HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helios!intercal.com!hwr@tssi.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: Inside Chess
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1992 19:37:07 GMT


                           INSIDE CHESS
                        Volume 5, Issue 7
                          April 13, 1992

The most recent issue of "Inside Chess" is a pleasant mix of 
games, story-telling and informative articles. The issue begins 
with an editorial from GM and Editor-in-Chief Yasser Seirawan. 
Seirawan has used the editorial banner in the past to report 
various things, not all of which are technically editorials. We 
see an "editorial" as an expression of opinion, with which one 
may agree or not; telling anecdotes would not seem to fall 
within those limits, but since it is from the editor, perhaps we 
are just being too picky. In any event, it is for the most part 
informative and enjoyable reading, if not red hot opinion.

The first major tournament report this issue is about the Cannes 
team festival. Written by Seirawan, who was on the U.S. team, it 
is a solid round-by-round account. This is followed by a most 
interesting look into some of the episodes happening off the 
board in Linares, presented by one of Columbia's leading 
journalists, Luis Bernado Hoyos-Millan. Look for excerpts from 
this article to appear right here on the USA Today Sports Center 
in the Chess Perspectives section of the Chess Forum.

"Inside News" is the regular IC department which briefly checks 
chess news happening around the world. The pieces are short and 
sweet. In this issue's department, there is, in our opinion, a 
rather surprising item. Under the heading "America's Most 
Prolific Publisher, Writer and Editor" we first see tribute paid 
to British author and publisher Tony Gilliam (we fail to see 
what this has to do with the heading) and then, homage is paid 
to "[a]nother dedicated servant of Caissa...NM James Schroeder 
of Portland, Oregon." Praise is then heaped upon Schroeder's 
publishing career, finishing with information on how the reader 
may order "Grandmaster from Oregon: The Life and Times of Arthur 
Dake."

Ignoring the fact that we are not told if Schroeder wrote, 
published, edited or is simply a dealer for this book, we find 
such praise for him inappropriate and misplaced. We have seen 
many of his publications and printed opinions. Much of it is not 
only sloppy and inaccurate, but his heavy-handed approach is 
regarded by many as libelous. For Yasser's first-rate magazine 
to exalt such material is terribly unfortunate and quite frankly 
surprising. Has Schroeder's relocation to the Pacific Northwest 
somehow brought undue influence to bear on IC's normally more 
perceptive approach?

The issue is completed nicely with a detailed look at the 
strongest women's event ever held outside the World Championship 
cycle, the 26th Yugometal International Ladies' Grandmaster 
Chess Tournament, followed by another fine article on tactics by 
Minev.

Subscription information: Inside Chess, PO Box 19457, Seattle, 
WA 98109. 1-yr: $45

Copyright 1992 Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: aycock@hg.uleth.ca
Subject: books on fischer
Reply-To: aycock@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:27:20 GMT

there is also a novel, entitled The Dragon Variation (i forget
the name of the author) that has a character in it who is
unmistakably modelled on bobby fischer.
From: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Timman wins! (4th game)
Date: 17 Apr 92 07:30:00 GMT
Reply-To: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Organization: University of Limburg, Maastricht

Timman - Yusupov, 4th game.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxd7 Bxd7 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qf3 0-0
9.c3 Bd6 10.Nd2 f5 11.c4 c6 12.Nb3 Qc7 13.h3 dxc4 14.Bxc4+ Kh8 15.Bd2 Rae8
16.Rac1 Qb8 17.a4 Re7 18.Rcd1 f4 19.Bd3 Bf5 20.Nc5 Ng5 21.Qh5 Bxd3 22.Nxd3 Ne4
23.Rfe1 f3 24.gxf3 Nxd2 25.Rxd2 Rxe1+ 26.Nxe1 Qd8 27.Nd3 Qf6 28.Ne5 g6
29.Qh6 Bxe5 30.dxe5 Qxf3 31.e6 Qe4??
Black resigns, 1 - 0


Some newspaper analysis:

Timman's 8.Qf3 wasn't that good, because the queen is misplaced. He didn't play
9.Bxe4 dxe4 10.Qxe4 Bc6, because black has enough compensation for the pawn.

The critical position arose after 20.Nc5. Ljubojevic gave 20...Bxc5 21.dxc5
Bg6 (threatening Ng5) as best.

Yusupov had to make the last 10 moves in less than 2 minutes, and overlooked
mate in one (32.Qxf8+ mate).


          1   2   3   4
--------+---------------
Yusupov | 1  1/2 1/2  0
Timman  | 0  1/2 1/2  1


Dennis Breuker
(breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl)
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: FAQ
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:52:45 GMT

could someone mail me the FAQ?

thanks

-andersom@spot.colorado.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Subject: Re: Playing with the deaf (was Re: Re whether Korchnoi is deaf)
Reply-To: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Organization: NASA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:02:07 GMT

In article <nolan.702762742@helios>, nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan) 
writes:
> 
> nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash) writes:
> 
> >How do you offer a draw to a deaf opponent?
> 
> Lipreading or in writing both work quite well.  ASL would also work if you
> knew it, or finger spelling.  
> 

I'm deaf, and I agree with Michael Nolan.

> >How does a dumb/deaf opponent offer a draw or call a dropped flag?
> 
> See above for draw offers, pointing at the flag would work pretty good, too.
> 
Amen. However, I feel it necessary to point out something. "dumb" is archaic
and ambigious. "mute" is better. "Deaf/dumb" or "deaf/mute" is considered 
offensive to the deaf. Most deaf persons do have vocal ability, though it
isn't cohensive in mose cases, due to difficulties in training. (Like me) 
"mute" is for persons without the ability to vocalize, while "deaf" is
for those with severe to profound hearing loss. (I'm profoundly deaf, and
thus have no problem with heavy thoughts :^).)  The Deaf tend to use "silent"
because it implies the ability to vocalize and doesn't use it. There is a
book titled "Silent Knights of the Board" about deaf chessplayers. (It's out
of print... Gallaudet University has a copy of it, where I saw it.)
> 
> A deaf player doesn't need much assistance, except perhaps in communicating
> draw offers and such.  (We usually try to make sure that any announcements
> are also done in writing and give the deaf player(s) a copy or show them
> where it is posted.)  
> 
 Good to know that some chessplayers has no qualms about playing disabled 
players.


------------------------
       John Paul Phillips   
             "Azjohn"         
         NASA/Langley        
azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:04:27 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: books on fischer
	<1992Apr9.190922.7314@colorado.edu>

aycock@hg.uleth.ca wrote:
>there is also a novel, entitled The Dragon Variation (i forget
>the name of the author) that has a character in it who is
>unmistakably modelled on bobby fischer.

perlman eric asks:
>Are you referring to Walter Tevis's novel Queen's Gambit
>(title from memory, so may be wrong), the main character
>of which was a female chessplayer who shared many
>personality traits (it seemed to me) with Fischer?  Or do you
>refer to another book?

Dragon Variation and Queen's Gambit are different books.
The Dragon book is by somebody named Glyn if I remember
correctly.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:30:49 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Shortest/Longest Games
	<1992Apr11.190414.19676@news.Hawaii.Edu>
	<gdtoZHu00Vp5I2gFwh@andrew.cmu.edu>

I just came across another book that mentions a 194 move
draw played between Martinovsky and Jansa Gausdal
in 1987.  I don't know if these players were GMs.

As for "Gibaud vs lazard", apparently both Gibaud
and Lazard denied playing the game described in
many books.  Also there is no mention of such a
game in the reports of the tournament where this
game supposedly took place.  Both Gibaud and
Lazard agreed that they played a game somewhat
like what Chernev reported, but they said it was
a casual game, that took more than four moves.

The so-called chess history that you find in many
books is full of this sort of thing.  Authors copy
other books or rely on foggy memory, and all sorts
of myths get started and repeated over and over
without anyone bothering to check the facts.

The recent confusion caused by Keene's 1978 book
is a good example of this sort of thing.  I wonder if
anyone will get in touch with Keene and get that
business straightened out.
From: slcpd@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: lookin for a game
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:15:47 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

I am looking for a good e-mail game.
I would like to play someone with a USCF rating of 2000+

-- slcpd@cc.usu.edu
From: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:48:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: canal.01GIT6WCMA1S8X2TXZ

On 13 Apr 92 06:07:24 GMT, wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
writes to Louis Blair:

>Rather than carry on this discussion any further, I'll simply stop 
>this right now: I think Black is better in the position you mention.
>I'd be happy to play it in a tournament game.

Well I have to admit, that is the simplest sotion.  Just declare yourself
the winner of the argument, and show you're ready to defend some position
you probably don't even care about in a game! <grin>

This one master in New Orleans would have gone even further.  "Oh yeah,
let's contest the position for $500!"  I would usually joke, "Why don't
we play a postal game for your house!"

I recommend a combination of analysis/OTB play/training matches in this
position if you really want to get to the truth.  And if you're going to
make a claim about some position, back it up with SOME analysis.  Otherwise,
even if you're right, it just probably means you made a lucky guess.

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
From: lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:03:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Yds=mLW00VpPEDBoNs
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I wrote:
>How should black play after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 de 4 Nxe4 Nd7
>5 Bc4 Ngf6 6 Qf3 ?
>
>My reason for being worried about this position
>
>r - b q k b - r
>p p - n p p p p
>- - p - - n - -
>- - - - - - - -
>- - B P N - - -
>- - - - - Q - -
>P P P - - P P P
>R - B - K - N R
>
>is that Warren Goldman wrote a book that devoted two
>pages to a discussion of this position, coming to the conclusion
>that it was good for white.  Now I realize that WG is not
>exactly a big name in the world of chess.  However, I
>am not a big name either, and I can't find anything
>wrong with his analysis.  Since 6 Qf3 is not normally
>played (or even mentioned in the books), I assume that
>WG either overlooked a possible move for black or in-
>correctly evaluated a position somewhere along the
>way.  I would like to know where.  6 ... e6 is certainly
>not a move that WG overlooked.  According to his book,
>white maintains the initiative with 7 Bg5.  What does
>black do now?

Dennis Baker writes:
>perhaps better than 6...e6 is 6...g6.  This move would eliminate
>all the Qe4, Bd3 lineup worries.  Plus, it seems that in this type
>of setup, White would have preferred to have developed his queen
>to d2, after developing the QB, to attempt to weaken the black
>king position by swapping off the dark-squared bishops.  What
>does Goldman say about 6...g6?

You've got me there.  He doesn't have anything to say about
this possibility.  Is this the move to play?
From: nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Bad place to ask
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:01:39 GMT
Reply-To: nash@visus.com
Organization: Visual Understanding Systems, Pgh PA

This probably the wrong place to ask, but I don't know the right place, so here  
goes.

I have a few things regarding the ICS that I would like to put on an archive  
that people can get via anonymous ftp. How do I do this? What is a good site to  
put things on?

Thanks,
Rich

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard V. Nash  | Visual Understanding Systems, Inc.         |
| nash@visus.com   | Tel. (412)-488-3600   Fax. (412)-488-3611  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
From: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Correction to Rousselle-Peters
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:13:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: canal.01GIK91E9AVK8X2C5Z

Oops!  I'm really have asleep today.  I think I gave 19 Qxf7+ in my
previous post with the Rousselle-Peters game.  That should be 19 Rxf7!!,
and then 1-0.

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Deafness (was: Re: Women and chess)
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:15:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.221940.9606@newshost.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:

>as "somewhat unsatisfactory" -- in particular, there was a lot of road noise
>audible in the playing hall.  Petrosian had a built-in antidote to this: turn
>down the hearing aid.  Huebner didn't.  After having Petrosian on the ropes a

What prevents Huebner from wearing ear plugs or mufflers?  I noticed
that Maxim Dlugy had his hands over his ears at a tournament this
weekend.  I didn't see any other signs of excessive noise, but the
floor did creak as people walked around to see the games, and there
were a lot of people around board 1 when Ivanov had about 15 moves to
make in 2 minutes against Dlugy (they drew eventually).  --Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: when to resign?
Summary: vote early, vote often
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:57:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Every once in awhile, a discussion pops up on "when to resign".  It
would be interesting to make this discussion concrete.  So...below is a
game score.  Please express your opinion by sending a vote to:

    sloan@cis.uab.edu

Your message need only contain the move number on which *you* would
resign.  You may, if you wish, present a reason.  If you "never resign",
simply vote for move 72.

If you think you need extra information (player's strength, tournament
situation, etc. - ask here in the open forum, and I'll try to answer
here, as well).

If you think that there is anything *else* worth discussing about the
game - feel free.  Enjoy!

1. Nf3 Nf6  2. b4 d5  3. Bb2 e6  4. a3 c5  5. bxc5 Bxc5  6. d4 Bd6
7. c4 dxc4  8. Qa4+ Nc6  9. Nbd2 Qa5  10. Qxa5 Nxa5  11. e4 Be7  
12. e5 Nd5  13. Nxc5 Nb3  14. Rd1 b5  15. Nd6+ Bxd6  16. Bxb5+ Bd7
17. Bxd7+ Kxd7  18. exd6 Rhc8  19. Ne5+ Kxd6  20. Nxf7+ Kc6
21. 0-0 Kb6  22. Rd3 Na5  23. Re1 Rc2  24. Bc1 Rac8  25. Rxe6+ Kb5
26. Nd6+ Ka4  27. g3 Rxc1+  28. Kg2 R8c6  29. Rf3 Nb6  30. Rf7 a5
31. Rxg7 Nxd4  32. Re4 Rxd6  33. Rxd4+ Kxa3  34. Rb7 Rc5  35. Rf7 Rb6
36. Rxh7 Rb4  37. Rd2 a4  38. Rd7 Nc3  39. Rc2 Rb2  40. Rc1 Kb4
41. Rd4+ Kb3  42. Rd8 Ra5  43. Rb8+ Nb5  44. Re8 a3  45. Re3+ Ka4
46. Rc4+ Rb4  47. Rc2 Nd4  48. Ra2 Rb3  49. Re4 Rd3  50. Re1 Kb3
51. Raa1 a2  52. h4 Nc2  53. Reb1+ Nxb1(Q)  54. Rxb1+ Kc3  55. g4

ADJOURNED

55. ... Kd4 (sealed)  56. h5 Ke4  57. Rc1 Rc3  58. Rh1 Ra1  
59. Rxa1 Nxa1  60. h6 Kf4  61. f3 Rc7  62. Kf2 Rh7  63. Ke2 Rxh6
64. Kd3 Kxf3  65. g5 Rg6  66. Kc3 Ke3  67. Kb2 Kd3  68. Kxa1 Kc3
69. Kb1 Rxg5  70. Ka2 Rg1  71. Ka3 Ra1++


 
-- 
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: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Reinfeld Take 2
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:14:00 GMT

On 9 Apr 92 01:42:34 GMT, clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
writes:

>White to play (1001 WCSC, #14):
>
>         8 r - - - - r k -
>         7 p - - n q p p p
>         6 Q p p - - - - -
>         5 - - - p - - - -
>         4 - - - P n - - -
>         3 - - N - P N - -
>         2 P P - - - P P P
>         1 - - R - - R K -
>           a b c d e f g h
>
>Reinfeld gives 1. Qb7 Rfc8 as the main line, and also 1. .. Qd6 as
>a possible Black reply.  Which move for Black is actually the best?
>How do the moves Reinfeld gives match up?

    After 1.Qb7 Rfc8 2.Nxe4 (removing one of the defenders of the pinned
    knight on d7)... now if 2...dxe4 3.Ne5.  Ugh!  Ergo 2...Rab8 3.Qxa7
    Ra8 4.Qb7 Rab8 5.Qa6 Ra8 6.Qe2 dxe4... gee, I think I like Black
    here!  I guess White should take the draw :)  All this means is
    2.Nxe4 is a mistake.  Better then is 2.Ne5 (another pin lesson,right?)
    2...Nef6 3.Nxc6... walla!  Presto-chango, At-Bantage White!

    So instead, after 1.Qb7 Qd6.  Now 2.Nxe4... oops!  Discovery on c6!
    Perhaps 'zis is der theme.  Discoveries spiel!  After 2...dxe4 3 Rxc6
    ... oh, no!  Counter, pin-in-spiel! 3...Qd5!  Naah.  4.Rc7.  Big deal!
    Counter-attack-n-attack!  Or do I mean counter-attack-attack-attack?
    I forget!  Oh wait a minute.  4...Nf6.

    Aah, who cares!  That's my motto.

>"The proofs are so obvious that they can be left to the reader."
>Lars V. Ahlfors, _Complex Analysis_

    Ehh, these positions are so obvious, the moves are left to the chessplayer!

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: complete underpromotion games sought
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:14:51 GMT
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham

In article <1992Apr13.101229.487@yvax.byu.edu> colemant@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>Our chess club here at BYU is looking for complete games where underpromotion
>came in handy.  I saw postings weeks ago but did not extract them.
>
>thank you --  Tom Coleman       Colemant@yvax.byu.edu


one that should be obtainable is from the Computer Chess Championship in
Albuquerque last year.  Lachex vs somebody where Lachex lost by overlooking
an underpromotion to a knight that was a killing check.  Was published in
a couple of different places.

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
From: wang@ibma1.cs.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Shortest GM game (was Re: Goldman analysis)
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:23:39 GMT
Reply-To: wang@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>>Of course, the shortest master game of all time (from Chernev's
>>old books) went like this:
>>
>>1. d4      Nf6
>>2. Nd2     e5
>>3. dxe5    Ng4
>>4. h3??    Ne3
>>5. resigns

>This is the supposed Gibaud vs Lazard game that giri referred to.
>As I said just a moment ago, the prevailing opinion these days is
>that the game never really happened.  Ask Hanon Russell if you
>don't believe me.

In fact, this game appears verbatim as an anectode in one of my few
chess books, I think by Horowitz.  A duffer walks into a chess club and
challenges the author to a game with small stakes: $10 to win, but the
duffer gets to suggest moves to the author, and will pay him $2 for
every suggestion he accepts.  Naturally, the rest of the author's
friends gather 'round to watch the game.  The author promptly begins
1.e4 and gets $2 for changing to 1.d4.  He follows with 2.c4, but the
duffer says, "Capablanca used to play 2.Nd2," and the author thinks for
a moment and says, "If it's good enough for Capa, it's good enough for
me," and gets another $2.  I don't remember whether the author played
4.h3 out of a knee-jerk reflex (unlikely) or got paid for it (still not
very likely).  After 4 .. Nd3! all of the author's friends burst out
laughing, and teased the author for the rest of the game/day/year.  The
author did, in fact, go on to win the game quite easily despite being
down a Queen for a Knight, but from the duffer's point of view, it must
have been $2 or $4 well spent.

On another track, does anybody recognize this fatigue-induced bad dream?
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc4 3.Na4?! Bxf2+?! 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5. Ke3 (5.g3 Qxe4 wins by
double attack) Qf4+ 6.Kd3 leading to one of the wildest and wooliest
king-hunts on record.  Black sacs the kitchen sink and forces a draw by
perpetual check, stranding *six* White pieces on their home squares ...

Eric Wang
wang@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu
From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Shortest GM game (was Re: Goldman analysis)
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:38:06 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <ru96uINNifj@agate.berkeley.edu> goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) writes:

[ stuff deleted ]

>	If you don't want to look at real games, there was one between 
>Fischer and an opponent whose name escapes me. Fischer refused to play
>at the scheduled time for religious reasons; the opponent felt that the
>rescheduling was unfairly favoring Fischer. Bobby played 1. c4 and his
>opponent resigned. You'd be hard-pressed to find shorter than that.

The game was in Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970, between Fischer 
and Argentinan GM Panno.
-- 
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)?"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: qazqaz@Muir.Stanford.EDU (Mike Perkins)
Subject: Re: The Game of the Century
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:44:24 GMT

In article <01GISO6QF0Y88X43M8@canal.crc.uno.edu> DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker) writes:
>Donald Byrne - Bobby Fischer
>New York 1956
>Grunfeld
>
>1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.d4 O-O 5.Bf4 d5 6.Qb3 dxc4 7.Qxc4 c6
>8.e4 Nbd7 9.Rd1 Nb6 10.Qc5 Bg4 11.Bg5? Na4!! 12.Qa3 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Nxe4!!
>14.Bxe7 Qb6! 15.Bc4! Nxc3 16.Bc5! Rfe8+ 17.Kf1 Be6!! 18.Bxb6 Bxc4+
>19.Kg1 Ne2+! 20.Kf1 Nxd4+ 21.Kg1 Ne2+ 22.Kf1 Nc3+ 23.Kg1 axb6 24.Qb4
>Ra4! 25.Qxb6 Nxd1 26.h3 Rxa2 27.Kh2 Nxf2 28.Re1 Rxe1 29.Qd8+ Bf8
>30.Nxe1 Bd5 31.Nf3 Ne4 32.Qb8 b5 33.h4 h5 34.Ne5 Kg7 35.Kg1 Bc5+
>36.Kf1 Ng3+ 37.Ke1 Bb4+ 38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Ne2+ 40.Kb1 Nc3+ 41.Kc1
>Rc2 mate

37. ... Re2+ mates one move sooner (38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Ba3+ 40.Kb1 Re1++)
I notice.  

At what move in the above game did Fischer diverge from what was known then?
Is the game known as the Game of the Century for being an upset victory, for
Fischer's innovations, or for another reason?

mike perkins
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess