HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jussi@lut.fi (Jussi Salminen)
Subject: FIDE Top ratings
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:19:48 GMT
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland


	FIDE Rating list, January 1993 
	-from a Finnish newspaper 'Helsingin Sanomat'
	-the number after the rating indicates the change since the
	 previous rating list


 1. Garry Kasparov (Russia)			2805   +15
 2. Anatoly Karpov (Russia)			2725   +10
 3. Vasily Ivantschuk (Ukraine)			2710   -10
 4. Viswanathan Anand (India)			2710   +20
 5. Boris Gelfand (Byelo-Russia)  		2690    +5
 6. Vladimir Kramnik (Russia)			2685   +60
 7. Alekseys Shirovs (Latvia)			2670   -40
 8. Yevgeny Bareev (Russia)                	2670     0
 9. Kiril Georgyev (Bulgaria)			2660   +50
10. Valery Salov (Russia)			2660    +5
11. Zurab Azmaiparashvili (Georgia)		2655   +35
12. Gata Kamsky (USA)				2655     0
13. Nigel Short (England)			2655   -25
14. Joel Lautier (France)			2645   +65
15. Arthur Yusupov (Russia)			2645    +5
16. Ivan Sokolov (Bosnia-Hercegovina)		2640   +15
17. Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria)			2635  +115
18. Jan Timman (Netherlands)			2635   -30
19. Lev Polugayevsky (Russia)			2635    -5
20. Michael Adams (England)			2630   +20
21. Predrag Nikolic (Bosnia-Hercegovina)	2630 	+5
22. Aleksander Khalifman (Russia)		2630	-5
23. Simen Agdestein (Norway)			2630   +10
24. Jaan Ehlvest (Estonia)			2625   -10
25. Ulf Andersson (Sweden)			2625   +20
26. Johann Hjartarson (Iceland)			2625   +30
27. Boris Gulko (USA)				2625   +15
28. Rustem Dautov (Russia)                  	2625     0



	FIDE Rating list, women, January 1993
	-also from 'Helsingin Sanomat'

 1. Judit Polgar (Hungary)			2595   +20
 2. Zsuzsa Polgar (Hungary)			2560   +20
 3. Pia Cramling (Sweden)			2525    -5
 4. Maya Tschiburdanidze (Georgia)		2510    +5
 5. Jun Xie (China)				2470   -15
 6. Nana Ioseliani (Georgia)			2460   +15
 7. Alisa Gallyamova (Ukraine)			2445   +45
 8. Ketevan Arakhamya (Georgia)			2440    +5
 9. Svetlana Prudnikova (Russia)		2420   +85
10. Ketevan Kakhyani (Georgia)			2420   +60
11. Ildiko Madl (Hungary)			2415    +5
12. Irina Levytina (USA)			2415     0
13. Alisa Maric (Yugoslavia)			2415   +25
14. Zsofia Polgar (Hungary)			2415   -30
15. Kanying Qin (China)				2410   +95
16. Yelena Donaldson (USA)			2405     0
17. Svetlana Matveyeva (Kirgisia)		2395   -40
18. Ainur Sofiyeva (Azerbaidzan)		2390    +5
19. Vesna Bashagic (Bosnia-Hercegovina)		2385    -5
20. Natasha Boykovic (Yugoslavia)		2385   +20
21. Anna Akhsarumova (USA)			2385     0


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pope@gold.kpc.com (John Pope)
Subject: Endgame Vocabulary (SOLUTIONS)
Organization: /nfs/gold/u/home/pope/.organization
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:11:31 GMT

Here are the solutions to the endgame studies I posted a couple/few
weeks ago. Enjoy!

>	(Reti 1922)
>
>         8 - - - - - - - K
>         7 - - - - - - - -
>         6 k - P - - - - -
>         5 - - - - - - - p	White: Kh8, Pc6
>         4 - - - - - - - -	Black: Ka6, Ph5
>         3 - - - - - - - -
>         2 - - - - - - - -
>         1 - - - - - - - -
>           a b c d e f g h
>
>	White to play and draw

1.Kg7 h4 2.Kf6 Kb6 (2...h3 3.Ke5 h2 4.c7 Kb7 5.Kd7=)
3.Ke5 h3 4.Kd6=

>	(Saavedra 1895)	
>
>         8 - - - - - - - -
>         7 - - - - - - - -
>         6 - K P - - - - -
>         5 - - - r - - - -	White: Kb6, Pc6
>         4 - - - - - - - -	Black: Ka1, Rd5
>         3 - - - - - - - -
>         2 - - - - - - - -
>         1 k - - - - - - -
>           a b c d e f g h
>
>	White to play and win

1.c7 Rd6 2.Kb5 (2.Kb7? Rd7=, 2.Kc5? Rc1=) Rd5 3.Kb4 Rd4
4.Kb3 Rc3 5.Kc2 Rc4! 6.c8(R)! (6.c8(Q)? Rc4=) Ra4 7.Kb3 +-

>	(Em. Lasker 1890)
>
>         8 - - K - - - - -
>         7 - - P - - - - R
>         6 k - - - - - - -
>         5 - - - - - - - -	White: Kc8, Rh7, Pc7
>         4 - - - - - - - -	Black: Ka6, Rc2, Ph2
>         3 - - - - - - - -
>         2 - - r - - - - p
>         1 - - - - - - - -
>           a b c d e f g h
>
>	White to play and win


1.Kb8 Rb2 2.Ka8 Rc2 3.Rh6 Ka5 4.Kb7 Rb2 5.Ka7 Rc2 6.Rh5 Ka4
7.Kb6 Rb2 8.Ka6 Rc2 9.Rh4 Ka3 10.Kb6 Rb2 11.Ka5 Rc2 12.Rh3
Kb2 13.Rh2 +-

>	(Centurini)
>
>         8 - - K B - - - -
>         7 - P - - - - - -
>         6 - - k - - - - -
>         5 - - - - - - - -	White: Kc8, Bd8, Pb7
>         4 - - - - - - - -	Black: Kc6, Bh2
>         3 - - - - - - - -
>         2 - - - - - - - b
>         1 - - - - - - - -
>           a b c d e f g h
>
>	White to play and win

1.Bh4 Kb6 (1...Bf4? 2.Bf2 Bh2 3.Ba7 Bf4 4.Bb8 Be3 5.Bg3
Ba7 6.Bf2 +-) 2.Bf2 Ka6 3.Bc5! Bg3 (other squares also
allow the tempo gaining idea that follows) 4.Be7 Kb6
5.Bd8 Kc6 6.Bh4! Bd6 7.Bf2 Bh2 8.Ba7 Bd6 9.Bb8 Bc5
10.Bh2 Ba7 11.Bg1 +-

>	(Troitsky 1896)
>
>         8 - - - - k - - -                             1 Be6 Ke7
>         7 - - - - - - - -                             2 h6  Kf6
>         6 - - - - - - - -                             3 Bf5 Kf7
>         5 - - - - - - p P	White - Kh2, Bg4, Ph5  4 Bh7 +-
>         4 - - - - - - B -	Black - Ke8, Pg5
>         3 - - - - - - - -
>         2 - - - - - - - K
>         1 - - - - - - - -
>           a b c d e f g h
>
>	White to play and win
>

1.Be6 Ke7 2.h6 Kf6 3.Bf5 Kf7 4.Bh7 Kf6 5.Kg3 Kf7 6.Kg4
Kf6 7.Kh5 Kf7 8.Kg5 +-

--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: bereolos@ether.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J Bereolos)
Subject: Re: F-SII, Game 2 - Endgame Analysis
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:56:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.201048.23498@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
> Fischer played 50...Nb3?? (Question Marks from Seirawan) and drew.
> The concensus so far seems to be that Fischer should have won with
> 50...Nxc4!  The main reason for this seems to be the line:
> 51.Bxc4 Rxc4 52.Bxb6 Rxa4 53.Kxc5! Ra2! 54.Kb5 a4 55.Be3 Kg6
> 56.Kb4 Kf5 57.Bc1 Ke4 58.Ba3 Kd3 winning, since Kxa4 Kc4
> is ZUGZWANG.  The final statement IS correct, BUT...
>
> Why does White need the Pawn?  Why not play 58.Bh6 Kd3 59.Bg7
> instead?  The situation at that point looks like:
>
>    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
>    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    WHITE: Kb4, Bg7
>    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
>    |    |    |    |    |    |    | B  |    |
>    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
>    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    BLACK: Kh7, Ra2
>    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+           Pa4
>    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
>    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
>    | *P | K  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
>    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
>    |    |    |    | *K |    |    |    |    |
>    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
>    | *R |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
>    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
>    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
>    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
>
> I couldn't come up with any winning lines for Black here.
> e.g.  59...Kc2 Bf6 60.Kb1 Bg7 61.Rg2 Bf6 62.Rg4+ Ka3 looks
> like a draw to me.  Also, 58...Kd5 59.Bg7 Rg2 60.Bf6 Rg4+
> 61.Ka3 Kb6 62.Be7 Kb5 63.Bd6 Re4 64.Bf8 Re3+ 65.Ka2 Kc4
> seems to be a draw if White keeps his Bishop on the a3-f8
> diagonal, and keeps a3 open for his King should Black
> check with the Rook.  Advancing the Pawn to a3 doesn't seems to
> help either.
>
Why doesn't advancing the pawn to a3 work?  After 59...Kc2 60. Bf6 Kb1
61. Bg7 a3  then 62...R moves to attack B and 63...a2 seems pretty 
straight forward.

Pete
--
Peter Bereolos                     
bereolos@ecn.purdue.edu           
pur-ee!bereolos                  
                                
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pgh@cs.brown.edu (Paul Howard)
Subject: Re: Searching for one of Larsen's games...
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Brown University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:39:04 GMT

In article <63164@mimsy.umd.edu> sla@mimsy.umd.edu (Steve Armentrout) writes:

   I vaguely recall a game in which Black played a sacrificial combination the 
   point of which was that Black h-pawn could not be prevented from queening.  
   If memory serves, Larsen was one of the players.

Try this:

LARSEN-SPASSKY
USSR-Rest of the World Match
Belgrade
March-April 1970
Round 2
Board 1
Larsen's Opening

1 b3 e5 2 Bb2 Nc6 3 c4 Nf6 4 Nf3 e4 5 Nd4 Bc5 6 Nc6 dc6 7 e3 Bf5 8 Qc2
Qe7 9 Be2 0-0-0 10 f4 Ng4 11 g3 h5 12 h3 h4 13 hg4 hg3 14 Rg1 Rh1
15 Rh1 g2 16 Rf1 Qh4 17 Kd1 gf1Q 0-1

Lest anyone think Larsen was a fish, Spassky was world champion at the
time, and Larsen won the next game, finishing +1-1=1 against Spassky
in the match.

-- Paul
--
Paul G. Howard    Dept. of Comp. Sci.   Brown Univ.   Providence RI 02912-1910
email pgh@cs.brown.edu    phone 401-863-7672    FAX 401-863-7657    ham KA1YNE
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!
Summary: Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about.
Keywords: checkers
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:47:52 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

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:
>> In article <1993Jan4.172000.818@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
>> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>>> Possibly because we don't have the definitive program written yet for
>>> chess, like we have for checkers. (No human can beat the programs that
>>> are out there now for checkers.)

>> 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???
>NO! I said that no human can beat the programs we have out there for checkers!
>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.
>
>Understand?
>
>Comprende?

What are you talking about?  Where do you get your facts?  National
Enquirer?  I know you've found this nice soft newsgroup to play with, but
before you got here Jonathan Schaeffer posted a lot of stuff on here during
the fairly recent Tinsley-Chinook match, and one suspects he would disagree
with you.

Oh, but of course he doesn't know what he's talking about...

  --elliott
--
"I haven't made up my mind about Toledo, yet."
From: geider@amigdr.gna.org (Frank Geider)
Subject: Is it any other Chess Newsgroup ?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Organization: ATACOM's Versailles Node
Summary: 
Keywords: 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:48:40 MET
Organization: ATACOM's Versailles Node

I'm just comming in Newsgroup 'rec.games.chess' after 6 monthes interruption.
Is it another Newsgroup on Chess Game ?
6 monthes ago, it seemed be more gmaes on rec.games.chess and also offer to
play ? Is it any new law from moderator ?

        Bien Amicalement

                          Frank Geider
                      __
                     /// Versailles ATACOM's Point
                __  /// USENET: geider@amigdr.gna.org
                \\\///     or : geider@amigdr.fr.mugnet.org
                 \XX/ FIDO: 2:320/104.10 - AMIGANET: 39:180/1.10
From: hakan@terminus.ericsson.se (Hakan Nohre)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: PC Chess Support
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:05:24 GMT
Reply-To: hakan@terminus.ericsson.se
Organization: Camtec Electronics (Ericsson), Leicester, England

Hello, 

I am thinking of buying either a PC-compatible or a Macintosh (LC II),
but I would like to know what chess programs there are available.

I know about ChessBase on the PC. Does Mac have anything equivalent ??

What about chess-playing programs on PC/Mac. Which are the strongest ??

R.R.P ?

I need your reply before I can ask mummy to lend me some money.

Yours grapefully,

Haakan
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mccarthy@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Anthony McCarthy)
Subject: Re: DMC 
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, California
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:59:55 GMT

>
>People like DMC seem to happen along every year or so (though he does
>take the prize, at least for the 5 or so years I've been reading RGC).

>It always takes longer than one
>hopes, but the only way to speed things up seems to be to ignore them.
>
>--
>John Pope
>pope@kpc.com
>Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
>(408) 987-3362


The best advice I have seen yet.

Anthony McCarthy
-- 
 ,,,,	amc@s1.gov			mccarthy@glacier.stanford.edu	
~\OO/~  (415) 422 7361	L-271		(415) 725 3643
  \/	Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab	CIS 136 Stanford Univ. 	
	Livermore CA 94550		CA 94305	
Lines: 9
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 93 08:38:16 MST
From: jensen@baloo.ee.byu.edu (Curtis Jensen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: dumbing down CM3000

I've played around with the Vision slider -- If I put it on 100% (i.e.
it never makes a 'dumb move') CM3000 can hammer me good.  If I put it
on 99% It is so dumb that it is not much fun to play.

I've also got GMChess -- It has selectable ratings, Beginner, Novice,
Intermediate, Expert and Grandmaster.  I find this program much easier
to dumb down to a good level.

Curtis Jensen
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Subject: Re: Robatch Defense -- any ideas?
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:27:48 GMT

In <1inupl$oal@agate.berkeley.edu> jeff@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:

>I play the 3.c4 lines of the modern and sometimes I run into 3. ..c5 when 
>black has the clear plan of piling up on d4 with ...nc6 and ...qb6.  I 
>usually play 4.Ne2 with a view to a possible transposition into the Sicilian
>Accelerated Dragon.  What happens after 4. ...Qb6?

Hmm... after 4.Nf3 Qa5+! is a line from Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4
Bg7 4.d4) thought to give black and equality, and 4.dxc5 Qa5+ is clearly
out of question. After 4.Ne2 Qb6 both 5.dxc5 and 5.d5 look reasonable,
but OTB game I probably would play 4.d5 and be happy with Benoni/K-indian
positions after 4.-d6 5.Nc3 Nf6.

Mika
-- 
Mika Kukkonen = Mika.Kukkonen@Helsinki.FI
Trying to learn to live in Helsinki University of Computer Science.
"I am studying, so I am, or am I (studying)?"
From: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (Steven Rix)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: question: rules (draw by repetition)
Date: 8 Jan 93 10:29:32 GMT
Reply-To: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk
Organization: Edinburgh University Chemical Engineering Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gour.chemeng.ed.ac.uk

In article 5976@cis.uab.edu, sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <7264199178-37189@exaib> bruhn@exaib (Peter Bruhn ) writes:
>>
>>If a position (defined as the location of pieces) appears the third time, 
>>but the list of possible moves is different (say you cannot castle anymore
>>since you have moved your king), is this a draw or not?
>
>No.  From the USCF rules:
>
>    "... The position is considered the same if pieces of the
>     same kind and colour occupy the same squares and if the 
>     possible moves of all the pieces are the same, including
>     the right to castle or to take a pawn *en passant.

[Some stuff deleted, and two typoes fixed]

I think that the FIDE version of this rule is exactly the same, which is not
too surprising, I suppose. *Also, the same player must have the move each time.*

The bit about the possible moves being the same is a fairly  recent addition. As 
late as the sixties, the same pieces had to be on the same squares with the same
side to play; en passant and castling rights were not relevant.

For completeness, if your opponent has just played a move which produces the third
occurence of a given position, you can claim a draw immediately by stopping the
clocks and summoning an arbiter (if you are wrong, there is a five minute time 
penalty and play continues). If you can play a move which gives rise to such a
repetition, you have to write the move on your scoresheet BUT NOT PLAY IT on the
board. You then stop the clocks and summon the arbiter; if you are wrong, you lose
five minutes on the clock AND have to play the declared move. In both cases, if the
five minute penalty means you overstep the time limit, tough, you lose. The fixed
time penalty is because it may take a while before an arbiter can investigate the
claim; once made, a claim CANNOT be withdrawn.

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: DMC is really Don Wedding
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:18:36 GMT

David, this was truly convincing. You gave the term Statistical Proof a whole
new meaning. But one thing: What was YOUR motives when investigating the
similarities. From your post it is obvious that you have spent hours and hours on
this. Of course, I can understand that in the heat of investigation your
inspiration was boosted by the highly encouraging results of your analysis. But
was it really worth it? The feelings which induced your analysis are easy to
grasp, but what are your feelings *after* the analysis? 



Onar.
From: jeff@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Game 2: Short - Timman  0-1
Date: 12 Jan 1993 03:04:50 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily10.berkeley.edu
Keywords: chess

It looks like Short got absolutely nothing out of the white pieces.  Can 
anybody with a database supply some context for this game?  Short's
b3, Qc2, Bb2, Qb1 looked really lazy while Timman logically improved his
position and broke with ...d5.  Admittedly, black's plan is easier to
see while white's position seems to lack dynamism, but I would expect Short
would have had something a little more threatening prepared for the Zaitsev
as Timman has used it often in the past.  Also, 23. Rc1 was just a bad
tactical oversight.  

Jeffrey Ely
From: lim@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Softwares & Ratings !
Date: 6 Jan 93 02:52:16 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of California, Davis

In article <1993Jan5.193716.18006@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> tobill@mac.lerc.nasa.gov (William B. Wright) writes:
>
>You should know that Sargon III is not System 7 compatible and will probably 
>not be upgraded. I found this out after calling their tech support. All the 
>programs I have seen on Macintosh (Chessmaster 2100, Sargon III, Checkmate) 
>all have serious flaws both in features and strength of play

I don't think this is correct.  Before Christmas, I called Mediagenic
(previously named Activision) who nows own Sargon (previously owned by
Hayden, then Spinnaker).  The game guy told me that Sargon V for the Mac
will be out sometime around Feb.  I didn't ask about System 7 compatibility.
The upgrade will be $25.  He took down my name and address for the
mailing they will send out.

The first version on the Mac was Sargon III.  It's ancient, but it still
works on my Mac IIcx with System 6.0.7.  Sargon IV is the version that
is currently selling for the Mac.  I don't have that version; I'll wait
for Sargon V.

+++
Lloyd Lim                    Internet: lim@cs.ucdavis.edu
Lim Unlimited                America Online: LimUnltd
330 W. Iris Ave.             AppleLink: LimUnltd
Stockton, CA  95210-3738     CompuServe: 72647,660
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: moynihan@rtsg.mot.com (Kieran D. Moynihan)
Subject: A Repost of US Champs. Rds 13, 14, 15  PLEASE ?
Keywords: US Championships
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:41:33 GMT

 Hi,
	I was away on my Christmas holidays and I was wondering could anyone post the games from the US Championships; Rounds 13,14 and 15.

					Thanks in advance,
								Regards,
									Kieran Moynihan,
									Cork,
									Ireland.
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: WaxMan1.2w vs. GnuChess3.21
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:38:21 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <iL6ywB1w164w@tweekco.uucp>, jay@tweekco.uucp (Jay Whitley) writes:
> Re: Game 1 Posted moves
>  4...d5xd4
> Is this 4...d5xe4    ?
>  

My fault, I meant to type in 4 ... d5xe4 :)

> What software creates these errant move listings,
> or is the error coming in later in transmission
> or what?

It is attributable to human error.

-Garrett

"My mind is going, and I can feel it..." - HAL


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pope@walnut.kpc.com (John Pope)
Subject: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.
	<1993Jan1.132437.775@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
	<1i5r59INNn0u@meaddata.meaddata.com>
	<1993Jan3.112801.794@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
	<1ia0a1INN1p2@meaddata.meaddata.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:56:26 GMT

(Cheong Yu) writes:
>   In my opinion, if another person cannot find inaccuracies or errors of
>   omission in Benjamin's analysis, then I think that person should not
>   claim that the article was biased (or unbiased.)

Yes, this is the crux of the whole silly argument. Both John Tomas and
I (and perhaps others before us) reached the same point in our
'discussions' with DMC, only to hear an uncharacteristic silence in
response...

--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
From: dunster@sdsu.edu (mark dunster)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Computer chess recommendation?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 00:04:22 GMT
Organization: sdsu
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mathfp6.sdsu.edu

A friend of mine is looking to buy a portable chess computer
(in the States). Can anyone give a recommendation on which one
he might consider (a strong level of play is the most important
criterion), with the price and location. I have an old Conchess 
Escorter (with some sort of "championship" cartridge) which he 
likes, but he wants a more portable set (not one of those mini 
travel sets, though).

Thanks in advance.  mark dunster
From: jeff@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Robatch Defense -- any ideas?
Date: 10 Jan 1993 01:40:05 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily10.berkeley.edu

I play the 3.c4 lines of the modern and sometimes I run into 3. ..c5 when 
black has the clear plan of piling up on d4 with ...nc6 and ...qb6.  I 
usually play 4.Ne2 with a view to a possible transposition into the Sicilian
Accelerated Dragon.  What happens after 4. ...Qb6?

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (Steven Rix)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 2267 Performance Rating for 10-year old
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:55:43 GMT
Reply-To: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk
Organization: Edinburgh University Chemical Engineering Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gour.chemeng.ed.ac.uk

I think that "Chess" magazine (whatever it's called these days) had a Lloyds Bank
Masters report in the December issue; two very young English boys made FIDE
ratings, although both needed to take advantage of the recent rating extension 
down to 2000 Elo.

One was certainly Nicholas Pert (2050, aged 11). The other might well have been 
Luke McShane. I think a rating of about 2150 was mentioned.

Is Luke McShane really an IM? Has he won the title by winning a world Junior 
title, or similar?

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: question: rules (draw by repetition)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:48:14 GMT

bruhn@exaib (Peter Bruhn ) writes:

>What are the exact words of the rule concerning "draw by repetition".
>What I have in mind is the following point:

>If a position (defined as the location of pieces) appears the third time, 
>but the list of possible moves is different (say you cannot castle anymore
>since you have moved your king), is this a draw or not?

>I suppose it is not (sounds sensible), but anyway I want to be sure.

>Thans
>Peter

You are correct.  Both the position and the available legal moves must be
repeated three times for it to be a draw.  The most common difference is the
(im)possibility of an en passant capture.

Roy Eassa