HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Prononciation Of Names
Date: 13 Sep 92 07:34:50 GMT
Organization: Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden

In article <1152@mwuk.UUCP> tony@microware.co.uk (Tony Mountifield) writes:

> And how do you pronounce Euwe as in Dr. Max Euwe?

Should apparantly be pronounced as 'ervour' in 'fervour'.

-- 
Anders Thulin       ath@linkoping.trab.se 
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
From: ben@wharf.UUCP (Bob Fischer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S #6  complete moves
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:29:55 GMT
Organization: Fisherman's Wharf BBS  (215) 383-7245

I haven't seen this posted yet, so my apologies if it is a repeat!
                                                           -rjf

Game 6  09/10/92
Spassky-Fischer     1/2
[D27 Queen's Gambit Accepted]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.dxc5 Qxd1
8.Rxd1 Bxc5 9.b3 Nbd7 10.Bb2 b5 11.Be2 Bb7 12.Nbd2 Ke7 13.a4 bxa4
14.Rxa4 Rhb8 15.Rc1 Bd5 16.Ne5 Bd6 17.Nxd7 Nxd7 18.Rxa6 Rxa6 19.Bxa6 f6
20.Bc4 Bxc4 21.Rxc4 Nc5 22.Rc3 f5 23.Ba3 Ne4 24.Rc7+ Kd8 25.Bxd6 Nxd2
26.Rxg7 Rxb3 27.h4 h5 28.Bf4 Ke8 29.Kh2 Rb2 30.Kh3 Ne4 31.f3 Nf2+
32.Kg3 Nd3 33.Bg5 e5 34.Kh3 Nf2+ 35.Kh2 Nd3 36.Bh6 Ne1 37.Kg1 Nd3
38.Bg5 Rb1+ 39.Kh2 Rb2 40.Re7+ Kf8 41.Re6 Kg7 42.Kh3 Re2 43.Rd6 Ne1
44.Bf6+ Kg8 45.Bxe5 Rxe3 46.Bf4 Re2 47.Rg6+ Kf7 48.Rg5 Ke6 49.Bc7 Ra2
50.Bb6 Nd3 51.Kh2 Ne1 52.Kh3 Nd3 53.Bc7 Rc2 54.Bb6 Ra2 55.Kg3 Ne1
56.Rxh5 Rxg2 57.Kf4 Nd3+ 58.Ke3 Ne5 59.Rh6+ Kd5 60.Bc7 Rg7 61.Bxe5 Kxe5
62.draw


+--+       ben%wharf@canal.org                 | yes, Bob Fischer        +--+
+--+--+    uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!lock60!wharf!ben | is my real name!     +--+--+
   +--+--+                                     | No,               +--+--+   
Aiko  +--+ Fisherman's Wharf BBS (215)383-7245 | I'm just a phish  +--+  aikO
   
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.puzzles
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: NEW retrograde analysis chess problem (Ken solved it!)
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:29:25 GMT

     At first I thought Ken's answer was missing a step at the
end, but now I realize I was just misinterpreting how he phrased
it.  Well done, KEN!!

(BTW, it's in article <1992Sep13.015355.17694@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
by arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee).)

     Now, for extra points, say whether the position could have
arisen *at all* in a monochromatic game.  (It's fairly simple.)
John Tromp (tromp@cwi.nl) noted (though his analysis was
incomplete) that the question is still open whether Black can
castle on the *Queen*-side sometime in the future; just because
it's been a monochromatic game so far doesn't mean it will be in
the future!  So I guess I should have asked whether Black can
castle sometime in the future, too.  This involves the answer to
whether the position could have arisen.

     That position again:

>>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>| r | n |   |   | k |   |   | r |
>>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>| p |   | p |   | p |   |   |   |
>>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>|   |   | p |   | p |   |   | p |
>>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>|   |   |   |   |   | P |   | p |
>>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>|   |   |   |   |   |   | P |   |
>>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>| P | P |   |   |   |   | P |   |
>>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>| P |   |   | P |   | P |   |   |
>>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>| R | N |   |   | K |   | N |   |
>>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

>Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Rennan.Barkana@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Rennan Barkana)
Subject: Re: Game 2: a good endgame to try a computer on?
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Summary: Another try
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:25:45 GMT

>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.
>
>--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
>  Dept of Mathematics, Harvard University

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.

--Rennan Bar-Kana (barkana@steinhardt.hep.upenn.edu)
  Dept of Physics, University of Pennsylvania
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jglarson@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Johan Larson)
Subject: 2 neophyte questions
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 13:16:44 GMT

The following situation occured recently when I played white
against my computer.

r..q.rk.
ppp..ppp
..np.n..
..b.p...
..P.P.b.
.P.P.N..
P...BPPP
RNBQ.RK.

1. In the opening, I spent a lot of time building a pawn wall, 
beginning with the c4-d3-e4 triplet.  Unfortunately, in the midgame, 
I felt as though my knights and bishops were hampered rather than helped 
by my pawn structure.  Should I generally move out my minor pieces
before getting to work with pawns? ( I've enjoyed some success by bringing
out just the d and e pawns to d3 and e4. )

2. Is black's positioning of its bishop at g4 a strong move?
With Ph3, I can cause the computer to either Bh5 or Be6, 
but I break my castle in doing so; is Ph3 a good move in this situation?
-- 
Johan Larson
                    The net is packed with objectivists, anarchists, 
                    libertarians and self-appointed threats to the current 
                    order, writing on company time with company equipment.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky - Game 4 - the mistake
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:12:08 GMT

In <1992Sep9.130223.12713@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> pmbarlow@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Dan Fielding) writes:

>Dan Fielding... and before you ask, don't.

Things could be worse. It could be Reinfeld.

Paul
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rcurrie@bcarh1d6.bnr.ca(Ron Currie)
Subject: "GRANDMASTER CHESS" for PC
Reply-To: rcurrie@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:23:59 GMT

I recently saw a game called Grandmaster Chess, for MSDOS PC's in a local	computer store. It claims to be able to beat Chessmaster 3000 and Sargon.
 
Any first-hand experiences with this program? Recommendations?

Thanks, in advance...Ron




-- 
=============================================================================
Ron Currie                      | **  ***********  *   ** ***** *** ****** 
Bell-Northern Research          | * ** ** *   **  *** **** * *  *** *    *
(613)763-5291                   |  **** ** ****  ***** ** ***** *** ******      
============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jph@hardy.u.washington.edu (Jeff Hanson)
Subject: Re: notation.
Organization: Hardly any
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:56:16 GMT

	Both descriptive & algebraic notations have their advantages.
Perhaps I'm a crusty old crumudgeon, but I prefer descriptive for
over the board play.  I gave algebraic a fair chance, but I found the
artificial grid it imposes a distraction.  Descriptive is much more
natural & intuitive, & it contains the symetries of the game (e.g.,
P-K4 P-K4 vs. e4 e5).  Algebraic is nice when refering to a particular
square, e.g., e5 vs. White's K5 or Black's K4.  I think we're being wimps
for copping out & doing "what the rest of the world" is doing.

	If you want conciseness, use Symth.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: bright@apollo.cs.jhu.edu (Jonathan Bright)
Subject: FS II game 7
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:03:56 GMT

In order to predict the winenr of game 7, Lewis Stiller
and I just set the position after black's 24 move, and
played out the rest of the game in speed chess format.

I played white (Fischer), and Lewis played black (Spassky).
We determined that Spassky achieves a crushing victory in
less than 10 more moves.

I think everyone can now comfortably assume that Spassky will 
be up 3-1 at the end of this game.
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky - Game 4 - the mistake
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:10:50 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

In response to the suggestion that some analysis of these games would be a good
idea:

Fischer was better after 18.Nb1.  Black should play 18...Bd6, as there's no
convenient way for White to defend the Pawn on h2.  If 19.g3, then 19...g4 is
strong.  If 19.h3, then e5, f4 and g3 are all very weak.  White's best might be
19.Kg1, when 19...g4 again appears to give Black the initiative.

By allowing White to sacrifice the exchange, Black suddenly went into a
position where all of his pieces were bad and all of White's pieces were good.
Certainly White had real compensation for his material deficit.

The question would appear to be "did Fischer overlook the sacrifice (even
19...Bxa3 can't be worse for Black) or misjudge the position which resulted
from it?"  Either way, it looks like Fischer, being human, is going to have to
play himself back into shape.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: fhh@watson.ibm.com (Feng-Hsiung Hsu)
Subject: Re: F-S II Game 8 (analysis)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:12:47 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <15118@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>2. What's going on after 31...Ncb3?
>
>The suggestion, after 32.axb3 Nxb3, of 33.Rc3(?) must be a typo.
>After 33...Nxd2+ 34.Rxd2 Rxc3 35.bxc3, White is clearly lost.
>Deep Thought must have suggested 33.Qc3!, which looks like the
>best move.  If 33...Rxc3 34.Rxc3 Nc5 35.b4 Qa7 36.bxc5 dxc5
>37.d6, and Black has a difficult defensive task.  Better is
>33...Nxc1 34.Qa3, and the Knight is trapped, although there are
>no immediate threats and it looks as though Black has time for
>Kf8 and Kg7, followed by ...f6.  What was Deep Thought's analysis
>of this position?

Actually 33. Qc2 also works.  In fact, given enough time, the machine
prefers Qc2 over Qc3 by about 1/10 of a pawn.  In the Qc2 line, on
Nc1, white plays Qd1.  33. ... RxQ loses at least a piece in the Qc3
line, but loses only about 1/2 pawn in the Qc2 line.  Byrne said the
position after Qc3, Nc1, Qa3 was lost for black, the machine did not 
see it that way--it is his own assessment, not the machine's.
The machine judged the position to be about equal, and suggested f6
immediately and in some line, black wins a pawn back on the king side.

Again, I don't play chess, so don't bother me.  :-)  Go figure out
the details youself.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Subject: Fischer-Spassky game 8 analysis
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:02:00 GMT


I was wondering if Spassky missed a shot on move 25:
25 Nf5+ gxf5 26. Qg5 Kh7 27. exf5 Rxc1 28 Rxc1 Qe7 29. g4 when whiteeat of Qxh5! e.g. 29. ...Nxe3? 30. Qxh5 Nxh5 31. f6+ Kg8 32 fxe7 Kg7 33. gxh5
or 29. ...Rg8 30. Qxh5 Nxh5 31. f6+ Kh8 32. fxe7 Nf4 33. Be4 with compensation

but I checked it out on Chessmaster 3000 and it came up with

25. ...Nxf5 26 exf5 Qd4! 27. Rbc1 Qxd5 28. Qg5 Qf7 29. g4 Rc5 and insufficient
compensation for the pawn
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Subject: Re: F-S II Game 8 (analysis)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:16:50 GMT

In article <15118@mindlink.bc.ca> 
	Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:

>Deep Thought must have suggested 33.Qc3!, which looks like the
>best move. [...]
>
>Did time trouble cause a double blunder in the key position of
>Game 8?  

	I wonder if it is appropriate to label the missing of Qc3!
a "blunder"?  The NYTimes article did not indicate that any human
saw this move.  If only Deep Thought could see its way through
the complications, then we need another word to describe missing
the correct move in such a dense position.
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 6 DRAW complete moves
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:40:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep10.174028.15520
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department



"Somehow I slipped out... It looked terrible." - Fischer

"I missed many chances, maybe too many" - Spassky

"Bobby didn't settle on any plan. He was just trying to neutralize
Spassky all the time, and he didn't succeed. ... 
He was not thinking very clearly." - Seirawan

"Fischer is going to realize that chess has changed in the last 20
years.  Spassky is playing unpressured." - Ceshkovsky (not referring
to this game)

Spassky offered the draw after more than 7 hours.

   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. d4 d5
   2. c4 dxc4
   3. Nf3 Nf6
   4. e3 e6
   5. Bxc4 c5
   6. 0-0 a6
   7. dxc5 Qxd1
   8. Rxd1 Bxc5
   9. b3 Nbd7
   10. Bb2 b5
   11. Be2 Bb7
   12. Nbd2 Ke7
   13. a4 bxa4
   14. Rxa4 Rhb8
   15. Rc1 Bd5
   16. Ne5 Bd6
   17. Nxd7 Nxd7
   18. Rxa6 Rxa6
   19. Bxa6 f6
   20. Bc4 Bxc4
   21. Rxc4 Nc5
   22. Rc3 f5
   23. Ba3 Ne4
   24. Rc7+ Kd8
   25. Bxd6 Nxd2
   26. Rxg7 Rxb3
   27. h4 h5
   28. Bf4 Ke8
   29. Kh2 Rb2
   30. Kh3 Ne4
   31. f3 Nf2+
   32. Kg3 Nd3
   33. Bg5 e5
   34. Kh3 Nf2+
   35. Kh2 Nd3
   36. Bh6 Ne1
   37. Kg1 Nd3
   38. Bg5 Rb1+
   39. Kh2 Rb2
   40. Re7+ Kf8
   41. Re6 Kg7
   42. Kh3 Re2
   43. Rd6 Ne1
   44. Bf6+ Kg8
   45. Bxe5 Rxe3
   46. Bf4 Re2
   47. Rg6+ Kf7
   48. Rg5 Ke6
   49. Bc7 Ra2
   50. Bb6 Nd3
   51. Kh2 Ne1
   52. Kh3 Nd3
   53. Bc7 Rc2
   54. Bb6 Ra2
   55. Kg3 Ne1
   56. Rxh5 Rxg2
   57. Kf4 Nd3+
   58. Ke3 Ne5
   59. Rh6+ Kd5
   60. Bc7 Rg7
   61. Bxe5 Kxe5
   62. draw

   Final positions
   White: Ke3, Rh6, f3, h4
   Black: Ke5, Rg7, f5
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky - Game 4 - the mistake
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:51:31 GMT


David Fry points out that neither K sees 7 straight hours of play very
often.  Note that the most recent pattern of time allocation would make
such much more usual: 40/2 20/1 G/1 all in one session.  So we will
probably be seeing much more of 7th hour errors.  See *Inside Chess*
for the results of the most recent Biel Invitational where Karpov lost
a game to Georgiev two pawns up in the G/1 finale.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gfowler@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (george h. fowler)
Subject: Boy, Fischer seems really mellow after all these years
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:53:08 GMT

So Fischer lost today. Still, if he can say after losing, "One day you
give a lesson, the next day your opponent gives you a lesson," he must
be getting really mellow about losing after all these years. (Granted,
he's not what you'd call mellow on the political front!) He also said
something conciliatory after Spassky had the best of it in game 3.
     Big thanks to David Fry, whose been posting the results. Now if we
could just hiear from all those masters out there as to the analytical
specifics of the games. From my lossea
st as an A player, the games don't look like anything special, with the
possible exception of 2 (although marred by Fischer failing to win his
won position).
     George Fowler

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pmbarlow@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Dan Fielding)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Analysis:  Please include your rating!
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:03:43 GMT
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <darse.716184802@silver-vly>, darse@cs.UAlberta.CA (Darse Billings) writes:
> I would like to thank those contributors to rec.games.chess who have
> provided thoughtful analysis of games.
> I would also like to repeat the request that contributors include their
> ratings or playing levels in their signatures.  This does not imply that
> analysis by lower rated players is unwelcome!  It is simply to provide some
> context for the reader.

Why bother?  How good a player is is NOT measured by rating.  I've been told
that I'm an unbelievably great player, but my rating stinks.  And whether or
not it's Kasparov that analyses my games, or James Coombs that analyses my
games, it doesn't matter much to me, because no matter the rating, everybody's
gonna have a good idea.


Dan Fielding, 1185 USCF, but just managed a draw with a 2150 a couple weeks
ago, so who really cares?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Cancel "Interesting endgame"
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:21:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.210352.7545@mail.cornell.edu> Rod Malpert <ram4@cornell.edu> writes:

>Publishing on the newtork is not the same as submitting a game to a
>journal because the network has no editor to screen bad games,
>excessive numbers of games from one person or annoying boastfulness.
>Therefore, we should be conservative about posting our own games.

We want to see those games, with good annotation.  With questions.
With things we can learn.  With things you can learn.  I prefer prosey
annotation to long lists of variations, but others may like the
reverse.  I would much rather see bad games than naive linguistics,
which is what we get swamped with these days.  --Jim
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II, game 3 update (11:03EDT)
Date: 5 Sep 92 17:01:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep5.130154.15401
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


   Fischer Spassky  
   (White) (Black)  
   1. e4 e5  
   2. Nf3 Nc6  
   3. Bb5 a6  
   4. Ba4 Nf6  
   5. 0-0 Be7  
   6. Re1 b5  
   7. Bb3 d6  
   8. c3 0-0  
   9. h3 Nb8  
   10. d4 Nbd7  
   11. Nbd2 Bb7  
   12. Bc2 Re8  
   13. Nf1 Bf8  
   14. Ng3 g6  
   15. Bg5 h6  
   16. Bd2 exd4  
   17. cxd4 c5  
   18. Bf4 cxd4
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II gossip
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:36:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep14.193650.15592
Organization: Harvard Math Department

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 
>>would have given him all the winning chances.
>
>I believe it was 33. Qc3 that DT II suggested.

Yes, yes. Sorry, typos all mine.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138
From: mjn@ukc.ac.uk (M.J.Neish)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer-Spassky II
Date: 5 Sep 92 13:55:12 GMT
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

Hello,

With all this talk about predicting how well (or badly) Fischer will
fare against Spassky I have thought of one thing:

If Fischer's Elo rating were wiped clean, then how decisively will he
have to beat Spassky to achieve a performance rating equivalent to his
old rating of 2785? Of course, as far as I know the match will not be
rated, but I am asking this question out of curiosity. In the light of
recent happenings at the board, I personally predict 14.5-4.5 in favour
of Fischer, assuming he wins every game with White and holds a draw
with Black. What performance rating would 14.5-4.5 in favour of Fischer
be theoretically?

Thanks,

Mike.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: nash+@cs.cmu.edu (Richard Nash)
Subject: Prononciation Of Names
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:18:36 GMT

I usually study chess on my own from books and am often embarassed to find
out that the way I had envisioned pronouncing some name is very different
from its actual pronounciation. I imagine that there are many people in
the same position as me. I would be happy to compile a list of words and
their pronounciation if we could get people to volunteer both the words they
can't pronounce, and the pronounciation of words they are sure of. I will
post a summary if there is interest.

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?
Seamisch - Same-ish?
Najdorf - (is it neye-dorf or nage-dorf)
Ruy Lupez - Roy Lou-Pez?
Colle - Call-ley?

Richard Nash
-- 

Richard V. Nash
nash@vi.ri.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gilmozzi@stsci.edu (Roberto Gilmozzi)
Subject: Threefold repetition in FSII game 6
Originator: gilmozzi@tib.stsci.edu
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:10:51 GMT

Game 6 should have been drawn by treefold repetition: the same position
happened after 50...Nd3, 52...Nd3 and 54...Ra2. And Fischer should have
jumped at the chance: the final position doesn't look (at least at a
first cursory glance) as a theoretical draw to me...

Roberto
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer not among top players anymore
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:20:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <POPE.92Sep10202541@gold.kpc.com>, pope@gold.kpc.com (John Pope) writes:
> >   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?

 I must agree. I tend to think that his game is off and there has been little
in the 6 games so far that would lead me to believe that Fischer is in
fact up on modern chess theory, but geez, the guy was down 2 games 20
years ago and came back to win an impressive series of games. I think it is
a bit too early to call, although the "new" Bobby does strike me as
having a healthier attitude about chess, I'd have to say he seems at this
point to have lost some of his intensity on the board as well.

> >   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

 He also seems excited to be in this match and as has been pointed out, he
does not appear to be feeling any pressure in the match what-so-ever. One
must assume that as the match goes on, it becomes easier for him and tougher
for Fischer...


			gln