HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strgh@csv.warwick.ac.uk (J E H Shaw)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Book Review: Oxford Companion to Chess
Date: 4 Jan 1993 10:37:17 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk

I treated myself to the `Oxford Companion to Chess' for Christmas.
It's a great book, but one thing that disappointed me was that
Gaprindashvili & Chiburdanidze, WWC for ~30 years between them,
were given a total of 13 (I think) lines of text and no games.
Some other IGM's of similar strength get far more attention.

Please God don't let this start a Political Correctness flamewar.

        -- Ewart Shaw
-- 
J.E.H.Shaw,  Department of Statistics,  |  JANET:  strgh@uk.ac.warwick
             University of Warwick,     |  BITNET: strgh%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL
             Coventry  CV4 7AL,  U.K.   |  PHONE:  +44 203 523069
yacc - the piece of code that understandeth all parsing
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: vbl@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Randall Julian)
Subject: Re: Request Book Recommendations
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:15:26 GMT

In article <1ffbwwcp511@tweekco.uucp>, 824-5054%wwiv@tweekco.uucp (Jay Whitley #824 @5054) writes:
|> I agree with Jerry Wilcox's recommendation of Chernev's "Logical Chess
|> Move-by-Move."  The question I have is:  are there any other books
|> explaining every move (to the novice-to-average player) that aren't
|> cryptic annotations?  Chernev's explanations are very good...any others
|> like his?

I am a beginner, and I've made great strides playing over the games in 
"Logical Chess...".  But recently I got "How to Think Ahead in Chess",
by Horowitz and Renfield (sp?).  This book is in another group altogether
and there are a couple of others like it - opening systems which cover both 
sides and give recommended lines to play.

It attempts to bring the beginner up to speed on 1) what to play as white,
2) how to respond to e4, 3) how to respond to  d4, and 4) how to respond to incorrect play.  It basically says: here's an off-beat d4 opening for white which won't get you killed (stone-wall attack), which limits blacks which limits blacks possible responses so you can get to a middle game you can play in.  Then procedes to do the same for black.  Sicilian dragon for e4 and Laskers defense for d4.  It has about five fully explained games for each of the three systems which illustrate variaous points, then 


five or six more which show when to abandon the "plan" due to opportunities or refutations.  It therefore stresses the ideas of the opening as they relate to the type of middle game which results. There is no emphasis on memorization, although playing through the games results in remembering them because they are all so similar.

I wonder what more advanced players think of books like this ?  It seems
to have helped me win more games, but I wonder about the long term effect.  I know that some of these lines have been refuted at master level play, but what effect does that have on someone who wants to get to 'A' level (from 0) ?

I have another question related to studying:  I get a book, like "Logical Chess..." or recently "My 60 Memorable Games", and I get out a little magnetic set and play over the games writing the score in algebraic and trying to write some comment about what I think is going on, then I look at what the book says and try to see what I did wrong.  This takes FOREVER !  I know there is no "Kings Road" in Chess but am I wasting time ?  I play my computer and occasionally my brother (who has been playing longer th


an me, and can usually punish my blunders).  I am considering going to chess club meetings, but I don't know how to make the time spent there count.
From: gpylant@admin1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Informant/Sahovski - not in Yugo!
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:01:11 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <cerulean.726633881@digex>, cerulean@access.digex.com (Bill Christens-Barry) writes:
> Doesn't the buying and selling of Sahovski products like the Informant violate
> the UN trade sanctions against Yugoslavia (sic)?  All of the Informants I own
> indicate that they originate in Belgrade, Serbia, "Yugoslavia".
> 
> Personally, I'm moving to New in Chess.
> 
> Bill Christens-Barry
> cerulean@digex.com
>
Informant 54 was printed in Hunguary....maybe that bypasses the UN sanction.
I have not seen 55 yet and can't say where it was released.
Gary
From: wayne.mendryk@freddy.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Wayne Mendryk) 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Reference games sought fo
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:57:00 GMT
Reply-To: wayne.mendryk@freddy.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Wayne Mendryk) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Freddy's Place BBS - Edmonton, AB - 403-456-4241

M_>From: M_vanderList@fccc.edu
M_>Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
M_>Subject: Reference games sought for Alekhine variation of the Dutch Def.
M_>Message-ID: <1993Jan7.003105.12581@fccc.edu>
M_>Date: 7 Jan 93 00:31:05 GMT

M_>I am looking for reference games for the alekhine variation of the
M_>dutch defense viz. 1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. o-o o-o
M_>6. c4 Ne4. Anybody out there willing to search their massive ':-)'
M_>databases to find me some games with this variation?

Here is a Alekhine variation game from Tilburg 1990. I would appreciate
if you know the ECO code for the opening that you include it with a
request, (as all of my chessbase files are ECO5  coded.

W:Nikolic, Pr (2600)  Short, N (2610)  ECO:A92
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 O-O 6.d5 Ne4 7.O-O Bf6 8.Nbd2
Nxd2 9.Nxd2 exd5 10.cxd5 d6 11.Qc2 a5 12.Nc4 Nd7 13.Bd2 b6 14.Rac1 Nc5
15.b3 Qe7 16.e3 Ne4 17.Rfd1 Bd7 18.Be1 Rfe8 19.Na3 Nc5 20.Bf1 g5
21.Nb5 f4 22.exf4 gxf4 23.a3 Bg5 24.b4 axb4 25.axb4 fxg3 26.hxg3 Bxc1
27.Qxc1 Ne4 28.Nd4 Qf6 29.Qe3 Ng5 30.Ne6 Nf3+ 31.Kg2 Rxe6 32.dxe6 Bc6
33.Bc3 Ng5+ 34.Kg1 Qh6 35.f4 Qh1+ 36.Kf2 Qh2+ 0-1 times: 1.37- 1.55
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Chess is one of the noblest inventions of the human mind
                                                         
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: USCF Lifetime Titles (again)
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:51:59 GMT

I thought that I understood the USCF Lifetime Titles system.  

Then I read the official explanation in the December 1992 Annual Rating
List.

Now I'm confused.  

The explanation includes an example calculation.  Here are the essential
points:

*assume a player named Barry Bishop.  "Barry bishop's norm title, not
 rating, before the tournament was ''Advanced Class B'' (1700 norm level)
 and he had zero points toward Certified class A title (''B0'' class norm
 code)."

*the example computation now proceeds to calculate the expected
 performance of a 1700 player against Barry's opponents in this
 tournament.  

*"Barry exceeded the expected score of a player at the 1700 norm
 level..."

*"Barry failed to exceed the expected score of a player at the 1800 norm
 level.  His highest norm level performance was 1700..." 

*"Since Barry gained two norm points toward ''Advanced Class B'' norm,
 his post tournament norm code would be ''B2.''  He would need eight more
 points to achieve ''Certified Class A'' norm.

Now - can this be right?  I thought that the code "B0" meant that Barry
already had the "Advanced Class B" title (earlier in the explanation, we
are told: "John Chess has a norm code of ''c2,'' which means he
currently holds the Certified Class C title (1400) and two points toward
the Advanced Class C title (1500)."  So...doesn't "B0" mean that Barry
already has the Advanced Class B title?  If so, why are we computing the
performance of a 1700 player against Barry's opponents?  Why does the
explanation say that the code B2 means that Barry has "gained two points
toward ''Advanced Class B'' norm..."?

Am I confused, or is this a massive misprint?  Does the letter in the
norm code represent the title you *have* - or the title you are *working
towards*? 

[my claim is that Barry's performance (1720, 1750, 1800, 1770, 1600;
3-2) failed to produce a Certified Class A norm, and his norm code is
still B0.]

If you have the Annual List handy - please read the entire explanation;
perhaps I've left out a crucial detail in my condensed version above.

If you don't, then you probably don't understand the title system any
better than I do - but what the hell, take a shot!

----

I also note, with amusement, that Table III: Sample "Win Expectancies"
is computed to 3 decimal digits.  Such precision!

-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Subject: Re: Robatch Defense -- any ideas?
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:37:22 GMT

In <ft#@byu.edu> jensen@baloo.ee.byu.edu (Curtis Jensen) writes:

>In trying to find an unusual response to 1.e4, I stumbled on the
>Robatsch Defense.  I found two lines which are as follows:

Robatsch Defense is the old name, nowadays it is called either Pirc
(1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 and 3.-g6) or Modern (1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 and 3.-d6).
Looking at lines you presented it seems Modern is what you want.
As I am currently looking over one critical line, I may help a little.

So 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4! (In my opinion this is most critical, as the
point in Pirc is to prevent white getting this wide center.) 3.-d6 4.Nc3
Nc6 (Othe lines are either too passive or allow white a transposition to
King's Indian) 5.d5! (Formerly thought good for black) 5.-Nd4 6.Be3 c5
7.Nge2 Qb6 8.Nxd4! cxd4 9.Na4 and now:

9.-Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qc7 11.c5! dxc5 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.Bxd7+ Qxd7 14.Nxc5 +=,
Seirawan - Keene, 1982

9.-dxe3!?/?! 

This mad idea of Keene's is probably dubious, but it makes white to work
for his point.

10.Nxb6 exf2+ 11.Kxf2 axb6 and now 12.Qd2! (preventing Bd4+) is best,
according to Keene.

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)?"
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: A game of chess with dmc!?
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:42:28 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1iajklINN91v@shelley.u.washington.edu>, monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.164222.815@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>> 
>>> Until such time, through your posts, that you demostrate even an understanding
>>> of chess moves, your knowledge of the game will remain suspect, your
>>> extensive high school tournament experience notwithstanding ;^)
>>
>>OK, how do we know YOU know how to play?
> 
> I've never made such a claim (my extensive high school tournament
> experience notwithstanding :), in fact, in posting questions to this
> newsgroup, I've always post warnings of my fish-ness.

Well, I think you are lying here. In fact, I think you play at GM strength when
you want to.

Can you prove you can't?

> 
>>
>>And, please don't just post moves, as that will mean you have someone helping
>>you!!!
>>
>>Gee, kinda hard to prove something to a closed mind, huh?
>>
> I have no real desire to 'prove' anything to you.
> My only desire is to improve my play, such as it is.
> You, having shown that you argue for the sake of argument (not necessarily
> a negative trait, but probably inappropriate in this medium), do nothing
> to improve my chess.
> If you disagree with someone's analysis, post yours.

I didn't say I had a better analysis. I didn't even say I had an analysis. I
simply said Benjamin's was sloppy and incomplete.

I don't have to post a better one to show his is faulty, I need only point out
the areas where his needs work.

(You don't need to be an engineer to state that the Tower of Pisa leans!)


> I don't really care whether Fischer's game has slipped, my only concern
> (re: this newsgroup) is preventing my game from slipping (more).

Nor do I. I like his ability to manipulate the world press MUCH more than I
ever loved his skills as a player.

And, he has not slipped there!

>
From: elkies@zariski.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Knights Tour
Date: 12 Jan 93 03:07:56 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1993Jan11.162835.1@slcw25.slac.stanford.edu>
ron@slcw25.slac.stanford.edu writes:

>There are probably of the order of 10^10 simple knight's tours (removing 
>duplications due to symmetry). There are approximately 10^7 cyclic knight's 
>tours, where the 64th square is a knight's hop from the first. [...]

Where do these numbers come from?  Does this mean it may be possible to
check by exhaustive search the oft-repeated but never-substantiated claim
that there is no 8x8 magic square where 1,2,3,...,64 mark consecutive moves
of a Knight's tour, at least in the cyclic ("re-entrant") case?

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: wang@cs.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang)
Subject: Re: Help! Chess game in Blade Runner
Reply-To: wang@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:41:25 GMT

hcn@calvin.inesc.pt (Horacio Neto) writes:
>A game that fits the description above is the famous "Immortal game",
>played in London in 1851:

>Anderssen,Adolf-Kieseritzky,L
>London, 1851
>1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Qh4+ 4.Kf1 b5 5.Bxb5 Nf6 6.Nf3 Qh6 7.d3 Nh5 8.Nh4 
>Qg5 9.Nf5 c6 10.g4 Nf6 11.Rg1 cxb5 12.h4 Qg6 13.h5 Qg5 14.Qf3 Ng8 15.Bxf4 
>Qf6 16.Nc3 Bc5 17.Nd5 Qxb2 18.Bd6 Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Bxg1 20.e5 Na6 21.Nxg7+ 
>Kd8 22.Qf6+ Nxf6 23.Be7+          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've always seen it published with a different move order:

18.Bd6!? Bxg1 [Bxd6 19.Nxd6+ Kd8 20.Nxf7+ Ke8 21.Nd6+ Kd8 22.Qf8 splat]
19.e5!! "Have another Rook!" trivially threatening 20.Nxg7+ Kd8 21.Bc7
mate.  Black can protect c7 in one move (Na6), but first takes his free
move to pick up the other Rook with check: 19-Qxa1+ 20.Ke2 Na6  But
after 21.Ng7+ Kd8, Black's King is trapped, and his King Knight becomes
overworked!  Hence the Queen sac wins by deflecting the Knight, allowing
the Bishop to mate.

As for this being the game in Blade Runner: I agree that it's out of
place; Anderssen clearly had the mating net planned before he played his
17.Nd5, so if Sebastian needed Roy's help, either it couldn't have been
the Immortal game, OR Sebastian is the LUCKIEST damn fish to ever swim
through an E tournament AND Tyrell's seeing-eye dog needs its own
seeing-eye dog.  I don't for a second accept that two supposedly decent
players could BOTH miss a queen sac mate-in-two in a correspondence
game.  (In an OTB mutual time scramble, perhaps, but that obviously
didn't apply here.)  Heck, give me enough hours and even _I_ can see
those coming.  I've always considered this to be an outright error by
the script writers, who clearly weren't chess players themselves, and
didn't understand how to characterize "good" chess.  (Star Trek was
guilty of this, too; in one episode, Spock gives Kirk a mate-in-one,
then complains to McCoy that Kirk's mating move was "illogical; he
should have moved his Rook".  Grrr -- NOTHING is more logical than
instant mate.)  Things like this make me feel like lightly wrapping my
fingers around some screenwriter's neck and screaming quietly, If you
don't KNOW about it, don't WRITE about it!!  Try ASKING a REAL EXPERT
for a REALITY CHECK for a change!!

Phew.  Now back to you regularly scheduled squawks and squabbles.

Eric Wang
wang@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wednesday, 6 Jan 1993 14:28:21 EST
From: Corey Butler <IO00376@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Request Book Recommendation for Beginner

I'd recommend anything by Fred Reinfeld or Bruce Pandolfini.
Another good book is Masters of the Chessboard by Richard Reti,
which presents a series of master games in an easy-to-understand
manner.  Books of chess problems are also extremely useful to
sharpen your eye for forks, pins and mating attacks.  Remember
to avoid simply memorizing opening variations: understanding
is better than memory (at least that's what I'm told).  Good luck
and have fun!            --Corey
From: SG919C@gwuvm.gwu.edu (Raad Alhamdan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Informator on CD-ROM ?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 12:25:27 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Someone told me that the Informator series are all on one CD-ROM.. Does
any one here know anything about this (where, how much, softwere, ..etc)

Thank you for your help..

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
| Raad Alhamdan | sg919c@gwuvm.bitnet  | "I choose not to choose."         |
| (202)363-1091 | sg919c@gwuvm.gwu.edu |               - a kid in my class |
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: regan@netcom.com (NEIL REGAN)
Subject: BURLINGAME RIDE- TOM DORSCH INFORMED! BY PHONE
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ?Bay
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:23:42 GMT


INFORMED MR. TOM DORSCH BY PHONE LEFT MESSAGE ABOUT YOUR NEED FOR A
RIDE TO BURLINGAME FOR YOU AND A FRIEND.  IF YOU GET A CHANCE LET ME KNOW
WHO THE OTHER PERSON IS AS WELL AS HIS ADDRESS AND pHONE.

                THANKS   NEIL



Keywords: CHESS,ride,Burlingame
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: checkers (was: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!)
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:11:13 EST
Organization: Harvard Math Department
Keywords: checkers


For those who are interested, there's an article on Tinsley and the
Tinsley-Chinook match in the Jan 4th Sports Illustrated.   To answer
an earlier question, Chinook sees 24 moves ahead, whereas Tinsley can
reach 30 (so says the article).  Tinsley has lost 7 games since 1948,
including the two he lost to Chinook.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Benko Heaven
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:18:11 GMT
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

For an idea of why Benko Gambit players love the opening, here's
position that one of my chess computers insists on plaing into:

W: Kg1, Qe2, Ra2, Rh1, Be3, Nc3, Ng5, Pa3,b2,d5,e4,f2,g2,h2
B: Kg8, Qa5, Rb8, Rb3, Bg7, Nd7, Nf6, Pc5,d6,e7,f7,g6,h7

Black to move and win.

[you don't really want to know how White gets into this mess - it's a
classic case of a decent opening book leading the compuer into a
position that it hasn't a clue about once it gets out of book.  Not
unlike a lot of human players, actually...]



-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson)
Subject: Re: Outlaw Adjournments?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:09:35 GMT

Randy Pals writes:
>The subject of time controls occasionally comes up in this group (and
>when it hasn't for a while, I bring it up ;-)).  My pet peeve is the
>tournament which trys to pack too much chess into too little time,
>and I have suggested rules on time controls/rounds per day as a
>solution.  These suggestions have met with (no surprise) some opposition.
>
>While filling out the USCF survey in the February issue, it occurred to me
>that there is an altogether simpler rule change that may garner more
>support and have more benefits: outlaw adjournments.
>
>The benefits of this are pretty clear.  The problem of pairing the
>adjournment (frequently a trouble spot) disappears.  No more between
>sessions cheating, which is against the rules but everyone openly admits to
>anyway.  Players could plan ahead better, knowing that they would only be
>playing at the scheduled round times.  And of course, organizers would be
>virtually forced to set time controls and schedule rounds in a reasonable
>fashion, as adjournment wouldn't be available as the "solution" to a badly
>formulated schedule. 
>
>Any opinions?  In particular, can anyone advance an argument showing 
>that keeping adjournments has greater benefits than outlawing them?
>
>-- 
>Randy Pals                |pals@ipact.com
>IPACT, Inc.               |

Scheduling rounds in a "reasonable" fashion won't always be enough.
Unless you use sudden death time controls, or have only one round per day, 
there's no way to guarentee that all the games will end before the
next round is supposed to begin.  150 move marathon games occasionally
happen.  When they occur, adjournment will only affect the two players
involved in the game, while delaying the start of the next round will
inconvenience everybody in the tournament.
From: dawes@twics.co.jp
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: RE: CM3000 Strength
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:01:40 GMT
Organization: TWICS, Tokyo, Japan



	Chessmaster 3000 ratings:
These are not USCF ratings, they are FIDE elo ratings; add approx 100 for
USCF.

CM 3000 on a 486 PC, 2096 elo
CM 3000 on a 386 PC, 1966 elo
CM 3000 on a 286 PC, 1936 elo
CM 3000 on a bog standard PC, 1807 elo

	 I copied these from Eric Hallsworth's list of computer program
strengths. Eric sell computers and software from the U.K., I just ordered
a Kasparov Risc 2500 from him, a?edicated machine running a version of
'The King' written for PCs. According to information so far, this machine
is similar in strength to MChess Pro on the fastest hardware, can anyone
confirm this?

	Eric sells dedicated machines and software, phone +44 258 840 285
or write to: The Specialists, PO Box 759, Wimborne, Dorset BH21 5YH, U.K.

Peter Dawes, Tokyo.
From: jay@tweekco.uucp (Jay Whitley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: 1 BOOK ONLY
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 03:11:35 PST
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615

Your personal chess library is being confiscated and
taken away forever.  You are allowed to keep 1 BOOK ONLY.
Which chess book do you keep and why?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: baarniy@iastate.edu (Scott A Coon)
Subject: draws
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Summary: eliminating them
Keywords: pros and cons, please
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:03:07 GMT


Hi, folks.
	On rec.games.abstract there is discussion going on
on getting rid of the numerous draws in chess.  Specifically,
what's the best way to do it (I personally don't like the idea
of eliminating draws, or even necessarily reducing the number
of them, but I got suckered into responding anyway.)
	Someone suggested that one thing to do is (get this)
make moving your king to your opponent's back rank an automatic
win.  I tried to argue that, during an endgame, being able to 
move the king behind the opposing pawn line was enough of an 
advantage that much of endgame play involved preventing exactly
that, which simultaneously prevented getting the king to the
back rank (if you can't get behind the pawns, you clearly can't
get to row 8 most of the time, right?)
	The response has generally been "No, no, it becomes a
king race and the pawns aren't important then."
	So, I'm wondering if I just failed to get my point across
or if these folks are better endgamers than I (1550 rating four
years ago, but I've worked through Keres' Practical Chess Endings
a couple of times since then.)
	Setting aside the fact that this modification is just 
dumb, what does everyone else think about the endgame impact it
would have?  I tend to think it would just increase the significance
of the gaining the opposition, which is big enough already.

Scott C.



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess