HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmarko@bnr.ca (Peter Marko)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Game 50 Correction (was Re: Fischer's 60 memorable games)
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:25:15 GMT
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1

In article <1992Oct5.201145.990@sdc.com> Norm Nithman, norm@sdc.com
writes:

>50) Fischer,R - Celle California Exhibition, 1964
>
>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bb4 5.c3 Be7 6.d4  d6  7.de  Ne5
>8.Ne5  de  9.Qh5  g6  10.Qe5 Nf6 11.Ba3 Rf1 12.0-0 Ng4 13.Qg3 Ba3
>14.Na3 Qe7 15.Bb5+ c6 16.Nc4 Qe6 17.Rad1 cb  18.Qc7  Bd7  19.Nd6+
>Ke7  20.Nf5+  gf  21.ef  Rac8  22.Rd7+ Qd7 23.f6+ Nf6 24.Re1+ Ne4
>25.Re4+ Kf6 26.Qd7 Rfd8 27.Qg4
>                           1-0

Norm,

Thanks very much for posting this.  I always wanted to see these games in
algebraic.

One minor correction to game 50 is that black's 11th move should read Rf8
(instead of Rf1).  This is the only thing I've found after playing out a
few games.

   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tmoody@sju.edu (T. Moody)
Subject: Recommendations, please
Organization: St. Joseph's University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:43:00 GMT


I'd like to ask people to recommend some books to study.  Here's the
thumbnail chess autobiography:  I've played chess off and on for a long
time (I'm 39), but seldom with very advanced opponents.  As a kid, I
played against my father and against neighborhood kids, none of whom are
strong players.  In college, I played the occasional informal game
against unrated players (except for once playing a board against Arthur
Bisguier in a simultaneous exhibition).  Since then, I have only played
a few OTB games, a few e-mail games, and a moderate amount of play
against the computer.  In fact, last Friday I played my first OTB game
in about 12 years.  I lost, but not egregiously.  My opponent has about
a 1600 USCF rating.
 
So, I know about pins, forks, skewers, double attacks, and ther basic
tactical concepts, although I don't always manage to find them in time. 
The only studying I've done is to work through an old book of tactics
called _Winning Chess_, by Chernev and Reinfeld.  I liked the immediate
feedback style of presentation.  Now I'd like to move on to something
else.  I have pitifully little knowledge of openings.  Is that what I
should study next?  General strategy?  More advanced tactics?  As you
can see, I'm not exactly a beginner, but I'm not advanced either. 
Please recommend some useful sources to study for a non-advanced
non-beginner.

-- 
Todd Moody * tmoody@sju.edu  (That's St. Joseph's Univ., Philosophy Dept.)
            "In what furnace was thy brain?"  -- William Blake
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Check
Summary: loophole
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:11:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct9.191108.16212
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Oct9.193237.23975@athena.mit.edu>
tycchow@athena.mit.edu (Timothy Y Chow) writes:
>                   Furthermore, since your opponent can't *administer*
>check by three or more pieces at once, the second apparent loophole is
>also covered.

Not completely covered: Norman constructed the example

Kf6 Qe5 g5 / Kh8 Rb7 Bh5 Nb8

where White to move "wins" with 1.g6?! Nd7+ 2.Kf7+ Nxe5++ and now
after 3.g7+!!? White, presumably no longer in check since the Kf7
is thrice attacked, mates after Kh7 4.g8Q+ Kh6 5.Qg7#.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Date: 13 Oct 1992 00:19:44 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: coltexo.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Oct13.031256.9496@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:

>I really doubt that Fischer cares at all about the FIDE
>title.  You can just as easily reverse the two names and make an
>equally valid argument:  Fischer will only play whomever he deems
>worthy as a challenger for HIS title.  If Kasparov want to prove he
>is the best in the world, he can come to Fischer and  negotiate
>terms for a match.  (Rather, he can come to Fischer and accept
>terms for a match.)

Hmm.  Charlemagne tried to refuse the crown the Pope offered because
any crown the Pope could give he could as easily take away.  Fischer
accepted FIDE's crown.  That's the only one he ever won, as far as I
know.

At present I suspect Kasparov could beat Fischer pretty easily.
There would be a lot of money in such a match.  There would be a lot
of publicity, probably including a ghostwritten book contract, which
again would be worth a lot of money.  And he would clear up any
questions about who is the best living chessplayer.  *Those* are the
reasons I expect Kasparov to agree to such a match.  I can't imagine
why Fischer would.

Although he played few games, Fischer of 1970-'72 was the most
remarkable chessplayer I have ever seen.  I would dearly love to see
him recover that form.  *Then* I think Kasparov would have reason
not to play a match.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 15 Oct 92 07:39:33 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <Bw2zpF.73z@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, turo1953@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Arthur Pomeroy) writes:
> Perhaps we should ask that players making comments on this topic also post
> their ELO rating.
...
> Personally, I like games with
> clear strategic plans carried out with precision -- and this is usually
> Fischer's strength. Tactics are a bonus.
> As to whether Fischer dominated chess from 1967 on, it is clear that the
> claim is not unreasonable. Statistics don't show everything (otherwise 
> Portisch would appear to dominate with his numerous tournament wins in
> the period!). I think a case could be made out for Larsen being almost 
> as important at this time -- unfortunately he never did well in the world
> championship matches. 
...
> Art Pomeroy

And then he doesn't post his Elo rating!

-- 
James Annan.
                [--------------------------------------]
                [  "The only good Tory is a lavatory"  ]
                [--------------------------------------]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Dying during a game
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:06:28 GMT

In article <BORIS.92Oct14002039@math30.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de>, boris@math30.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Boris Hemkemeier) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct7.105729.25859@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mapmef@gdr.bath.ac.uk (M E Fletcher) writes:
|>    I've never seen anyone die during a game but a few months ago I saw
|>    someone slide onto the floor having an epileptic fit during a tournament.
|> 
|> Two times I saw someone beginning to die during a chess game. That's
|> not funny. We called an ambulance, but it was only an matter of days.
|> Okay, two old men, but it was really shocking for us.
|> 
|> PS: They lost their last game.

	About two years ago a strong player in my postal
	organization (APCT) died.  Since his death he's won
	several postal tournaments.  I wonder how it felt to
	his family, receiving these little cheques (postal prizes
	are not large) while going through the grieving process?


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:01:27 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct14.005143.29396@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:

>[I agree with the article. Just a little correction:]

>  Do you think Botvinnik, out of chess
>for longer than Fischer, could even make it to an interzonal?

I think Botvinnik has not been out of chess longer than Fischer. In 1970, he
was still on the USSR team (10 boards) against the rest of the world. 
Considering his character, I doubt that he quit suddenly, so I bet he played 
later than 1972.

Not that it matters now, when he is 81 years old...

	Sven
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Kudos to David Fry!
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:21:42 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

tycchow@athena.mit.edu (Timothy Y Chow) writes:

>I think David Fry deserves a standing ovation for his up-to-the-minute
>coverage of the F-S match!

>Tim Chow

I agree
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Draw-offer etiquette? (Re: wusses)
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:01:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct14.000147.16373
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <Bw32op.KzD@acsu.buffalo.edu>
comfrank@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Frank Tutzauer) writes:
>
>Much later, I got into a lost QR vs. R endgame.  I offered a draw;
>he refused, and I said you're right it's probably lost, but I don't
>see how, so mind if I ask you to prove it to me by playing it out?
>Well, he did. :-(

I suppose it was Q vs. R (or QR vs. RR).  In his _60 Memorable Games_
Fischer suggests that in inferior but probably drawn positions it's
something of a breach of etiquette to offer a draw, presumably
because the better-placed player can always offer a draw (which
quite certainly would be accepted) if he's not making progress,
and will not accept one if he believes there's still a chance for
a win.  [This is *not* a flame at your draw offer; Fischer's note
comes after making such a draw offer himself, and if Fischer could
do it one can hardly fault us ordinary mortals for a similar faux pas.
(The TD might rebuke you, though, for talking to your opponent about
your game while it's still in progress.)]

I suppose one might make an exception for a "tactical" draw offer where
either you see that in a few moves your position will become obviously
worse but think your opponent may not yet be aware of it, or conversely
to tempt the opponent to decline and overestimate his position and
"play for a loss" (I've twice dissuaded opponents from taking a
perpetual check with this ploy :-)).  Of course some may feel
that such a conscious attempt to use a draw offer for psychological
effect may be even more objectionable than Fischer's "breach of
etiquette"...

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
From: s9874203@titan.ucc.umass.edu (s9874203)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Xiangqi: Game #1
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:51:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: nic.Bvv5HL.5JC
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Oct8.041152.20158@nuscc.nus.sg> engp2063@nusunix1.nus.sg (NG CHEE MUN SIDNEY) writes:
>
>Below is a game which I played against GM Hu Rong Hua (Shanghai) and managed
>to get a creditable draw. Hu was in Singapore last year for 3 months as a
>coach. We invited him to come to N.U.S. for a simultaneous display. He played
>against 20 players on that day, and the total score was W16-D3-L1. During his
>stay in Singapore, Hu also played many blind-fold simul against many of our
>top players in Singapore.
>

[game record delelted]

Can I play the game using some software? Where can I get it?
From: mutchler@cs.utk.edu (David Mutchler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: teaching chess to young children
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:03:43 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
Originator: mutchler@duncan.cs.utk.edu


This question is directed to those of you who have had
experience teaching chess to young children.

My 7-year-old son has recently learned the rules of chess.
At this point, he does well to think one move ahead.
When he is thinking about his move, he likes to "try out"
a move, moving the piece back if he doesn't like how
things look, or releasing his hand from the piece if he
is satisfied with the move.  This habit seems to have:

  -- advantage: He seems to learn more from the game
        when he can experiment with his moves physically.
	His thinking is longer and more focused.

  -- disadvantage: He will have to break this habit
	once he starts to play competitively
	(in tournaments or whatever).

For such a beginner, is this habit a good or bad idea?
Also, I would welcome any other suggestions you might have
for teaching chess to young children.  Please reply directly
to me, and I will post a summary of responses.  Thanks!

   --- David Mutchler (a weak chess player)
From: erwg0233@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Erik Robert Wilson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: When Deep Thought Beats Kasparov...
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:26:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvtnJq.11v
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Peter Marko poses two questions (based upon a reading of the Scientific
American article about Deep Thought and computer chess)

1) Based upon a linear approximation in the improvement of USCF ratings
of computer chess programs, will computers surpass humans about 1997?

2) If another linear approximation is valid, i.e. an improvement in search
of 1/2 move (1 ply) in depth of search is equal to 200 rating points
improvement, then would Deep Thought II (14 ply) have a USCF of about
3400 and would a maximum rating be equivilant to 12500 (a 60 ply search)?

Others have gone on at length on this and related subjects, but I can't
help but add my own *opinions*.

I am making several assumptions

1) Chess is *probabley* not solvable as a "win for white" (or black), and 
there are many lines which lead to draws.  As the level of play improves,
the number of draws increases, therefor a (possibley invalid!) linear
approximation would indicate that perfect play would be all draws.

2) Even if chess is a "win for white", an inferior player (as white) could
make one or more minor errors and still achieve a draw against a perfect
opponent.

3) A very good human player (Kasparov) could play for a draw and make few
enough errors to ocassionally achieve a draw against a perfect opponent.

If I guess that Kasparov could achieve 15% draws against a perfect opponent,
then that opponent would only have a rating of about 3200 (FIDE, perhaps
3300 USCF?).  I am sure that this estimate could be off by hundreds of
rating points, but I doubt that it could be off by over 9000 points.

If the maximum rating is in the 3000s then the linear approximation must
break down at some point and the law of diminishing returns must set in.

I think that the linear approximation may also break down in calculating
the year that computers overtake humans.  If I had to guess, I would give
the nod to Kasparov in a match against the next generation Deep Thought
(although perhaps it could beat some of the other top players), but I would
also bet that the *next* generation machine could beat anybody.  I would
also bet that this would occur sometime in early in the next millenium.
I am guessing that an improvement from 10 to 14 ply (versus a perfect 60
ply?) would only go part of the way from a current 2500 (FIDE) to a maximum
rating (3200?) and that it would not go all the way to 2800.

O.K. back to usefull and sensible pursuits

						Erik Wilson
						University of Illinois Urbana
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: kirk@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu (Kirk Gunsallus)
Subject: Re: English (was book titles)
Organization: Alchemy International
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:26:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.012337.25451@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>
>How about: 1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5.  On 3.d3, I would consider **3...cxe4 *** 4.dxe4,
                                                               ^`
>exchanging a flank pawn for a center pawn.  Helps if you play the

I might consider it too if it were legal.  :-)


K
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pquince@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Quince)
Subject: An amused pquince comments on causality (was DT beats Kasparov)
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:38:31 GMT

sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:

>but then..

>           600  0
>           400 -1

>So, Deep Thought can play 400-level chess without knowing what the
>opponent has done...

No, I think -1 plies means that every time DT looks at the board it
thinks 'Where did all these pieces come from?  Where the hell am I?
How do I work this?  This is not my large CPU!  This is not my
beautiful knight!  Help Me, Spock!'  

And *then* it proceeds to calculate its own previous move.  Which 
requires different boundary conditions than the usual; the game 
must have already progressed n moves before it starts.  If the 
opponent is cooperating, the game will last n moves (until the
starting position is reached.)  

Otherwise the opponent will be playing as a normal chess player and
Deep Thought will be acting as an anti-chess player, moving backwards 
through time.  Oh, the physical implications alone are mind-boggling. 
Consider:  To determine Deep Thought's scattering cross section we
could either stuff it into the main beam line at SLAC or build
a catapult and toss it into a brick wall at 600 kph and weigh any 
fragments that bounce back.  And if it is sufficiently high (the
cross section, that is), then woe to anyone who dares play it!

pquince
--

"I thought that if I can do anything to make sure that George Bush doesn't get 
 elected again--up to and including shaking hands with Tipper Gore--I'll do it.
                      -Frank Zappa, LA Times 10/1/92
From: chuck@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Charles Rissmeyer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:39:58 GMT
Reply-To: chuck@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Charles Rissmeyer)
Organization: StPaul


I haven't read the complete thread on this solvability thing, so someone
may have already said this.  But, even if, someday, the solution to chess
is found so that one first move will eventually lead to a win no matter
what black may do, just make that move illegal.


Charles (Chuck) Rissmeyer    KE0VG
(612) 638-7669  (VP 652-7669) -  charles.rissmeyer@StPaul.NCR.COM
NCR - An AT&T Company             NCR  CCS-PM&S NPD St. Paul
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: FS2.16 TN?
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:53:23 GMT


7.Bh4 is a very unusual retreat. I am at my office and can't look
in my library, but 7.Bf4 and 7.Be3 are normal. The early g5 looks
to me like the reason that the 7.Bh4 move is not usually played.

Caveat: I haven't really checked transpositions. This is just a 
gut reaction. Interestingly, I recall a Larsen-Reshevsky game from
Santa Monica 1966 was somewhat similar, and I think Reshevsky
also defended the line at Sousse Interzonal, While Larsen was
Black in a Hastings game in the mid(?)-1980's. I'll look this
stuff up later, unless anyone else chimes in first.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
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
From: lumme@sara.cc.utu.fi (Mikael Lumme)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Users vs MChess
Date: 13 Oct 92 09:13:28 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland

In the game Users vs MChess the move of the
Users is 38. Re2.

 Game #2 so far:      1 e4   e5   13 OOO  Na6   25 Rxf8+ Kxf8  37 Qc4  Qf6
                      2 f4   ef   14 Nd4  Ng3   26 Qc2   Kg8   38 Re2
 8 - - - - - b k -    3 Nf3  d6   15 Bb5  Qe5   27 Qf5   g3
 7 - - p - - - r p    4 d4   g5   16 Rhe1 Nc5   28 Qd7   b5
 6 p - - p - q - -    5 h4   g4   17 Nb3  Nxb3  29 a3    b4
 5 - - - P - - - -    6 Ng1  f5   18 cb   a6    30 axb4  Qe7
 4 - P Q - - - - P    7 Bxf4 fe   19 Bd3  Bf5   31 Qg4   Qe3
 3 - P N - - - p -    8 Nc3  Nf6  20 Bb1  Rae8  32 Qd7   Re7
 2 - P K - R - P -    9 d5   Bg7  21 Bf4  e3    33 Qc8+  Bf8
 1 - - - - - - - -   10 Nge2 O-O  22 Bxe3 Bxb1  34 Kc2   Qf2+
   a b c d e f g h   11 Qd2  Nh5  23 Kxb1 Nf1   35 Rd2   Qf1
                     12 Bg5  Qe8  24 Rxf1 Qxe3  36 Qg4+  Rg7
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: 1992 U.S. Championship
Summary: Missing FIDE Ratings
Keywords: Browne Ivanov,Igor Sherzer
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:14:16 GMT

GM Walter Browne           2618        (***)
2000210;Browne, Walter S;g;USA;2515;22;19490110;M
IM Igor Ivanov             2616        (***)
2000288;Ivanov, Igor V;m;USA;2510;46;19470108;M
IM Alex Sherzer            2604        (***)
2000512;Sherzer, Alex;m;USA;2460;24;19710201;M
	
From the FIDE list on disk (nifty!)

--Elliott
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S: Many decisive games??
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:12:43 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <Bw0vvG.L29.2@cs.cmu.edu> berliner+@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Hans Berliner) writes:
>There have been queries about why there are so many decisive games
>in this match.

Well, are there?

F-S I was (not counted one game forfeited without play) +7 -2 =11.
F-S II is, so far, +7 -3 =8.

Not a huge difference. If we further remember that of the games Spassky lost,
he spent most part of two of them on the toilet (actually, on the way between
the board and the toilet), it looks even less strange.

Forget K-K matches. In tournaments with no adjournments, the percentage of
draws is not too high. As of recent matches, Short-Karpov was +4 -2 =4.

	Sven
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Subject: Lasker-Pelikan
Originator: jcbokar@c00575-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Keywords: Sicilian
Reply-To: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:42:43 GMT


Does anyone know if the Lasker-Pelikan has been refuted, and or what is the best line of play against this opening?
Thanks,    jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 17 moves 1-31
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:15:57 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 19:11 GMT
   Fischer Spassky
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 c5
   2. Nc3 Nc6
   3. Nge2 e6
   4. g3 d5
   5. exd5 exd5
   6. Bg2 d4
   7. Nd5 Nf6
   8. Nef4 Nxd5
   9. Nxd5 Bd6
   10. 0-0 0-0
   11. d3 Be6
   12. Nf4 Bf5
   13. h3 Rb8
   14. Bd2 Re8
   15. Re1 Rxe1+
   16. Qxe1 Qd7
   17. g4 Re8
   18. Qd1 Bxf4
   19. Bxf4 Be6
   20. Qf3 Nb4
   21. Qxb7 Nxc2
   22. Rc1 Qxb7
   23. Bxb7 Nb4
   24. Be4 Bxa2
   25. Bd2 Bd5
   26. Bxd5 Nxd5
   27. Rxc5 Nb6
   28. Kf1 f6
   29. Ra5 Re7
   30. Bb4 Rd7
   31. Bc5 Kf7
From: wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer's Knights
Date: 10 Oct 1992 03:29:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pal.ucsc.edu


Is it just my imagination, or has anybody else been noticing
how often Fischer is keeping his Knights together in most of
the games so far?  It's as if Rain man were playing...

And he also seems to want to Castle as rapidly as humanly
possible.

-wj



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess