HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@stsci.edu (Ron Henry)
Subject: Re: Fischer's strength
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:32:05 GMT

It is always dangerous to try to estimate playing strength based
on a small sample of games, especially by singling out a few badly played
games for unfair criticism.  Some of the recent comments that "Fischer
is only playing at the 2400 level" (or even lower) fall into this category.
Most WC matches have their share of blunders.  I can see the same critics
ridiculing the play in the 1972 match, which was widely acclaimed to be one
of the highest-quality and most exciting of all time:

Game 1: Fischer took a poisoned pawn at h2 and managed to lose an ending that
an expert probably could have drawn against Spassky.  What a patz!

Game 3: Fischer made a reckless positional error, allowing his K-side pawns to
be broken up, and got away with it (as later analysis showed) only because
Spassky reacted weakly.

Game 4: Fischer played a bad line of the Sicilian as White, carelessly allowed
Spassky to develop an overwhelming attack, and was extremely lucky to escape
with a draw.

Game 5: Fischer played well, but the game was shortened by a horrible blunder
from Spassky, overlooking a two-move combination that any 1800 player would
be embarrassed to have missed.

Game 7: Fischer threw away an easy win.

Game 8: Spassky was so psychologically devastated by Fischer's playing a
harmless variation of the English against him that he put up almost no
resistance, blundering the exchange and then a pawn.

Game 11: Fischer let his QUEEN get trapped! When was the last time you saw
that in a WC match?

Games 14-20: In most of these games Fischer was outplayed and in danger
of losing, but escaped only because Spassky kept blowing his opportunities.

Game 21: This should have been a draw, but Spassky was desperate to win and
pressed too hard.

This leaves only three games where Fischer played very well against credible
opposition (6, 10, and 13), and many more where he played badly.  Clearly
he doesn't deserve to be WC, but Spassky deserves it even less.  How did he 
get this far, anyway?


I'm not trying to argue that Fischer is still WC caliber, only that it's
unfair to dismiss his potential based on the Spassky match.  Two points need
to be made.  First, Fischer is a player who is willing to go much farther
than most GMs in taking risks to win.  When this works it is called 
"brilliant", when it fails it looks foolish (re games 1 and 11 of the '72 
match).  Second, as Seirawan notes in Inside Chess, the match was being 
played with no adjournments, neither player likely has the stamina for 8-hour 
playing sessions, and one can't compare the over-the-board play in the later 
stages of such games (such as the two where Fischer missed "easy" technical 
wins in the ending) to the results of marathon analysis by teams of GMs or 
computers (which is how top-level matches are still being played, although 
that will probably change within a few years).

-Ron Henry
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: dimmen@hsr.no (Kjetil Dimmen)
Subject: Deep Thought II vs Bronstein on ICS
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:58:27 GMT

Move    White                  Black
        scratchy               David Bronstein
        (DT II)
----    -----                  -----
1       P/d2-d4 (0:04)         N/g8-f6 (0:56)
2       P/c2-c4 (0:01)         P/g7-g6 (0:25)
3       N/b1-c3 (0:01)         B/f8-g7 (0:15)
4       P/e2-e4 (0:01)         P/d7-d6 (0:15)
5       P/f2-f4 (0:06)         o-o     (1:40)
6       N/g1-f3 (0:01)         P/c7-c5 (0:18)
7       P/d4-d5 (0:01)         P/e7-e6 (0:14)
8       B/f1-e2 (0:01)         P/e6-d5 (2:54)
9       P/c4-d5 (0:01)         R/f8-e8 (0:13)
10      P/e4-e5 (0:01)         P/d6-e5 (0:18)
11      P/f4-e5 (0:01)         N/f6-g4 (0:14)
12      B/c1-g5 (0:04)         Q/d8-b6 (0:22)
13      o-o     (1:20)         N/g4-e5 (2:55)
14      N/f3-e5 (0:11)         R/e8-e5 (1:56)
15      Q/d1-d2 (1:07)         B/c8-f5 (6:10)    
16      B/e2-c4 (1:05)         N/b8-d7 (0:29)
17      R/a1-c1 (1:05)         R/a8-e8 (2:04)    
18      B/g5-f4 (1:04)         P/a7-a6 (1:26)
19      B/f4-e5 (1:06)         N/d7-e5 (0:11)
20      R/f1-e1 (3:28)         Q/b6-d8 (2:21)
21      B/c4-f1 (1:28)         Q/d8-h4 (2:16)
22      R/c1-a1 (0:59)         R/e8-d8 (0:33)
23      P/h2-h3 (0:59)         N/e5-g4 (1:54)
24      P/h3-g4 (0:53)         B/g7-d4 (0:08)
25      R/e1-e3 (0:48)         B/f5-g4 (0:52)
26      Q/d2-f2 (1:57)         Q/h4-f2 (0:10)
27      K/g1-f2 (0:37)         R/d8-e8 (0:28)
28      K/f2-g3 (1:27)         R/e8-e3 (0:47)
29      K/g3-g4 (0:02)         P/f7-f5 (0:18)
30      K/g4-f4 (0:51)         K/g8-f7 (0:05)
31      P/d5-d6 (0:42)         K/f7-e6 (0:14)
32      R/a1-d1 (0:37)         P/h7-h6 (0:27)
33      B/f1-c4 (0:51)         K/e6-d6 (0:08)
34      B/c4-f7 (0:48)         P/g6-g5 (0:57)
35      K/f4-f5 (0:01)         P/b7-b5 (0:18)
36      N/c3-e4 (0:51)         K/d6-e7 (0:07)
37      B/f7-d5 (0:02)         R/e3-e2 (0:48)
38      P/b2-b4 (0:49)         R/e2-g2 (0:32)
39      P/b4-c5 (0:17)         B/d4-e3 (0:18)
40      R/d1-e1 (0:48)         B/e3-d4 (1:00)
41      N/e4-g5 (0:48)         K/e7-d7 (0:14)
42      P/c5-c6 (0:35)         K/d7-d6 (0:19)
43      B/d5-g2 (0:47)         P/h6-g5 (0:10)
44      R/e1-d1 (0:40)         



-- 
D.    - Some people say I have a too high self-esteem.
They may be right, but at least I have good reason to.
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: funky pairings
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:09:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxKwJ6.I78
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU

In article <1992Nov12.003421.1030@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>>In class pairings do NOT work.  These were tried a while ago in my area
>>and things got messed up when 2 class C players played eachother in round 5.
>>One of them ended up with 4/5 which probably tied for second place if I
>>remember correctly.
>
>I think the TD screwed up.  As I read the rulebook, players who are
>given class pairings ought not be elegible for the open $$.  To forstall
>nit-picking, the rulebook is a tad vague about this.  Go and read it,
>and decide for yourself.
>

I'm pretty sure the guy opted for the C prize anyways, since it would
be more than splitting the 2nd place prize.  However, isn't the idea
of Swiss System to rank players based on number of points scored? 
Just like in swiss pairings, points scored has precedence over ratings...

-benoni
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: s316@brems.ii.uib.no (Per Nestande)
Subject: ICCA Journal, no. 3 1992
Keywords: Subscriber of the ICCA Journal
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 12:19:10 GMT

Hi,

I'm a subscriber of the ICCA Journal and now I'm wondering if any other
subscriber have got their hands on the 3rd issue 1992? I've been waiting,
and waiting, and waiting, but I have not received it yet. So, anybody, please
let me know!

Per Nestande

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail : s316@brems.ii.uib.no  |    ' I'll leave this space open until I
Address: Bjerregaards gt. 1,   |      find something clever to put in here.'
	 5006 Bergen, Norway   |       -- NN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pat@trsvax.tandy.com
Date: 09 Nov 92 15:58 CST
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer the King?
Message-ID: <1172667299@trsvax>
Nf-ID: #R:alacron:7940:trsvax:1172667299:000:314
Nf-From: trsvax.tandy.com!pat    Nov  9 15:58:00 1992


 
I have read that Fischer thinks he is the champion
because no one has beaten him for the title and was *given* to someone else.
He also thinks that the current champion has no claim to it because Fischer
has evidence that the games played to win and defend it over the years have
been fixed.  *so he says*




 

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:26:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.131227.12289@athena.mit.edu> jmh@athena.mit.edu (J Michael Hammond) writes:

    [excellent advice deleted]

>The USCF and FIDE rules and interpretations not only explicitly give
>the director significant leeway in interpreting the printed word, but
>also explicitly admonish the director not to look for exact direction
>in all situations.
>
>...
>
>The same admonishment applies when deciding the relative
>applicability of the "Won Game" rules vs. the "Illegal Move" rules.
>Mr. Cheney is right, the interpretation that the game is won by the
>maker of the illegal checkmating move is so ridiculous that it is
>clearly not correct and therefore covered by the common sense
>admonishment.

As previously noted - the USCF rules *explicitly* handle this situation.
No appeal to common sense is required.  All you have to do is slavishly
follow the written word.  Of course, it helps to actually read it.

FIDE, on the other hand, does not consider the inane possibility that
anyone would claim to "mate" with an illegal move.  Perhaps FIDE players
don't make as many illegal moves as USCF players.  Here, the "common
sense" rule is used, if necessary.

>...

>
>A tournament chessplayer is well advised to spend a few hours studying
>a rulebook.

So are tournament directors.


-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rjones@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rex A. Jones (I'm single and gay...want a date?))
Subject: Re: Fischer-Polgar Match
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 19:03:48 GMT

uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes:

>I agree, Fischer will probably win 8-4 or perhaps 7-5 over Polgar.

I think Fischer will win around 8-4 probably loosing only 1 game (if that).

>But how well would Fischer have done against Polgar when he
>was 16??  She should keep improving, given her age.

I think this is why Fischer may be playing her.  Perhaps he sees another 
Fischer-esque type and wants to giver her a shot at raising her game.  Plus
he probably raises his game some, too.

>-Roger
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>bix: ruzun
>NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jmh@athena.mit.edu (J Michael Hammond)
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:12:27 GMT

In article <1519@tekgen.bv.tek.com> brucec@tekgen.bv.tek.com 
(Bruce Cheney) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.111752.1@pa881a.inland.com> 
>nason@pa881a.inland.com writes:

(both edited down a little)

>>In a tournament game my opponent made an illegal en-passant move...
>>I signed my scoresheet and waited for my next pariring...
>>
>>..is there some appeal I can apply.  I am not going to, but am 
>>curious about the rules, appealing and all that, more for 
>>future reference.  

...

>
>"Signing" the scoresheet might not be relevant. Did you say "I resign"
>before then? Then I would argue that the game ended when you said it.
>
>BTW, this leaves open a gaping hole in USCF rules.  What if the illegal
>move ends the game? (ie causes checkmate!) Under current USCF rules, the
>game is over, you don't go back, etc. ... Obviously ridiculous.

The USCF and FIDE rules and interpretations not only explicitly give
the director significant leeway in interpreting the printed word, but
also explicitly admonish the director not to look for exact direction
in all situations.

I claim that common sense forces the director to concede the point
that if a player has written onto his game score either "mate" or
"resigns", or signs an opponent's scoresheet on which this has been
written, that this is a clear acknowledgement of the result.

The same admonishment applies when deciding the relative
applicability of the "Won Game" rules vs. the "Illegal Move" rules.
Mr. Cheney is right, the interpretation that the game is won by the
maker of the illegal checkmating move is so ridiculous that it is
clearly not correct and therefore covered by the common sense
admonishment.

I urge the original author (for forgetting whose name I apologize) to
be more willing to raise questions with the director in irregular
situations.  If you have plenty of time on your clock, go over and
talk to him for a few seconds; a minute out of a sixty-minute or
longer time control is certainly not significant.  If you're in time
trouble and you're fairly certain your opponent has committed an
infraction, the rules give you some protection if you stop both clocks
and step away from the board to summon the director.  Saying something
simple and polite like "I'd like to call on the director" as you stand
up is good form.  If your claim proves to be without merit, you may be
penalized a few minutes of time, but if you're so short that the
penalty would make you overstep time control, your opponent gets the
time added rather than it being subtracted from you.  No problem.

A tournament chessplayer is well advised to spend a few hours studying
a rulebook.  For the purposes of learning the players' rights and
responsibilities to a level required for confident play, an older
rulebook will suffice if the current printing is unavailable.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Looking for comprehensive chess books...
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:34:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.033517.20738@sei.cmu.edu> wellerd@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu  
(David Weller) writes:
> I am looking for a decent book(s) on learning chess.  I'm quite the
> patzer at the moment, and would like to have one or two books that
> can bring my rating up above -120 :-)   So far, I've had two 
> recommendations:
> 
> 	Comprehensive Chess Course (Vols I & II) 
> 		Lew Alburt and Roman Pelts
> 
> 	The Road to Chess Mastery
> 		Max Euwe
> 
> My (strong) preference is that these books be in algebraic notation.
> 
> Can anybody give comments on these (or other) books?
> 
> E-mail, Checks, or Money Orders gladly accepted :-)
I think the two books you cite are inappropriate, the first
being just plain bad, the second out of date.

Kostyev: From Beginner to Expert in 40 Lessons
Wade: Learn Chess (? I can't recall the title offhand)
Seirawan (can't recall title, it is from Microsoft Press)

are much better, IMHO.

--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: idelson@bms.com (Ira Idelson)
Subject: Newbie questions
Keywords: positional play,enforce a move
Reply-To: idelson@bms.com
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb PRI
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:46:02 GMT

I'm a newcomer to chess. I have some questions about a few terms I've come across in my reading.

1. I've seen the terms positional play and so and so is a positional type player. What do these terms mean. What is meant by good position. Is it the same as good development. Does good position imply some sort of advantage or can both players have good positions simutaneously? If one is not a positional player than what type of player might one be?

2. I've also seen the term "to enforce P-K4(insert any move here)" . What does it mean to enforce a move


Thanks,
Ira Idelson

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: dimmen@hsr.no (Kjetil Dimmen)
Subject: Bronstein vs Deep Thought II on ICS
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:01:05 GMT

Move    White                   Black
        David Bronstein         scratchy
				(DT II)
----    -----                   -----
1       P/e2-e4 (0:05)         P/c7-c5 (0:00)
2       P/b2-b4 (1:10)         P/c5-b4 (0:01)
3       P/a2-a3 (0:14)         P/d7-d5 (1:10)
4       P/e4-d5 (0:12)         Q/d8-d5 (1:02)
5       N/g1-f3 (0:09)         B/c8-g4 (0:57)
6       P/a3-b4 (1:45)         Q/d5-e4 (0:02)
7       B/f1-e2 (0:19)         B/g4-f3 (0:38)
8       P/g2-f3 (0:09)         Q/e4-b4 (0:52)
9       N/b1-a3 (1:29)         Q/b4-a5 (0:57)
10      B/c1-b2 (0:38)         N/b8-c6 (0:16)
11      P/c2-c4 (0:38)         Q/a5-g5 (1:05)
12      Q/d1-b3 (2:30)         o-o-o   (1:01)
13      P/d2-d4 (0:26)         Q/g5-g2 (2:15)
14      o-o-o (2:12)           Q/g2-f2 (0:57)
15      P/d4-d5 (0:13)         N/c6-a5 (1:02)
16      Q/b3-b5 (2:17)         Q/f2-e3 (2:39)
17      K/c1-b1 (0:17)         Q/e3-e2 (0:30)
18      Q/b5-a5 (0:12)         P/a7-a6 (0:37)
19      R/h1-e1 (2:59)         Q/e2-f2 (0:53)
20      P/c4-c5 (3:21)         N/g8-f6 (2:03)
21      B/b2-e5 (0:33)         N/f6-d5 (0:54)
22      N/a3-c4 (1:10)         Q/f2-e1 (1:39)
23      R/d1-e1 (0:44)         P/f7-f6 (1:10)
24      N/c4-b6 (0:56)         N/d5-b6 (0:16)
25      Q/a5-b6 (0:06)         K/c8-d7 (0:29)

-- 
D.    - Some people say I have a too high self-esteem.
They may be right, but at least I have good reason to.
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 14:38:37 MST
From: <ASEDC@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Questions about Fischer

I'm not famliar with U.S. chess, so I hope someone can answer my following ques
tions:
1) Did B. Fischer kept onplaying exhibition games after he quit the world title
?
2) For those of you proficient in Fischer classical games, how well has he play
ed against Spassky?  (News Today are that he won)
3) What was the reason he said he had for playing again?
4) Has he expressed interest in playing for the world title again?
Thanks.
Enrique.
ASEDC@ASUACAD.BITNET
From: carsten@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computer WM?
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:50:06 GMT
Reply-To: carsten@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
NNTP-Posting-Host: nexts.math.tu-berlin.de

In article <1992Nov5.101610.537@ifi.unizh.ch: hafner@ifi.unizh.ch (Michel  
Hafner) writes:
 
: The 7th World Computer-Chess Championship will be held in
: Madrid (Spain), November 23-27, 1992.
: 
: 
: Participants:
: 
: Centaur          (Russia)
: Chess Genius 1.0 (UK/Germany)
: Cumulus          (France)
: Echec            (France)
: Hiarcs           (UK)
: Kasparov         (USA)
: Lachex           (USA)
: M-Chess          (USA)
: Mirage           (CIS ?)
: Nightmare        (Germany)
: Nimzo            (Austria)
: Pandix           (Hungary)
: Prochess         (Netherlands)
: Rebel            (Netherlands)
: Risc 2500        (Netherlands)
: Ulysses          (Germany)
: Woodpusher 2     (UK)
: Zugzwang         (Germany)
: 
: Notice the absence of some of the 'regulars', although
: B*-Hitech (USA) and Fritz (Germany) may yet enter.


Where are programs like 'Deep Thought','Mephisto' and 'Cray Blitz'?
Is there a separation between mainframes and micro computers?


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Krause               Technische Universitaet Berlin
                            Fachbereich Mathematik
		            Funktionalanalysis/Numerische Mathematik

E-mail : krause@math.tu-berlin.de
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Gaprindashvilli's strength (was re: Fishcer with odds)
Date: 10 Nov 92 05:39:56 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Technically, didn't Gaprindashvili become a Grandmaster when she won
the Women's World Championship?  I'm not exactly certain on how the
FIDE system works on granting GM norms to women for their results in
the World Championship cycle (although the system is probably stupid).

:-)

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have realized it would be bad vodka when all the label said
was 'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gilmozzi@stsci.edu (Roberto Gilmozzi)
Subject: Re: Davis-Fedorowicz, U.S. Open, Round 1, Atlanta, 1980
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:17:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.035843.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu> abriggs@hmcvax.claremont.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.220421.27440@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, qazqaz@Muir.Stanford.EDU (Mike Perkins) writes:
>> 
>> Recently someone posted this game which reached this position after 23.Bf6!:
>> 
>>  -----------------------
>> |          q* r* b* k*   |8     The game continued 23. ... Bc5+ 24.Kf1 Bf2
>> |    b*          p* p* p*|7     25.Bf7+ Kf8 26.Qh7 gf 27.Bg6  1 - 0
>> |    p*       p* B       |6
>> |          p*       P  B |5     I don't see what would happen after 
>> |       p*       P     Q |4     23. ... gf6
>> |    P     P           R |3
>> |          r*          P |2     I looked and looked and don't see the catch.
>> |       R           K    |1     Can anyone help me?
>>  ------------------------
>>   a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h
>> 
>> mike perkins
>
>Unless I'm mistaken..   23 ... f6  24 BxQ and that's pretty much it for black.

Interesting move: ghost bishop takes queen from a square occupied by 
a pawn! :-)

As i see it, the problem with gxf6 is that after 24.gxf6 Black avoids
the threat  Qg5-Qg7 mate only by sacrificing back with its rook: e.g.
24...Bc5+ 25.Kf1 Rf2+ 26.Ke1 Rg2 27.Rg3+ Kh8 28.Rxg2 etc and White is
better (even if Black tries the maneuver Bd4-Bxf6). 

Roberto

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess