HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roberto@oliveb.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Roberto Ricca)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 12 moves 1-13
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:26:07 GMT
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino CA, USA

In article <1992Sep30.143820.15974@husc3.harvard.edu> fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
>
>Someone said that the games from Belgrade would start one hour later 
>than the games from the first half of the match, but I notice
>that the AP news wire seems to be two hours behind its previous
>schedule.  These facts may not be contradictory, however.

Last Sunday, several European countries switched from Daylight to
Standard time. Maybe also Serbia switched, and this would explain
why the AP news wire is two hours later than before.

########################################################################
# Roberto Ricca                 Email:      roberto@oas.olivetti.com   #
########################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: Mates on infinite board (Re: a different variant)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:18:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.122454.15944@husc3.harvard.edu> elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>Another interesting case is KRRvKB.  White can't go directly
>for the KRRvK mate because that requires zugzwang and the Bishop
>can play waiting moves to Pluto.  So the question is can the
>Bishop be captured, either by a double attack involving mate
>threats or by arranging ladder checks (Ra1,K2; Rb2+,K3; Ra3+,K4; etc.)
>so that the Rooks reach the Bishop before the King reaches the Rooks?

Looks like a draw to me.  The bishop just makes sure it is moves
further away from the king than the rooks are (say twice as far
away).

>What about KQNvK and KQBvK ?

These are forced mates.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jarmo@ae.tut.fi (Jarmo Sorvari)
Subject: Re: F-S II game 12 Spassky wins - moves
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:56:33


In article <1992Sep30.173624.15979@husc3.harvard.edu> fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:

>    Spassky Fischer
>    White Black
>    1. d4 Nf6
>    2. c4 g6
>    3. Nc3 Bg7
>    4. e4 d6
>    5. f3 O-O
>    6. Be3 Nc6
>    7. Nge2 a6
>    8. h4 h5
>    9. Nc1 e5
>    10. d5 Ne7

I wonder what the current evaluation is for the line where Black
sacrifices a pawn here with 10.- Nd4 11. Nb3 c5 12. dc6 bc6 13. Nd4
ed4 14. Bd4?  The Finnish GM Heikki Westerinen used to play this way a
lot in the 70's (although I think he played 7.- Rb8 instead of 7.-
a6).

At least Black gets an open line against where the White king would
like to go.

The way Fischer lost all counterplay in the queen side did not impress
me too much.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Jarmo Sorvari                         Control Engineering Laboratory      !
! jarmo@ae.tut.fi                       Tampere University of Technology    !
--------------------------------------- BOX 527, 33101 Tampere, Finland -----
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Teri A Meyers <tasst2+@pitt.edu>
Subject: Could Chess be a Win for Black?
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:34:55 GMT


I pose this as a question to people on this net who actually play chess.
Do you think , based on your experience of the game, that chess could turn
out to be a forced win for Black?
(By the way, to Sven -- learn to read.  When you responded to me in your 
article 7154, you repeatedly quoted me in places where I used the word
"experiential" as though I had written experimental.  Experiential means
derived from experience.  You are right that white has a pull in the
initial position, but I don't think Black is lost, and that is why I
call the initial position "dynamically balanced".  Black has dynamic or
active counterchances--but he certainly isn't winning.  I maintain that
the game theory idea that chess may turn out to be a forced win for Black
is an absurdity (from the experiential point of view), even though it is
equally plausible with the other possible outcomes from a purely logical
point of view.  It is another example of an instance where logic breaks
down against the realities of life.)
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess is not solvable (not)
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:58:49 GMT
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: latexo.cs.utexas.edu

All of this discussion of games in which positions occur infinitely
many times and neither player claims a draw leave me puzzled.

A min-max algorithm considering a line in which either player can
claim a draw will assign it the value "draw".  Why?  Because neither
player can force a better result.  The value of the position is a
draw.  The best White can do against best play is a draw and the
best Black can do against best play is a draw.  

Only by changing the rules of chess and giving a continuing game 
a value greater than a draw can this be avoided, and there is no 
such rule.  Even in that case, the value of the unfinished game 
would have to be greater than a draw *for both players*.  And finally, 
assuming "unfinished" has a value greater than "draw", even in 
positions where neither player can force a win (which can be 
identified by min-max) the value is "unfinished" and analysis may 
stop.  There wouldn't be a lot of drawn games under that strange
assumption, though.  Most draws are "I don't have winning chances
so let's stop playing".

Is all of this really so hard to understand?

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: (Short) Solvability Proof, Unsolvability Proof
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:38:51 GMT

Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> writes:
>Anyway, it occurs to me that the naysayer's argument can be summarized
>very briefly.
>  1. They acknowledge that there are a finite states of the chess
>     board.
>  2. They assert (correctly) that absent some sort of termination
>     criterion, that there are an infinite number of possible chess
>     games.
>  3. They claim that the 50 move limit and the 3 repetition rule do
>     not qualify as termination criteria because players need not
>     claim a draw to they are otherwise entitled.

Okay so far.

>  4. Finally, they claim that since there is no termination criterion,
>     the number of possible games is indeed infinite and that therefore
>     chess is unsolvable.

Here you miss the point.  I am not claiming chess is unsolvable
even though games can be of infinite length.  All I am claiming is
that the value of the solution CAN be different from simply W, B,
or D.  And the actual value of the solution will depend upon either
additional assumptions or additions to the rules.  This is VERY
different from saying that the game is unsolvable.

>I think the crux of the matter is that even if you are able to demonstrate
>that White cannot force a win and that Black cannot force a win, the
>naysayers are unwilling to conclude that the game is a draw as long as
>both players can continue to make legal moves, even if the position
>repeats itself an unlimited number of times.  Until you get over that
>conceptual hurdle, I don't think you will ever convince somebody that
>believes otherwise that chess is solvable.

This is even farther off the mark, because it CANNOT be concluded
that infinite games are draw until additional assumptions are
made.  Even so, it seems clear that the game is solvable.
From: gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric Eaton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Endgame question
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:27:21 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black) writes:
>In article gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric Eaton) writes:
>>Well, I've taught a course on Endgame strategy.  We used Pandolfini's Endgame
>>book.  (That's not the exact title.)  It seems that the K & R vs K ending can
>>be done more "quickly" if one has time to think about it.  Almost a paradox.
>>
>I'm curious what people on the net think of Pandoflini's book (yes, I know this
>is off the topic).  I was very disappointed in it.  Not only does it have the
>highest density of typos I've ever seen, but IMHO the format of the book is
>poor.  For those unfamiliar with the book, Pandoflini uses a "learn by example"
>approach, but in many cases he shows techniques specific to a certain position
>without revealing all of the attributes of the position which allowed the
>technique to work.  For example, on page 242 Pandoflini gives a winning method
>in a R+P vs. R ending; he explains several important points, but fails to
>mention that the technique given works only for a BP and would not work if the
>pawn were a QP or a KP.  Maybe Pandoflini intends the reader to discover this
>for himself...?  Comments?  
>

Hmmm...  I looked at it.  I might be missing something, but it seems to me that
this technique would work for a QP or a KP.  I don't see why it wouldn't work,
perhaps you could explain.

Also, we used Pandolfini's book as a "workbook" so to speak.  For the main
lessons, we would work out of a book by Averbak (sp?) that doesn't seem to be
in print any longer.  

This book does seem to be more of a "drill" book.  Giving several examples for
the reader to work through, but not a whole lot on the "think" side.

>>Usually, when training kids to play chess, teachers will inforce a certain
>>drill that can be beat into a kid's head so that he won't forget it.
>>
>I'm a major opponent of this teaching method: learning by repetition and drill.
>I've certainly had my fair share of it through school, but fortunately there are
>still teachers out there who teach kids to *think*.
>
>My $0.02.
>
>john//

I'll agree with you oncea student has gotten the fundamentals.  Then, it's time
to think a little more (a lot more).  However, there is much to be said for
a little drill and practice.  Even outside of chess.  Take Calculus for
example.  You have to think in order to use it.  However, it's almost useless
unless you have a very good background in Algebra and/or geometry.  There isn't
any other way to learn, let's say multiplication tables, than to drill it.
Sure, the student should know how to derive it (by adding the first number
to itself a certain number of times) but it is riduculous to have to derive
that every time one wants to know what 8x7 is.

Drilling a new chess student in the easy endgame strategy gives him a base
to work from.  He should be shown the "derivation" of how to get it, but if
drilling it will allow him to perform under "pressure".

My $0.02

-Eric
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II Interview w/GM Szabo
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:53:33 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

This interview struck me as quite silly.  I have heard estimates of the
strength of the match at anywhere between IM level and mid-2600 level (ignore
the performance ratings based on Fischer's rating 20 years ago, which makes
no sense at all).

Isn't enough that Fischer is playing, the match looks like it will be
completed, and he may play others?  Chess is not tennis or swimming, but what
can you expect from a psychologist?  Ask Korchnoi - he knows a bit more about
it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: frants@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Leonid Frants)
Subject: An important chess question - answer needed urgently.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:13:10 GMT

It is probably in some FAQ file but please tell me directly:

Is chess Solvable?

Leonid.

:)
From: miklas@remus.rutgers.edu (Keith Miklas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: OUCH! OooOoh ah ah OUCH! that hurts!
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:45:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	
In article <12635@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> tcmaint@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (-Broadband Network Maintenance) writes:

> Ok, the last word on chess solvabilty.
> 
> 	1. IF chess is solvable it would have been solved.
> 	2. Chess has not been solved.
> 	3. Therefore to date chess is not solvable.
> 
> Only the solution will prove this wrong, so if you don't agree please post
> the solution to chess for all to read. ;-)

Hmm....

I just _know_ that I've seen this line of thinking before...

Hold on...

<digruffleruffledigdigdig..dig flip flip flip....scan..AHA!>

Here it is:

     "The latin name of this pattern of fallacious reasoning
_ad_ignorantiam_, is aptly translated as arguing "toward ignorance"
referring to the fact that one's inability to prove some proposition
is used as a premise to allegedly imply the opposite proposition"^1

     Realizing that this somewhat precise definition is somewhat
technical for the average Joe, I feel it necessary to define two of
the key terms in the above:

fallacious //"f&l &sh' &s"// 
1. a mistaken belief, esp. based on unsound argument
2. [logic] faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument ^2

ignorance  //"Ig n@r @ns"//
1. lack of knowledge (about a thing) ^2

Maybe for an encore, you can go on to prove that black is white?

                             ;-)

footnote 1> _Logic,_a Comprehensive_introduction_, Samuel D. Guttenplan
& Martin Tamny, Basic Books, Inc., NY, Pg 317.

footnotes 2> Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th edition, Copyright 1991
Oxford University Press.
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Kasparov speaks (Was: Re: Fischer-Spassky game 11 analysis)
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:39:34 GMT
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Sep28.131435.3418@admin1.memst.edu>  
gpylant@admin1.memst.edu writes:
> > Also, 12...Qb6 instead of 12...Qd7 (more ??s).  I wish I wasn't so  
wiped
> > out, or I would have wanted to see this!
> > 
> YES , BUT 13. Nd2! can still be played....I don't think 12...Qb6 helps  
at all.
> If 13...Bxd4 14. Nc4   Black's Queen is in the way.
> Gary Pylant

Shamkovich and I disagree strongly. 13.Nd2 is no big deal. When his
final analysis comes in I will post it. 12...Qb6! is clearly best.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
                                  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: 11jvaldessan@gallua.gallaudet.edu
Subject: Please, give me....
Organization: Gallaudet University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:33:17 GMT

Hello Everyone,
  I want to belong Association or Club Chess in Washington, DC. Or
Virigina and Maryland (near D.C.) Please, inform me where address and
phone. Thanks 
Valdes Sanchez from student Gallaudet University...
Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1992 22:41:27 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
 <1992Sep29.165630.19521@fig.citib.com>
 <1992Sep30.024525.8269@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
 <1992Oct6.025752.12554@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

"in fact, it would appear that there are an infinite number of values for
the finite number of chess positions..."

 WHAT?

 care to share your wisdom with us?
From: edjohn@sequent.com (Ed Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Could someone please send me XICS.
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:51:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Sep28.205100.25117
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

Could someone please send me this program for playing chess
on the chess server with a mouse. If you could send me the
ftp site address that would be fine too.

Thanks,

Ed
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jlwestm@pbhyb.PacBell.COM (Jeff Westman)
Subject: Re: CM3000 BUGS...HELP
Reply-To: jlwestm@PacBell.COM (Jeff Westman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:39:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.200841.10188@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
;chessmaster 3000 bug
;
;when i import algebraic games and i have a capture where two
;pieces can do the taking, i get an error.
;
;i.e.
;
;   Nbxe4
;
;also, when i import discriptive notation, i get errors for
;ALL captures...
;
;   PxP
;
;how have others solved these problesm????
;
;don wedding

Don (and anybody else out there!) -

The program version you are running has a bug in it.  I believe you are
running 1.02 (as seen when you exit CM3000).  Call the Technical Support
number (you have a README file that has the number listed) and request
an upgrade.  You have the same problem as I **HAD** (I got the new
upgrade, 1.03).

Hope this helps...






-- 

Jeff Westman    Pacific*Bell
                                                 
	UUCP	:  {att,bellcore,sun,ames,decwrl,pyramid}!pacbell!jlwestm
From: mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: GNUCHESS for Windows
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:08:30 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


A previous post noted that GNUCHESS for the Mac had an error in the
checkmate process (i.e. the game doesn't restart after losing or winning
-- it is neither a gracious winner or loser).

I have found the same problem with GNUCHESS for windows.  Does anyone 
know where a later upgrade can be found?  I have version 3.21 for windows,
and got it off of the pub area on valkyries about a month ago.

Thanks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark McGregor -- mmcgreg@uswnvg.com
From: wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Forcing mates on an infinite board.
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:03:32 GMT
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury

>>Mate can be forced with KRRvK, KRBBvK, KBBBBvK.  Mate cannot be forced
>>with KBBBvK.
>
>How will you get KBBBvK, let alone KBBBBvK, in a real game?  (And in
>the latter case does it depend on color distribution?  Of course if all
>four B's move on like-colored squares there is no mate, even on a
>finite board, but what about a 3-1 split?)

We're talking about real games ?

Anyway, 3-1 split is out. With K and one bishop of one color and any number of
the other, a mating position isn't even possible.

KBBBB with 2 of each color is straightforward, as Edward Hummel says.

With KRBN, Noam Elkies solution....
~~~~~~~~~
>first confine the K to six squares with
>Rb7,Be4,Nf3; then to three with Kd4; then to d6&e6 by covering f6
>with the Knight; then to c6&d6 by shifting the B to c8; then
>Nd8+,Kd6; Rd7#.

...looks very good to me. (Once I filled in the details).
Nice one ! Much better than my crummy effort (unposted).

Here is a solution for KRNN.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First trap the king between ranks 2 and 6 with the rook (moving it from
one to the other every second turn if necessary). Move the king to rank 4
to try to force black toward the rooks. Move one knight to rank 4 just beyond
the rook, to protect both rook-settling squares. Use the other knight to
help force the king back toward the rooks. Here is the standard sequence..

6     . . . . . . . . . R .      ..(ch)  c3
5     N . . . . . . . . . .      Rj2     d4
4     K . k . . . . . . . N      Kb4     d5
3     . . . . . . . . . . .      Rj6     d4
2     . . . . . . . . .(R).      Nb3(ch)     and so on. Black can wriggle
                                             but can't stop the push.
      a b c d e f g h i j k

Once black is confined to h345 & i4, white can bring the spare knight round to
k3 and then mate with the rook.

KQB or KQN
~~~~~~~~~~
As the queen alone can confine black's king in a smallish square (with
occasional moves from corner to corner), white can move up his king and
minor piece, and mate without too much trouble. (Details supplied on request,
but it's not too hard to work them out.)

KBBNN: another interesting one. It seems to be a forcible mate; still checking
~~~~~  the details.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Bill Taylor              wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Since we got a video player,  I hardly ever read any more.

         I used to be quite a bookworm.   Now I'm more of a tapeworm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: more on game 11 (was Re: Kasparov speaks)
Date: 27 Sep 92 11:28:23 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <1992Sep27.073920.23940@midway.uchicago.edu> mad4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Maddex) writes:

>ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow) writes:

[start deleted]

>>Meanwhile, note (now that you *can* get Informant 54!), that Game 162 is
>>Kasparov-Salov, Sortmund 1992, which went 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6
>>bxc6 5.O-O Bg7 6.Re1 Nf6 (which Kasparov gives a "N", which means Novelty,
>>as in Theoretical Novelty, as in TN).

>Gee, I thought 4.Bxc6 was new.  Could it be that Fischer, having got over the
>bad preparation bug, is about to show just how much of Kasparov's published
>analysis he's busted?-)  I don't have any of the relevant books, but how does
>the English line this is the reverse of usually go?  

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 (I consider 3.Nf3 more exact) Bb4 (3.-c6!?, which
is not possible after 3.Nf3 Nc6) 4.Bg2 O-O 5.Nf3 Re8!? (5.-Nc6 transposes
to 3.Nf3 Nc6 lines.) 6.O-O e4 and 7.-Bxc3! gives black easy equality.

Interesting is, that after 5.e4 game Karasev-Kapengut went 5.-b5?!
6.Nxb5 Bb7 7.a3? (7.Qc2! c6 8.Nc3 d5 9.d3 d4 10.a3! +=) a6 8.Nxc7 Qxc7
9.axb4 Qxc4 10.d3 Qxb4 =+
Also worth of note is 5.e4 Bxc3! 6.bxc3 c6, which gives black an edge
even after 7.Ne2 (instead of inferior 7.Nf3, as in Fischer-Spassky)

The point behind all this? As white, don't play 3.g3, play 3.Nf3.

What comes to game Fischer-Spassky, the idea (7.b4!?) is not new.
Consider following games, played in last OPYBANK tournament in Finland:

GM Y.Rantanen - FM A. Nokso-Koivisto
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 (this was in fashion) 4.b4!? cxb4 5.a3 bxa3
(5.-Nf6 6.Qe2) 6.O-O g6 7.Rxa3 Bg7 8.d4 Bd7 9.Re1 Nh6? (9.-Nf6! 10.e5?!
dxe5 11. dxe5 Nxe5!) 10.Bg5! (Threatens 11.Qd2) f6 11.Bxh6 Bxh6 12.d5
and white has excellent play for pawn, but 1/2, in 53 moves.

IM A.Pyh\"al\"a - FM M.Manninen (\"a is LaTeX symbol for ae-character)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.b4!? cxb4 5.a3 Bd7 6.O-O Nf6 7.Re1 Qb6 8.c4
Nd4 9.Bxd7+ Nxd7 10.axb4 Nxf3+ 11.Qxf3 Qxb4 12.Ba3 Qxc4 13.Rc1 Qe6
14.Nc3 Ne5 15.Qd1 Qd7 16.d4 Nc6 17.d5 Nb8 and again white had excellent
compensation, but 1/2 in 43 moves.

>One final historical note:  as far as I know (admittedly not far at all) the 
>only previous time Bobby played 3.Bb5 was against Matulovic(?) in Palma(?) in
>'70(that I'm sure of), when he apparently had a novelty ready but was actually
>badly prepared and got a wretched position.

Bobby Fischer - Milan Matulovic, Palma de Mallorca 1970:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.c3 Nf6! 5.Qe2 Bg7 6.e5 Nd5 7.Qc4?! Nc7
8.Bxc6 dxc6 9.Qxc5 Qd3 10.Qe3 Bf5 11.Qxd3 Bxd3 12.Kd1 Ne6 13.Ne1 Nf4
14.Nxd3! (14.g3 Be2+ 15.Kc2 Nh3 16.f4? Nf2 17.Rg1 Bd1X!) Nxd3 15.f4! Bh6
(15.-Nf2+ 16.Ke2 Nxh1 17.d4! +=) 16.Kc2 Nxc1 17.Re1! O-O-O 18.Kxc1 Bxf4
19.g3 Bh6 20.Kc2 Rd5 and black had good winning chances but 1/2, 60.

Mika
-- 
Mika Kukkonen = Mika.Kukkonen@Helsinki.FI
Trying to learn to live in Helsinki University of Computer Science.
"I am studying, so I am, or am I (studying)?"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: oyvind@hal.nta.no (Oyvind Eilertsen)
Subject: re: F-S II game 12 (?): comments
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 08:37:01 GMT

A Norwegian newspaper today quoted IM Tisdall's 
comment to game 12:

"If I hadn't known who was playing, I would have
guessed that black's playing strength was about 1600."

-- 
{\O}yvind.    (oyvind@nta.no)

  -- Beware of the quantum duck. Quark! Quark! Quark! --