HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fgg@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov (Frank G. Gomez)
Subject: Fischer time controls on ICS
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:22:07 GMT

Hello,

I just  witnessed  a game on ICS that was being  played with
Fischer time  controls;  move  increment  was 12 seconds.  I
then  watched  one of the players  fall below zero  seconds,
about -10 seconds to be exact.  His opponent didn't call his
flag.  Then he moved  and got the 12  seconds  added  to his
clock  bringing him to +2 seconds !  And then  proceeded  to
win !  on  time,  no  less !  Is  this  really  the  way the
Fischer  time control is supposed to work ?  I thought  once
you were below  zero, you lost the game.  Just  curious.  It
was an entertaining game to watch.

Frank
--
Frank G. Gomez  
fgg@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The Serbs are free to imprison or kill Fischer
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:05:47 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Greg Kuperberg writes:
>I was thinking this morning about Fischer's situation.  His problems
>with the United States aside, he is in an extremely vulnerable
>situation in Yugoslavia.  I assume that he just doesn't understand the
>consequences of offending people, and just as with everyone else, he
>will probably find some reason to condemn the Serbs.  In particular if
>they don't pay him, then he will have a lot of frustration to work out
>with them.  In fact, as long as he is a guest of the authorities,
>getting paid has no clear meaning.  They decide how he lives and that's
>that.

>Since Fischer is wanted by the US, he could try to hide in Yugoslavia
>as a recluse (it's his habit anyway).  If so, no one outside Yugoslavia
>would expect to hear from him.  If the Serbs decide he is an
>embarassment, they could put him under house arrest, or behind bars, or
>even six feet under, and no one would know.  His only connection to the
>outside world, besides the Serbian authorities, is his groupie.  What a
>thread to dangle from.



>I also hope for Spassky's sake that he has returned to France.  He has
>a life and therefore is in less trouble, but shady characters owe him
>money also, and that puts him at a certain risk.
 
>BTW:  It's not true that more people died in New York this year
>than were killed by the Serbs in Bosnia.

Of course. That's why DMC claimed that more people were murdered in New York
during the match than in "Yugoslavia."  Since "Yugoslavia" now only
consists of Serbia and Montenegro and not Bosnia or Croatia, his
statement may be technically true.  
 
>Obligatory chess question:  On ICS, if your flag is called but your
>opponent has insufficient material to win, you draw.  This overlooks
>theoretically possible positions in which both sides have pawns (plus
>maybe even a bishop) but neither side can win.

Yes, I guess those positions occur so rarely that it's not worth the
trouble to program ICS to recognize them.

>Does there exist a chess position in which Black has enough material to
>win (at least one pawn), and can lose, but can't win even with White's
>cooperation?

Sure!  For instance, White: Ke1, Be5, pawns on a3,b4,c3,d4,f4,g3,h4.
Black: Ke7, Be6, a4, b5, c4, d5, f5, g4, h5, h7

Neither side can break up the pawn chains since their bishops aren't
on the same color as their pawns, and black can't possibly win
because all his forces are locked behind the unbreachable pawn
chains.  Black can lose, however by running his king over to h6,
using his bishop to occupy the flight square on g6, and letting
the white bishop mate him from e8.

Bradley
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:01:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.164138.568@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.210943.10605@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>> In article <1gpafnINN8bb@tamsun.tamu.edu> sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
>>>
>>>                   Couldn't we better use that "slot" in prison for housing
>>>someone that is an actual threat to society?
>> 
>> By your logic, we should pardon WWII war criminals who are now 80+ years old
>> and definitely do not pose any actual threat to society.
>> 
>> 	Sven
>> 
>
>By your logic Bobby Fischer has done the equivelent evil as Megela.
>
>DMC
>
I guess you should work on your logic as well as on your spelling.

	Sven
From: kinne@Oswego.EDU (Doc Kinne)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Rook upside-down for a queen
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:28:43 GMT
Reply-To: kinne@oswego.Oswego.EDU (Doc Kinne)
Organization: Instructional Computing Center, SUNY at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <1992Dec9.214459.10628@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>Just for fun: if a player stops the clocks and asks the TD to find a
>Queen, can he:
	Interestingly enough questions on this type of rule procedure
have come up three times in the last two months with me...
>
>    a) change his mind and *not* promote the pawn?
	Well, according to the rule you cited in your last post, a
player should have some idea (apparently) what he is going to promote
to BEFORE he moves the pawn, however, in another section of the rules
(sorry, I don't have the rule book on me at work) it states that if
a players moves a pawn to the 8th rank he no longer has the option
NOT to promote it, however he is still totally free as to WHAT to 
promote it to.  So, in the instance of you question, NO he cannot
change his mind if he's moved the pawn to the last rank, he MUST
promote it, but promote it to WHAT is still an open question.
>
>    b) change his mind and promote the pawn to a R,B, or N?
	As long as he has not put the Queen on the board, yes, he
may change his mind.  He could take the pawn off the last square,
pick up the Queen, hover it over the square, change his mind and
pick up a Bishop and place it on the board.  Once the piece is
placed on the board (and only then) is the player committed.
>
>    c) change his mind and astop the clocks again to look for
>       a third R,B, or N?
	See above.  I would rule that he could though I admit
that the rule you cited makes this interpretation a bit muddy.
>
>    d) change his mind iff his opponent squeals "Stalemate!"
	Not only would I uphold the player's right to
"change his mind" in this situation, I would also think heavily
of penalizing his opponent for kibitzing!

	But, hey, remember, I'm only a Club Tournament Director!  8-)
From: DUFF000 <DUFF%UNB.CA@UNBMVS1.csd.unb.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Please ignore, just a test
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:06:02 GMT
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.unl.edu


Just testing to see if I know how to get on the net.
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess Programmers attn.
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:10:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

I took gnuchess 4 patch level 58, added ttable caching to it,
and put on a real nice 640X480X256 color user interface in
a port I did to the Amiga.  It can beat Checkmate, a commercial
Amiga pgm 10 times out of 10 in any time controls I have tried.

Problem is, gnuchess 4.58 with table caching is still not
a real strong chess pgm.  What I would love to do is
port a stronger pgm to the amiga, using my front end and
user interface, graphics etc.  

Does someone out there own the source to a real powerful chess pgm
that they would like ported to the Amiga?  My port of gnuchess
requires 4-8Mb of mem, and a 68020 or better processor.
My thought is that by optimizing a real strong chess pgm, a 68040
based system could play as well as any pgm on the PC.  I know
my port of gnuchess can defeat gnuchess 4.60 on a 486/66,
and by rearraning data structures on a strong 486 based chess
pgm, I think a 68040 equipped Amiga system could do as well
or better than a 486/66 DOS system.

If anyone is interested in having their chess pgm ported to the
Amiga, please let me know, I have a real attractive front end
and graphics ready, that are currently coupled to an enhanced
Gnuchess 4p58 core.

-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: douglasy@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Douglas W. Yee)
Subject: Chess Problem Question
Organization: Motorola Inc.  Austin, Tx.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:34:06 GMT



A month ago, I spotted one of Ed Maillet's "To Play and Win" problems 
in _Chess Bits_.  Since I was not able to solve the problem, I 
eagerly awaited the answer which was posted a couple days ago.  The
original problem was as follows:

>  White: Ra1 Rf1 Kg1 Pa2 Pb2 Pc2
>         Pf2 Pg2 Ph2 Qb3 Bc3 Pg7
>
>  Black: Bc6 Qe6 Pf6 Pa7 Pb7 Pc7
>         Ph7 Kb8 Re8 Rg8
>
>       Black to play. Mate in 6
>
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>  8 |   |.K.|   |...| R |...| R |...|
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  On a scale of 1-10, this problem
>  7 |.P.| P |.P.|   |...|   |*P*| P |  rates at about a 3.5 at best. The
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  solution will be in the next issue.
>  6 |   |...| B |...| Q |.P.|   |...|
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  If you have a chess problem(s) that
>  5 |...|   |...|   |...|   |...|   |  you would like to have included
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  send it to me and I'll take a look
>  4 |   |...|   |...|   |...|   |...|  a it. If it's a good one, I'll put
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  it in with credit given, of course.
>  3 |...|*Q*|*B*|   |...|   |...|   |
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  Enjoy!
>  2 |*P*|*P*|*P*|...|   |*P*|*P*|*P*|
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  ----- Ed Maillet (White)
>  1 |*R*|   |...|   |...|*R*|*K*|   |  ip05872@portland.maine.edu
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>      a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h

And the posted solution was:

> A Solution to Last Months:
>    1. Qe6-h3    Pf2-f3
>    2. Rg8xg7    Rf1-f2
>    3. Bc6xf3    Kg1-f1
>    4. Bf3xg2    Kf1-g1
>    5. Bg2-f3    Rf2-g2
>    6. Qh3xg2++


My question is what is the continuation for:

   1. Qe6-h3    Pf2-f3
   2. Rg8xg7    Pg2-g3


Am I just overlooking something obvious?


Douglas Yee
douglasy@intrepid.sps.mot.com

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: chess1@bnr.ca (Pete Abovyan)
Subject: Re:Shirazi
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:43:43 GMT


I am glad that Kamran is still good at playing 5 minute games. I remember
18-20 years ago when he would play 3 minute games at Iranian Chess Federation
in Tehran. At times, you could see chess pieces flying all over the place.

Those were the good old days.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: valentin@netcom.com (Valentin Pepelea)
Subject: Re: ICS Ratings
Organization: Netcom Communications, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:18:54 GMT

In article <Dec.16.21.41.49.1992.6417@romulus.rutgers.edu>
clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>
>Looks like the average rating is still going down, albeit at a slower
>rate (perhaps 1 point every 2-3 days).  Has anyone archived the average
>ratings on a day-to-day basis so this decrease could be examined?

The average rating of the entire ICS population is not a good way of
determining the stability of the rating system. One possible reason for this
decline is that all strong players, subscribers to rec.games.chess, subscribed
to ICS long ago, thus mostly weaker players have been joining the server.

Perhaps a better way of determining stability, is by comparing the average
rating of players a few months ago with the average rating of the same group
today.

Problems arize there too, though. For example, such a methodology does not take
into account that players improve over time, thus we should observe an apparent
rating inflation.

Valentin
-- 
"An operating system without virtual memory      Name:      Valentin Pepelea
 is an operating system without virtue."         Phone:     (408) 249-6610
                                                 Usenet:    netcom!valentin
                     - Ancient Inca Proverb      Internet:  valentin@netcom.com
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
Date: 12 Dec 92 05:55:15 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1992Dec11.165710.448@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>[attribution line stupidly deleted :(]
>>>But, one player may be better than all the rest.
>>>
>>>A fact both of you have forgotten.
>>>
>>>DMC
>> 
>> Well no they didn't.  It's just not true.  I quote GM Andy Soltis in
>> [post about how there isn't a best chess player because every game
>>  is different deleted]
>Then I suppose ther is no Heavyweight Champion boxer either, and no World
>Series Winner either?
>
No permanent winner, no.  There's a set of rules for determining the
Heavyweight champion, a challenge system of some kind, probably very
much like today's World Champion system, with candidate matches and
such.

And the World Series has rules too.  Not everyone can play the world
series.  There are pennants to be won...the equivelant of candidate
matches, in a very loose sense.

In either case, there is a set of rules determining who plays.  And
those rules must be abided by to legitimately claim the title of
World Champion.  Fischer did not abide by those rules, therefore he
can't claim the title.

And you missed the point of my original post--which was that there is
NO accurate way to determine who the best chessplayer "really" is
(the "real" best chessplayer being able to beat "all the rest"),
because different people play better against different kinds of
opponents.  You never disputed this at all.

>Besides, what do any of these opinions have to do with the GMs defending their
>claims against Fischer?
>
The original point was, I think, that you claimed Fischer was better than
everyone else and therefore more qualified to speak out.  I will admit,
he is better than I am, and therefore more qualified.  But I am leery,
after watching his performance in F-S II, and watching the comments,
not only by GMs, but by people on this group and in other publications,
about saying that he is better qualified than all the Grandmasters on
the face of the earth.  As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure he's not.
Just a feeling I have, though.

	Jason
	Worst Chessplayer in Central Tucson
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 19 Dec 1992 22:02:48 CST
From: Howard Wachtel <U13054@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Zollner Gambit
 <breuker.724580257@cs.rulimburg.nl> <1gqa6vINNctq@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>

In article <1gqa6vINNctq@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
says:
>
>What is the Zollner Gambit in the Sicilian Dragon?  I came across this
>name while browsing through the "Oxford" book on chess.  It didn't give
>any moves.

   The Zollner gambit is 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6
6 Be2 Bg7 7 Be3 Nc6 8 O-O O-O 9 f4 Qb6 10 e5!?  Theory gives 10...de5
11 fe5 Nxe5 12 Nf5 Qxb2 13 Nxe7+ Kh8 14 Bd4 Qb4! and White is considered
to have insufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
   However, there don't seem to be any recent games with this variation;
perhaps the line may be playable.
________________________________________________________________
Howard K. Wachtel              University of Illinois at Chicago
U13054@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU        Phone (312) 975-7970
From: 1-5054%wwiv@tweekco.uucp (Walter Wood #1 @5054)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: RE:  Smith-Morra Gambit
Date: 11 Dec 92 02:52:02 GMT

Has anyone out there seen any updated analysis on the line in the Smith-Morra
Gambit which Larry Evans used to defeat Ken Smith in San Antonio, 1972 ?
Have any improvements been found for white?

Please reply with a post on rec.games.chess !

Walter Wood  1@5054 WWIV net
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pope@gold.kpc.com (John Pope)
Subject: Re: Chess Problem Question
Organization: /nfs/gold/u/home/pope/.organization
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:11:56 GMT

(Douglas Yee) writes:

> My question is what is the continuation for:
>
>   1. Qe6-h3    Pf2-f3
>   2. Rg8xg7    Pg2-g3

2.g3 Rg3 3.hg Qg3 4.Kh1 Re2 and white has to toss the Q (and gets
mated PDQ anyway).

--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 19 Dec 1992 22:52:02 CST
From: Howard Wachtel <U13054@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Inflating your rating (WAS Re: US Invitational...
Distribution: world
 <1992Dec16.025539.18066@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
 <1992Dec16.232637.527@uoft02.utoledo.edu> <1992Dec17.052849.25145@cis.uab.edu>
 <1gqri0INNguc@agate.berkeley.edu>

In article <1gqri0INNguc@agate.berkeley.edu>, jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C.
Ely) says:
>
>In article <1992Dec17.052849.25145@cis.uab.edu>, sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth
>Sloan) writes:
>
><Decent players' portion of crosstable deleted>
>
>|>  16    IM Kamran Shirazi 2517 2221 2454  0.0
>
>Wow.  How do I get into one of these tournaments.  All I have to do is lose
>twelve straight games and I get a performance rating of master!

   Well, getting into the US Championship is probably out of the question
for most of us, but if you have enough money you could try entering the
Open section of the World Open or the New York Open.  After only 3 or 4
losses you might still have a performance rating of, maybe, 1900 or
better.  Then if there are too many non-masters in the Open section,
just withdraw around round 5 or so and do the same thing again next year.
You might do the same in events like the Philadelphia or Chicago
International and pay a few hundred bucks a pop, and withdraw whenever
it looks like your next opponent will be too low rated for your liking.
   Even better than that, you could follow the example of Dr. Moskow
and organize an International Round-Robin tournament, invite lots of
IM's and GM's, pay them handsomely, and play in it yourself!  That
ought to inflate your rating high enough. :-) :-)
________________________________________________________________
Howard K. Wachtel              University of Illinois at Chicago
U13054@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU        Phone (312) 975-7970
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?y
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:10:45 GMT

> Thomas Marvan writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <42740@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
> Posted: 20 Dec 92 08:48:24 GMT
>
> Org.  : University of California, San Diego
>
> In article <18655@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce
> Harper) writes:
> >Being a Canadian, not an American, lawyer, can a lawyer out there tell us
> >whether the executive even has the power to "pardon" someone who has not
> been
> >tried or convicted?  I would think not, so really the discussion must have
> >been about whether Fischer should have been charged.
>
>
> Richard Nixon was pardoned without being convicted, although the
> efforts to impeach him could be interpreted as a "trial" (even
> though the process was incomplete due to Ford's pardon of Nixon).
>
> Ford's pardon of Nixon was very carefully worded - he excused the
> former executive of any breaches of the law "he may have comitted."
>
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> *  Thomas (Tom) Marvan         Phone: (619) 450 3670              *
> *  Dept. of Political Science, E-Mail: tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu     *
> *  University of California,   Snail Mail: 9450 Gilman Dr.,       *
> *  San Diego,  USA.            #92092-0644, La Jolla, CA, 92092.  *
> *******************************************************************
>
> "'Scuse me talking, I wanna marry you..."
>
> Dire Straits' Mark Knopfler singing Wild West End
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That does sound like a perfect wording for the Fischer case.
Peter
--

----------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: arimakel@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Ari Kalevi Makela)
Subject: Re: Alekhine attack in French defense
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:14:46 GMT

In <breuker.724671489@cs.rulimburg.nl> breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker) writes:

>>BCO calls it Albin-Chatard. And Alekhine writes in his comments for

>BCO 2 calls it Alekhine-Chatard Attack (p. 246, note 23)

I checked if I really am an illiterate but no: the first edition calls
it Albin-Chatard Attack (page 201, note 22). Pretty odd, isn't it?


-- 
Ari K. M{kel{		    Department of Radiochemistry
ari.makela@helsinki.fi      University of Helsinki

"Night must fall now - darker, darker"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: US Championship Round 10 GAMES
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:49:33 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

I hope this doesn't sound biased, but I personally like the idea that
the two recent emigres from the ex-USSR (Yermolinsky and Men) are
apparently going to finish out of the running for the championship.

Does anybody know if Yermolinsky has an automatic berth into the
Interzonal based on rating?  I would rather he not have one, because he
doesn't seem to have had good international results at all.  Kamsky at
least does well enough in international tournaments to deserve an
automatic berth.

One more question -- could somebody post a crosstable?  I don't have
the old one.

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
'Russian Vodka'."
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:26:37 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec16.025539.18066@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
> In article <1992Dec15.202841.514@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.181705.13021@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>>> <sigh> I thought I had gotten out of this thread, but no, no, I guess
>>> 
>>> Kasparov is the World Champion.  Kasparov is not the "best chessplayer
>>> in the world" because there is no best chessplayer in the world.
>>
>>Oh, I get it now, you are confusing the word 'best' with the word 'perfect'.
>>Best implies better than every other on a scale that is used. Perfect implies
>>infallible. The two are NOT the same.
>>
>>
>>DMC
> 
> No, no, you're getting closer, but I guess I haven't quite made it
> clear yet.  I would agree with your definition of "best" except
> for the words "on a scale that is used" (I assume you mean the
> USCF scale, which is surprising, coming from a Fischerite).
> "Best" to me, means better than every other.  

Right...
						And, (sigh, one
> more time) unless someone plays every other, they can't be
> said to be better than every other.

So unless you actually pit a band of 300 Roman centurians (with their
equipment from that era) against 300 Special Forces grunts with modern
weaponry, you can't say that the Green Berets are a better fighting force???
 


> 
> But I think, in general, we've reached a consensus.  Can I go now?

You never had to come here. No one is stopping you from leaving except you.

DMC