HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Strategic games, computational cost & implications
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:03:29 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1387@eouk8.eoe.co.uk>, jrickard@eoe.co.uk (John Rickard) writes:
> doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
> : The computational complexity of a game is normally taken to be the number
> : of possible games.
> : 
> : Thus for Go the number is close to 361! (361 x 360 x 359 x .... x 3 x 2). You
> : could say it is smaller by 4! or maybe 8! because of symmetery in the board,
> : but dividing 361! by 8! hardly changes the result. Of course it could be a
> : bit larger because of ko and replay into large previously captured areas, but
>                                                                             ~~~
> : that would not change the overall number by much. So, 361! is about 10^924.
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> In fact, it changes it enormously.  I can show that there are more
> than 10^(10^10) possible games (with no repeating of a board position
> allowed in a game).  You can work out that this must involve games
> with thousands of millions of moves, with a lot of recapturing.  (In
> fact my proof involves a position with 60 kos on the board.)
> 
> (I agree with other posters who have argued that the number of
> possible games says very little about a game.)
> 

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.

As far as ranking the overall skill level of a game, I have no clue.
Would a chess International Grand Master do well at Go after playing a
few times?  Would a Go (I don't know the rank name) Master do well at
Chess?

P.S.  I have beaten a chess master.  Of course this was at a Rennaisance
Festival and he was playing 20 boards! :)
                            
-- 

   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | 64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ... and a   | Beatles:
              | minute is a LONG time [Includes Leap Days]!|   Yellow Submarine
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6526 rec.games.board:8305
From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.board
Subject: Re: chinook
Keywords: update
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:21:51 GMT
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN

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.

Even though I'm a computer nut in general, I can't help but root for Tinsley in
this one.  Someone as good at what they do as he is deserves to beat a machine,
even though we all know the machines will win in the long run (given enough
technology and CPU time).

	Alec
From: ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Contempt factor (was: Re: chinook)
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:30
Organization: Private Coherent 4.0.1 site Augsburg/Bavaria/Germany

hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
> 
> Most programs don't manipulate this number.  In Cray Blitz, we always leave
> it at zero.  Changing it affects the game in bizarre ways.  For example,
> setting it to +2 pawns makes the program play passively, always trying to
> repeat previous positions to force a repetition....

It happened in a micro chess world championship that the French authors of an
unknown program set the factor to +4 pawns when playing against allmighty
Mephisto.  Soon they had a piece more (bishop?) and a won position, but
because of the factor managed only to draw.

--ralf
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer,UN,Boycott,Morals -- anything missing??
Date: 3 Sep 92 06:04:30 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: doug@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Doug Manley)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 00:07:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Girls
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess

Well, the last post certainly separated the men from the choir boys
and we certainly gained a whole new practical perspective on women and
chess.  There seemed to be one flaw....  Sooner or later the man
inevitably makes a key mistake.  He decides to push wood rather than
spend time with the fair sex.  After only a milliseconds pause, the
woman concludes the doomed male would rather spend time pushing
inanimate wooden objects with the guys rather than <insert your
favorite shared activity> with her.  After just another milliseconds
thought she realizes the full impact of this choice.   

Now she might understand if you were doing something that had some
pretense to value, but we're talking woodpushing here.

The male is now doomed.                                    

It doesn't matter how often she wins, or whether you're interested in
her game.

It doesn't matter how well you disguise your losses.

You're in a lost position and resignation is appropriate.

Doug Manley

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Marshall - ask Fischer
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:18:52 GMT

In article <14816@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>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...

Actually, I think that Spassky was one of the main proponents of the Marshall
some 30 years ago. (Eric, are you reading this? Is this true?)

Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:06:18 GMT

In article <29081@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> mginsbur@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg) writes:

>I also feel sorry for the judges in this thankless task.  Returning to the
>issue at hand (why is it that my question is always deflected?)

>category for whatever reason (underpaid judges/overworked judges/thankless
>task/go with the flow, vote for _Chess Horizons) has resulted in a
>travesty.

Perhaps this category ended in a travesty (I wouldn't know).  But then
what about the other 24?  If they blew it in 1/25, that doesn't seem so
bad.  Do they have a success rate in judging of 24/25?  If so, then
they are performing at 96%.  Or 96% of the choices seem reasonable to
you, and only 4% seem to be blunders.  That does not seem to be
sufficient reason to call the whole process into doubt.

As for deflecting your question.  Well, what IS your question?  There
may be questions in your postings, but I (an disinterested and casual
reader) get the sense that you are castigating the judges for their
failure without providing suggestions for how they might do better in
the future.

>I believe it is common for analysis to be judged on:

>a.  impartiality
>b.  search for truth
>c.  advances over known theory (if any) or  a  good summary of what we
>know so far.

Ok, so here are criteria for judgment that you offer.  Were these
really not considered?  Are you saying that they were not and that they
should be?  I get the impression that they were considered but that the
evaluation may have been faulty in this case.

So, I guess my best contribution is that I am hearing (rightly or
wrongly) blame and not constructive criticism.  If it's worth it, you
might for my stupid head summarize the suggested improvements to the
judging process.

--Jim
From: nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer Match Coverage
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:29:40 GMT
Reply-To: nash@visus.com
Organization: Visual Understanding Systems, Pgh PA

Things are surprisingly quiet. I was expecting a flood of information about the  
match.

Has the match started? Does anyone have any move information?

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard V. Nash  | Visual Understanding Systems, Inc.         |
| nash@visus.com   | Tel. (412)-488-3600   Fax. (412)-488-3611  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: aps172nm4@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au (Malcolm Tredinnick)
Subject: Re: Marshall - ask Fischer
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:26:37 GMT

 In article <14816@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>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...

	Spassky did play the Marshall at least once - against Fischer! In their 
second game from the Second Piatagorsky Cup, they played a Marshall Gambit.
The game was drawn in about 25 moves, from memory.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: quale@saavik.cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale)
Subject: Who are the seconds in the Fischer/Spassky match?
Organization: Undergraduate Projects Lab, UW Madison
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 07:30:57 GMT

Can anyone tell me who Fischer and Spassky are using as seconds
in their match?

Thanks.

-- 
Doug Quale
quale@saavik.cs.wisc.edu
From: bill@cvs.rochester.edu (Bill Vaughn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Time controls
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:07:10 GMT
Organization: Center for Visual Science, U. of Rochester

Could someone post the time controls for the Fischer-Spassky match?
Since they are using the "Fischer clock", I assume it will have
to be something like X minutes/move with a Y minute "reservoir".
Anybody know what the values of X and Y for this match?

Another question: Does using the "Fischer clock" imply that there
will be no adjournments or adjudications?  In other words is it true
that the game is played in one session and can end in only one of
four ways:
1) Checkmate
2) Someone resigns
3) Draw (agreement, stalemate, repetition)
4) Someone's flag falls?

It seems as if this "Fischer clock" could go a long way in solving
some of the nonsense we've been hearing about lately with "sudden-death"
time controls and reconstructing mate-in-one's after someone's flag
has fallen.
After all, if you're using a "Fischer clock" and have one second left,
you still have 1 to 2 minutes to find your mate-in-one.   And the
TD's won't ever have to become involved except maybe to verify a
draw by repetition.

What do the chess powers-that-be think of this innovation?

Just trying to get some side discussion going while we wait for
the moves.

Bill Vaughn
bill@cvs.rochester.edu
--
Bill Vaughn               /  This space   \   Email: bill@cvs.rochester.edu
Center for Visual Science \   has been    /   Phone: 716-275-8674
Univ. of Rochester        / intentionally \   Fax:   716-271-3043
Rochester, NY 14627       \   occupied.   /   Voice: Hey, you
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rz79@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Klaus Dilper)
Subject: Re: FISCHER/SPASSKY...PREDICTIONS
Organization: Rechenzentrum, Universitaet Karlsruhe (Germany)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:51:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.100450.19267@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> schoof@dec5.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.dbp.de (Jochen "Joscho" Schoof) writes:

>From article <1992Sep1.135556.9798@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, by dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu:
>> 
>> 
>> Predictions:
>> append your predictions underneath......
>> 
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________
>> 
>> Fischer  10
>> Spassky   2
>> 
>> The match will be over in under 40 games.
>> 
>> This prediction is based on the fact that Bobby has done 
>> nothing but play chess since 1972 while Borris went skiing.
>> 
>> Donald Wedding
>> Toledo, OH
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________
>> 
>Maybe your prediction is right: A win for Fischer, a loss for chess!
>Boris Spassky is one of the most friendly GMs on earth. He is not one
>of those queers, like for example Fischer. A few years back, when he
>played for SG 1868 Solingen in the German Bundesliga, he had talks with
>the spectators after finishing his matches and really enjoyed being with
>some chess-amateurs. He absolutely does not only bother about chess but
>is also enjoying his life, what make him even more sympathic. Chess does
>not need half-mad Bobbies, but more players like Boris.
>Unfortunately Boris is far from being that good he was from 1967 to 1972
>and will therefor get trouble in winning against Bobby, if Bobby in fact
>did not do anything than playing chess. But I keep hoping...

>Jochen

>-- 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jochen Schoof                    schoof@sundae.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
>Lehrstuhl f. Informatik II +-----------------------------------------------
>Universitaet Wuerzburg     | It's worse than that: he's dead, Jim!  -Bones

OK, You are realy right in one point - Boris is one the most sympathic GM
I ever met. I have had a long talk with him, after a Game he played at GM's 
tournament in Munich 1977. But sorry, I don't believe that this match is a 
loss for chess! Bobby is one of the most fantastic chess players the world 
has ever seen! All people who reviewed some of his great games will think 
so. Allright, he was, is and will ever be a terrible guy, but don't forget - 
he brought chess a great public and a lot of chess players started playing 
in his time! So I don't want to predict the winner of this match, but 
hope to see some good games played by both - Bobby and Boris!   

Klaus


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klaus Dilper
Universitt Karlsruhe
Rechenzentrum
Zirkel 2
7500 Karlsruhe 1
Germany
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwong@tc.fluke.COM (Yee Jyr Hwong)
Subject: Chinese Chess on IBMPC
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:44:34 GMT


Does anybody knows any good Chinese Chess game on PC?
If you do know one, what is the name? who makes it?
and how much? Thanks in advanced.
From: trb@ima.isc.com (Andrew Tannenbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer is PC
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:05:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: ima.1992Sep02.230514.5112
Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302

In article <44689@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jmcd@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John McDonald) writes:
> I don't think it is "politically correct" to be offended
> by Fischer's behavior.  I think it might be HUMAN to be
> offended by obtuse anti-social behavior.  If he really
> was interested in the integrity of the game, he wouldn't
> sound so childish.

The discussion of whether this match is good or bad has been
tedious, but I've seen so much that I felt compelled to muddy myself.

I am a Jew, a chess player, and a human being.  Like all other
reasonable human beings, I don't enjoy watching one group of us
slaughter another group of us.

The Serbs are apparently in conflict with the Croats over there, and
committing some attrocious acts.  I'm not in favor of attrocious acts.
I don't think of the Serbs as being any more or less Right than the
Croats or the other players in the historical mess in the Balkans.  It
certainly isn't the realm of rec.games.chess or of chess.

Bobby Fischer is wacked out, from a perspective of our social norms.
He has no qualms about dumping on people of my (and his) heritage.
Why?  If you're look for excuses or reasons, I'd direct you to toward
the fact that he had a rough and somewhat misguided youth.  So what.
If Fischer offends you so, root for Spassky.

I am glad to see the Fischer Spassky match happening.  Though I don't
commend the actions of the Serbs (or Croats), I don't mind that it's
happening in Yugoslavia, that's where Fischer and Spassky want it.
I don't mind that Fischer is saying nasty things about Jews, that says
more about Fischer than it will ever say about Jews.  And it reflects
Fischer as a man, not Fischer as a chess player.

I have no use for political rectitude, such blind adherence to social
norms makes for tedious boredom.  As for Fischer, and the rest of the
world, I partake of the good, and I leave the rest.

If Fischer was Hitler, I'd ignore the match, but I would make that
decision for myself, I wouldn't want some PC loser screaming it
in my ear.

	Andrew Tannenbaum   Interactive   Cambridge, MA   +1 617 661 7474
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:10:40 GMT

In article <nolan.714941052@helios> nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan) writes:

>cfc@isr.harvard.edu (Christopher F. Chabris) writes:

>> (And which CJA judge is from Ohio?)

>None, for 1992.  Chris is in Massachussetts, Hanon Russell in Connecticut,
>Ira Lee Riddle in a suburb of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and I am in
>Lincoln, Nebraska.  Of course to someone from Californa, these probably
>ALL seem like Ohio.  :)


i
I beg your pardon!  There are quite a few transplanted souls from teh
Middle of the country and the East too out here!  WE know the difference

>Mike Nolan
From: ct20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Clifford T. Tanaka)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chinook-Tinsley results as of Saturday
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:48:47 GMT
	<winders-250892105256@macwinders.support.apple.com>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.chess: 25-Aug-92 Alekhine's Defense (was
Chi.. Mark A Zabel@magnus.acs. (1188)

>     I like to keep up with the news involving Clinton and Bush, BUT
> it does not belong in rec.games.chess!  I know, there is a similarity
> here.  However, we have seen in the last week that once the related
> topics appear they can tend to take ever the group.  Sooner or later
> someone will cross-post to talk.guns, and we'll have 500 or so posts
> to wade through.


I don't think these checkers posts are really that much of a problem.  I
and many others  certainly want to hear about such a contest between man
and machine.  And it isn't like these posts are going to continue
forever; the match will end eventually and checkers will probably just
disappear from the newsgroup.  There really isn't much of a chance of
checkers taking over the group.  I wouldn't be interested at all in a
world championship checkers match except for the fact that one of the
competitors happens to be a machine.  


						Cliff. 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: alopez-o@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
Subject: Re: Fisher, Kasparov, Tal
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:57:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.162357.21733@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, bwatkins@nyx.cs.du.edu (The God of all machines) writes:
> 
> Korchnoi was the last player with a style.  Karpov, Kasparov have none,
> much less Tal's!  (unless you think "dull" any "kewpie" are styles)

Listen son, when chess players talk about style, they mean different styles 
of playing, not personal style. More like Tal making sacrifices in many of his 
games than like Estee Lauder in a Channel Suit.


Alex

ps. add :-) wherever needed.

-- 
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              alopez-o@maytag.UWaterloo.ca
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada
From: pals@ipact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Time forfeits in SD games
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:36:20 CDT
Organization: IPACT, Valparaiso IN

In article <9209010530.AA05531@hplwk.hpl.hp.com>, 
albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert) writes:

> [comments on the SD controversy and red-green set controversy deleted]

> Anyway, I felt that the TD should have just made a quick decision, and
> had it be final.

This really says it all.  I agree that the rules, especially for time
forfeits, need to be made clear and simple.  But when controversy
arises, the TD must make a reasonable decision relatively quickly
*and have the guts to stick by it*.  Jacking around interminably with these 
controversies as if the future of humanity depended on them is what ruins
a tournament for everybody.  If I ran the zoo, I would penalize a TD a lot
more heavily for doing that than for making a quick but technically wrong
decision.

-- 
Randy Pals                |pals@ipact.com
IPACT, Inc.               |
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6634 rec.games.go:1763 rec.games.board:8403 rec.games.programmer:3697