HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Bruce Harper's credentials - (!?)
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:44:35 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I'm embarrassed - but I when I first saw the posting I thought I was going to
be flamed, so .... thanks!

Jonathan Berry's the postal player - I'm the blitz player.

As for returning to tournament play, I last played in 1982, so doesn't that
give me another 10 years to wait?  (Although, as I told Duncan Suttles
yesterday, the way Fischer's playing right now, maybe we'd better not wait that
long!  But if he can do it and suffer through the bad games, I guess anyone
can...)

Anyway, judge everyone (especially me) by their analysis.  A bad move by a good
player is still a bad move.

(PS: I hope the person who criticised Fischer for wasting tempos is happy - he
played ...b5 in one move in Game 6 instead of two (as in Game 4) and got a lost
position almost immediately.  I hope Fischer isn't following the net.)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: reynolds@physics.ucla.edu (Reynolds)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky II
Organization: UCLA Department of Physics
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 17:22:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.070350.14812@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.064321.14472@cs.brown.edu> jhc@m2lll.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>>In article <1574@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> mjn@ukc.ac.uk (M.J.Neish) writes:
>
>>>If Fischer's Elo rating were wiped clean, then how decisively will he
>>>have to beat Spassky to achieve a performance rating equivalent to his
>>>old rating of 2785?
>
>>Exactly the same as if his rating were not wiped clean: your current
>>rating does not have anything to do with your performance rating.
>
>It would probably be more helpful to post a formula.  The linear approximation
>formula is good enough.
>
>	Rp = Rc + 400(W - L) / N
>
>	Rp := performance rating
>	Rc := average rating of the competition
>	W  := number of points won
>	L  := number of points lost
>	N  := number of games played
>
>This gives us:
>
>	Rp = Rc + 400(14.5 - 4.5) / 19
>	Rp = Rc + 210
>
>--Jim

The performance rating has been discussed many times recently in this
newsgroup but there has never really been a discussion of their
worth.  I think it's pretty clear that they are not really worth as
much as people would like to believe.  They are most accurate when the
score is about equal, then the players are about equal.  But when
the score becomes lopsided, the performance rating means very little.

As has been stated, a perfect score against an opponent will not tell
you what your rating is - more data is needed - but the performance
rating formula gives an answer.  This answer is meaningless.  But it
has not been discussed that as the score approaches a shutout, the
performance rating must become more and more meaningless.

This is just my way of saying that the performance rating, while
couching itself in mathematics, is not a very worthwhile number.

Anthony Reynolds
reynolds@physics.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: bwatkins@nyx.cs.du.edu (The God of all machines)
Subject: Re: Fischer press conference
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 00:54:10 GMT


Fischer is going off against jews only because he is one.  That makes
it easy to blame his culture for everything.

I doubt, though, that he is anyhting but paranoid.  Before you make your 
own judgement, though, I'd listen to some serious conspiracy theorists.
Fischer's nutsness is probably founded on some very convincing stuff
which is miles away from what he propounds, but is also unjisitifedly
called anti-semetic.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Rennan.Barkana@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Rennan Barkana)
Subject: Re: Game 2: a good endgame to try a computer on?
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Summary: What missed win?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:52:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.043015.11126@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> bereolos@ether.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J Bereolos) writes:
>
>I think a possible win for Fischer is the following sequence
>
>50...Nc4 51. Bc4 Rc4 52. Kb6 Ra4 53. Kb5 now Byrne in the NY Times gives
>
>53...Ra1 54. Kb4 a3 and quickly drawn.  But why play a3 surrendering b3
>to the White King?  Instead play

You must be missing a few moves, since after 53... Ra1 there are still black
pawns on a5 and c5, making 54.Kb4 impossible. But I get your point.
   
>53...Ra2 54. Kb4 Kg6 and the King will infiltrate to c2 and Black should win
>fairly quickly.  At least we couldn't find a defense at our club meeting
>tonight.  One key line is 55. Be3 Kf5 56. Bc1 Ke4 57. Ba3 Kd3 and white can't
>take the pawn because of Kc4. 
>
>Am I missing anything here?
>
>Pete

I guess that at the end of the key line you mean that the position is:
White: Kb4, Ba3    and Black: Kd3, Ra1, pawn on a4
Then after 58.Bb2 Rb1 (or Ra2 59. Ba3) 59.Ka3, how can Black achieve 
anything more if White just moves his Bishop on the long diagonal?

It's true that this position offers White some ways to lose, but if White
is a GM, I see nothing for Black.
 
Rennan Bar-Kana the Class A player
barkana@steinhardt.hep.upenn.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II (Game 5) - analysis
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:41:11 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

In reply to:

I dunno, 21.a3 seems like a weak move to me. It accomplishes nothing
positive and weakens squares on the Q-side, while the compensation
after 21...Ba1 22.Qa1 appears nebulous at best. For example, 22...Qe7
23.Bc3 a5 (...f5 is not black's only means of counterplay!) and now
24.Bh8 Qf8 just helps black, while 24.e5 doesn't lead to anything.

>   Fischer is playing very passively, in contrast to Spassky.

I think the problem with Fischer's play in this game was not
passivity, but, surprisingly, lack of a solid plan out of the opening
(which used to be his hallmark). After moves 19-22 he was probably
already worse. In particular, 19.Ba5 in combination with 20.b3 just
weakens the dark squares and strands the B on a5.  Maybe 19.Qc1 Kh7
20.Ba5 Nfd7 21.a4 would have been an improvement.
--

I don't agree with this assessment.  Why withdraw the well-placed Bishop from
a5 with 23.Bc3(?)?  23.h4 is much more logical.  If 23...h5, then 24.Re3,
followed by 25.Ng5, with sacrifices on h5 and f5 in the air (the Rook goes to
g3).

But 21.Qd2 is likely the best and most natural way to offer the sacrifice.  The
sacrifice is a positional one, and it's Black, not White, who must justify his
misplaced queenside pieces.  19.Ba5 and 20.b3 is good, not bad, and the Bishop
on a5 is hardly "stranded" - it ties up Black's whole army (and stops his
"other counterplay - ...a5...)
From: renglish@cello.hpl.hp.com (Bob English)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: chess clubs in santa clara county
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:49:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: cello.1992Sep8.164941.27104
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs

bruno@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Bruno Bienenfeild) writes:
:  Campbell community center, corner of Winchester & Campbell has very   
:  activ club with turnaments year around.
:  You may try also LERA chess club that meets at recriational facilities
:  at Lockhead.

Amazing.  When I lived in Campbell, near the corner of Campbell and
Winchester, I called the USCF to find out where the chess clubs in my
area were, and was told that the closest club was in Berkeley.

--bob--
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: Estimating Playing Strength of Computers (was: Re: Rating of
     Radio Shack 1650)
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:54:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.183300.20165@cs.brown.edu> James H. Coombs,
jhc@m2lll.uucp writes:

>The 2150L is about 1950.  The 1650L is not worth rating.  It might be
>good for a child.  You should get something at least 200 points
>stronger than you so that you can improve and still use it.  You will
>also probably want to play it at faster speeds while you take full time
>(don't want to wait for its moves).  In this case, you subtract 100
>points for every 50% reduction in time.  You didn't say whether you own
>one or are considering one.  If you are only considering, you would
>probably do better with the Fidelity 2000, which costs only about
>$100 (and is rated about 1951).
>
>--Jim

Jim,

Although I am not up on computer chess, your comment about "subtract[ing]
100 points for every 50% reduction in time" intrigued me.  How did you
arrive at this rule of thumb?

According to Mr. Elo, one class (200 points) difference amounts to 3.17
times playing strength, so 100 points would equal the square root of
that, or 1.78.  This is not far from a factor of two.  About 120 points
of difference gives twice (or half) the power.

In another article, you give Zarkov's tournament (40 moves in 2 hours)
performance at 2300, and its blitz (60 moves in 5 minutes) performance at
about 1800 (on a certain machine at a certain speed).  (This is from
memory, so please excuse me if the numbers are incorrect.)  Given 36
times more time (180 minutes vs. 5 minutes for 60 moves), the difference
in theory is 620 points, so your estimate (500) is pretty good.

The other question is, of course, whether giving a computer twice the
speed would improve its play by a factor of two.

   ...Peter

-------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko  .....  (613)763-5344  .....  pmarko@bnr.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: F-S II gossip
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:55:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.230105.27941@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bwatkins@nyx.cs.du.edu (The God of all machines) writes:
>
>The tax laws do not specify who must file a tax return.  If Fischer
>should have, he needed to figure that out himself.  The tax laws
>require a knowledge of predent to interpret.  The only power behind
>them is really tradition and the force the police and army can 
>bring to bear.  On the other point, I doubt he owes much, and
>it's likely that the IRS will conclude he owes none unless he refuses
>to allow his winnings to be expropriated, in which case, the IRS will
>probably claim he owes 17 years of back taxes.
>

Cut that orthodox Libertarian crap! For the info of all people who still dream
of claiming in court that taxes are illegal, the U.S. courts have announced
that all such claims will be fined $25.000 for frivolous suits. And yes, that
is *in addition* to any tax owed.

Now back to chess related issues.

Sven
From: preiss@i33s1.ira.uka.de (Martin Preiss)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky Prediction
Date: 11 Sep 1992 18:44:13 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i33s1.ira.uka.de

In article <1992Sep11.154747.184@bnr.ca>, Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca> writes:
|> ...
|> Spassky's current rating is about 2600 (I do not have the exact figure as
|> I have not been following chess closely for quite a while - could
|> somebody post his official rating?).
|> 

Spassky's rating is 2560  ( FIDE list of July '92 in Informator 54 ).

I remember to read that he is not under the best 100.
New In Chess Magazine 5/92 contains a list with the 50 best.
No. 50 has 2595.
As far as I remember Judith Polgar's rating is 2575.
From: sigursig@rhi.hi.is (Sigurdur Pall Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Win for Bobby
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:13:33 GMT

Just came on the news that Bobby won game 7

Btw. I was in a lecture held by GM Margeir Petursson yesterday, but He
was in Sveti Stefan at the beginning of the match. The lecture was very
interesting but it was about the situation there, F and S and their
first games. It was quite amusing to hear about the press conference
where Bobby spit on the paper and took over that conference.
It was too amusing to hear about the sponsor and many other things that
you don't read in the press.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Sigurdur Pall Sigurdsson                Student of Computer Science    |
|  E-mail: sigursig@rhi.hi.is              at University of Iceland       | 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.puzzles
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer press conference
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:12:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep7.191228.15447
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Fischer had another press conference today.  Karpov was not there, as 
a rumor had indicated he might be, but it was apparently exciting 
anyway.  As before, Fischer only answered questions submitted in 
writing. Here are some tidbits from the wires:

* Fischer says he will not play Kasparov until the "Russians" pay him 
at least $100,000 for royalties he claims that a Moscow publisher, 
Fiskuleura M. Sport, owes him.  Fischer says the same publisher 
printed some books of Kasparov's, and therefore Kasparov took his 
money and he owes him that money.  Fischer also called Kasparov a 
pathological liar, said he became champion by cheating, and said that 
he would regard Spassky as champ if he loses this match.  Although, 
he said he doesn't consider the prospect of losing.

* He said he underestimated the strength of Spassky's exchange sac.  
"That is chess, sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose," which 
seems amazingly philosophical for him.

* Nonetheless, Fischer said, "I'm doing quite well, considering I've 
been blacklisted for the last 20 years by world Jewry."

* Fischer complained that a lawsuit he filed against Time, Inc. (now 
Time-Warner) two years ago for defamation of character, breach of 
contract, and other issues, was thrown out of court by a US District 
court, calling it groundless. "So I consider that the U.S. government 
and Time-Warner entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat me out of 
hundreds of millions of dollars," Fischer said. "In fact, they did 
cheat me out of hundreds of millions of dollars, which is the reason 
that I have not filed or paid my federal or California income taxes 
since ... 1977," he said.  Continuing against Time-Warner, he gave 
his view on the recent Ice-T "Cop Killer" song.  Fischer said that 
Time was sending out the record "in very small, miniature body bags, 
which I think represent the bodies of police that they hope will be 
killed as the result of people paying attention to the garbage in the 
records they are selling."

* Asked why he was being picked on by the goverment, he said "you 
have to understand a lot about the world scene and who controls 
America, what kind of people and what religion they have."

* Spassky refused to say if he would consider himself champ if he 
won.  He said he wasn't thinking about the result, he just wants to 
play.  He said he is very comfortable and the organizers have 
provided the best conditions he's ever had.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138            
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer folklore??
Date: 7 Sep 92 02:24:14 GMT


The number you give, out of context, is next to meaningless.  Any strong
player has seen that far in relatively simple positions.  If there are
not very many branches on the tree of analysis, it is possible to see
quite far but that fact alone doesn't explain Fischer's genius when he
was at his best.

He is supposed to have a photographic memory.  When I was young, Gil
Ramierez, who finished second to F. in the US Junior in 1957 and with
whom F stayed that year, told me some stories about his ability to 
memorize a page of MCO (the bible in those days) after a couple of 
minutes study.
.
From: monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: fish question
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:47:59 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <9209141823.AA02724@sapir.uchicago.edu> Eric Schiller <schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu> writes:
>
>For those interested in the opening, 10...e5 was not a TN. It was played
                                                        ^^^
What is a "TN"?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: stud02@cc4.kuleuven.ac.be (Kris Van Hees)
Distribution: world
Date: Wednesday, 2 Sep 1992 21:39:41 +02
Reply-To: stud02@cc4.kuleuven.ac.be
Organization: K.U.Leuven - Academic Computing Center
Subject: ICS ???

Hello,
I have been trying to connect to the ICS servers for some time now and it
isn't succeeding at all.  The connection is being refused.  Have the two
server been shutdown???  I know that eaststar has been shutdown somewhere
in June.  Now, what has happened to eve?
Regards,
Kris.
------
stud02@cc4.kuleuven.ac.be
GUTEST6@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be
       @BLEKUL11.BITNET
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:01 PDT
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky, game 5: Spassky wi
Nf-ID: #R:1992Sep9.204007.1397@cs.rulimbur:284833050:cdp:1451600039:000:577
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Sep 10 19:01:00 1992


I agree that Benko had the right to "step down" so that the Zone (USCF is a 
Zone) could appooint a successor.  However, it may have been that Benko did not
VOLUNTEER to step down.  It may have been that there was pressure other than the
"payoff" (which I've heard was CONSIDERABLY less than the $5,000 quoted in the
base posting), such as thgood will of a federation that could direct invita-
tions to players who wanted international tournaments.

I have no documentary evidence.  However, I choose to believe my sources (whom I
shall not name).

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
From: jriechel@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: Starting Chess Club (help)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:07:46 GMT


I plan to help start a Chess Club at my university, U. of Calif., Irvine.
I would appreciate any help in obtaining ratings programs and pairing
programs that could work on a UNIX machine.  Either that of exact form.'s
for calculating these.

Thank you in advance,
James Riechel

ps I expect the club will be relatively small (attendence).
jriechel@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Laskers little joke
Date: 7 Sep 92 08:14:27 GMT
Distribution: smds
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

A while back people were bantering about the Lasker on a ship
taking odds story.  Here is a source for it:


_The Adventure Of Chess_, Edward Lasker, Knopf, 1950, page 94

On the first day of an Atlantic crossing, while walking through the
smoking saloon, Lasker saw a man seated alone at a chess table, 
pondering a position.  In passing the table Lasker casually glanced
at the position, and the stranger asked him whether he played chess.
"Oh, once in a long while," Lasker replied truthfully.  "Well, sit
down and play a few games," the other said.  "I play a good deal, and
we can make up for your lack of experience by a handicap.  I'll give
you Queen odds in the first game.  If you win, we'll make it Rook odds,
and son until we find our relative strength." -- "That's all right with
me," Lasker replied, planning to give the a little lesson.

He let him win the first game quickly, testing his strength, and
then managed to lose a second game without causing any suspicion
in his opponent's mind.  When it came to the third game, Lasker said:
"There must be some advantage in playing without the Queen.  Perhaps
because the King has more freedom of movement when the space to him 
is not occupied.  Let me give you the Queen this time.  I think I 
will do better then."

The other laughed: "But how absurd!  I beat you twice with Queen odds,
and you want to play me without your Queen!  That really would be
too ridiculous!"  But Lasker was stubborn, and the man had to give in.
Naturally, Lasker beat him.  Somewhat flustered, his opponent explained:
"Well I did not really pay very careful attention.  Perhaps I took
you too easy after all.  Let's play an even game now."  No, Lasker
insisted on giving him QUeen odss again, and again he won.  This time
his opponent no longer knew what to say.  But he discovered what a
fool he had made of himself when he found Emanuel Lasker's name on
the passenger list.


-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II Game 8 (analysis)
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:23:07 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

In my view, the position after 33.Qc3(!) Nxc1 34.Qa3 is unclear.  33.Rc3 was
simply a typo that was posted and shouldn't enter into anyone's considerations.
My point was that 33.Qc3 is the type of move that's difficult to see during a
game, especially late in a session in time pressure (because it isn't "natural"
to put the Queen on a square where it can be taken by a Rook), although it's
easy to see once it has been pointed out - and it is easier to see for a
computer because to a computer everything (or nothing) is "natural".  Computers
have no prejudices or intuition.  Usually this is a disadvantage, but sometimes
it is an advantage.  Computers look at every legal move without bias, whereas
people screen out some moves too quickly.

My reference to the important question being whether Kasparov, Karpov, Timman
and Short would have seen 33.Qc3 needs no supporting argument, but it sounds as
though I was misunderstood.  I'm not saying Kasparov would have seen the move
(how can we ever know?), but rather that discussions as to whether Fischer can
play at Kasparov's level have to be answered by looking at things that Fischer
missed (or played) and asking what other top grandmasters would have done.  Of
course, there is another way - a match.  But the speculations along these lines
have faded on the net, and I don't want to revive them.
From: RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: notation.
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:57:08 GMT

hey there.  i am not a non-stop, all-out chess player; thus, until i started
reading this conference, i thought that "english descriptive notation" or
whatever was THE notation.  i'd like to know what the advantage of
"d4 d5" is over "p-q4 p-q4".  the latter seems eminently more readable, and
i don't see what one notation over another is for, if not readablility.

thanks.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 7 moves 1-24
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:19:44 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Spassky sacs a knight ("...a knight on the rim is dim")
for an attack in the center.  I think the players are
using a lot of time.

As of 19:01 GMT   
   Fischer Spassky
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 e5
   2. Nf3 Nc6
   3. Bb5 a6
   4. Ba4 Nf6
   5. 0-0 Be7
   6. Re1 b5
   7. Bb3 d6
   8. c3 0-0
   9. d3 Na5
   10. Bc2 c5
   11. Nbd2 Re8
   12. h3 Bf8
   13. Nf1 Bb7
   14. Ng3 g6
   15. Bg5 h6
   16. Bd2 d5
   17. exd5 c4
   18. b4 cxd3
   19. Bxd3 Qxd5
   20. Be4 Nxe4
   21. Nxe4 Bg7
   22. bxa5 f5
   23. Ng3 e4
   24. Nh4 Bf6