HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:09:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.104239.682@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.045402.13589@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec21.101710.587@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec21.045954.5444@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>>>
>>>Please go study your history.
>> 
>> I stand firmly behind what I have said. If you disagree, be specific.
>
>Fine. I disagree with your claim that the Nazis, in commiting their acts,
>violated specific statutes.

Oh, in that case I disagree with your claim that every Jewish boy should be
castrated.

(What? You didn't make such a claim? Who cares? Neither did I make the claim 
you attribute to me.)

>1. Why the fuck couldn't you let the damned thread die? EVERYONE else had.

You haven't. Stop posting garbage and - lo and behold! - nobody will answer.

>2. What does THIS have to do with Chess? Take it to:

Nothing. - But did I start this thread?

>[random noise deleted]

>Now, can we let this die, or do you want to be embarassed some more?
>

I'm not embarassed, although I don't quite know why I am wasting my time when
just about any normal person has already put you in the kill file...

	Sven
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Harper Challenged!
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:08:41 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1ht9ajINNk0v@life.ai.mit.edu>, joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
> In article <1992Dec30.224631.20511@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
> |> In article <1992Dec30.125320.739@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
> |> writes (to Bruce Harper):
> |> 
> |> >But, since you are SOOOO certain, I'll make you a wager. I fly out to where
> |> >you are, and play YOU in a game of chess.
> |> >
> |> >Loser pays for the roundtrip tickets.
> |> 
> |> Actually, it would be much easier to do it on ICS!!
> |> You could post the time that the two of you would play,
> |> and everybody here could watch.  Money could still be
> |> involved (maybe...possibly...perhaps).
> |> 
> |> The address is valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu 5000
> |> This is great!
> |> 
> |> >So Mr. Expert, still believe so strongly in your claim???
> |> 
> |> Yet another stone is cast!  Bruce, you gonna take that from him?
> |> 
> |> -Mark
> 
> This is getting a little ridiculous.  What's the tie-breaker going to be?
> A pissing contest?
> 
> -- 
> ================================================================
> =             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
> =                                                              =
> = This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
> ================================================================

Wassa matter Andy? You don't think a chess challenge belongs here???

Or, maybe you just don't like the fact that were left out?
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Harper Challenged!
Date: 30 Dec 1992 22:54:11 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <1992Dec30.224631.20511@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec30.125320.739@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
|> writes (to Bruce Harper):
|> 
|> >But, since you are SOOOO certain, I'll make you a wager. I fly out to where
|> >you are, and play YOU in a game of chess.
|> >
|> >Loser pays for the roundtrip tickets.
|> 
|> Actually, it would be much easier to do it on ICS!!
|> You could post the time that the two of you would play,
|> and everybody here could watch.  Money could still be
|> involved (maybe...possibly...perhaps).
|> 
|> The address is valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu 5000
|> This is great!
|> 
|> >So Mr. Expert, still believe so strongly in your claim???
|> 
|> Yet another stone is cast!  Bruce, you gonna take that from him?
|> 
|> -Mark

This is getting a little ridiculous.  What's the tie-breaker going to be?
A pissing contest?

-- 
================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 04:58:56 GMT

In article <1hcu7eINN2s6@parsifal.umkc.edu> chris@kasey.umkc.edu (Christopher Mitchell) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec21.101710.587@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec21.045954.5444@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>>> Nonsense. Fischer wasn't indicted for playing chess, but for doing business.
>>
>>What business was that...was it:
>>
>>1. Operating a 7-11?
>>2. Selling US passports?
>>3. Playing Chess?
>
>Try staying in Yugoslavian hotels...travelling...eating...etc.

For the sake of truth, none of these is forbidden.

>  Not to mention
>cashing in on a 3.5 million dollar prize within the boundaries of and taxed
>by Yugoslavia.

I don't know if it is taxed by Yugoslavia, but it is irrelevant. His partici-
pation in this business is a crime. And by no means a victimless one.

>
>Though I view Bobby Fischer as somewhat of an American asset

Perhaps you should view it as an American burden.

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: A question for DMC
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:16:22 GMT

Worthless non-GM Ginsburg was referring to the first Kasparov-Karpov match,
in which Kasparov deliberatedly played to draw when he was behind in order to
exhaust his opponent.  (At least, that's Kasparov's story.  Fischer's view is
the match was fixed anyway).

You also state:

"Reducing chess to math is to leave out 99% of the game".

While I have been involved in discussions on the net as to whether Fischer
played poorly in some games or deliberately employed risky plans in order to
try to win otherwise balanced positions (the (in)famous King walk in Game 8
is the best example), I find this remark somewhat astounding.  It is doubly
astounding considering that Fischer is one of the greatest seekers of "truth"
on the chess board in history - he would never make a move which thought
objectively inferior for psychological reasons, although he has made "risky"
moves which he assessed as playable (rightly or wrongly) in order to try to
win (taking the h Pawn in the first game of the 1972 match is a good
example).

So my question is simply whether you have played tournament chess and have a
rating, or actually play chess at all.  The view that there is little
objective truth is chess is very unusual, and not knowing about the first K-K
match has me wondering whether you play chess or are just discussing all this
abstractly.

If you don't wish to answer this question, that's fine, but please spare us a
posting that this is avoiding some issue or another.
From: rick.franks@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Rick Franks) 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: MAJOR BUMMER
Date: 11 Dec 92 13:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, (313)663-4173, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Reply-To: rick.franks@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Rick Franks) 

Major big time bummer.

The data files got corupted somehow in the chess games. I had to start
all over again. I know, I know... But what can I say... Sorry.
---
 . Cam-Mail . The Chess Board BBS 803-236-7711 : Myrtle Beach, SC
From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:05:54 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

What the debate may be overlooking is one of the most severe critics of
F-S II was ... world champion Garry Kasparov.  (See _Chess Life_).

Call it sour grapes, but Garry pointed out some things (especially in
Game 1) that nobody else saw.

Maybe we'll see Kasparov-Fischer somewhere, somehow.  I'd settle for
Fischer-Anand or even Fischer - M. Gurevich (Mikhail can be hired for
cheap).

Anybody look up Rachels-Gulko, Pirc?  Compared to Tal-Petrosian?
Isn't it right to take e.p.??

-mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: smmurthy@comet.lerc.nasa.gov (PLN Murthy)
Subject: Gnuchess for Windows (Chess321.exe)
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
  I just downloaded chess321.exe (gnuchess for windows) and tried it on
  my 386sx 20Hz machine. I have about 5M ram. First I tried to check whether
  this file is some kind of a zip file. It turned out to be regular fiel.
  So I tried to execute under DOS. It said "Cannont execute". So I started
  windows 3.1 and tried to execute it. But still no luck. I tried many diff./
  pif settings but it kept saying insufficient memory which I can not believe.
  Since I do have 5 M of extended memory. Any help is appreciated. Thanks in
   advance.
  Murthy
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:43:29 GMT

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLN Murthy			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: smmurthy@comet.lerc.nasa.gov 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: frants@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Leonid Frants)
Subject: Re: Don't blame lawyers!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:22:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.182617.643@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1ha35qINN5ne@life.ai.mit.edu>, joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
>
>Make no mistake, my attacks are entirely serious.
>

Yeah, that's what you think.

>> 
>> Oh well.  I think I'll start reading this thread for a while in case it
>> proves interesting.
>
>Not with such un-educable people as yourself jumping in...except, of course, to
>those who have similar degrees of repsect for legitimate questions.
>

Now, let's skip the rhetoric and get to the point here. And the point
is, drum roll here, YOU ARE AN IDIOT or as T. Andy Frakes so precisely
puts it, A MORON. People like Elliot Winslow are far too nice to
seriously reply to the drivel you produce. You sound like Dennis Baker
before he ever learned how the chess pieces move. Except that his
articles at least were honest and carried some chess value. 

Leonid Frants.
From: ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (R.Stephan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: MChess Pro vs. ChessMachine
Date: 27 Dec 92 12:43:00 GMT
Organization: Not Very Ltd.

culter@convex.com (Brad Culter) writes:
> 	Remarkable - but it would be very interesting to see
> 	the game scores if possible. I'm particularly interested
> 	in the 60/2h games including the win/lose/draw details.

Thanks for the suggestion --- here is the update (with some additional
results):

- MChessPro vs. ChessMachine Gideon 2.1 (Blitz mode - 60/5'):  11+ 4- 2=
- MChessPro vs. ChessMachine King 1.0   (Blitz mode - 60/5'):   7+ 1- 2=
- MChessPro vs. ChessMachine Gideon 2.1 (Tournament - 60/2h):   5+ 2- 3=

ralf
--
***************
Sbetrg Pburerag
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess problem of causing probelms.
Date: 27 Dec 92 09:37:30 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec26.183055.644@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <haha.725395615@vipunen.hut.fi>, haha@vipunen.hut.fi (Harri Haanp{{) writes:
>>> Obligatory chess question:  Does there exist a chess position in
>>> which Black has enough material to mate White in theory, but Black
>>> cannot mate White even with White's cooperation, while on the other
>>> hand White can mate Black without Black's cooperation?
>> 
>> K . k r b . . .   Now certainly KRBP should be enough material to mate
>> P . . p . . . .   against KPPP. In this particular position, however..
>> . . . P . . . .
>> . P . . . . . .   White (caps) to move.
>> . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . .   C. S. Kipping (Chess 1936)
>> . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . .   2X
>> 
>> Harri H.
> 
> Not quite. Move the bishop, the rook goes free, and the board changes.
> 
> 
> 

Whoops, my mistake. White does have a forced mate. I missed that white moves
first in this problem.
From: vanderli@orion.fccc.edu (Michel van der List)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Wanted: details of (computer) evaluation functions
Keywords: evaluation, position, positional, judgment
Date: 29 Dec 92 13:30:14 GMT
Organization: Fox Chase Cancer Center

In article <1992Dec29.035140.12403@cis.uab.edu>,
	hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
> I would recommend the following:
> 
> 1.  Chess Skills in Man and Machine, Springer-Verlag.  A chapter on chess 4.0
> tells a lot.
> 
> 2.  Computers, Chess and Cognition, edited by Marsland and Schaeffer, 
> Springer-Verlag.  It has chapters on Cray Blitz, Hitech, Deep Thought, and
> others.  The Cray Blitz chapter completely spells out it's evaluation
> function, search extensions, etc.  I can give you an electronic summary
> of the chapter if you would like.  You will need a unix-like troff
> formatter.

First off let me say that I always enjoy Mr Hyatt's posts on computer
chess. His insights are always very interesting. Secondly I have two
questions:
  - Could you post the above mentioned summary, I am sure there would be
    quite a bit of interest in it.
  - A few weeks ago you mentioned Sparc Blitz (I think thats what you
    called it). Could you comment on it's strength?

Michel

--------------------+----------------------------+-----------------------------
Michel van der List |   'Dat typies hollands     | The Fox Chase Cancer Center
vanderlist@fccc.edu |        vingertje'          |      7701 Burholme Avenue
(215) 728-3660      |                            |    Philadelphia, PA  19111
From: hoffmann@rwzl01.zld.rws.nl (Rob Hoffmann)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Looking for correspondence chess players
Keywords: chess
Date: 23 Dec 92 12:19:59 GMT
Organization: Dutch Min. of transport Zeeland, Middelburg

Hi out there! During these cold and dark winter months, I have
not much to do. So anyone interested in a game of correspondence
chess, please let me know by E-mailing your first move (if you
want white) or request a first move (if you want black). Use
english (e.g. PK2-K4) or algebraic notation (e.g. e2-e4), short or long
version. Good luck, and see you at my mailbox!

Rob.

__________________________________________________
| Rob Hoffmann    |   hoffmann@rwzl10.zld.rws.nl |
--------------------------------------------------
|     _   __   _                                 |
|    | |_|  |_| |     Simtech Software B.V.      |
|    |__________|     Oostmaaslaan 71            |
|      |      |       3063 AN Rotterdam          |
|     _|______|_      The Netherlands            |
|    |__________|     (3110) 4244386x            |
|________________________________________________|
From: SG919C@gwuvm.gwu.edu (Raad Alhamdan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Shatranj
Date: 30 Dec 1992 22:31:38 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

I am looking for the rules of Shatranj.. Can anyone post them here or direct
to where I can find them?

Thanx...

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
| Raad Alhamdan | sg919c@gwuvm.bitnet  | "I choose not to choose."         |
| (202)363-1091 | sg919c@gwuvm.gwu.edu |               - a kid in my class |
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: pardon Fischer?
Date: 29 Dec 92 09:31:40 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec29.053643.22900@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.105837.686@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>
>>[garbage disposed of]
>>
>>Some of us can tell the difference between playing chess and acts of war.
>>
> 
> From your postings, it is not even clear that you know the rules of chess.
> 
> 	Sven
> 

Let the books be inscribed with this:

"On December 29, 1992, Sven got a fact right in one of his posts."

You are correct...from my post it is not clear whther or not I know the
rules of chess.

Of course, as none of my posts have been dealt with the rules of chess, this
statement is correct, and meaningless.

You could also say it is not clear from my posts whehter or not I drive a car.
Or dance.
Or even live in an apartment.

Of course, IF you had read the posts, and could remember them, you would know
that I do play chess, and have been on teams. BUT, so what? Even if I had NEVER
even heard of chess, how would that affect the legitimacy of my claim that
Benjamin's article needed proof?

Or that you needed a history and logic lesson?

Don't confuse chess with life...chess is a game.
From: tom.lee@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Tom Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: GAME 14
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: tom.lee@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Tom Lee)
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, (313)663-4173, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Hi Rick,

Something hiccupped and I lost carrier while I was playing game #14.
Called back, and now I can't get back into the game. It's showing as
busy. Guess the program still shows me playing.  Can you fix me up here?

Thanks
Tom
---
 . Cam-Mail . The Chess Board BBS 803-236-7711 : Myrtle Beach, SC
                                                                                 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Dennis Baker et al
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:46:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.161453.2240@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>
>To all:
>Anyway, I have a suggestion - why don't we agree to require
>each post to have an obligatory chess section to each article?
>For example,
>
>obchess:  Where does White get comp for the piece after
>          1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Bxf7 Kxf7 5.Qf3+ Kg8
>          6.Ng5?? Qxg5!  ???  Why is this book?
>
>or whatever, as long as it has something to do with chess.
>It doesn't have to be deep, but it does have to relate to
>chess.
>
>I know this idea probably won't take off, as it seems there are
>too many non-players on r.g.c. who regularly post.  Nevertheless,
>perhaps we can work out something else.  I'm sure that most
>r.g.c. readers agree with me that there needs to be more CHESS
>on rec.games.CHESS.
>
>-Mark
>
>p.s.  Let me know how you feel about this, and tell me whatever
>      ideas you have to try to get a handle on this problem.

We would have to vote on that if it were to become a rule of r.g.c. - that's
the way I understand the rules of the net.

But I see a problem with such a rule: suppose a 2400 player posts a piece of
offensive political propaganda (like the load of [un]intentional Serbian
propaganda posted recently) and accompanies it with a good piece of chess
analysis. So if I can't add to or refute his analysis, I am not entitled to
respond to the first part, either?

Or, in the same way, I could prevent any 1200 player from expressing his views.

Seems problematic to me. I think r.g.c. is good as it is now. Nobody can be
interested in all the postings. I read less than half. Read what you like,
kill the rest. If your system is primitive and allows you only to read 
everything sequentially, too bad - but that is the fault of your equipment,
not of r.g.c. (If you have a bad FM radio that has a very noisy reception of
stereo programs but no `mono only' option, you don't ask the stations not to
transmit in stereo, do you?)

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: this has got to stop
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:56:00 GMT

Jeffrey C. Ely writes:
>Please, everybody just ignore this asshole. The inference people
>fail to make which keeps this guy around is that *only an idiot*
>would behave this way!  

Feel free to say what you want, Jeff, but this tactic is pretty
silly.  A more effective way to deal with someone with whom you
disagree is to address their arguments.  Attacking the person is
best saved as a last resort when the argument appears lost.  I
don't think you mean to imlpy that DMC has won the argument.

>That means that it is a waste of time dealing with him.  And I
>dont mean it is a waste of time because you wont convince himn he
>is an idiot, that is already obvious.  What I mean is it is a
>waste of time dealing with him because his opinion is
>worthless. WHO CARES WHAT THIS GUY THINKS!! 

I, for one, care what he thinks.

Since when has it become necessary to supply "proof" of chess
ability before being "allowed" to post an argument.  I certainly
hope this newsgroup is open to contributions on chess-related topics
from all sorts of people: from beginners to GMs, and even from
non-players.

In any case, the original point seemed to be about the motives of
some of our top players.  If the point of the analysis (e.g., that
done by Benjamin) was to persuade others that Fischer's playing
strength had greatly diminished, people should be able to make up
their own minds as to whether they are persuaded or not.  To say
that the argument must be true because Benjamin is a better chess
player than DMC (or someone else is better than DMC, or DMC doesn't
know how the pieces move, or DMC is an idiot) seems to be straying
from the point.  The argument (and analysis) wasn't meant to be
addressed to just the top players.  Apparently, DMC wasn't
persuaded and it caused him (and/or Don) to question their
motives.  What's the big deal?  It doesn't seem people are trying
to persuade DMC any longer; rather they seem to be just castigating
him in the hope that others won't pay him any attention.  Some of
us can see through that.

Ed Hummel
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Waxman blows the doors off of WinChess
Date: 31 Dec 92 04:30:44 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

Well, I just ran WinChess vs. Waxman on my 386DX/50 under Windows with
approx. 1 minute per move. While WinChess gained a slight advantage
up to move 15 Waxman blew it away with a brilliant sweep of WinChess'
weak side.

Waxman was getting 10:1 in nodes per second and seemed to use the clock
to its advantage (WinChess has a flat time interval for each move :/

However, I messed up and don't have a copy of the game, I will run another
this weekend but my first impression is that Waxman is far superior to
WinChess (these are both shareware games). 

Waxman needs a dead piece board :)

-Garrett

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess