 7.Ne5 Nd5 8.a4 f6 9.Nf3 b4 10.Ne4 Be7 11.O-O O-O
12.Qc2 Ba6 13.Bh3 f5 14.Neg5 b3 15.Qd1 Rf6 16.e4 Nb4 17.ef5 ef5
18.Re1 Nc2 19.Nh7 Kh7 20.Ng5 Kg6 21.Ne6 Qh8 22.Bf5 Kf5 23.Qf3?(Ng7!) Kg6
24.Qe4 Kf7 25.Ng5 Kg8 26.Qe7 Qh5 27.Ne6 Re6 28.Re6 Na1 29.Bh6! Qf7
30.Qg5 Kh7 31.Bg7? Qe6 32.Be5 Qg6! 33.Qd8 Nd7 34.Qd7 Kg8 35.f4 c3
36.f5 cb2!  0-1

Game2 Timman-J.Polgar Match:Game 1 King's Indian Defense
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 c5 7.dc5 dc5 8.Qd8 Rd8
9.Bc5 Nc6 10.Nd5 Nd7 11.Be7 Ne7 12.Ne7 Kf8 13.Nd5 Bb2 14.Rd1! Nc5
15.Ne2 Bd7 16.Nec3 Be6 17.Be2 Rac8 18.Kf2 Rc6 19.Nb5 Ra6 20.Rd2 Be5
21.Rb1? (21.g3) h5! 22.Kg1 h4 23.Rbd1 g5 24.Bf1 Ra4 25.Ndc3 Rd2
26.Rd2 Rb4 27.Nd5 Rb1 28.Na7 Bd5 29.Rd5 Bf4 30.Kf2 Bh2! 31.Rc5 Bg3
32.Kg1 Bf4 33.Kf2 Bg3 34.Kg1 Bf4 35.Rb5? (35.Kf2=) Be3 36.Kh2 Rf1
37.Rb7 g4 38.fg4 Bf4 39.g3 hg3 40.Kg2 Rf2 41.Kg1 Ra2 0-1

Take that all of you male chauvanists!

---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Chess is a powerful weapon of intellectual culture
                                                                                            
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: frakes@csvaxe.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: DON WEDDING RESPONDS -- ONLY ONCE
Organization: Cleveland State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:27:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.113712.912@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> ....
> the system managers name is BRIAN NELSON, his account is BRIAN at this 
> address. you can call computer services here at UT is 419-537-2511.
> 
> if i am fraudulantly using somebody else's account, i should be reported
> and have my account taken away (along with all of the other things that
> will happen to me).
> .... 
> don wedding

Let me guess.  Is this "BRIAN" a buddy of Don's or yet another example of
a fraudulantly used UT account?  It looks like Don has recently been hard
at work covering all the bases at UT.  Smart move, Don!

-Andy

(as usual, smiley faces omitted -- there's only one in this post, anyway)
From: jadiel@altair.csustan.edu (Jose Juan DeLeon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Results of the great match
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:55:46 GMT
Organization: CSU Stanislaus

In article <1993Jan5.061548.20595@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>I have been following this urbane, sophisticated, and highly edifying
>discussion with great interest.  I am reminded mightily of the
>discussions leading up to the Steinitz-Zukertort match.
>
>What most people do not realize is that the great match has already
>been played and that all parties involved are trying to hide the fact.
>However I have some preliminary results with notes from the players
>(names concealed)
>
>
>1.	g2-g4
>
>White:  I decided to spike the guns of this pretentious nerd from the
>very beginning.
>
>Black:  An unsound attack -- his chess positions resemble his usenet
>postings.
>
>1.	...	d7-d5
>
>White:  The usual counter, threatening the g pawn.
>
>Black:  Development with a threat, how juicy.
>
>2.	f2-f3
>
>White:  A psychological ploy.  This move prepares for a hedgehog
>defense followed by a king side break.  It also guards the g pawn
>and controls e4 from the flank.
>
>Black:  Another pawn move without development.
>
>2	...	e7-e5
>
>White:  Unimaginative center pawn pushes characteristic of defective
>personalities obsessed with the romantic open game.
>
>Black:  White has ceded the center and has no development.  Black has
>a won game at this point.
>
>3.	c2-c3

[stuff deleted]

White Blundered and and Black Followed with a Blunder of his own.

3.      ...     Qh4!  mate.

but black played the stupid move of 3. ...  c5.   This game is
obviously fixed.
From: dsthompson@twics.co.jp
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: DMC is really Don Wedding
Date: 11 Jan 93 04:04:21 GMT
Organization: TWICS, Tokyo, Japan

T. Andy Frakes (joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu) writes:
> > I only wish I had read more of Don's postings before this DMC came
> > along. I didn't know until just now that Don was from U of Toledo. 
> > Apparently,  he was using someone's account over the holidays. I
> > think Mr. Thompson should submit his data (it would be inappropriate
> > for anyone else to do so without his permission) and report this
> > abuse.

Peter Bruhn (bruhn@exaib) replies: 
> I think this is really a bad idea. There is no proof that this account was
> abused. 

No axiomatic proof, just plenty of evidence.

Many people have urged me contact the system adminstration staff at
the University of Toledo. After some consideration, I have decided
to do so.  My motivation does not come a desire to see anyone punished,
but simply a wish to prevent recurrences of the kind of futility we
experienced in December, in this newsgroup or others. I will not take
this action for two days. If anyone (and I mean anyone) has a strong
opinion and a point to make, feel free to email me. 

David Thompson
dsthompson@twics.co.jp

Again, I'd like to suggest we let this thread and all DMC threads die.
Let's get a life! (I meant "Let's get on with life" :->)
From: kevin@eye.com (Kevin Stokker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Request Book Recommendations
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:17:09 GMT
Organization: 3D/EYE, Inc.  Ithaca, NY

In article <C0p0xq.Ly2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> vbl@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Randall Julian) writes:
>In article <1ffbwwcp511@tweekco.uucp>, 824-5054%wwiv@tweekco.uucp (Jay Whitley #824 @5054) writes:
>|> I agree with Jerry Wilcox's recommendation of Chernev's "Logical Chess
>|> Move-by-Move."  The question I have is:  are there any other books
>|> explaining every move (to the novice-to-average player) that aren't
>|> cryptic annotations?  Chernev's explanations are very good...any others
>|> like his?
>
>I am a beginner, and I've made great strides playing over the games in 
>"Logical Chess...".  But recently I got "How to Think Ahead in Chess",
>by Horowitz and Renfield (sp?).  This book is in another group altogether
>and there are a couple of others like it - opening systems which cover both 
>sides and give recommended lines to play.
>
>It attempts to bring the beginner up to speed on 1) what to play as white,
>2) how to respond to e4, 3) how to respond to  d4, and 4) how to respond to
>incorrect play.  It basically says: here's an off-beat d4 opening for white
>which won't get you killed (stone-wall attack), which limits blacks which
>limits blacks possible responses so you can get to a middle game you can play
>in.  Then procedes to do the same for black.  Sicilian dragon for e4 and
>Laskers defense for d4.  It has about five fully explained games for each of
>the three systems which illustrate variaous points...
>

Sicilian dragon?  Yeeks!  This is a highly volatile and theoretical opening.
Especially the Yugoslav Attack (9. Bc4, 9. 0-0-0, 9. g4).
I'm quite surprised this is recommended as a starter opening system.
Have you consider other Sicilian lines, such as the Schevenigan or Taimanov?
Not that these are a cakewalk...

[deleted]
>
>...I am considering going to chess club meetings, but I don't know how to
> make the time spent there count.

Go over games, endings, openings, (in short, chess) with strong players.
Don't just play speed chess, which will do harm as well as good.

-kevin
From: joltman@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess is a DRAW
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:31:36 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu

In article <k3k4wB1w164w@tweekco.uucp>, jay@tweekco.uucp (Jay Whitley) writes:
|> Not to reopen a can of worms here, but it was interesting
|> to read a Bobby Fischer quote in the Feb '92 Chess Life
|> where Fischer (in a F-S II newsconference interview in
|> Yugoslavia) said:
|>  "I think it's almost definite that the game is a draw
|>   theoretically, regardless of White having the advantage
|>   of the first move."
|>  
|> Then again, when it comes to actual play, Fischer
|> emphasized the edge White has when he pointed to questionable
|> pre-arranged play between Karpov and Kasparov (also quoted
|> in the Feb '92 Chess Life.) 
|>  
|> While some of Fischer's comments were abhorrent, his comments
|> specific to chess were quite interesting...any other comments
|> on that?

I also believe that Chess is a draw (just my opinion).  The fact that white
seems to have an edge in normal play results means nothing, in and of itself.
Tic-tac-toe is probably won more often by the player who goes first as well.
Theoretically, there may be only one series of moves which allows black to
draw vs. perfect play and any deviation from this series of moves will result
in a loss vs. perfect play by white (just a view of the extreme, signifying
nothing).  Well, maybe not nothing.  Let's suppose the opposite was true (there
is only one sequence of moves that will draw for white vs. perfect play by
black).  Is it likely that White would win ~60% of the time as is currently
the case?

One of the reasons I believe chess to be a draw is that it seems sufficiently
possible for one player to force the other to make "inferior" moves to avoid
repetition.

================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess