HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Oops Department
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:16:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.152542.10802@husc3.harvard.edu> elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.131628.22895@news.larc.nasa.gov> azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips) writes:
>:In article <Apr.5.16.16.12.1992.17392@remus.rutgers.edu>, 
>:clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>:> In _1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations_ (#3), Reinfeld
>:> gives White to play and win in this position:

>:>          8 r - - k - - - -
>:>          7 - p p - - r p p
>:>          6 p n - b - p - -
>:>          5 - - - n - - - -
>:>          4 - - - - - - - -
>:>          3 P - - - - N B -
>:>          2 - P P - - - P P
>:>          1 - - K R R - - -
>:>            a b c d e f g h

>:> His key is 1. c4! Ne7 2. c5; did he overlook something?

It would be helpful if you would say what you have in mind.

>:  Looks to me that Reinfeld overlooked 1. ---  Nb6xc4, which would

Actually, Reinfeld does not miss this at all.  He gives Rxd5 as the
appropriate response to Nxc4.  I'm not sure why the original poster did
not tell us this.  Perhaps he has something else in mind.

On the other hand, it looks as though Reinfeld considers Ne7 better for
black because he gives that as the main variation.  On yet another
hand, the chapter is on pinning, so Black's Ne7 may be inferior but
does give Reinfeld the opportunity to teach us something about
attacking pinned pieces.

>Still, in neither line does White come close to proving the stipulated
>win --- presumably there's a White bishop or knight missing?

Reinfeld just says that White wins the knight; there is no requirement
in this book that one achieve a winning advantage, and White is
certainly better off after winning the knight.  I checked last night
and nothing is missing from the diagram, but the original poster did
not give us Reinfeld's analysis accurately.

--Jim
From: g0m0078@tamsun.tamu.edu (Giri)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Shortest/Longest Games
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:27:35 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

One of my favorite players Capablanca is said to have 
lost only 35 games in his career. But he lost a game
in 13 moves.
Capablanca keritz
b4 d5
bb2 bf5
e3 e6
f4 nf6
nf3 nbd7
ne2 ng4
c3 be7
h3 nc5
ng3 bh4
nh4 qh4
qf2 nf1


I also have some games which are:
mate by moving only pawns
mate by castling
mate by en passant capture.

If there is sufficient interest I will post these games.
The games are ~20 moves.  
Please e-mail me if u are interested.


Have Fun,

giri
    



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Dennis Baker <helios!canal.crc.uno.edu!DCBCS@tssi.com>
Subject: The Fritz variation
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1992 14:07:00 GMT


On 17 Apr 92 01:24:51 GMT, hoover@sandkey.csee.usf.edu (Adam Hoover)
writes:

>Recently, a lot of my oponents on ICS have played the following line as black:
>1. e4 e5   2. Nf3 Nc6   3. Bc4 Nf6   4. Ng5 d5   5. ed Nd4

This is the Fritz variation.  I think Berliner preferred to reach the Fritz
through the Ulvestad variation move order, 5...b5, which reduced White's
options somewhat, including the line you reached.  After 6.Bf1 Nd4, Black
transposes back into the Fritz, eliminating your line -- but is that a worry?
(See below.)  Perhaps someone could post the famous Estrin-Berliner game.
This game makes a fantastic impression.

>I have started playing this, with what I think is a bust.
>6. c3 b5   7. cd bc   8. de
>and now if 8. ... Nxd5 then 9. Qa4+ Bd7   10. Qxc4 Qxg5   11. Qxd5
>covers g2 and leaves white 2 pawns ahead.  After castling and playing
>d4, white looks to be in real good shape.

Well 8...Qxd5 is also possible.  Since 9.exf6 Qxg5 10.Qe2+ Be6 looks like no
big deal for Black, maybe 9.O-O Bb7 10.Nf3.  Hmm.  I don't know here.  10...Ne4
11.Nc3 Nxc3 12.dxc3 O-O-O?  Or maybe after 9...Qxg5 10.O-O Qxf6 11.Re1+ Be7
12.Qa4+ Bd7 13.Qxc4 O-O... I don't know.  It does look interesting, even if
White grabs on c7.

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 50 out of 100?
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:34:33 GMT
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham

In article <1992Apr16.180234.5960@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>In article <0dv3YdT0BwxKIW7ohf@transarc.com> Ron_Kownacki@TRANSARC.COM writes:
>>>> 100 coin tosses: 50 heads out of 100 is a better bet than 1 head out of 1.
>
>>If you really believe this, I'd like to invite you over to my house for a
>
>Ok, so what did I miss?  The probability of 1 head out of one toss is
>1/2.  What is the probability of 50 heads out of 100?  I'm afraid that
>I would have to review the theory before I could give an answer, but my
>recollection was that the probability of 1/2 heads starts to approach 1
>as the number of tosses increases.
>
>In any case, to bring this back to chess, the idea is that I can go to
>a tournament and win 4/4 one week and 0/4 the next week, but over the
>long run I am likely to win 2/4 (assuming that I am playing against
>people of comparable strength, and the ratings system is supposed to
>help in finding those people).
>
>--Jim


What you missed is this:  after flipping the coin 99 times, you have 49 heads
and 50 tails.  The last flip has 50-50 odds.  The coin DOES NOT remember how
many previous heads you had.  If you get 99 heads and no tails, the probability
is still 1/2 that the next flip will be a head also.

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
From: Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Sticking with your principles
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:11:43 GMT

I'll make this short, because I have already said most of what I wanted to say,
and because it doesn't seem to be making a dent.

>Also, why do all the stories HAVE to be bullshit?  I didn't say, "Send in
>all your bullshit about Reshevsky everyone?"  I said let's hear some Reshevsky
>stories.  And yes, I was curious about the nasty stuff -- not because I wanted
>some gossip to drool over  -- I didn't know how true this was.  In fact, I
>didn't know much of anything about Reshevsky.  I heard rumors and I wanted
>to know if these were true.

This is a most disingenuous thing to say.  It seemed pretty clear to me, from
reading your solicitation, and from reading your subsequent posts, that you
were (and perhaps still are) far more interested in juicy stories than about
arriving at the truth.  Judging from your summary of the ``cheating'' stories
you have received, I would say that you have got your wish, and, moreover,
you are significantly farther from knowing the truth about Reshevsky than when
you started.

BTW, an accusation of cheating is a serious matter.  In most organized sports,
if a player is caught cheating, he is banned from further participation.
Before you publish accusations of cheating (even of players who have died),
you should consider the consequences.  Suppose that someone else on the net
were to (falsely) accuse you of cheating; how would you react?  how would you
defend yourself?  what if people whose opinions mattered to you didn't believe
your self-defense?  (Last but not least, what if you were dead and couldn't
defend yourself?)

>But it seems finding out about the
>real Reshevsky is like pulling teeth.

Correct.  Determining historical truth is ALWAYS like pulling teeth.

>But it's interesting to think that
>if I wouldn't have provoked you, you wouldn't have bothered to mention your
>very interesting thoughts on Reshevsky and given this game!?

Not correct.  I had intended to post my comments about Reshevsky's book
and my game in any case, but when I composed messages to reply to you,
I figured it was convenient and appropriate to append my comments and my game
to those messages.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: NYC to Albany area tournament search
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:53:03 GMT

In article <gracedc.703491894@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> gracedc@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Damon C. Grace) writes:

>	I'm looking for any chess tournaments in the area of

I have seen *Chess Life* in bookstores.  You will have to join USCF to
play in a rated tournament anyway (and a subscription to CL comes with
that).  If someone does send you latest tournament listings for your
area, you might want to know that you can usually show up at the
tournament and join USCF (plus state organization) there, although you
can get an extra hour of sleep if you pre-register.  --Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Subject: Re: Oops Department
Reply-To: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Organization: NASA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:40:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.175300.25061@cs.brown.edu>, jhc@iris.uucp (James H. 
Coombs) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.131628.22895@news.larc.nasa.gov> 
azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov 
> (John Paul Phillips) writes:
> >In article <Apr.5.16.16.12.1992.17392@remus.rutgers.edu>, 
> >clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
> >> In _1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations_ (#3), Reinfeld
> >> gives White to play and win in this position:
> 
> >>          8 r - - k - - - -
> >>          7 - p p - - r p p
> >>          6 p n - b - p - -
> >>          5 - - - n - - - -
> >>          4 - - - - - - - -
> >>          3 P - - - - N B -
> >>          2 - P P - - - P P
> >>          1 - - K R R - - -
> >>            a b c d e f g h
> 
> >> His key is 1. c4! Ne7 2. b5; did he overlook something?
> 
> >  Looks to me that Reinfeld overlooked 1. ---  Nb6xc4, which would
> >turn 1. c4! into 1. c4?   Most embarrassing blunder, I would say.
> 
> 1. c4 Nxc4, 2. Rxd5.  I don't see any refutation for black (although I
> find these ASCII representations very hard on the eyes).  In case I am
> right, then let me repeat Pope's admonition: "It's not Homer that nods
> but we that dream."  I have found many errors in Reinfeld only to
> discover on further analysis that he is right (and just did not include
> the variation that I looked at too shallowly).  --Jim

Hey, I was right about it being an embarrassing blunder. It was my own! :^)
Serves me right for questioning giants... Now I don't see any error
that Chris Long implied was there. Again, my word don't carry much weight, 
as showed by above. 


------------------------
       John Paul Phillips   
             "Azjohn"         
         NASA/Langley        
azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov
From: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Shortest GM game (was Re: Goldman analysis)
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:00:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.ru96uINNifj
Reply-To: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
Organization: The Sinister Icy Black Hand of Death Club
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu
Originator: goldfarb@tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <8084@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> nayak@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Krishna Nayak) writes:
)This reminds me of the record of the shortest GM game of all time.
)I just thought I'd share it...
[6-move game deleted]
) 
)it's good to know that GMs blunder big-time too...
)
)--
)Krishna Nayak 

	That may be the shortest game ending in mate. But there are shorter.
Shirazi-Peters was only between IMs, but it was in the US Championship.

1. e4  c5
2. b4  cb
3. a3  d5
4. ed  Qxd5
5. ab  Qe5+ 0-1

	If you don't want to look at real games, there was one between 
Fischer and an opponent whose name escapes me. Fischer refused to play
at the scheduled time for religious reasons; the opponent felt that the
rescheduling was unfairly favoring Fischer. Bobby played 1. c4 and his
opponent resigned. You'd be hard-pressed to find shorter than that.

-- 
David Goldfarb    goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu   (Insert standard disclaimer)
"Baldrick, you wouldn't know a cunning plan if it came up, bit you on the
behind, and sang three choruses of a song set to the tune of 'I am a Pirate 
King' called 'I am a Cunning Plan'."
From: STHARRY@MIAMIU.BITNET (Who do you think?)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: I hate subjects
Date: 5 Apr 92 19:42:30 GMT
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

I am posting to anyone in the Oxford, Ohio area on whether or not you would
like to get a chess club going next year.  If so, please let me know by
email.
--
thanks,
 
     Steve
EMAIL ME: STHARRRY@MIAVX1.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 14:20:08 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Books on Morphy?

David Carlson writes:
>Could anyone recommend a good book or two on Paul Morphy?
>Primarily, I'm interested in getting as many of his games as
>possible, although biographical info is OK, too...

You probably want Morphy's Games of Chess by Philip W.
Sergeant, a book that is regularly reprinted by Dover.  It
doesn't contain all of his games, but it certainly has most
of them and all of the important ones, that is, his match
and tournament games.  Sergeant said that he left out about
100 of Morphy's games, and I've always wondered how one
would go about locating these.  Perhaps some are available
in Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games Volume 1, 1485-1866
by David Levy and Kevin O'Connell.

If you are interested in stuff about Morphy's life, it should
be mentioned that some people feel that Staunton is unfairly
treated in the chess history books.  My own feeling is that
Staunton DID behave improperly in some respects, but the
extent of his villainy has been exaggerated.  Unfortunately,
I know of no place where you can read a fair account of
the Morphy-Staunton affair.  Every author that I have
seen seems determined to vindicate one side or the other,
at the expense of the full truth.
From: Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Sticking to your principles
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:32:24 GMT

> I admire Reshevsky for his great chess career, although I hear his
> personality left a lot to be desired -- now THIS I'd like to hear about.
> Anybody know anything of this "nasty personality" side of Reshevsky?
> Forgive me if I've been misinformed.

Yeah, netnews.rec.games.chess.supermarket-tabloid.  And Fischer stories and
Browne stories and Steinitz stories and ...

BTW, I recommend the book "Reshevsky's Best Games of Chess" (also published
as "Reshevsky on Chess") to players at any level.  I first got a copy when
I was somewhere deep in class C or D.  I learned from it then and I haven't
stopped learning from it up to the present.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jesperse@nas.nasa.gov (Dennis Jespersen)
Subject: Re: Oops Department
	<1992Apr6.131628.22895@news.larc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Apr7.152542.10802@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Computational Fluid Dynamics Branch, NASA Ames Research Center
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:21:10

>>>>> On 7 Apr 1992 19:25:41 GMT, elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) said:
>> :In article <Apr.5.16.16.12.1992.17392@remus.rutgers.edu>, 
>> :clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>> :> In _1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations_ (#3), Reinfeld
>> :> gives White to play and win in this position:
>> :> 
>> :>          8 r - - k - - - -
>> :>          7 - p p - - r p p
>> :>          6 p n - b - p - -
>> :>          5 - - - n - - - -
>> :>          4 - - - - - - - -
>> :>          3 P - - - - N B -
>> :>          2 - P P - - - P P
>> :>          1 - - K R R - - -
>> :>            a b c d e f g h
>> :> 
>> :> His key is 1. c4! Ne7 2. c5; did he overlook something?
>> :  
>> 1.c4 does seem correct, since after N:c4 the Nd5 hangs.  Nevertheless
>> [1.c4] N:c4 2.R:d5 Rd7 is much better for Black than Reinfeld's line: he's
>> a healthy two pawns ahead (3.Rd1? Ne3 4.B:d6 N:d5) and should win smoothly,
>> whereas after [1.c4] Ne7 2.c5 White's only a pawn behind and has some play.
>> Still, in neither line does White come close to proving the stipulated
>> win --- presumably there's a White bishop or knight missing?

Let's remember Reinfeld was a pioneer in chess education in this
country, and you can always tell the pioneers by the arrows in their
backs.  So in Reinfeld's defense, if you look at the book, nowhere will
you find it stated "White to play and win".  The entire book is a
"find the best move" collection.  It's pretty clear that 1.c4 is the
best move, although Reinfeld's solution 1...Ne7 is an error as Elkies
points out.

I personally think there was a typo in the diagram; maybe a White
knight on b3 or b1 was omitted.
--
Dennis Jespersen
MS 202A-1
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
Voice: (415) 604-6742
FAX:   (415) 604-1095
email: jesperse@rft28.nas.nasa.gov
We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo
From: jb118@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeffrey N. Burch)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Sticking to your principles
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:39:06 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute -- EOL

In article <1992Apr13.165626.16493@ima.isc.com> trb@ima.isc.com (Andrew Tannenbaum) writes:
>In article <54353@hydra.gatech.EDU> jb118@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeffrey N. Burch) writes:
>
>> I had an experience which involved Reshevsky, although I don't know
>> whether to be more angry at him or at GM Arthur Bisguier.
>...
>> After this I went back to the TD room, and about 5 minutes later, a very
>> angry Arthur Bisguier stormed into the room and said (these were his 
>> exact words) "some idiot is running around outside telling people not
>> to start their games".
>
>Hmmm.  Possible sequence of events.  You tell Reshevsky to wait, and
>you go away.  Reshevsky waits, Bisguier asks someone, maybe Reshevsky,
>why he's waiting, and is told, someone told Reshevsky to wait.  Bisguier
>goes to Glen, etc.  You don't know the details, I don't know how you
>can go pinning it on Reshevsky, or even Bisguier.
>
>	Andrew Tannenbaum   Interactive   Cambridge, MA   +1 617 661 7474

I'm not particularly trying to pin anything on anyone.  Your scenario is
rather like the way I imagined it happening, but I still have problems
with some aspects of it.

1)  Why I was referred to as "some idiot" rather than an assistant TD
who was simply relaying a message?  Even if Bisguier had been told
this by someone else, he might've taken the time to consider whether
it was accurate or worthy of repetition.

2)  Why was Bisguier in such a rage when he came in?  (I've seen him
at a number of N.J. tournaments, and I've never seen him angrier). The
game in question, so far as I was told, didn't affect him, or anyone else
other than Reshevsky, his old opponent, and his new opponent.  None
of the other games, so far as I knew, were affected.  If he'd come in
simply asking a question, that would have been different, but that's 
not the way it happened.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^  Dr. J(effrey Neil Burch)                 jb118@prism.gatech.edu    ^
^  Georgia Tech Research Institute                                    ^ 
^  Electro-Optics Laboratory                                          ^
^  Atlanta, Georgia                    Ignorance can be corrected.    ^
^  30332                                  Stupidity is forever.       ^
^  404-894-3628                                                       ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Dennis Baker <helios!canal.crc.uno.edu!DCBCS@tssi.com>
Subject: Re: Draw Offers
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:57:00 GMT


Speaking of draw offers...

Two local masters here in New Orleans are playing.  They both hate each
others guts!? :)  They reach this position where they start repeating
moves.  As the lower-rated of the two first reaches the position where
he can claim a draw by 3-fold repetition of position, he thinks (he tells
me), "It's not my place to offer a draw, being the lower-rated."  Let's
call it a sudden attack of chess etiquette!  So he makes his move.  The
other master doesn't make the draw claim either.  Well this goes on for
about another 20 moves!  Back and forth and back and forth.  And still 
no draw claim!  Finally, the lower-rated of the two gets up to go get
another score sheet.  He comes back with 5 of them!  When the other master
sees this, he gets up and goes to get the TD, who then informs the lower-
rated master a draw claim has been made!  No word was spoken between these
two masters 8^)

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
From: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:32:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: canal.01GILJSPB8288X31VJ

On 8 Apr 92 07:46:50 GMT, feelders@kub.nl (Ad Feelders) writes:

>After the moves 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bc4 Ngf6 6.Qf3
>Dennis Baker suggested the move 6...g6 for black. I think white should
>be able to keep a small advantage after 7.Qb3, since this forces black
>to play 7...e6 (7...Nd5? 8.Bxd5 Qa5+ 9.Nc3). Now black has locked his
>own bishop in and furthermore the pawn-structure with e6 and g6
>doesn't look very promising for black. Anybody care to comment on this
>assessment ?

After Black plays 7...e6 in this line, your Ne4 is hanging! <g>

But seriously, after 7.Qb3 e6, I have to admit, the Black formation does
look ugly.  Plus 7.Qb3 does clear the f3 square for the king knight.  Ok,
let's look at a simple solution to the hanging knight, 8.Nxf6+.  Now
8...Nxf6 (8...Qf6 9.Nf3 doesn't look thrilling to try.) 9.Nf3.  Hmm.  It
is looking awfully ugly here.  9...Bg7 10.Qa3?  10...Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7
does look too thrilling.  Maybe 10...b5 11.Bd3 a5 12.Qc5 Qd5?  Ok, let's
try instead of 10.Qa3, 10.O-O O-O.  Now maybe 11.a4 might be prudent.
In fact, Black might want to play ...b5 before castling, and so White may
want to try and prevent it... naah.  It's just a target, then, for a4.
Back to 10.O-O O-O.  What's the threat?  For Black.  Is he threatening
...c5?  I don't know what to say.  It does look like White's better, but
maybe Black's position is playable.  He does have ...c4, ...b5, ...Bb7,
...Nd5 possibilities.

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Shortest games...
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:44:22 GMT
	<MdtYlTS00Voi44CV0U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>The shortest game involving a GM is 7 moves between Fine
>and Borochowe. This game is particularly interesting because
>the white moves ONLY the pawns and the black moves ONLY
>the Knights.

Well, here is the story on this game according to Andy Soltis:

     "Before he surprised Europe with his tournament successes
during 1936-38, Reuben Fine was an erratic young American who
experimented quite a bit in the opening.  At the Pasadena inter-
national of 1932 he fell into what soon became known as a `book
trap':  Borochow-Fine, Pasadena 1932:  1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Nd5 3 d4 Nc6??
4 c4 Nb6 5 d5! Nxe5 6 c5 Nbc4 7 f4.  Here several authorities,
probably all quoting each other, say Fine resigned because he
must lose a piece.  But actually he played 7 ... e6 so that on 8 fe
Black had 8 ... Qh4+! ... The game ended with 8 Qd4! Qh4+
9 g3 Qh6 10 Nc3 ed 11 fe resigns."
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess