HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lumme@sara.cc.utu.fi (Mikael Lumme)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Users vs MChess
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:55:27 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland

In the game Users vs MChess the move of the
MChess is 37. - Qf6.

 Game #2 so far:      1 e4   e5   13 OOO  Na6   25 Rxf8+ Kxf8  37 Qc4  Qf6
                      2 f4   ef   14 Nd4  Ng3   26 Qc2   Kg8
 8 - - - - - b k -    3 Nf3  d6   15 Bb5  Qe5   27 Qf5   g3
 7 - - p - - - r p    4 d4   g5   16 Rhe1 Nc5   28 Qd7   b5
 6 p - - p - q - -    5 h4   g4   17 Nb3  Nxb3  29 a3    b4
 5 - - - P - - - -    6 Ng1  f5   18 cb   a6    30 axb4  Qe7
 4 - P Q - - - - P    7 Bxf4 fe   19 Bd3  Bf5   31 Qg4   Qe3
 3 - P N - - - p -    8 Nc3  Nf6  20 Bb1  Rae8  32 Qd7   Re7
 2 - P K R - - P -    9 d5   Bg7  21 Bf4  e3    33 Qc8+  Bf8
 1 - - - - - - - -   10 Nge2 O-O  22 Bxe3 Bxb1  34 Kc2   Qf2+
   a b c d e f g h   11 Qd2  Nh5  23 Kxb1 Nf1   35 Rd2   Qf1
                     12 Bg5  Qe8  24 Rxf1 Qxe3  36 Qg4+  Rg7


If you want to be in on the vote for the next move,
send your suggestion (along with any comments 
that you may have) to me.  On Friday, I will 
send copies of everyone's  suggestions and comments 
to everyone on the participants list.  
It is fine with me if a person wants to be in on the 
discussion without making an initial vote.  He or she just 
has to send me a note indicating this.

If you are participating for the first time in game #2,
Please include some indication of your chess playing strength.
From: edward.m.hummel@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (edward.m.hummel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: "Solvability" in Chess
Date: 25 Sep 92 07:50:13 GMT

Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep25.014035.1269@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>I think this argument rest on the assumption that chess is a zero sum game.
>How do you prove that?  Suppose the value of an infinite game is less than
>a draw for each player (but more than a loss), then neither player
>would choose a draw *with best play*.

I meant to say
" ... more than a draw for each player (but less than a win), then
neither player would choose a draw *with best play*."

Sorry for the confusion.

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Subject: Re: Fischer-Kasparov Dec 1993? 
Organization: UW Computing
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:36:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.192946.23064@midway.uchicago.edu> schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.153558.189@csghsg5a.bitnet> 86666815s@csghsg5a.bitnet  
>writes:
>> 
>> Swiss newspaper today reports about a possible future match
>> Fischer-Kasparov. The idea of Janos Kubat ("an director and
>> an 'intermediaire' between the sponsors of Fischer's comeback
>> and Fischer") is a match of 20 wins and 10 million US-dollars.
>> The match would be played on 4 different places: Japan,
>> Johannisburg, Chicago (or London, if Fischer can't play in the
>> USA), and Belgrade. It would begin December 1993 right after
>> the Wch match Kasparov-Short/Timman.
>> 
>> Kubat reports that Fischer is enthusiastic about this ideas.
>> 
>> Kasparov does not know yet about the ideas of Kubat, but said
>> last week in an german magazin that he would play against
>> Fischer "if the world wants this match".
>> 
>
>Kasparov's terms aren't as loose as all that.
>Last week in New York we had lots of discussion about this
>topic, and Kasparov will speak for himself on McLaughlin's
>One-to-one show later this month.
>
>But drawing my own conclusions from our talks (so this is
>just my unofficial opinion), Kasparov is willing to play
>Fischer a match provided that the sponsors and location are
>"clean". No dirty money like the Serbian affair.
>
>But Fischer has so many conditions on his play, can a deal
>really be negotiated? I don't know. I suspect that depends on
>just how much Kasparov is willing to concede on things like the
>schedule, clock, media coverage.
>
>But if the proposal involves Belgrade, forget it.
>
>I am sure that London and Chicago or Las Vegas would be fine.
>

This seemes more complex than trying to get a presidential debate :)

So if K doesn't agree to F's terms, woulf F say K 'forfeits' his claim to
the world crown?

Does K need to play F so much that K must conceed to 'all' of F's demands?

Or will F continue to 'change the rules' until K gets frustrated, again
'forfeiting' the crown to F?

Will F keep THE crown by frustrating all opponents with his demands?

Wouldn't you rather just let mature individuals play chess?




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Monaghan: arithmetic-mean, melanin-deficient, gender-advantaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: ChessBase vs. NICBase
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:57:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Sep30.185705.9923
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Sep30.011252.23633@nuscc.nus.sg> ccecks@nuscc.nus.sg (Chua  
Kong Sian (Mr)) writes:
> Just a query.  Does ChessBase 4.0 includes KnightStalker?  Or do they
> have to be purchased separately?  In browsing through certain chess
> magazines, I noticed the word Fritz in relation to ChessBase 4.0.  Is
> that another chess program? 
1. Knightstalker (formerly Fritz) must be purchased separaely.
2. Fritz was original name of Knightstalker
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
                                  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair)
Subject: Re: strong chessplayer parents with strong children?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:25:00 GMT

   After my original posting, I remembered that Nimzovich and Smyslov both
had fathers who were strong amateurs.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Theory of Bobby's Return
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:58:51 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <66660@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>> >I found his recent performance (spitting on the Treasury Dept. notice,
>> >etc.) hilarious.   I find the behavior of supposedly sane people in the
>> >mountains and valleys around Sarajevo to be "insane" and "dangerous."
>> >
>> First of all, your Fischer is supporting those people (I assume you meant the
>> attackers, not the defenders). Second, they are both driven by the same 
>
>(1) Which "those people" are you talking about?  Both sides have been
                                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>committing atrocities, although the Serbs seem to do more of them.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This nonsense has, unfortunately, been the commonplace statement about the
war in Croatia and Bosnia-Hertsegovina. In every war, "both sides have been
committing atrocities"; take WWII for example. What counts is that one side 
(Serbia in this case) attacked the other side with the intention of 'ethnic
cleansing', while the other is just defending itself.

>
>(2) How does Fischer playing there support them?

This has been *heavily* discussed in this newsgroup and I have given plenty
of explanations. If I repeated them now, I'd be bugging many people who have
already seen them once. But you obviously didn't read this group then, so 
I'll give you the hint: ADVERTISEMENT. The rest is your homework exercise.

	Sven
From: tletski@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: What going on with F & S ??
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:12:45 EST

What's up with Fischer & Spassky?  After a lot of traffic on the subject there
hasn't been any activity on the match.  Is someone imposing a blackout?

Paul Tletski
Highland Hts. OH

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: Progressive tournament
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: rec
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:26:52 GMT

tho@tik.vtt.fi (Timo Honkela) writes:


>An unofficial but international progressive chess e-mail
>tournament is about to begin. If you would like to take
>part please contact tho@tik.vtt.fi. The participants
>will be divided into groups of 4-7 persons. One may use
>two weeks for each turn (series of moves). Most of the games
>are expected to end in 5-8 turns. Small surprise prizes
>for the winner(s)! 

>                             Timo Honkela

>P.S. As a drill: how would you mate in:

>     1. f4
>     2. Nh6 d5
>     3. e4 d4 Ke2 (free space for the king!)
>     4. Mate in 4

Answer:
  4. dxe4 Qxd4 Ng4 Qf2 mate.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 12 moves 1-13
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:38:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep30.143820.15974
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


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.

Several hundred people are attending today's game, versus the 30 or so
who watched the games from the previous site.  But the Blue Hall of
the Sava center can hold 4000 people, so it must still look
depressing.

As always, there's a giant glass wall separating the players from
the audience, at Fischer's request.

As of 17:03 GMT
   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
   11. Be2 Nh7
   12. Nd3 f5
   13. a4 Nf6
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: two questions
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:52:42 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics


I have two questions for those of you interested in weird or unorthodox 
aspects of the chess world.
1) What is a grasshopper?
2) Is it really legal to castle with a promoted rook by moving the pieces 
vertically rather than horizontally? 
This last move has been mentioned recently in this newsgroup but with no
justification of its legality.
From: carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: A question about simple endgames
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:49:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

I would like to make a couple minor clarifications.

In article <1992Oct5.224941.26949@Princeton.EDU> carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo) writes:

>   In each case below, what is the smallest number, N, such that White can 
>   force mate (White moves first) in N moves, regardless of position?

Here, I mean in "at most N moves", not exactly N moves.

>   a)  K+Q v K   
>   b)  K+R v K
>   c)  K+B+B v K
>   d)  K+B+N v K   

In case d), I'm assuming the position is won for White:  e.g., Black's king
is not attacking two unprotected White pieces.  

I have looked for this information in the literature and have not found it.
Either Capablanca or Lasker (probably the former) wrote that K+Q v K ends
within 10 moves, but that's the closest I've found to an answer.  Whoever
made up the 50 move rule probably had a good estimate of N in case d.

David Caraballo
From: edward.m.hummel@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (edward.m.hummel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: "Solvability" in Chess
Date: 25 Sep 92 07:34:39 GMT

Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep24.170907.26780@ugle.unit.no> andreas@idt.unit.no (Andreas Lothe Opdahl) writes:
>The point that 3- or 50-move draws must be *claimed* to apply does
>not make chess insolvable.  For some position:
>    1.	make a new node the first time the position is encountered,
>    2.	make a new node the second time the position is encountered,
>    3.	make a new node the third time the position is encountered, and
>    4.	return to the third node every time the position is reencountered.
>From the third time on, a draw can always be claimed.  From a 
>game-theoretic perspective the positions are therefore equivalent.
> ...
>In this case the min/max-search graph changes:
>
>    -	from being a tree or a directed acyclic graph 
>    -	into being a possibly cyclic graph.
>
>Extending the min/max-algorithm to account for this must be 
>possible since the graph is still finite (although the resulting
>algorithm would possibly be NP-complete.)

The graph may be finite, but how do you assign a value to the loops?
As far as I can see, they have undetermined value.  (It is tempting
to assign them the value of a draw, but I don't see a PROOF that they
must have the value of a draw.  In fact, I can see good reason why it
cannot be proven that the loops have the value of a draw.)  If there
is no way to assign a value to the loops, the value of the game (i.e.,
the initial position) can only be written as a function of an undeterminable
parameter.  That may be a solution, but it is not single-valued.

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
From: drchip@cup.portal.com (MYRON A LIEBERMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Re: chess game for the MAC
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 09:10:48 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Sep24.101621.19596@yang.earlham.edu>



































>CheckMate
>Decent graphics, will test itself or test you and assign an ELO rating (how
>accourate I don't know?), all the usual features allowing setting of levels
>of play, time the computer is allowed to think, whether it thinks on your
>time, etc.

>Checkmate is a potentially strong program but is hindered by its incorrect
implementation of the draw by repetition (if you refer to Interplay's
Checkmate-there are apparently more than one out there).

Has anybody tried running M-Chess, Zarkov, Rex-chess or Knight Stalker on
a Macintosh with Soft-AT?? If so, any comments? Does Soft-AT allow the use
of the speed of the 68030 or 68040 or does it turn a Quadra into a 286
clone?
From: seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: "My System" by Nimzovich (Morphy better)
Date: 26 Sep 92 00:40:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

Many years ago, IM Calvin Blocker told me that his rating rose from
2200 to 2300 after studying Morphy's games.

I once read an interview with Russell Potter, a teacher from Virginia
rated around 2300. He said that anyone with average intelligence can
become an Expert! He listed a few books one should study; I'll post
the list (after the World Open :)) if I can find it.

I never read "My System," but I did find "Nimzovich - a Reappraisal"
by Raymond Keene somewhat instructive. Someday I hope "My System,"
"Chess Praxis," and "Blockade" become available in a single volume,
like the one published in the Soviet Union a few years back.

Steve Hoell			seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: "My System" by Nimzovich (Morphy better)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:00:28 GMT

--------------

In article <1992Sep26.004050.8420@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, 
seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell) writes:


|> I once read an interview with Russell Potter, a teacher from Virginia
|> rated around 2300. He said that anyone with average intelligence can
|> become an Expert!


  Sure - teachers say stuff like that all the time. It's good for generating
students! How many D players with average natural ability would keep up taking
lessons if they thought they didn't have a chance to get beyond B strength! 

I think that natural ability in chess is like pitching is to baseball - 80% - 
may depend on it. So, a player with average natural ability probably 
couldn't even make the A class! Of course, this is just conjecture, but it's 
every bit as reasonable as stating that any average person can become an expert!
That I just don't believe.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black)
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 28 Sep 92 05:02:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.224321.3043@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>In article <Sep.26.18.30.11.1992.2404@thorogood.rutgers.edu> miklas@thorogood.r
>utgers.edu (Keith Miklas) writes:
>>suppose that you are playing a novice who is quite an inexperienced
>>chessplayer.  He knows that you are a superior player, and decides to
>>mirror each and every one of your moves.  What's the best strategy to
>>play against this person?
>
This is the old Sam Loyd puzzle: Black copies White and mates in the fewest 
moves.  1. c4 c5  2. Qa4 Qa5  3. Qc6 Qc3  Qc8#.  There are other solutions
as well.

Loyd then asked another interesting question; what if Black copies White and
wants wants to LOSE?  What's the shortest move sequence White can play and 
force Black to mate him?

Answer follows...


1. e4 e5  2. Ke2 Ke7  3. Ke3 Ke6  4. Qf3 Qf6  5. Ne2 Ne7  6. b3 b6  7. Ba3 Ba6
and now 8. Nd4+ forces 8. ... ed#

>How 'bout 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 Qxe5????
>          6.Qxe5 and the mirror is cracked!
>
>I doubt he'll mirror that one too many times.
>
When I was a kid, my friends used to use this move copying strategy on me (so
most of my early games were Petroff's!) but they never would have fallen for
5. ... Qe5??? so the response was always 5. ... d6 instead, which regains the
piece.

What would you recommend against someone who decided to copy your moves, but
wouldn't copy them if you made a move which required them to hang a piece (as
the above does) or get mated in one move?  I realize this isn't a very precise
definition, but you know what I mean... what would you have recommended to me
when I was 12 years old and my friends were copying my moves?  Winning combos
have to be at least a couple moves deep or they'll be detected...

john//
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:47:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.212544.17428@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.202709.26356@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
>[brilliantly, correctly answering several ... factually challenged ...
> notions about the ELO system]

What is your problem?

>Strictly speaking, I believe 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ~~~~~~~~~
Hmmmm... I tend to use these two qualifiers separately. They kind of oppose
each other... unless you mean "strictly speaking, I just believe..."

> that both bonus and feed-back points were
>*intended* to make the system a bit more accurate in the short term, and

I believe the same, although whoever intended them for that was stupid; it
is obvious that they create imbalance unless there are also 'penalty' points
as their mirror image.

>improving ratings (a larger K might have been more consistent - but I
>don't recall much discussion of the manipulation of K in those days).

As I have pointed out, the distribution of K plays an important role in
generating inflation. Therefore, we'd better discuss what to do with K!

>                  But, many people recoiled from the seemingly arbitrary
>nature of simply "giving away" rating points (especially those rated
>above 2100, who felt that that had 'earned' their rating points [usually
>by walking through 6 feet of snow] and were outraged to see their
>inferiors' ratings boosted without hard work).

This is a nice example of how stupid people are.

>If I had my druthers, I think that I would favor a "per-game tax" - a
>number of rating points added (or subtracted) for each game actually
>played.

This is an interesting idea, but you'd first have to rigorously determine its
implications. Let's say you are right, the system is deflationary (although I
don't think so). Then you'd obviously have to add points for every game.

However, my (unsystematic) experience suggests that players who play 
exceptionally often tend to improve their ratings even if they don't 
improve their game. If that is true, there would be something wrong with
the per-game 'tax'. (But it would make sense if the system is inflationary).

>                                     ...  And, you might prefer a rating
>of 2199.999 to 2200 (well, I'd prefer the 2200 - I understand that there
>are some unsavory types who would actually prefer the 2199.999).

:-)

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: keithf@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (Keith Fuller)
Subject: Re: Games in progress
Organization: Kent State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:22:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.205805.27061@news.vanderbilt.edu>, LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb) writes:
|> When you post moves from a game in progress, could you add a diagram of the
|> pos. rached at the bottom?
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> Andy Lipscomb
|> lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
|> "Strangers ain't come back down Rocky Top / Reckon they never will."

Why don't you do it?

Keith Fuller
keithf@mcs.kent.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jboschun@ulys.unil.ch
Subject: Inflation in ELO's system
Organization: University of Lausanne - CH (Switzerland)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:18:02 GMT

In the various questions about Fischer's strength somebody talked about
inflations in ELO ratings...
Is somebody able to give a quantitativ evaluation of it from 1972 and so
to give, for instance, the value that Kasparov would have had at that time
(or the value of the Fischer of '72 now) ?
More can somebody explain the exact origin of the ELO's inflation (is it
coming, like in the case of money, from the increasing number of chess
players or is there other reasons to that fact, I once heard about a bad
management of the system ?) ?

Jacques Boschung, Lausanne Federal Institut for Technology (CH)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Subject: F-S game 12 (?): comments
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:38:56 GMT


Spassky's 9. Nc1 (ommiting Qd2) is an attempt to improve on lines where black
responds ...e5 d5 Nd4 Nb3 Nxb3 when usually white has to recapture with the a-
pawn.  By leaving the queen on d1, the line 9. ...e5 10. de Nd4 11. Nb3 Nxb3
12. Qxb3! requires black to play actively to get counterplay:  12. ...c5 
13. dxc6 bxc6 14. o-o-o Qe7 15. c5 d5 16. exd5 cxd5 17. Nxd5 Nxd5 18. Qxd5 Rb8
when John Watson (anlyzing an almost identical position says that black has
sufficient compensation for the pawn to render Qxb3 harmless.  

Another interesting wrinkle is the early 8. h4.  It seems to me that the point of this move is that if black avoids the above line with 10. ...Ne7 as 
Fischer did, then after the thematic sequence 11. Nd3 Nh7 12. Be2 f5 13. a4
Nf6 White has the option of Nf2 as in the game since ...f4 Bd2 (or bc1 intending
ba3) ...kh8, white can put a bind on the K-side with Nh3 since ...bxh3 is
sacreligious to a KID player.

I just noticed that there's a typo in the first paragraph, but I can't go 
up there and edit.  It should read  "...queen on d1...9. ...e5 *d5*."  Most
of my first paragraph is based on John Watson's book King's Indian Defense
Saemisch 6. ...Nc6.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess