HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky news conference
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 06:43:45 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep3.001944.27578@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>For the record, Fischer's current bizarreness is not really distinguishable
>from past behavior.  An instructive book is "Bobby Fischer vs. the
>Rest of the World", Brad Darrach's account of the 1972 match, which includes
>biographical material on both players.  Fischer is in good company
>when it comes to mental illness, though.  Remember Morphy -- and then
>there was Steinitz who ended up challenging God to pawn and move odds.
>Apropos of insanity in chess players, a movie I enjoyed was a German
>film I saw some years back, titled (and I translate) "Black and White,
>Like Day and Night".  It was about a fictional chess genius who had...(etc.)

Then, there was the early 80's failed musical 'Chess' (the only thing that most
people would possibly remember from it being the song 'One Night In Bangkok')-
about a raving American who plays (and loses) to an up-and-coming Russian,
who, in turn, defects, and later in the musical, defeats the new Russian
challenger....some decent music- a nifty song going over the 'history' of
chess at the end of it....lots of easily forgettable stuff, but this isn't
rec.games.musicals :) 

r.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,news.answers
From: shauck@adobe.com (Bill Shauck)
Subject: rec.games.chess FAQ: Table of Contents
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: chess FAQ semimonthly answers
Supersedes: <chess-faq-toc_713870102@adobe.com>
Reply-To: shauck@adobe.com
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 09:17:24 GMT
Expires: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 09:15:02 GMT

Archive-name: chess-faq/part0

Prologue
--------
Last Revision
-------------
The United States Chess Federation (USCF)
-----------------------------------------
Chess Federation of Canada (CFC)
--------------------------------
American Chess Foundation (ACF)
-------------------------------
Federation Internationale des Echecs (FIDE)
-------------------------------------------
Chess Ratings
-------------
How Ratings are Calculated: USCF Rating, Simplified
---------------------------------------------------
Chess Tournaments
-----------------
The Swiss Tournament Pairing System
-----------------------------------
Recommended Books for Novices/Intermediates
-------------------------------------------
I'm a Novice (or Intermediate).  How Do I Improve?
--------------------------------------------------
Recommended Openings and Opening Books for Novices and Early Intermediates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chess Publications
------------------
Where to Get Chess Books and Equipment
--------------------------------------
State and Local Chess Organizations (USA)
-----------------------------------------
Correspondence Chess Organizations
----------------------------------
Chess Bulletin Board Systems (BBS's)
------------------------------------
E-Mail Games, ICS, Mailing Lists, Usenet reader
-----------------------------------------------
Chess-Playing Computers and Software
------------------------------------
Chess Database Software
-----------------------
Chess Utility Software
----------------------
Trivia
------
Variants
--------
Disclaimer
----------
Copyright
---------

-- 
William R. Shauck                       Internet: shauck@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Inc.            uucp: ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!shauck
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fischer - Spassky: The Prize
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:39:44 GMT

In article <PHR.92Sep3152051@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>    I know too little about French laws to even guess what will happen
>    to Spassky, but I know that he is perfectly mentally healthy and
>    has no excuse for what he is doing.
>
>Really no excuse?  Are you saying that in his shoes, you would "do
>the right thing" and refuse to play?  Do take it as a personal
>question: if you---yes, *YOU*---were offered $1.3 million to play
>chess in Belgrade for a few weeks, would you turn it down?  
>(It's only 1.3 mil since you're unlikely to beat or tie with Fischer).
>Will you tell everyone here on the net that you would turn it down?
>How long will it take you to make $1.3 million some other way?
>Do you currently send money to help the Bosnians?  Do you think
>doing this is important?  Of course, with $1.3M in your pocket,
>you could help out a lot more...
>
>Yes, Spassky can be criticized, but it's absurd to say there's no
>excuse.  At least, *I* wouldn't turn it down...

I can answer your questions very easily. I would turn such an offer down. I
am telling that on the net right now. I don't know how long it will take me
to earn $1.3M; 25 years seems a reasonable estimate, though. I am not sending
money (being a grad. student, the reason is obvious). If I got $1.3M from 
Serbians and gave it to Bosnians, I'd be assassinated within days, so your 
final question is not fair. Satisfied?

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Nimzo-Indian query
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:33:57 GMT

In article <23609@alice.att.com> ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>Suppose we begin as follows:

>	1. d4	Nf6
>	2. c4	e6
>	3. Nc3	Bb4
>	4. a3	Bxc3
>	5. bc	c5

>How badly can Black now clobber 6. d5?  That move does not appear in
>ECO, MCO13, or BCO, which suggests that it must be really wretched.

Why would White play 6.d5?  As I understand it, advancing d5 immoblizes
the pawn group, turning the doubled pawns into a positional
disadvantage.  Wasn't that the point of 5...c5?  White needn't give in
so easily!

I think you are mistaken in looking for a tactical error in 6.d5.  We
have a positional error that can be exploited, but only by accurate
play.  None of the opening books will bother with a move that is
imprecise: the cut off is much higher than "wretched."

>The best response I've found so far is 6. ... Ne4, with the point
>that advancing the d-pawn has opened the a1-h8 diagonal.

Zarkov playing at about 2300 discarded 6...Ne4 early in the search and
after 10 minutes and 8 ply is still favoring O-O.  (Actually, it is
playing at more than 2300 given this much time.)

>must defend the c3-pawn, but doing so with 7. Bb2 or Bd2 allows
>7. ... Qf6, attacking the c3-pawn a second time and also threatening
>Qxf2++.

Nope.  7.Nf3 Nxc3?? 8.Qc2 loses the knight.  7...Qf6 8.Bb2 does nothing
dramatic for Black; White will just drive the Knight off with Qc2.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Lissizyn gambit (Zarkov's strength)
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:03:12 GMT

In article <17lodeINNc6r@iraul1.ira.uka.de> preiss@i31s15.ira.uka.de (Martin Preiss) writes:

>Are the mentioned 2300 for Zarkov USCF rating or international Elo ?
>Do the originate from games against humans or against other programs ?

This is my personal estimate of Zarkov 2.6 in USCF on a 486/25.  I
based the estimate on CCR's rating of 2.5 on a 486/33 and Chess Lab's
assertion that 2.6 is about 50 points stronger than 2.5.

CCR's rating of 2.5 takes into account computer-computer games and
problem sets.  I don't think that human-computer games are used
directly, although the CRA ratings are taken into account, and some/all
of those involve humans.

Hope this helps.  --Jim
From: biswas@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (Sanjay Biswas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: XICS ftp location
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:13:27 GMT


    I would appreciate if anyone e-mails me the ftp location of the xics program.     Thanks in advance. 

    Sanjay
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Subject: Re: computers that intentionally slip up (was Re: chinook)
Keywords: update
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin)
Organization: y
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 19:00:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.164917.11099@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:

>many times inferior, as in 2400 vs. 1800.  But it seems to me the
>height of folly for a 2400 to lose to an 1800 by playing as if
>he/she/it is playing against another 2400.

I find it hard to imagine a situation where a 2400 loses a well played
game to an 1800.  The situation isn't one sided.  If a 2400 player seems
to be "wasting" moves defending against real attacks that the 1800 might
not see; note that the 2400 is also spending time creating equally
complicated threats which the 1800 will miss.

Another thing you must consider is this -- if a 2400 player is playing an
1800 player, then either something is, or is not at stake (it is a 
tournament game perhaps).  Where something is at stake, then it is well
worth the effort on the part of the 2400 to insure the victory, and 
play a flawless game.  Where something is not at stake, the 2400 may 
choose to play less carefully.  In this latter case a mate many moves
away might well occur.  Then, in this casual game perhaps the best course
of action is to go:

"Ok, I resign -- and I'll show you why."

In effect a teaching game.  Nothing is lost by this, the 2400 can gloat
over his opponants amazement at the reading skill, and probably feel a
lot happier than if he had won by mistake.   The 1800 on the other hand
has learned something, and will probably take his victory quite humbly.

In casual games the resignation course is preferable for another reason:
it gives you the time to play another game, in which you can attempt to
do better.

Justin
sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin Wells)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Request for Info: Chess computers (any used ones out there?)
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:02:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.113030.16739@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@atto.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:

>I recently bought a $160 chess computer from Radio Shack (max
>rating 2150). I just love it. But the price is daunting. I

2150 is the model name, not the rating.  CCR rates the 2150L at 1927,
an entire class lower than the misleading model name suggests.  You
can get a Fidelity Designer 2000 for $100, rated at 1951.

>or if you are interested in selling yours (rating not less than 2100).

If you truly want machine rated at least 2100, then I think you are
going to have to go for the Fidelity Mach III at $200, rated 2189.  Or,
if you are satisfied with the official rating from CRA, the Fidelity
Designer 2100 costs only about $140.  Basically, Fidelity's Designer
series was the best for the price.  Machines with comparable strength
from other manufacturers cost roughly 25% more.  Or, as you can see in
the case of Radio Shack, they charge you 60% more for less.

Of course, if you can find a used machine....

Best bet, call I.C.D. at 800-645-4710.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Support Bobby!
From: Ken Ramaley <KJRGC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 31 Aug 1992 19:48:02 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

To rec.games.chess readers:
        If you read this list, surely you must be a great chess enthusiast.
This being the case, how is it possible that I'm reading about "boycotting
the match" or what a terrible thing Fischer is doing.  I thought that by now,
all chess fans would have realized that Chess is a game that transcends such
(relatively) petty disputes.  I mean, in the great world of Chess, what happens
if we allow wars and such to get in the way of someone as great as Fischer?
Ask Capablanca, who was prevented from challenging Alekhine to regain his title
due to WW II.  The beauty of chess cannot be disrupted by world events.  The
game itself is eternal and must go on, despite the problems in the world.
      My understanding was that Fischer wanted to play in Yugoslavia for the
following reasons: 1) that's where the money was offered, and 2) there would be
a smaller crowd in attendance.  Certainly, he has achieved goal #2.  If this is
what he requires to begin to enlighten the chess world with his genius again
(after a 20 year hiatus), how can we be intolerant?  If anything, I would hope
that I would be reading about the letters to the US Treasury Dept. that members
of this group are writing in support of Bobby and his match.  If we can't let
Chess exist on a plane above the trivialities of the world, the game is not
much more than a diversion for bored people.  Good luck, Bobby!
                                            -Ken
-------
*************************************************************************
*  KEN RAMALEY INTERNET: KJRGC @ CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU                        *
*  CUNY GRAD CENTER      "GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE." - EINSTEIN           *
*  NEW YORK, NY          ALL THE VIEWS I EXPRESS ARE MY OWN, BUT SOMEONE*
*                        ELSE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE PROBABLY   *
*                        THOUGHT OF THEM FIRST."                        *
*************************************************************************
From: emarkp@ocf.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Stalemate (was Re: handicap in chess)
Date: 28 Aug 1992 21:53:35 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.190949.3656@ists.ists.ca> sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin) writes:
}In article <23576@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
}>In article <64789@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
}>
}>> Is there any good reason for the game ending on checkmate rather than the
}>> actual capture of the King?
}>
}>Is there any good reason for playing chess rather than some other game?
}>
}>Changing the rules would change the game, sometimes considerably.
}>For example, stalemate is an important element in analyzing many
}>endgames, particularly simple ones.  Why should pepople who play chess
}>be willing to play this different game instead?
}
}Fortunately, throughout all of history, people who play chess have been
}willing to consider questions like this.  As a result they have changed
}the game, and made it better.  Would you rather be playing chess as it
}was 600 years ago?  


   Well I certainly wouldn't want to.  However, the rule mentioned in an
earlier post (eliminate stalemate) *has* been tried in the past.  And it no
longer exists you will note.  Stalemate provides a way for a player who is
down to eke out a 1/2-1/2 score, so there can still be something to go for
in a lost position.  Without this, I think chess would lose some of its
excitement.

  Since this rule has been tried in the past, and it is no longer part of
chess, I see no reason to repeat the change, as it will most likely not
survive.


-- 
E. Mark Ping
emarkp@ocf.Berkeley.EDU

  "Stand aside, I take large steps."    --Michael Dorn
  "Say, that's a nice bike."            --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
  "Pituita es."                         --Unknown Latin Scholar

And of course, this in no way reflects my views of UC Berkeley.
From: wagner@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer match on ICS
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:54:04 EDT

In article <1992Sep1.023543.23688@tamsun.tamu.edu>, sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
> 
> Certainly, I respect that others may disagree with me...
> Consequently, I shall not expect anyone to force you or others
> who oppose the match to watch it. Please allow those of us
> who are interested in it to pursue attempts to view the
> games. Furthermore, please don't be so naive or quixotic as to
> believe that watching the match and condoning any of the attrocities
> being perpetrated there (or anywhere else in the world) are 
> synonymous. 
> 

Two points:  

i) Mr Ely's post which prompted my response was a solicitation for funds.

ii) In financially supporting the match, one is supporting the Serbian
government.  As for the naivete of economic and cultural sanctions, I 
draw your attention to recent events in South Africa.  

To repeat, I was concerned with the solicitation for money.  
Whether or not one follows the match is of course a personal matter.  
 						-Luke
From: jlwestm@pbhyb.PacBell.COM (Jeff Westman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: What happened to Fischer?
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:23:53 GMT
Reply-To: jlwestm@PacBell.COM (Jeff Westman)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Sep1.010649.9693@news.Hawaii.Edu> mike@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Mike W. Burger) writes:
;
;	If Fischer was so full of chess lust after winning the
;World Championship, what event or series of events transmuted
;him into a recluse who shunned chess like a reformed alcoholic
;shuns drink?

I read in a recent column in CL&R by Larry Evans (al long time close friend of
Fischer) that he feels that Fischer left chess because he had "reached the
top."  As he put it [loosely quoted], "Once you conquer Mt. Everest, what left
is there to do."

-- 
Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gzogbi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi)
Subject: Re: Alekhine a4 lines
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:27:41 GMT

                 - dense analysis deleted -

>>
>>     Well, this should keep me busy for at least one pack of
>>cigarrettes.  Thanks for the reply.
>>
>>-Mark
>
>
      Only *one* pack of cigarettes??  Hell, I usually smoke one pack per
main line, and a few more for subvariations!! BTW, nothing's better than
smoking, drinking beer and playing speed chess!!
From: sigmund@nsc.nsc.com (Sigmund Malek)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fisher wins first game
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:10:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara


 Fisher won the first game in 49 moves in Ruy Lopez (Nb8) variation.
The game appears in USA Today.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: This Month In Chess History
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:31:29 GMT


                   THIS MONTH IN CHESS HISTORY
                         September, 1992

100 Years Ago
September, 1892

Emanuel Lasker defeats English Master Henry Bird 5-0 in a match 
at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The September, 1992 issue of the "British 
Chess Magazine" featured a review of the Dresden tournament won 
by Tarrasch and coverage of the Lasker-Bird match.

75 Years Ago
September, 1917

Completing its seventh move in forty-four years, the Manhattan 
Chess Club settles into its new quarters at the Hotel Sherman 
Square; it had just moved from Carnegie Hall, where it would 
relocate to again seventy years later! In an otherwise 
unremarkable issue, the "British Chess Magazine" observes that 
the fifth game of the Lasker-Tarrasch match began "...on 
December 5th, 1916, adjourned for the first time to the next 
day, for the second time to December 9th, and finally played out 
on December 10th."

50 Years Ago
September, 1942

World Champion Alexander Alekhin wins at Munich 8.5-3.5 ahead of 
Keres, Bogolyubov, Foltys and Richter; after the war Keres and 
Alekhin in particular will both have their participation in this 
and other such tournaments questioned. A few familiar names 
graced the correspondence chess rating list in the 
August-September issue of "Chess Review:" Class B, Dr. A. 
Buschke, Irving Rivise and in Class C, Robert Steinmeyer.

25 Years Ago
September, 1967

Kavalek, Minic and Sergaevsky tie for first at Varna; beginning 
one of the most successful tournament runs in history, Danish 
Grandmaster Bent Larsen wins at Havana 15-4 ahead of Taimanov 
and Smyslov; Krogius, Spassky, Shamkovich and Zaitsev tie for 
first at Sochi. U.S. Junior Champion Sal Matera (who had hair 
then!) was on the front cover of this month's "Chess Life." Pal 
Benko's win in the Atlantic Open was reported, as the USCF 
finalized its preparations to move north to Newburgh from New 
York City.
From: ben@wharf.UUCP (Bob Fischer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Spassky-Fischer  game2
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:32:49 GMT
Organization: Fisherman's Wharf BBS  (215) 383-7245


[E80 Samisch Variation]
Spassky-Fischer
Game 2    9/3/92
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 c5 6.dxc5 dxc5 7.Qxd8 Kxd8
8.Be3 Nfd7 9.Nge2 b6 10.0-0-0 Na6 11.g3 Nc7 12.f4 e6 13.Bh3 Ke7 14.Rhf1 h6
15.e5 Bb7 16.g4 Rad8 17.Ng3 f6 18.Nce4 fxe5 19.f5 Bxe4 20.Nxe4 gxf5
21.gxf5 Nf6 22.Rg1 Rxd1+ 23.Kxd1 Bf8 24.Nxf6 Kxf6 25.Rf1 exf5 26.Rxf5+ Kg7
27.Rxe5 Bd6 28.Re4 Bxh2 29.Ke2 h5 30.Re7+ Kf6 31.Rd7 Be5 32.b3 h4
33.Kf3 Rg8 34.Bg4 h3 35.Rh7 h2 36.Bf4 Rf8 37.Bxe5+ Kg6 38.Ke4 Kxh7
39.Bxh2 Re8+ 40.Kf5 Ne6 41.Kf6 Nd4 42.Bd6 Re4 43.Bd7 Re2 44.a4 Rb2
45.Bb8 a5 46.Ba7 Rxb3 47.Ke5 Nf3+ 48.Kd6 Nd2 49.Be6 Rb4 50.Kc6 Nb3
51.Bd5 Rxa4 52.Bxb6 Ra1 53.Bxc5 a4 54.Bb4 a3 55.c5 Nd4+ 56.Kd7 Rd1
57.Bxa3 Nc2 58.c6 Rxd5+ 59.Bd6 draw


+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
|  uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!lock60!wharf!ben    |     Fisherman's Wharf BBS  |
|  ben%wharf@canal.org                    |        (215) 383-7245      |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Alekhine a4 lines
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:22:58 GMT

The line was: 1.e4 nf6 2.e5 nd5 3.d4 d6 4.nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6
              6.Bb3 Bg7 7. ...

In article <1992Aug27.191300.19968@jyu.fi> ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen) writes:
>
>I find Qe2 very dangerous. Black finds it extremerely difficult
>to find any counterplay. Without Qe2 I would even consider playing
>Alburts g6!?

It IS dangerous, I agree.  However, I don't think it's too
hard to find active counterplay in these lines.  I've been
crushed horribly a number of times, yes, but not simply
sqeezed to death.

>>Some other Black replies after 7.a4!
>>i) 7.-dxe5
>>8.a5 Nd7 9.Nxe5
>
>Yes, but of course  9.Bxf7+ as I wrote.

Sorry, 8...Nd7?? is a bad blunder.  Insert Nd5 and the line
makes sense.

>00 10.00 Nc6!?  The Black pieces can get pretty active
>>here, but usually at the cost of a pawn (at least).

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: Marshall - ask Fischer
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:00:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.193254.26279@newshost.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
|> 
|> This is the more puzzling in that I can't figure out why *anybody* would want
|> to play the Breyer Variation against Fischer.  It basically concedes White a
|> slight but lasting advantage through superior control of space and lack of
|> satisfactory Black counterplay.  There are probably some top-flight GMs that
|> can be conceded this kind of advantage without any more ill effects than any
|> other failure to equalize as Black in the opening.  Fischer is, or at least
|> was, not one of them.  His efficiency in turning that kind of position into a
|> full point probably is unsurpassed in chess history.  Surely Spassky knew
|> that; after all, he was a victim of Fischer's technique against the Breyer in
|> the 10th game of the 1972 match.  So what was going on in his head when he
|> chose that opening?  Any Spassky seconds on the net? :-)
|> 

  I know the answer - the match is fixed!!! No doubt about it!! This is all
  a publicity ploy to sell the new chess clocks.  The match is FIXED!!




-Ron "not as strong a player as Fischer but just as crazy" Birnbaum

Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6577 rec.games.go:1749 rec.games.board:8347 rec.games.programmer:3683