HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Subject: Re: Pawn Power in Chess by Kmoch
Originator: jcbokar@c00576-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:03:10 GMT


In article <362@rd1.interlan.com>, tavernin@rd1.interlan.com (Victor
Tavernini) writes:
|> Path:
|>
taco!rock!stanford.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.e
edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!caen!destroyer!uunet!interlan.Inte
erLan.COM!rd1!rm1.interlan.com!tavernin
|> From: tavernin@rd1.interlan.com (Victor Tavernini)
|> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
|> Subject: Pawn Power in Chess by Kmoch
|> Message-ID: <362@rd1.interlan.com>
|> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 09:48:35 GMT+5:00
|> Sender: news@rd1.interlan.com
|> Organization: Racal-Milgo, Sunrise, Florida
|> Lines: 8
|> 
|> I saw the book "Pawn Power in Chess" by Hans Kmoch in a bookstore
|> the
|> other day, looked very interesting ... anybody have any comments or
|> experience with this book!?
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> 
|> Victor Tavernini
|> tavernin@rd1.interlan.com
|> 
I thought it was a great book (considering the age of it).  It really
helps one understand the basics involved in placing the pawns, and using
them in practical play.  This book should be on everyone's bookshelf!
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 9 Oct 1992 17:49:58 CDT
From: <U36846@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Zarkov 2.6 Rating Feature

   I have a question about Zarkov 2.6's rating feature.
Supposedly, the Novice level plays at about 1200, the
Intermediate at 1600, and the Expert level at about 2000.  Does
anybody know how accurate these estimates are?  Does  CPU speed
make a difference in the playing level of Beginner thru Expert?
   I'm using Zarkov with a 486/25 with 4 meg ram.  It rates its
Master level at about 2372.

    Larry Keating
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:43:03 GMT
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

In article <1992Oct8.014623.22533@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>As it seems that we are not making progress in this discussion, I will (when
>I have time) make a monte carlo simulation of a substantially large rating
>pool and post the result when I have it. Okay?

When I was in graduate school, I learned an important lesson:

    Before doing an experiment, it is wise to read the existing
    literature.

Sometimes the reading eliminates the need for the experiment.  It is
always the case that the reading improves the quality and relevance of
the experiment.

Having said that - I for one look forward to the results of your
experiment.  I'm especially eager to see what assumptions you make about
the time course of the players' "absolute chess strength" and
the assumptions you make about the timing of their entries, exits, and
temporary absences from the rating pool.  Validating these assumptions
against the real world is desirable, but not absolutely necessary.
Comparisons with previous studies of actual ratings pools in action
is also be desirable.
-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mad4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Maddex)
Subject: Re: 1992 U.S. Championship
Reply-To: mad4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Pranksters for Peace
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:08:23 GMT

In article <9210091812.0.UUL1.3#20523@intercal.com> hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell) writes:
>
>USCF Press Release #50
>
>1992 U.S. Championship Field Set for Durango, Colorado

>The players include:

>1  GM Gata Kamsky                 2739  Defending Champion
>2  GM Alex Yermolinsky            2696  
>3  GM Alexander Ivanov            2678  1991 Grand Prix Champion
>4  GM Joel Benjamin               2675  
>5  GM Boris Gulko                 2675  
>6  GM Sergey Kudrin               2669
>7  GM Patrick Wolff               2665
>8  GM Roman Dzindzichashvili      2653
>9  GM Yasser Seirawan             2642
>10 GM John Fedorowicz             2641
>11 GM Michael Rohde               2638  1991 U.S. Open Champion
>12 GM Larry Christiansen          2635
>13 GM Walter Browne               2618
>14 IM Igor Ivanov                 2616
>15 GM Nick DeFirmian              2614
>16 IM Alex Sherzer                2604  1991 U.S. Junior Champion

I have it on ultimate authority that Christiansen backed out and Stuart Rachels
has taken his place.

MADNESS


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Keywords: bobby, champ
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:44:45 GMT

In article <Bw487C.EH8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Ta
lbot) writes:
>tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
>
>>It's been a long time coming, but I'm glad Bobby finally came out
>>of retirement to remind the rest of the world where the best chess
>>is really played....The United States of America.  Some of the
>>other countries may have more and better chumps than the US, but
>>there is only one CHAMP and that's Bobby -- made in the USA.
>
>Please.  You're making me ill.
>
     Quite!  It's true in Basketball (for now), but in chess the only
Dream Team could come from Eastern Europe.

-Mark

p.s.  Sorry about bringing up that (IMHO) stomach churning reference.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
     <1992Oct8.123217.3463@gwinnett.COM>
     <1992Oct8.200139.15122@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:54:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.194431.13491@midway.uchicago.edu> Eric Schiller,
schiller@whorf writes:

  >Anand-Fischer would be more interesting. I think Anand would
  >be about a 5-3 favorite. But then I am conservative! <grin>
  >
  >More reasonable odds:
  >
  >Fischer-Damljanovic (reportedly next match), 25-1 Fischer,
  >	6-1 on a shutout?
  >
  >Fischer-Speelman or Fischer-Timman (3-2 against Fischer)
  >
  >Fischer-Karpov (4-1 against Fischer)
  >
  >Fischer-Seirawan (5-1 Fischer)
  >
  >Fischer-Kasparov (50-1 Kasparov)

Eric,

You should consider specifying the conditions of the above matches, as
the odds would be greatly dependant on them (i.e., length of match,
whether draws count, whether a tie is possible and the meaning of a tie,
etc.).

I would be interested to see a repost with the above, so I can do my
estimates in reply.

   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 16 - moves 1-20
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:24:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct7.152444.16147
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 18:34 GMT
   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. d4 Nf6
   2. c4 c5
   3. d5 d6
   4. Nc3 g6
   5. e4 Bg7
   6. Bg5 h6
   7. Bh4 g5
   8. Bg3 Qa5
   9. Bd3 Nxe4
   10. Bxe4 Bxc3+
   11. bxc3 Qxc3+
   12. Kf1 f5
   13. Rc1 Qf6
   14. h4 g4
   15. Bd3 f4
   16. Ne2 fxg3
   17. Nxg3 Rf8
   18. Rc2 Nd7
   19. Qxg4 Ne5
   20. Qe4 Bd7
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: chris@barrister.ucs.uoknor.edu (Chris L Petroff	)
Subject: Re: F-S II game 19 opinion
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:33:30 GMT
Distribution: rec
Reply-To: chris@barrister.ucs.uoknor.edu
Organization: University of Oklahoma Cumputing Services

Oh well...    just when I thought Fischer had developed a Knight fettish, he
holds onto his Bishops!  (for a few moves, anyway...)

:-)
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 18 drawn
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:06:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct11.170603.16288
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Game 18 was a uneventful draw today, lasting 36 moves.  Spassky seemed
to have a nice positional advantage early, but Fischer built a solid
defensive position and Boris couldn't penetrate.  

I don't have moves 31-36 yet.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138
From: ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: STOP BASHING ALEKINE
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:52:23 GMT
Organization: Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden

In article <1992Oct12.120857.10475@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.110653.23931@gdr.bath.ac.uk>, mapmef@gdr.bath.ac.uk (M E Fletcher) writes:

>> disinclination to play didn't dent it in the slightest. Staunton always
>> seems to get a terrible press (in the US?! :-) ) and you might try reading
>> the Oxford Companion to Chess for a more objective account.
>      ^^^^^^
>
> *OXFORD* ?!?!?! for an objective account?!?!?  an objective account
>would be from a third party country!!!  

Note the original wording: 'more objective account'.

It isn't from a third party country - it's merely from a third party
century.

-- 
Anders Thulin       ath@linkoping.trab.se 	013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
From: nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: NeXT ICS
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:13:27 GMT
Reply-To: nash@visus.com
Organization: Visual Understanding Systems, Pgh PA

I am writing a NeXT interface for the ICS. I plan on only doing a rudimentary  
interface for my own personal use. I should be done with it in a week or so.

Is there anyone out there who would like to help test/develop it with me?

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard V. Nash  | Visual Understanding Systems, Inc.         |
| nash@visus.com   | Tel. (412)-488-3600   Fax. (412)-488-3611  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Draw-offer etiquette? (Re: wusses)
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<Bw32op.KzD@acsu.buffalo.edu>
	<1992Oct14.000147.16373@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:42:50

    I suppose it was Q vs. R (or QR vs. RR).  In his _60 Memorable Games_
    Fischer suggests that in inferior but probably drawn positions it's
    something of a breach of etiquette to offer a draw, presumably
    because the better-placed player can always offer a draw (which
    quite certainly would be accepted) if he's not making progress,
    and will not accept one if he believes there's still a chance for
    a win....

Yes, this is a standard rule of etiquette.  Botvinnik in his "Lessons
on the End Game" (title probably garbled) analyzes his game with Fischer
at Varna 1962 and criticizes Fischer playing on when the game was
obviously drawn, "for according to the unwritten laws of chess,
I, being a pawn down, could not be the one to make the offer."
(Quote probably slightly garbled).
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:10:44 GMT

In article <16284@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) wr
ites:
>> what i want to know is this: if i join some chess club, and get my
>buttocks whupped, will people be mad if i don't resign?
>
>Yes - and they'd be right.

I don't really agree with this.  If material is even or relatively
even or an unbalanced situation exists - don't resign.
As long as there are reasonable chances to complicate -
don't resign.  

However, if you are completely lost in a mopping
up situation you may consider resigning.  If you don't resign
in these situations you should at least play very quickly.
A friend of mine who is in the 2200-2300 USCF range plays on
until mate in every game he loses.  When he is really (totally)
lost he plays very quickly.  I personally don't do this, but I
don't see a big problem with it.  Incidentally, he has drawn and
even won a good number of these games.

On the other hand, don't things out!  I once had an opponent who
ran over an hour off his clock in a K and P ending where I was
a Q and R up.  That was bothersome!

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: English (was book titles)
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:15:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.214008.28859@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.210336.20638@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:

>politically incorrect here.  To the best of my faulty recollection,
>lines where Black tries to play the C-K are relegated to the
>"miscellaneous" chapter, and as such I've decided to solve those
>problems over the board.

I suspect that they are relegated to the miscellaneous chapter because
they are more properly covered in C-K books.  My point is that a C-K
player can benefit by just transposing into the C-K.  The person who
first asked about the English did not identify a preference, and
someone has already suggested 1...e6.  It might well be that the
English is not dangerous or even that 1...c6 is an inferior response
(although ECO treats the transposition as fine, even forced).

It can be a relief to us novices to discover that we need not work up
an entirely new opening at some point in order to play against 1.c4.  I
know, you say, "just play chess."  Well, perhaps you are right.  Last
weekend, I picked up two pawns (d+e) very early in a C-K Advance but
managed to lose the game.  I had clear advantages in 4 games but won
only 2 of 5, including 1 in which I had a clear DISadvantage.  How did
I win those 2?  Would you believe that I won the endgames?  In one, I
Zugged; in the other, I handed the defensive task off to my King and
freed up a Rook then another and while my opponent got lost and bored
and offered a draw I created 3 passed pawns and exchanged off the
Rooks.  So, your advice to study endgames instead of openings pays off,
although I wouldn't and don't neglect the openings.  It's not fun to
get pushed around for a whole game because you don't know the opening.

--Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Subject: Re: When Deep Thought Beats Kasparov...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:44:45 GMT

fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:


>The computer's biggest contribution to theory will be in the endgame, but
>if computers do become skillful enough, Kasparov won't make it that
>far to use his new knowledge.

*IF!*


Organization: Junior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 1992 01:15:37 -0400 
From: "Clifford T. Tanaka" <ct20+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Anand-Ivanchuk 3-1!
	<92280.101623IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.chess: 6-Oct-92 Re: Anand-Ivanchuk 3-1!
IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (28)

> Anand, next world champion?


That should read Anand, next world champion!!



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: bkonarsk@Condor.mcs.kent.edu (Beirne Konarski)
Subject: Re: Fischer in the News?  Where?
Organization: Kent State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:04:52 GMT

In article <9210121112.AA23769@shadow.cs.columbia.edu> amb@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU (andrew m. boardman) writes:
>I usually get my news from the BBC, but I've heard *nothing* about the
>Spassky match.  Is it just not news outside of the US and the chess
>world, or is it not being reported for reasons having to do with them
>violating UN sanctions or somesuch?

I may have just been lucky since I don't listen to BBC much anymore but I turned
it on a week ago and heard a story on the FSII match.  It was more of a 
feature story than a news story, though, so it may be considered an oddity by 
the BBC.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad)
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:05:40 GMT

In article <16310@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>[Long posting omitted]
>
>I thought this posting was a pretty good satire of this whole discussion.  On
>the other hand, if it was meant to be serious....surely no one can actually
>believe that Fischer is clearly better than Kasparov.  It would be an
>interesting match, but I think even Fischer would be happy winning by a
>narrow margin.

You know what. There still people who think that Fischer is the best in the
World today. It is pointless to argue one way or the other. The only way
this can be decided is through a bet. If Andy or somebody else claims that
Fischer is the best and better than Kasparov, they should take me up on my
offer. Here it is. I offer the following bet.

I bet that if Fischer ever plays a long (more than 8 games) match against
Kasparov, Karpov, or any ohter one of the top 5 players in th eWorld in the
next, say, 10 years, he will lose.

I suggest the bet size be $5000. Any takers?

Vlad

Employer disagrees



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:55:43 GMT

In <92286.201954RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:

>i don't like to resign, even when i am pitifully far behind.  sure, my
>opponent would have to get suddenly hit in the head with a brick for him
>to mess up, but who knows, maybe he'll suddenly get hit in the head with
>a brick.

Or drop a queen. I had a won game once (I trapped my opponents rook) and
decided to finish things off by forcing a trade of queens (or moving my oppo-
nent's queen way back). What I didn't notice was that when I took the rook,
the pawn I was using to guard my queen was suddenly pinned. My opponent got
a gleeful look on his face and grabbed the queen! I must admit I resigned
immediately, but I was facing mate in several moves anyway.

>but when i look at all these chess games posted, i almost never see
>"checkmate."  everybody resigns.

If you have forced mate in two or three moves, resigning at this point is
effectively being mated anyway.

>now i know that this is because not everyone wants to play to the bitter
>end, when the outcome is guaranteed (barring random brick attacks).  so
>i don't want an explanation of why this is so.

>what i want to know is this: if i join some chess club, and get my
>buttocks whupped, will people be mad if i don't resign?

Some will. I tend to play out lost position until the case is utterly hope-
less. If my opponent gets mad, so what. I'll enjoy the game.

Paul



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:19:28 GMT

In article <92288.161410RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>someone, in some post, used the phrase, "another resignation that i
>accepted".  does this imply that you have the right to refuse your
>opponent's resignation? so my opponent says, "i resign," and i say
>"too bad, keep your butt in that seat"?
>
>i realize that this would be awfully impolite, i just want to know if
>i have the right to do it or not.
>
>

What are you going to do if you opponent get's up an leaves?  Ask the TD for
two wins?  So you don't want to accept my resignation.  Fine.  Sit there for
an hour while my clock runs out.  You have now won by time forfieture.  Happy?
I know I am, because I caught lunch and had a break before my next game.

Note:  The tone of this response in not directed to the original poster.  This
is how I would feel if someone told me I couldn't resign.  The point is that
whatever the rules say, I can in practice resign whenever I want, whether my
opponent likes it or not.

-T (Current World Chess Champion [negotiations with the 1400 player across the
hall are underway.])

-
t
From: mhopper@emperor.gatech.edu (Michael A. Hopper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Date: 7 Oct 92 06:15:26 GMT
Organization: Computer Engineering Research Lab, Georgia Tech.

In article <1992Oct6.103119.20658@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
-><RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
->>"in fact, it would appear that there are an infinite number of values for
->>the finite number of chess positions..."
->>
->> WHAT?
->>
->> care to share your wisdom with us?
->
->When a position comes up for a 2nd time, we ASSUME it has the same
->value as the 1st time it came up.  (That is why we create loops in
->the graphs.)  In fact, it is clear that there will be multiple
->values (e.g., the right to draw after the 3rd repetition).  If we
->call the positions with different values "different positions"
->(which has been the proposed solution) we have no way of PROVING
->that the value continues to repeat as the position repeats.
->(I.e., the value of the position can be sequence dependent.)  So we
->are left with to permit either infinite positions or infinite
->values to finite positions.  In either case, its unsolvable.

Multiple values YES, infinitite values NO!  The fact that you are
approaching a 3rd repitition simply means that you are in a different
state.  Remember that the state of the game includes not only the
board position, but whether you can castle, claim en-passant, or
draw on 3rd repitition.  These moves add states to the basic board
position states, but these additional states are STILL FINITE!!!
And a finite number + a finite number = a finite number.

-Mike

-- 
| mhopper@cerl.gatech.edu |   ' ) ) ) o  /_       ' )  /                
| Office: CRB 388         |    / / / /  /\_) __    /__/______   _   __  __
| Phone: (404) 894-9111   |   / / (_/\_/  \_/_/_  /  / (_) /_)_/_)_/_/_/ (_
| Home:  (404) 723-1718   |                               /   /
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 19 drawn - moves
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:33:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct14.213358.16401
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


    Sicilian Defense, Closed Variation:
    Fischer Spassky
    (White) (Black)
    1. e4 c5
    2. Nc3 Nc6
    3. Nge2 e5
    4. Nd5 Nge7
    5. Nec3 Nxd5
    6. Nxd5 Be7
    7. g3 d6
    8. Bg2 h5
    9. h4 Be6
    10. d3 Bxd5
    11. exd5 Nb8
    12. f4 Nd7
    13. 0-0 g6
    14. Rb1 f5
    15. b4 b6
    16. bxc5 bxc5
    17. c4 0-0
    18. Qa4 Bf6
    19. Rb7 Nb6
    20. Qb5 Rf7
    21. Rxf7 Kxf7
    22. Bd2 Rb8
    23. Qc6 Nc8
    24. Re1 Ne7
    25. Qa4 Qc7
    26. Kh2 exf4
    27. Bxf4 Be5
    28. Re2 Rb6
    29. Kh3 Ng8
    30. Rxe5 dxe5
    31. Bxe5 Qe7
    32. d6 Rxd6
    33. Bxd6 Qxd6
    34. Bd5+ Kf8
    35. Qxa7 Ne7
    36. Qa8+ Kg7
    37. Qb7 Kf8
    38. a4 f4
    39. a5 fxg3
    40. a6 Qf4
    41. Bf3 Nf5
    42. Qe4 g2
    43. Qxf4 g1Q
    44. Be4 Qa1
    45. a7 Qxa7
    46. Bxf5 gxf5
    47. Qxf5+ Kg7
    48. Qg5+ Kf8
    49. Qh6+ Kg8
    50. Qxh5 Qc7
    51. Qg6+ Kh8
    52. Qf6+ Kg8
    53. Qe6+ Kh8
    54. Qd5 Qf7
    55. Kg2 Qg6+
    56. Kh3 Qf7
    57. Qe5+ Kh7
    58. Kg4 Qg6+
    59. Kf4 Qh6+
    60. Kf3 Qg6
    61. Qe4 Kh8
    62. Ke2 Qd6
    63. Qe3 Qh2+
    64. Kd1 Qh1+
    65. Kd2 Qh2+
    66. Kc3 Qxh4
    67. d4 Kh7
    68. d5 Qf6+
    69. Kc2 Qd6
    70. Qg5 Kh8
    71. Kd2 Qb6
    72. Qe5+ Kg8
    73. Qe8+ Kg7
    74. Qb5 Qc7
    75. Kc2 Kf8
    76. Qa6 Qh2+
    77. Kb3 Qb8+
    78. Qb5 Qc7
    79. Ka3 Qa7+
    80. Kb3 Ke7
    81. Kc2 Kd8
    82. Kd2 Qc7
    83. Qa6 Qf4+
    84. Kc2 Qe4+
    drawn