HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Promoting to a B
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:51:03 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <14494@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>Constructing a position where a Bishop motion wins and a Queen stalemates is
>fairly easy.  A harder task is a position where a Bishop wins and a Queen
>loses.
>
>This type of position exists, but you're not very likely to have it arise in
>your next game....

How about this one:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   | N | N | Q | K |   |*k |   | 8
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| P |   | B | P | P |*p | P |*p | 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   | P | 6
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   | R | 5
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   | R | 4
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 3
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 2
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 1
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
  a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h

With one additional little condition:  White has one
second left on his clock and there aren't any extra white
queens available :-)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: chinook
Keywords: update
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:03:26 GMT

In article <21189@optima.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.151435.19918@cs.UAlberta.CA>, janet@cs.UAlberta.CA (Janet Service) writes:
>|> The results for Wednesday were 4 draws.
>|> 
>|> Tinsley is leading 16.5 points to 15.5.  Today is a rest day
>|> there will be 4 games played on Friday and 4 on Saturday.
>|> 
>|> Janet
>
>
>This brings up a question for chess programmers:
>
>If Tinsley were behind a point, he might play more dangerously
>because he needed a win.  Being ahead, perhaps he will adopt
>a safer line, or a more conservative playing style.  This comes
>up all the time in tournaments.
>
>Do any of the programs have information about their standings?
>Do they react to the information?
>Some programs have "aggression" or "style" parameters; is it
>customary to adjust these depending either on the opponent or
>the current tournament standings?
>Do any programs have information about their opponent?  His
>rating, or playing style?   Whether the opponent is another
>computer?
>

They should.  Chesstech types have discussed something called the
"discernibility factor" as one such idea.  The gist would be to
know something about who you are playing (and how they compare
with you in rating, etc.)

An example.  At the 1984 US open, we were playing in the speed
event at Pasedena.  After having beaten several masters, IM's,
etc, we were playing an 1800 player and Cray Blitz sac'ed its
queen for an inexplicable reason when it appeared to be winning
material.  Gutman (Korchnoi's second) said "machine make horrible
blunder."  After we lost (pretty quickly, being a queen down) I
asked him what he would have done, and reset Cray Blitz to that
position but playing the 1800 player's side.  He suggested simply
"take the rook and win easily."  I entered that move and cray
blitz promptly announced a mate in 11 in less than one second.
He was amazed.  I was sickened...... Cray Blitz chucked it's
queen to avoid this mate in 11.... and playing an 1800 player
that wouldn't have seen it in 5 minutes much less 5 seconds or
so.  (remember that Gutman [sp?] didn't see it either and he was
a GM....)  Shouldn't the program say "wait a minute, I will get
mated in 11 or else sac my queen, but, I don't think an 1800 player
can find this mate...  since I'm gonna sac my queen, I'll probably
lose anyway, so I'll take the rook and run (and hope...)"

This same idea carries over to time trouble, etc, but most programs
simply "dont know nor care"  Many times our computer opponents have
gotten into time trouble (serious trouble sometimes) and Cray Blitz
obligingly takes 3 minutes to make it's move giving them plenty of
time to find a move on our time......  Seems pretty stupid.

These ideas will find their way into programs, but they are pretty
"speculative" in nature.

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jonas@beor.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Josef Nelissen)
Subject: Fischer/Spassky Result Game 2
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik  /  RWTH Aachen
Date:  4 Sep 92 07:34:17 GMT

According to our german "Videotext" it has been a draw after 59 moves

-- 
Josef Nelissen, Lehrstuhl fuer Angewandte Mathematik, insbesondere Informatik;
RWTH-Aachen, 5100 Aachen, Germany, Tel. 0241/8021060
jonas@beor.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
** In the beginning was the word, 2 bytes long, aligned on an even boundary. **
From: harryf@vax.oxford.ac.uk (~)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic - stop posting to rec.games.go please
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:08:27 GMT
Organization: Dept of Engineering Science, University of Oxford

In article <12652@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, prj91@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Paul James) writes:
> 
> I don't think most people think "strategic" = "war agme", I believe
> they think that wargames are a SUBSET of stratergy games, just as
> chess go etc are a different subset. However spilting rec.games.board
> into these two subsets or any other way is a waste of time,
> considering the group only gets about 20 posts a day. If you can't
> 'wade' through 20 posts , ignoring those that don't interest you, you
> are definitely in the minority, especially as 95% of all posts have
> descriptive subject lines.

Please note that I am replying to a message that I read on `rec.games.go' and
that has been cross-posted to:

   rec.games.chess
   rec.games.go
   rec.games.board
   news.groups

As far as I know the whole thread has been posted to at least these 4 groups. 
Please check the headers before posting a follow-up (see the "Netiquette
Guide").

I believe that none of the postings would have been of interest to either
`rec.games.chess' or `rec.games.go' readers who were not _also_ interested in
`rec.games.board'.  In other words any readers of `rec.games.chess' or 
`rec.games.go' who want to read such messages can simply read them on
`rec.games.board'.  The other side of the coin is that they need not, and I
believe should not, appear on the 2 more specific groups.  Emily Postit's
`Netiquette Guide' discourages cross-posting.   

As for `wading' through 20 postings:

I am a reader of several 10's of newsgroups.  What matters to me is that the
_proportion_ of messages in which I am interested is sufficiently high for me
to read the newsgroup regularly -- if the proportion is too low, either I am
obliged to kill all messages not within a narrow band (a pity this, and
difficult to get right!) or I stop reading the group.  When I register for a
newsgroup with a very specific range (such as `rec.games.go') it is frustrating
to find messages that not only _could_ have been posted on a more appropriate
newsgroup (`rec.games.board'), but actually have been posted there!

Paul James should be aware that some people who subscribe to more than one
newsgroup containing the same message may have news reading software which
means that they have to `skip' (or `read') the  message on all of the
newsgroups -- this is an added nuisance.

To everybody:

Please, please read Emily Postit's "Netiquette Guide" 

Thank you

Hary Fearnley
  
================================================================================
Harry Fearnley, Dept of Engineering Science, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PJ, UK 
JANET : HARRYF@UK.AC.OX.VAX
================================================================================
From: v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: computers that intentionally slip up (was Re: chinook)
Keywords: update
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:10:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug28.184033.3283@ists.ists.ca>, sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin) writes...

<quotes of quotes of quotes deleted>

>If I were put in a position where I had a choice between a sure loss
>(mate in 11), and a dreadful board position (down a queen) I would 
>consider two steps:
> 
>(1) What is the possibility of getting a stalemate?
>(2) There's no stalemate possible?  Ok, I resign.

Just curious:  would you go so far as to resign in this situation
when your game was otherwise won?  E.g., your're a GM, your opponent
is rated 1300, you're up a rook, but then you realize that he's got
a mate in 11 -- and you are quite sure he doesn't see it.  I don't
mean to ask this in an accusatory fashion--I'm just curious about
how much of a matter of principle this is to you.

Michael G
Dept Philo
SUNY-Buffalo
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Boycott
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:20:42 GMT

In article <1811h6INNfr3@function.mps.ohio-state.edu> jgolds@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey A Golds) writes:
| 
| It seems to me that people who are opposed to the Fischer-Spassky match
| are opposed simply because of the U.N. sanctions...  That's kinda like
| saying I'm opposed to speeding because it's illegal.

Well, no it isn't.  Without falling into yet another non-chess quagmire
of disputation, I would merely like to point out that these issues fall
within the purview of foreign policy.  Foreign policy is one of the areas 
of responsibility of the federal government.  

| Look, just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.  

And just because something is legal doesn't make it right.  Should
everybody take the law into their own hands or should we (in general)
allow established authority to act in accordance with our constitutional
principles of government?  In principle, if one wants to live in a civil 
society then one should generally abide by the law or work to change it 
if one disagrees with it.

| I can think of many things
| that are illegal for no real reason.

That is, things that are illegal for no reason with which you agree.

| Even some police officers think this way...

Well, it looks like the perspicacity of government officials only seems 
to be suspect when their conclusions differ from our own.  Why am I not 
surprised?  ;-)


Regards,

-- 
Will Bralick                          |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
             wbralick@afit.af.mil     |  we must proportion our efforts to 
             bralick@cs.psu.edu       |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: haddad@pa.dec.com (Ramsey Haddad)
Subject: Re: Spassky-Fischer  game2
Organization: DEC Western Research Lab, Palo Alto, CA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 16:53:31 GMT

In article <eXTJqB1w164w@wharf> ben@wharf.UUCP (Bob Fischer) writes:
>
>[E80 Samisch Variation]
>Spassky-Fischer
>Game 2    9/3/92
>37.Bxe5+ Kg6

Being a little unfamiliar with the rules of this notation, could someone
explain to me why the disclosed check "Kg6" is not written as "Kg6+".  Do
disclosed checks not count?

-- 
Ramsey Haddad <haddad@decwrl.dec.com>
speaking for myself.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rjones@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rex A. Jones)
Subject: Re: Bobby teaches but did he write?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 19:10:54 GMT

dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>> 
>>>In previous posts people have often recommended "Bobby Fischer teaches 
>>>chess," as an outstanding book. I'm curious what people know about this 
>>>book. Did Bobby write it himself? Is it an "as told to" book? Or did he 
>>>just give his name to it. I'd like to know his level of involvement in the 
>>>project.
>> 
>>>rlwilliams@gallua
>> 
>> This was my first chess book! Its pretty old, and I even think out of 
>> print (I've been keeping an eye out for it ever since I lost it). It was an 
>> excellent book, probably because it was in the form of quick problems rather 
>> than books (also excellent) but require the extra effort of taking out a 
>> chess board. 
>> 
>> I'm pretty sure Bobby "wrote" the book himself (inverted commas because 
>> there's not much writing - almost zero, in fact - (and consequently as much 
>> reading) there is just one position per page and the solution on the next 
>> page.
>> 
>>
It's in print, and you probably can pick it up at a Waldenbooks or B. Dalton.
I've seen it at my local Waldenbooks everytime I've gone in...

>actually, i think that bobby wrote it because i can't see him using
>a ghost writer...doesn't sound like bobby.

>i actually hated the book and consider it next to worthless as a chess
>teacher, but ironically i consider the best chess book i've ever had
>and learned the most from is

>Bobby's 60 Memorable Games...god, that books great.

>if you want bobby teaches chess, then you can most likely pick it up
>at a library and then conveniently "lose" it and pay the 5 bucks.

>i've seen it at most libraries so this shouldn't be a problem.
> 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: fischer match coverage
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:47:02 GMT

Telechess has an advertisement in the August issue of
Inside Chess.

Phone number: 1-900-988-0078
The info line: Ext 664, "round by round updates on all the action"
The game line: Ext 565, "Don't miss a single move"

Average call two minutes.  $2.00 per minute.  Touch tone phone.
Under 18 requires parental consent.

------------

I'm not in any way associated with Telechess.
From: albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Spassky/Marshall
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:40:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: hplwk.9209031840.AA08318


>From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper):

>Judging from the first game, Fischer didn't seem to be too worried about
>meeting the Marshall, but I don't recall ever seeing Spassky play it (I might
>be wrong).  Anyone who says it's no big deal that Fischer's playing again
>should consider that he might have some answers to questions like this one...

uh, i haven't looked at hte marshall in a good while, but
isn't the main line of the Marshall still the Spassky Variation?

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
From: peake@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer anti-time pressure chess clock?
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:28:37 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <7395@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
> I read in the Independent newspaper this Sat that Fischer has
> invented a new kind of Ches clock that (among other things)
> lets you avoid running out of time near the end.  This doesn't
> make much sense to me.  Anyway, does anyone know anything about
> this?
> 
> -- jd
I think he wants a time control that gives you an extra two minutes for
every move you make.  this sounds like a pity, because when i played
at school, I found the blitz just before the time control concentrated the
mind wonderfully.

-Michael 
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6617 rec.games.go:1759 rec.games.board:8378 rec.games.programmer:3694
From: mdobbins@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Michael Dobbins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Strategic games, computational cost & implications
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:27:53 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Devon Engineering Offices

In article <1992Aug28.130329.3793@desire.wright.edu> jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Although I have never played go, it sounds to me that we are talking
>about two seperate things.  Without meaning to start an arguement, I'd
>say chess is more a more complex game, while go might be (I've never played
>remember) a more difficult game.  I have somewhat arbitrarily choosen
>these words but it seems that go has simplier moves and rules but has
>more total postions and games.

You have never played go?  Have you looked at the underlying principles
for a digital computer?  2 state memory (0 or 1) plus 2 or 3 logic gates
(nand, nor, not).  Simple rules which can create vast levels of
complexity.  We can even use the computer programs that play chess and
go to measure relative complexity.  Which is a more complex program, one
which plays chess and beats a top world level chess player or one which
plays go and beates a top world level go player.  I beleive we have a
handle on the chess program. The go program is still a dream.

If you have never played go, how can we take your opinion about go
seriously?   Play and study go seriously for about a year and then come
back and tell us what you think about the complexity of go.

Mike, 7kyu (a chess player who quit playing chess when I
discovered go)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: leyfre@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Frederic Leymarie)
Subject: Re: Fischer,UN,Boycott,Morals -- anything missing??
Originator: leyfre@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 15:39:05 GMT


In article <14810@mindlink.bc.ca>, Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca 
(Peter Stockhausen) writes:
|> Like many, I have read, and enjoyed many postings regarding the
|> match between Fischer and Spassky. Literally hundreds of them in
|> the last few weeks. Arguments to no end, is Fischer right, wrong,
|> immoral, irresponsible and so on and so on.

|> Since however a chess match does require at least two competitors
|> I am just amazed that nobody seems in the least bit interested
|> in speculating about Mr. Spassky's standing in all this.

|> Oh well, just an idle thought.....

|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|>    Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, here are some thoughts:

(1) Is France supporting the event (and Spassky) ??

Spassky is a French citizen. France has been supportive of the Serbs
in the past. Surprisingly (?!) France has not complained, as far as I know,
about Spassky participating in this match in contradistinction to the USA
with Fischer.

(2) Are the Serbs evil ?? (or are they the ONLY ones with no heart ?!)

In the media -- well, at least over here in Canada + USA -- the Serbs have
been portrayed as the bad guys. Not much has been said about the Croats and
Muslim factions which are also involved in the killings.

Who is attacking the UN soldiers in Sarajevo ? The Serbs ? The Muslims ?
The Croats ? Who has the most to win in having the UN sending fighting
troops in ex-Yugoslavia ?

During WWII who killed thousands of Serbs with the help of Germany ? Maybe
some people are having a hard time to forget the past (again), while others
are just doing the contrary ...

(3) Another chance for Spassky to be part of the legend (and ease his
    future -- with no too much risks ?)

Spassky went in the (chess) history books as the last GM to be crushed
by Fischer. He will now also be the one who brought (us) back Fischer to
(the real !) life: competitive chess (especially if looses badly while
playing brilliantly !... ;-)

This match will also certainly bring lots of dividends in the future for
Spassky (e.g., invitations to tournaments -- as a celebrity, demands for
publishing his memoirs, ...).

Running a low profile in this tournament might be is best strategy; those
who want to be angry about this match will hit hard on Fischer (who is probably
just asking for it) ... and will probably forget who the other chess player
was !

--
There you go!
-- 
Frederic Leymarie -- leyfre@mcrcim.mcgill.edu
McGill University, Electrical Eng. Dept., McRCIM,    |	Tel.: (514) 398-8204
3480 University St., Montreal, QC, CANADA, H3A 2A7.  |	FAX:  (514) 398-7348
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Reply-To: nolan@helios.unl.edu
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:26:07 GMT

mginsbur@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg) writes:

>The more I think about the Cozio Defense piece winning the CJA award,
>the more steamed I get.  [Steam omitted]

>I ask again for an explanation.  Was it the cuteness of the father & son
>team?  [blah blah blah]

I cannot speak for the judges.  Two of them, Hanon Russell and Chris Chabris,
are active here on rec.games.chess and may certainly explain their own decisions
if they choose to.  BTW, I wasn't aware that the Shipmans were father and son
myself, but then I'm not from the Northeast nor all that frequent a reader of
Chess Horizons.  I did assume they were related, but related chess players
is not all that big a deal.

I don't have the complete list of nominees here at the moment, it is possible 
that the pieces you thought were better weren't nominated.  [I will send you 
the complete list of articles nominated.  I will NOT tell you how individual
judges voted.]

As chief judge I didn't do the nominations, the authors, editors, and other 
CJA members did.  I view the job of chief judge as an adminstrative function, 
making sure nominated pieces were eligible [eligibility does not imply award
worthiness, as Mark is so intent on saying], arranging for judges, organizing 
and shipping the 150+ articles and publications nominated to the judges, all 
of whom had a LOT less time than they probably would have liked to do their
judging, collecting the results, etc.  I did participate in the judging on
one category (best interview) because Hanon Russell was one of the nominees.

Mark, I know you know how to make nominations, because you and Joel nominated
several pieces from Chess Chow.  (And not always the ones that *I* thought 
were your best in those categories, I an delighted to add!)  So if you see
something you think is worthy of nomination in '93, please nominate it,
even if it isn't from Chess Chow!

Oh, and I look forward to the forthcoming spoof of the CJA awards in Chess
Chow.  Will you nominate it for 'best humorous article' in 1993?  (Or better
yet, print our press release verbatim and nominate THAT!)

Mike Nolan
Another Lousy 'C' Player
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: sneaky Nimzo-Indian?
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:15:42 GMT


What you call a sneaky NI may turn into a variation of the Ragozin
variation of the QGD.  There is in fact a GM game in the most recent
issue of INSIDE CHESS with precisely this move order. (Black won)