HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dubach1@husc10.harvard.edu (joev dubach)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:31:55 GMT
 .acs.ohio-state.edu><1992Sep28.050207.19253@pony.Ingres.COM><1992Sep28.112225.4887@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: jmh@athena.mit.edu's message of 28 Sep 92 11:22:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.112225.4887@athena.mit.edu> jmh@athena.mit.edu (J Michael Hammond) writes:

   A good line would still be 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nf6  3. Nxe5 Nxe4  4. Qe2.

   (When I was 12 years old and my friends were copying my moves, I would
   resort to this.)

   I forget which semi-legitimate opening book (maybe it was "Practical
   Chess Openings?") described 3. ... Nxe4 as "losing at least a Pawn".
   If your "first-order non-piece-hanging move-copier" (a purely
   theoretical construct whose play, by the way, results in a
   deterministic finite zero-sum game of perfect information -- ouch,
   stop hitting me) realizes that 4. ...  Qe7 would lose the e4 knight,
   he may move 4. ... Nc5 or 4. ... Nf6, at which point you move 5. Nc6,
   winning.  If he tries 4.  ... d5 or 4. ...  f5, you have easy tactical
   shots which should eventually break your opponent of his habit.

Now, that isn't very nice.  The Daring Damiano is a perfectly valid,
dicey opening.  What's your line for 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nxe4
4. Qe2 Qe7 5. Qxe4 d6? (? refers to the sentence, not the move :) )

I have played this line in speed and in tournament chess with
reasonable success.  For more info on it, check out Chess Life,
sometime a couple of years ago.

It is a gambit in some lines, though, so you have to be quick on your
feet to play this.

Joev
--
_____________________________________________________
DDDDDDDDD   JJJJJJ      | Joev Dubach
     D      J     J     | dubach1@husc.harvard.edu
     D      J     J     | North House
D    D      J     J     | Harvard University
DDDDD    *  JJJJJJ  *   | Cambridge, MA 02138
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ckawecki@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: how many games?
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:01:11 GMT

how many games can possibly be played anyhow?
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Solving chess?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 14:57:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <19onapINNph6@bigboote.WPI.EDU>

Isn't it obvious that a finite 2-person 0-sum game with perfect information    
(assuming "finite" means both the length of the game and then number of  
moves available at each turn are finite) is either a win, draw, or loss?       
                                                                               
Construct a tree, each of whose nodes is a game state, with each node being    
a game state that can be reached in one ply from that node's parent.  Include  
in the game state the move number, so that there are no loops.                 

Finiteness implies that the branching factor at eac node is finite, and that
the tree depth is finite.  Hence, there are a finite number of terminal nodes.
Each of these can be labeled with "WIN," "DRAW," or "LOSS."  The labeling
can be propogated backwards to the initial node to determine the initial
"WIN," "DRAW," or "LOSS" nature of that game, and best play for both sides.

--Tim Smith
From: kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca (Kees van den Doel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Please stop
Date: 30 Sep 1992 12:18:31 -0700
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca

In article <30SEP199209431897@summa.tamu.edu> kbs4580@summa.tamu.edu (SCHAUB, KEITH BRADLEY) writes:

>	Enough already again from a different person. We are tired of
>having to read your solvability crap.

Be advised that "we" does not include me.
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 13 (comment)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:37:30 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I wrote:

>> I bet Spassky will get smashed (having only seen the first 13
>> moves), but I like the way he's playing anyway!  I don't think
>> anyone can say this match is dull.

And Eric Schiller responded:

> Why so? Fischer's center looks ripe for hypermodern plucking
> with a timely f5, and bishop pair is bishop pair? Other than
> c6, what's the problem?

Maybe I'm mellowing - I've certainly played this type of position
from the Black side more often than from the White side!  My
impression was that c6 is potentially a serious weakness, and
that the Knight on f7 wasn't all that great.  They say Fischer
could have gotten an edge latter with f3 (and g4, I presume).  I
suppose I thought that a developmental and spacial edge in
Fischer's hands (not to mention the two Knights!) would be enough
to give Black real problems.

Question: Should White allow the Queen trade?  If we're talking
space (and maybe that's just an illusion), then White would
normally want to keep the board crowded.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 10:21:05 EDT
From: Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: DEEP THOUGHT II vs KASPAROV
 <1992Sep21.211632.15541@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <1992Sep22.050445.6453@cs.ubc.ca>
 <1992Sep23.171757.8471@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>

In article <1992Sep23.171757.8471@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU
(CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) says:
>
>In article <1992Sep22.050445.6453@cs.ubc.ca> kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca (Kees van den
>Doel) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep21.211632.15541@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>                        U
>cuffell@spot.Colorado.ED
>(CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:
>>>Sorry.  Math time.  Everyone seems to be making these impossible claims
>>>about computer search spaces.  50 moves in the future?  No.  Assume there
>are
>>>twenty legal moves at any given point.  (This is based on actual research,  t
>no
>>>a number I pulled out of my hat.)  That means there are 2^50 (sic), or 10^65
>>>positionsto evaluate.
>>
>>It's math time indeed. 1 move = 2 plies so the number you are thinking of is
>>20^100 = 10^130. But not all positions need to be evaluated (alpha-beta
>>pruning) which brings the average branching factor down to about 6. So
>>then only 6^100 = 6*10^77 positions need to be looked at.
>
>Right on the first point, wrong on the second.  The original thread referred
>to
>solving chess.  Alpha-beta pruning is a hueristic to ease the search for a
>good
>move, but not a means of find THE best move.  Who know, leaving that queen en
>prise and an irrelevant pawn move could lead to mate in 50.
>

The comment above about alpha-beta pruning is not correct.  It is a true
algorithm, not just a heuristic.  It is provable in the sense of proving
a theorem that the results of an alpha-beta search are identical to that
of a search without alpha-beta pruning.  Granted that there are pruning
techniques which are heuristic, and which do not necesarily produce the
same result as an un-pruned search, but alpha-beta pruning is not such
a technique.
From: mmbh+@andrew.cmu.edu (Muhammed Mohdrais)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Gnuchess for Mac
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:03:42 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


Hello all..
	Recently, I ftp'ed' a gnuchess program(v3.0) for Mac and after using it
for a few times, I discovered several bugs(if that is a correct word..). 
	I am posting to ask if there is any updated version of gnuchess
available? The bugs in the game are quite irritating, ex. .. sometimes
the computer 'refused' to be checkmated. In other words, I have to
reboot the computer for a new game.
	Any help will be appreciated.

Thanx

Muhammad Mohd. Rais.
Carnegie Mellon University.
From: dmi@questrel.com (Dean Inada)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computer vs. Human
Date: 4 Oct 92 06:14:47 GMT
Organization: Questrel, Inc.

In article <1992Sep29.163312.13936@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> herbison@erlang.enet.dec.com writes:
>In article <Sep.24.05.48.19.1992.21959@remus.rutgers.edu>, clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>>In article <23SEP199222472348@summa.tamu.edu>, Keith Schaub writes:
>>> 	Since humans only use, (on average), 10% of their brain, while
>>> a computer uses 100% of his so called brain.
>>The 10% figure is complete bunk.  Perhaps we only understood what
>>10% does, but I suspect the true usage figure is close to 100%.
>An not only is the 10% figure for humans complete bunk, the 100%
>figure for computers is also bunk.

I understand that there have been hydrocephalics with tiny amounts of brain
tissue, but normal intelligence.

A computer with millions of words of memory typicaly accesses just
one of them at a time.
(On the other hand, you could also say they are all simultaneously
deciding whether to respond to the address lines...)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tennis@ziff.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's bishops
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:38:29 EDT
Organization: Ziff-Davis, Medford MA

In article <JOHND.92Sep23150221@cuba.Cayman.COM>, johnd@Cayman.COM (John Drogo) writes:
> 
>  Kasparov comments that Fischer's time is passed. "What Fischer knew during
> his prime put him  ahead of many top players, but now every average player
>  knows  Fischer knowledge  during his prime. 
> 
>  And here we have an observation of Fischer giving up two bishops. 
> 
>  Maybe this is a new Fischer, testing the waters. He knows that his opponents
> will be equal with him, but  the end game may be where Fischer has been doing alot more homework. Especially with all that time on his hands. 
> 
>  
Yeah, but how do you know F has spent all this time on chess?  Last I heard
(take with a pound of salt) he was installing cable TV for a living...

Trivia - Did you know Boris Spassky's sister was the USSR's women's checkers
champ?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Bizarre Strategy vs. Accelerated Dragon
From: mlbruce@husc9.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:01:44 GMT
Keywords: Dragon, Chess

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: The Big Clamp
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:05:53 GMT

In article <343@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
|> Lawrence Day is the big expert on the Big Clamp, but I hadn't heard that he had
|> ever written a book on it.  I would look for articles in Canadian publications.


	It is called, I believe,

	"The Big Clamp: an Anti-Sicilian System".

	I got my copy from Chess Digest, I would be surprised if
	the CFC doesn't carry it.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: French Defense Classical, Tartakower (?)
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:17:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvI812.CvA
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU

I recall reading a post a while ago by Randy Pals about playing
...Ne4 or ...Ng8 in the Classical French.   I forgot whether it
was with or without Bg5 Be7 in there.  I tried it out in a recent
G 30 game.

Eric Dana (2100+) - Benoni (1700+)

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 e5 Ne4 6 Nxe4 Bxg5 7 Nxg5 Qxg5
8 Nh3 Qe7 9 Bd3 Qb4+ !?/?!

I didn't know what else to play.  ...c5 doesn't seem adequate to equalize.
Minev's book says it is equal after move 7, but why?  Minev is a great
endgame expert, so I would like to know why he feels this is equal?  
What is Black's plan???  Any comments?  The main problem is that White
has the "good" bishop and Black has the "bad" bishop.  If Black tries
9...b6 in order to play ...Ba6, White simply plays 10 c3.  Black seems
to have quite a few weaknesses.  Where will the Black King go???

10 c3! (I believe equality would be possible after 10...Qxd2+ or even Qxb2)
10...Qxb2 11 o-o Qxc3?! (maybe this is where I went wrong) 12 Rc1 Qa5
13 Qg4 g6?! (maybe I would have equalized if I didn't play so many weak moves)
14 Rc5 Qa3 15 Rxc7 Bd7 (15...Nd7 might be better?) 16 Qf4!? Qxd3
17 Rfc1 Na6?? (17...Nc6 might hold) 18 Rxd7 Kxd7 19 Qxf7+ Kd8 20 Qf6+ Kd7
21 Qg7+ ( duh, why did I miss this before???)  1 - 0

I hope for some comments on this opening!
-benoni
From: winter@altair.mcs.anl.gov (Victor Winter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:20:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: altair.71838480917716
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois


 Sorry to be mean about this but....


  I don't know what planet you come from, but
the game of chess that is played on this planet
is theoretically solvable (in the mathematical
sense). period!

  Yes, I agree that one can come up with bizarre
models for how one can "get around" rules of chess
(e.g., one must CLAIM a draw, etc.) However, the
rules of chess were written to capture the "spirit"
of how the game should be played. Since the rules
are written in a human language they have a great
potential for being ambiguous and unclear (just
look an any legal document). The point is that
this "infinite game" loophole is just that...
a loophole. I do not think that any serious
chessplayer at any point in any game has had the
goal: "I'm going to try to play an infinite game".
What this means is that the "spirit" of chess is
well defined on the issue of infinite games---
unfortunately the rules of chess are somewhat
vague on this issue.

 Those of you that are looking for "loopholes"
will probably ask "What is the SPIRIT of chess?"
My answer to those people is:

 Imagine you are talking to several GM's on
worldwide television. Now imagine asking these
GM's the following question:

  "Have you ever considered playing an infinite
game in a tournament?"
-------------------------------------------------

 Do you folks understand? 

 To Ed Hummel: Go directly to jail, do not
               pass go, do not collect $200.00 :)

 I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the point of
this thread was to discuss the feasibility of solving
a REAL problem (i.e., earthly chess) not the feasibility
of solving an imaginary problem (i.e., chess in fantasyland).
I have enjoyed a reasonable amount of the letters posted.
One person pointed out that a mathematical solution might
not help people play better chess--This in turn led to
some discussions on how concise a solution to chess could
one hope for. This kind of discussion I find productive.

 However some of you have spent all of your effort in trying
to find "unreasonable" loopholes. I commend you on your
inventiveness and recommend that you find an environment
that appreciates your talents (e.g., law or politics).
I'm sure some of you could come up with brilliant mud-
slinging ad campaigns all of which could be legally
justified as being just within the boundaries of the
law.   :-)

                     Victor
From: kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca (Kees van den Doel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: 4 knights opening
Date: 30 Sep 1992 13:30:55 -0700
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca

Here's the beginning of a game I played as white against a Par Excellence
computer at speedchess level (~1700 I would guess).

1.e4 e5;2.Nf3 Nc6;3.Nc3 Nf6;4.d4 Bb5; (this is the end of the computers
opening book) 5.Nxe5 Nxe4;6.Qg4 Nxc3;7.Qxg7 Rf8;8.a3 Nxd4;9.ab4 Nxc2;
10.Kd2 Nxa1;11.Kxc3 a5...

The funny thing is that this line appears in BCO 4th ed., where 5...Nxe4
and 11...a5 are given a "!". Not bad for such a weak machine. It now 
recommends 12.Bh6 which looks wrong to me. What is the best move here?

--Kees
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Problem
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:45:03 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1a7preINNcuh@cascade.cs.ubc.ca>
kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca (Kees van den Doel) writes:
>This problem was composed 30 years ago:
>
>White: Ke1,Ra1,Re8
>Black: Kg2,Qh3,g3
>White to play and win.


Am I supposed to mate in one by "castling" with the (presumably
promoted) Rook on e8!?  Most problems using this ruse at least
have e8R occurring in the course of the solution.

[A simple example I posted to the net a while back:
White: Ke1 Ra1 Rh1 e7
Black: Kg2 g3 g4
White to play and mate in two.

I've also seen a mate in 3 where White gets to castle in all
3 directions depending on Black's defense, and composed a
pawn endgame where White wins only if he can play e8R and then
0-0-0-0-0-0, trading off Black's newly promoted Qa1 and winning
thanks to the extra tempo (Ke3 rather than e2).]

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: RRvB on infinite board (Re: a different vari
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:17:27 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Sep30.011835.6456@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
"In article <1992Sep29.122454.15944@husc3.harvard.edu> [I wrote:]
">Another interesting case is KRRvKB.  White can't go directly
">for the KRRvK mate because that requires zugzwang and the Bishop
">can play waiting moves to Pluto.  So the question is can the
">Bishop be captured, either by a double attack involving mate
">threats or by arranging ladder checks (Ra1,K2; Rb2+,K3; Ra3+,K4; etc.)
">so that the Rooks reach the Bishop before the King reaches the Rooks?
"
"Looks like a draw to me.  The bishop just makes sure it is moves
"further away from the king than the rooks are (say twice as far
"away).

Well, that may deal with the ladder checks, but what about mate
threats?  If White can manage something like Kd1, Rc4, Re4 against
Kd3 and a roaming dark-squared Bishop then Black has to start worrying
about things like Re4-x4 (attacking the Bishop) follwed by Rc4 gaining
tempo by attacking the Bishop to reach a mating square on the 3rd rank.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:8198 gnu.chess:399
Organization: Johannes Kepler University Linz - Computing Center
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 16:39:05 CET
From: <K3006E7@ALIJKU11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,gnu.chess
Subject: Question: Giics

Dear fellow net chess players,
I have a question concerning the usage of giics(141).
I have a PC that has its own IP address, meaning it has its own
Ethernet card (FD0490 EtherBoard16), and running Crynwr packet
driver NE2000.
Has anyone gotten giics to work with a similar configuration,
or would know how?  I have tried playing with the source code,
but could not even get it to compile, much less working for
a direct ether connection.

If it helps, my command line for ne2000 is:

ne2000 0x60 0x3 0x300

with the following output:

Packet driver is at segment 2D6B
Using 80[123]86 I/O instructions.
Interrupt number 0x3 (3)
I/O port 0x300 (768)
My Ethernet address is 00:00:4D:05:58:98

I think someone must have gotten it to work, because I cannot believe
all these people from Sweden, Peru, and so on are calling up by
modem and PC using giics! Anyhow, I also have a VMXA and a unix
account, if that helps me to log in indirectly (I can't imagine how
this would simplify things though) through these systems.
I suspect the trick is in the configuration giicscnf.exe where I have
to put in the IRQ and stuff.  If anyone has any suggestions at all,
remembering I am not much of a computer person, I would greatly
appreciate it, and will promise you at least one free beer the next time
you are in Austria.
In summary, if you did any of the following to/with giics, can you
please send me info as to exactly what you did:
    1) changed source code
    2) log in indirectly through unix/vmxa, then run giics
    3) trick giics to think you are using a modem by configuring
       with giicscnf.exe
Sincerely,
Myron    (oops)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
     <1992Sep29.202709.26356@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:45:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.202709.26356@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> Bradley S
Watson, watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu writes:

>While we're on the subject of ratings, does anybody out there
>know why FIDE ratings are always multiples of 5?

The ratings are simply rounded to the nearest multiple of five when they
are published.

   ...Peter

-------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko  .....  (613)763-5344  .....  pmarko@bnr.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: winders@aux.support.apple.com (Scott Winders)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Question about a term
Date: 28 Sep 92 04:33:38 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1451600047@igc.apc.org>, capsa@igc.apc.org (CAPSA) wrote:
> 
> 
> Oops, in fyon KET o, there are two "o"s.  The first would be pronounced as the
> "o" in the English "on"; the second would be pronounced "(English) long, but
> cut short.
> 
> Sorry about that.

According to Webster's Ninth, the word is correctly pronounced with
'ket' or 'chet'.  Phonetically, the word would be pronounced like this:

   Fee-an-ket-o or Fee-an-chet-o

'Fee' as in the work fee, 'an' as in the first or last 'a' in banana,
'ket' or 'chet' would rhyme with 'bet', and 'o' as in 'oh'.

Scott Winders
winders@aux.support.apple.com

"My opinions are my own, not my employer's"
From: phillies@wpi.WPI.EDU (George D. Phillies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: GM Norms?
Date: 1 Oct 1992 00:38:05 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

GM & GM Norm

1) For the benefit of those of us who will never get one,
what is a GM Norm?

2) More obscure than the "who was the youngest GM", who
was the youngest person to receive her or his GM norm?

3) X vs (Fischer vs Spassky).  While better training may
result from playing the winner of F vs S, the purse on
X (where X might = JP) will probably be better if F is
played, even if F loses to S.  (And in X vs F, if X is
female, will F duplicate the clever move of Riggs in
Riggs vs Court (much male-chauvinist noise beforehand, a
dozen blood-red long-stem roses present at the start of
the match)?)

4) In the mirror chess game, there was discussion of the
kid pulling "mommy is a GM, and will help me if you break
symmetry".  Interesting strategies might include a 
rapid trade-down (kid is taking a piece every turn or two,
so thinks all is well until losing the pawn of KP vs KP),
or (see Nimzowitsch) symmetry breaker is a check, all
subsequent moves forced.  (The last interesting strategy
might be to call the kid's bluff, as (to my knowledge,
excluding FSU GMs of female persuasion) it seems to me that 
no female GM is old enough to have a five-year-old child 
in tow.  Of course, against most of us "GM" can be poetic
exaggeration for effect, and "mommy" will still beat us.)

5) Serious question: skill tests of Capstone Grandmaster
Chess, which never gets mentioned in the usual lists.

George Phillies
phillies@wpi.wpi.edu