HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: King's Indian question
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:30:57 GMT


Re: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Be2 0-0 6 Bg5 h6 7 Be3 e5 8
dxe5 dxe5 9 Qxd8 Rxd8 10 Nd5 Na6 11 Nxf6+ Bxf6 12 Bxh6

Instead of your ... Nb4 I suggest ... Nc5 when White's best is probably
to give the extra pawn back immediately with 13 Nf3.  After instead
13 f3 (to try to keep the pawn) Black can play 13 ... g5 forcing an
immediate h4.  White can probably win the pawn on h4 but in the mean
time Black develops very easily and has more than enough for the pawn.

I'd be happy to play this line as Black.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen)
Subject: Re: WHAT'S WITH BOBBY?!?!?!?!
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:57:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.093845.11171@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> schoof@dec8.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.dbp.de (Jochen "Joscho" Schoof) writes:
>From article <1992Sep9.181523.9899@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, by dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu:
>[some lines deleted]
>> i might have to restate my prediction....
>> 
>> spassky 10
>> fischer 2
>> 
>> don wedding
>
>Aaaah! Seems we're getting serious again. Maybe it won't be 10-2, but I
>start believing Boris can really do it. In my opinion he simply
>underestimated Fischer in the first games, but now he knows he can not
>do too easily.

Well F. has not played that bad. He playes just like I
(games 3-5) and noone can claim me not to be a brilliand
blunderer!

Moves with tempo losts like Be7-Bc5, b6-b5, Rc1-Rb1
Seem to be fawoured by F. This is to be chess of THE
NEXT GENERATION?

To be serious: F's games (excluding the first one) have been
strange. It seems as if there are two F:s that are fighting for
the piece-positioning. But this is easilly explained by the fact that
F is a kind of psychopath (how do you spell it?)??

Poor F. It would have been nice to have a legend of The Unbeatable 
Man. Now it crushes. And the consequenses may be disastroys 
for F's mind heatlh.

Antti

P.S. I here grinning. It must be Kasparov!
From: cb@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess via modem between two people?
Date: 6 Sep 92 12:49:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: wixer.1992Sep6.124947.17529
Organization: Real/Time Communications

In article <1992Sep3.123456.1187@dazixco.ingr.com> dheyser@dazixco.ingr.com (Doak Heyser) writes:
>
>   Is there any program out there that will allow two people to play
>chess with each other via modem?  Any help greatly appreciated.  Thanks.
>

SUre... any particular platform you're interested in, or possibly
platform independant?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky Prediction
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
     <18qpdtINN371@iraul1.ira.uka.de>
     <1992Sep11.194857.16500@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:11:16 GMT

Re: Fischer-Spassky Prediction

With Spassky officially rated at 2560 (thanks to the replies), he may as
well be performing at 2600 against Fischer given that his motivation is
probably much higher than usual.

As for Fischer, he may have lost somewhat more than 40 points due to
inactivity (or less!), but certainly not 150-200.  This is difficult to
judge; however, 40 seems to be a good guess.

I still predict 10-3 for Fischer in 26 games (current score is 3-2 in 8
games).

-------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko  .....  (613)763-5344  .....  pmarko@bnr.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: Michael_Ledet@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Michael Ledet)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Pawn Power In Chess
Distribution: world
Date: 11 Sep 92 07:41:47 CST
Organization: The Amiga GateWay BBS * New Orleans, La.

I just bought "Pawn Power In Chess" by Hans Kmoch and would appreciate any
comments of the quality and or usefulness of this book in furthering ones
chess knowledge.  I am rated about 1600 USCF, so should I put this book
aside for now and stick to tactics?  All comments appreciated.

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess



   FYI, your list of moves for Spassky seems to have moves 7 and 8 in
   reverse order, at least according to the published results from
   USA Today...   Move 7 is the pawn advance, 8 is the castle.

   --nsf
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer not among top players anymore
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:30:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1992Sep11.162904.15428@osf.org> ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum) writes:

> Indeed, I too believe that if Spassky was motivated he could be rated among
> the top 10 or so GMs again. He's still in the top 1/4 of GMs, and he's lazy
>and unmotivated! But although he doesn't win as much as he used to, he's still
> regarded as a tough GM for anybody to have to beat. Now he's motivated a lot
  by the 2 million + $$ he'll receive by beating Fischer rather than losing.
> So, Spassky is playing better than I imagine almost anyone in the world could
> do versus Fischer these days. I know I'm certainly rooting for him!!

That's one big if in the match. Everyone is so caught up in estimating how 
well Fischer can/is playing, that Spassky's level of play is receiving too
little attention. If Spassky is well motivated (he certainly is enjoying him-
self), his level of play might be considerably higher than his recent 
results might predict.

Fischer could probably contend again if he was willing to spend time in the
trenches. I consider this unlikely.

Paul
From: pals@ipact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Prononciation Of Names
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:21:31 CDT
Organization: IPACT, Valparaiso IN

In article <Bu9uv1.673.2@cs.cmu.edu>, nash+@cs.cmu.edu (Richard Nash) writes:

> Anyway, to get the ball rolling... 
> I can't pronounce (or in some cases spell) these...
> 
> Pirc - I've always used PERK, but I am told it is PURSE. Which is right?

I remember reading it as "peertz".  

> Ruy Lupez - Roy Lou-Pez?

I thought it was "Ree ....

Some years back Andy Solits had a column on pronunciation.  I'll look it
up in my self-made _Chess Life_ index and post.

-- 
Randy Pals                |pals@ipact.com
IPACT, Inc.               |
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: QGAs in Fischer-Spassky? missed one
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 06:05:18 GMT

In article <MegLEgK00awSM6oEtZ@andrew.cmu.edu> "Clifford T. Tanaka" <ct20+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.chess: 10-Sep-92 QGAs in
>Fischer-Spassky? mi.. James H. Coombs@ivan.uuc (168)

>> As I understand it, Fischer and Spassky have played two QGAs.  I have
>> the second, Game 6, but I missed the first QGA.  Could someone send me
>> the moves?  Thanks.  --Jim

Thanks to the people who sent me the games.

>I don't think you should even bother looking at game 6.

Just did, and I'm not sure that it was worth the time.  Still I do have
questions, and I will post those separately.

>Why is he playing the QGA anyway?

Good question.  And why is Spassky exchanging Queens so quickly?  As I
get it, Black equalizes quickly.  ECO, Fine, and Zarkov seem to agree
on this.  Is Spassky pulling Fischer's teeth?  If so, then Fischer
seems to be giving him the opportunity.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Estimating Playing Strength of Computers (was: Re: Rating of
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:05:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.195409.10020@bnr.ca> Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca> writes:

>Although I am not up on computer chess, your comment about "subtract[ing]
>100 points for every 50% reduction in time" intrigued me.  How did you
>arrive at this rule of thumb?

I got it from ICD's catalog.  I don't recall seeing it in CCR, but it
may be in one of those issues as well.  I don't whether their
derivation is mathemetical or experiential.

>According to Mr. Elo, one class (200 points) difference amounts to 3.17
>times playing strength, so 100 points would equal the square root of
>that, or 1.78.  This is not far from a factor of two.  About 120 points
>of difference gives twice (or half) the power.

I'm not mathematically sophisticated.  Would you explain (or cite the
para.  in Elo) why you take the square root of 3.17 to arrive at the
relative playing strength when you cut the rating difference in 1/2?

Also, are you suggesting that the proper figure would be 120 and not
100?

>In another article, you give Zarkov's tournament (40 moves in 2 hours)
>performance at 2300, and its blitz (60 moves in 5 minutes) performance at
>about 1800 (on a certain machine at a certain speed).  (This is from
>memory, so please excuse me if the numbers are incorrect.)  Given 36
>times more time (180 minutes vs. 5 minutes for 60 moves), the difference
>in theory is 620 points, so your estimate (500) is pretty good.

I just used my fingers and went in the reverse direction:

	Secs per move	Rating
	180		2300
	90		2200
	45		2100
	22.5		2000
	11.25		1900
	5.625		1800

>The other question is, of course, whether giving a computer twice the
>speed would improve its play by a factor of two.

ICD says increasing the time per move above 180 seconds does not
significantly increase the performance of the program.  Just from
watching programs on machines of very different power, I can see that
the they reach a state of computational explosion.  Basically, you find
that 1/2 an hour later, it is still working on the move that it reached
after 5 minutes or so.  (And I don't mean "same ply"; I mean same
candidate move.)

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: stcak@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: <None>
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:11:49 GMT

I was wondering if anybody could send me a computer chess game. The 
computer I have has only a monochrome monitor. I was hoping for
a game that could fit on one 360K floppy disk and only requires
a monochrome monitor. I am not after striking graphics (as my
 monitor indicates) but just a good chess game where I can play
 the computer at different levels, from exceptionally easy to
 pretty hard. 
	I would really appreciate somebody sending me the chess.exe
file so that I could put it on disk and run it.
I thank you very much in advance.

Craig.
Dept. of Statistics,
Newcastle University,
Australia.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Rod Malpert <ram4@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Re Cancel "Interesting endgame"
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17: 32:51 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: ram4@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:28:11 GMT

Please excuse the error and see the original thread.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: reynolds@physics.ucla.edu (Reynolds)
Subject: Re: fischer-spassky
Organization: UCLA Department of Physics
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 22:00:47 GMT

In article <BuBwxJ.1wv@cs.dal.ca> hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.181559.28959@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, bwatkins@nyx.cs.du.edu (The God of all machines) writes:
>|> 
>|> Indeed, the USA has wonderfull policies of allowing several open
>|> tournaments' winners to play in its zonal.  I do not believe FIDE
>|> requires this.  An all draw record will not win anything for you, how
>|> ever.  It is certainly possible to fill up top spots so that a superior
>|> player will never have a chance to play in the championships through
>|> corrupt bargains with other players to throw games or play to draws.
>|> 
>|> Witness the USSR's players keeping fischer out of the championship
>|> in the 60's.  "The Russians Fix World Chess"
>
>	You forgot to include the :-)  Or are you really paranoid
>	enough to believe this?
>
>					
>						Bill Hyde

Actually, many of the Soviets involved admitted later on that
they did (were told to) draw with other Soviets to save their
strength and to concentrate on beating `foreigners'.  I don't
have any specific reference, but I'm sure someone on the net
does.

Anthony Reynolds
reynolds@physics.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cmaddox@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Chuck Maddox)
Subject: Re: Fischer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:02:12 GMT

Rennan.Barkana@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Rennan Barkana) writes:

>Could someone give a few details about Fischer's childhood? I know nothing
>about it except for the indications in the current Chess Life that make
>me very suspicious...

I picked up the following last weekend, thus far it has been a very
interesting read:

Bobby Fisher: Profile of a Prodigy
By Frank Brady Copyright 1965, 1973 (updated edition)
Dover Books ISBN: 0-486-25925-0

435 Pages, 26 B&W Photo's $8.95 in USA

The book also includes 90 games with comments up through the 21st Game of
Fischer-Spassky 1.

Chuck
___________________________________________________________________________

    ___/         /  __  /   Chuck Maddox /// -- N9NON  
   /      /  /  /  __  /   cmaddox@imsasun.imsa.edu      (708)-801-6015  
_____/ __/__/__/ _____/   IL Math & Science Academy     Computer Technician 

From: nsf@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Neil Ferguson)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:13:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Fischer/Spassky Match on Prodigy Game 1 Final
Organization: RTFM Headquarters
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess




   FYI, USA Today has moves 7 and 8 for Spassky reversed from this
   listing.  Move 7 is the pawn advance, 8 is the castle.  (Probably
   not a big deal, but "thorough is thorough...")

   --nsf
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: Chess Clubs in San Francisco Area
Summary: Define "Area"?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution:     world
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:05:46 GMT

The most important club in the Bay Area is The Mechanics Chess Club,
located in the Mechanics Library on (I think) 57 Post just off Market.
It's open Noon to Midnight, roughly, but in any case details can be gotten
by calling, (415) 421-2258, and you'll either get a recording from Max
Wilkerson or be speaking to him.

There are various clubs down the peninsula, across the Bay a/o the Golden
Gate Bridge, if they are more pertinent provide details.  Email if you wish.

There are also a number of cafe's where chess is featured, although the
action ebbs and flows.

--Elliott
  Elliott Winslow IM
  ekw@world.std.com
  Assistant Editor
  Chess Life USCF
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pope@gold.kpc.com (John Pope)
Subject: Re: Fischer not among top players anymore
Organization: /nfs/gold/u/home/pope/.organization
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:25:41 GMT


>   It is now obvious; Fischer doesn't have it anymore...
>   I must confess that I was one of those convince that he would crush
>   his opponent in that match by about 9.5-4.5.  It seemed even more
>   obvious to me after the first 2 games where Fischer was just brilliantly

And maybe if he wins the next couple games, it will become "obvious"
to you that he really does still have it. Seriously, the guy has just
played his first few games after 20 years - wide variability in
quality isn't too surprising. Why are so many people in r.g.c ready to
jump to one conclusion or another after only 6 games?

>   throwing in an opening novelty that completely confused Spassky,
>   who not more than a second class grandmaster since a few years.

I think you (and several others who've posted here) are making a big
mistake about Spassky - he still knows more about chess than all
except the very top few players in the world. The fact that he is, by
his own admission, very lazy, is the main reason (aside from age) for
his less than sterling results of the past years. He still knows more
than most "first class" GMs ever will. In the latest New in Chess,
Nigel Short revealed that his first choice for someone to work with in
preparation for the Candidates cycle was Spassky for basically these
reasons.

--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: More name pronunciation
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:11:34 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Sep14.033412.18950@u.washington.edu>, harold@byron.u.washington.edu (Harold Bobroff) writes:
>    Has "Maroczy" yet been mentioned?  I've pondered that one for quite 
> some time.  Speaking of whom, I read a piece in a local rag which claimed
> that Viktor Korchnoi had recently defeated Maroczy in a match played via a
> medium of some sort!  According to the article, Maroczy died in 1951.  Is 
> this story for real? 

god, i hope that this isn't true. because if i could play some dead
chess player, i think i would pick an all time great.

hell, i think i would play philodor or morphy....maybe a few others

moroczy would be WAY DOWN on the list.


of course, maybe being dead affects your skills as a chess player and
moroczy is about the only one that was unaffected.

hard telling.



  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: olesen@math.uiowa.edu (Martin Olesen)
Subject: Re: Win for Bobby
Originator: olesen@walnut.math.uiowa.edu
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:23:49 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA


In article <5308@krafla.rhi.hi.is>, sigursig@rhi.hi.is (Sigurdur Pall Sigurdsson) writes:
|> Just came on the news that Bobby won game 7
|> 
|> Btw. I was in a lecture held by GM Margeir Petursson yesterday, but He
|> was in Sveti Stefan at the beginning of the match. The lecture was very
|> interesting but it was about the situation there, F and S and their
|> first games. It was quite amusing to hear about the press conference
|> where Bobby spit on the paper and took over that conference.
|> It was too amusing to hear about the sponsor and many other things that
|> you don't read in the press.
|> --
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> |  Sigurdur Pall Sigurdsson                Student of Computer Science    |
|> |  E-mail: sigursig@rhi.hi.is              at University of Iceland       | 
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



     Could you perhaps tell us about some of the things we don't
     read in the press?

                    Thanks,

                                 Martin Olesen
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Game 2: a good endgame to try a computer on?
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:55:47 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Sep6.222545.24397@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>Rennan.Barkana@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Rennan Barkana) writes:
>>the position after 58...Ra2 59.Ba3 Kc2! is won for Black even without
>>the a-pawn: 60.K(x)a4 Kc3 0-1.  If instead 59.Be5 Kc2 with the idea a3,
>>Kb1, R?2 (attacking the Bishop), a2.
>
>Sorry, give me another chance:
>After 58.... Ra2, play 59.Bc1 Kc2 60.Be3 a3 61.Bc5 Kb1 62.Kb3
>or 61.... Ra1 62.Ka4 a2 63.Ka3
>I hope I'm not missing another simple thing.

Hm.  It's a bit harder than I thought, but White still can't draw, because
The last variation again bags the pawn but lands in a lost B vs. R position:
63...Rb1 64.Kb5 Rb5 65.B- Ra5+ 66.Ka1 Ra8 67.Ka1 R:a3#.


--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept of Mathematics, Harvard University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Subject: Piket - Van Mil, analysis
Keywords: Lisitsin gambit
Reply-To: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Organization: University of Limburg, Maastricht
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 13:40:02 GMT

Some time ago, someone asked for analysis of the game Piket-Van Mil,
played in the Dutch Ch. I don't know if anybody reacted, but in case
nobody did, here it is. Enjoy!

Source  : Schaaknieuws 279, p. 25
Analysis: Jeroen Piket.

Jeroen Piket - Johan van Mil, 4th round Dutch ch.

1.Nf3 f5 2.e4
  	The Lisitsin gambit. It was played for the first time in
	Lisitsin - Botwinnik, in 1933.
2...fxe4 3.Ng5 d5 4.d3 Qd6
	According to the theory black's best move.
5.Nc3!?
	The surprise I had planned. This move was mentioned last year in
	'Inside Chess'. It was first published by Larry Christiansen in 1980.
5...h6 6.Nb5 Qc6!
	The only move. After the game Johan told me he had played this
	position before. Who surprises whom?
7.dxe4!
	7.Qh5 g6 8.Nxc7 Kd7 or 7.Nxc7 Qxc7 8.Qh5 Kd7 9.Nf7 Nf6 is bad for
	white.
7...hxg5 8.exd5 Qd7 9.Bxg5
	White has two pawns for the piece, and black has trouble
	developing his pieces.
9...a6 10.Nc3 e5!
	After a long thought Johan found the best defense. 10...e6 was bad
	because of 11.Bc4.
11.Bd3
	Threatening an unpleasant check at g6.
11...Be7 12.Qf3!
	White has to avoid trading of pieces.
12...Nf6
	12...Bxg5 is bad because of 13.Bg6.
13.Bg6 Kd8 14.h3
	Prevents Qg4.
14...Ne8!
	If black's knight reaches d6, black's king is out of danger and the
	initiative would go to black.
15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Bxe8!
	The hardest decision of the game, but the knight may not reach d6.
16...Kxe8
	16...Rxe8 17.0-0-0 with the threat of d5-d6 is good for white.
17.0-0-0 Qg5 18.Kb1 Bf5 19.g4 Bg6 20.d6 c6 21.h4! Qf6
	21...Rxh4 22.Nd5! and the complications seem to favour white.
22.Qe3
	22.Qxf6 gxf6 23.f4 and 22.Qe2 followed by 23.f4 were the alternatives.
22...Nd7 23.h5 Bf7 24.Rhe1?!
	24.b3! was the right move, and after 24...Be6 25.g5 Qf5 26.Rh4!
	white has the better chances. 24...Ne4 fails to 25.Qe6 and g4 is lost.
24...Be6 25.Ne4?!
	The plan white has chosen is not good. 25.f3 or even 25.f4!? Bxg4
	26.fxe5 Qe6 (26...Qh6 27.Qg3 Bxd1 28.e6) 27.Rd4 with complications
	would have been better.
25...Qh6 26.g5 Qxh5 27.Nc5 Qh3!
	I had only counted on 27...Qf7, after which 28.Nxd7 is very strong,
	because black has troubln recapturing it.
28.f3 Kf8! 29.b3 Re8 30.Nxb7 Qf5
	White still has two pawns for the piece, but the attack is gone.
	My only hope was our mutual time trouble...
31.Rd2 Rh3 32.Rf2 Qf4?
	32...g6 or 32...Kg8 and black has the advantage.
33.Qc3?
	33.Qxf4 exf4 34.Rfe2 directly would have been (more or less) the game.
33...Qd4? 34.Qxd4 exd4 35.Rfe2 Bf7
	35...Kf7 fails to 36.Rxe6 Rxe6 37.Nd8
36.Rxe8 Bxe8 37.Nd8!
	This position is, remarkably enough, a win for white.
37...Nc5? 38.b4 Na4 39.Ne6 Kg8 40.Nf4 Nc3 41.Kb2 Bd7 42.Nxh3 Bxh3 43.g6 Kf8
44.Rh1
	44...Be6 45.Rh8 Bg8 46.Rxg8 Kxg8 47.d7
1 - 0

Dennis Breuker
(breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: F-S II gossip
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:19:14 GMT

In article <9209142047.AA00624@econ.berkeley.edu> jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:
>
>In article 16334, fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:

>>Spassky followed up with the awful 33.Rc6? rather than *33.Rc3* which 

>I believe it was 33. Qc3 that DT II suggested.

Ouch!  I have spent about 2 hours already trying to find out what is
good about 33.Rc3---nothing!  33.Qc3 is certainly better, but I am
not yet convinced that S would have had all of the winning chances.

So far, I have only: 33.Qc3 Nxc1 34.Qa3.  Then Black cannot protect
both a3 and Nc1.  I see, Black is in deep.  Going to look into this
further though.  --Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,sci.language