HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Robert_Ryan@brown.edu (Rob Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PER
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:06:05 GMT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <winders-121092095923@130.43.4.71>, winders@aux.support.apple.com
(Scott Winders) said:

> ...
>
>Logically, you are correct.  But logic does not explain why so many of
>Fischer's opponents became sick while playing against him.  Look at the
>men Fischer played on the way to the World Championship in 1972.  It
>appears that most of his opponents were "sick", mentally or physically
>at some point.

If we're talking about Spassky getting sick, aren't we getting a little
carried away attributing this to Fischer?  Didn't Spassky recently have
to drop out of a French tournament because of liver ailments?  Spassky's
problems have more to do with his age and general poor physical condition
than they do with Fischer.

I can't comment about most of Fischer's opponents getting sick, though, and
perhaps he does have this affect on players.  But given the lack of evidence
of this within the past 20 years, the argument seems a little thin.  If the
rumored match with Polgar takes place, perhaps this would be an interesting
test of the theory.

-- Rob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rob Ryan, internet:   Robert_Ryan@brown.edu or robr@brownvm.brown.edu
           bitnet:     ROBR@BROWNVM
           Compu$erve: 70324,227
 Brown University, Providence, RI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Subject: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Distribution: rec
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:37:00 GMT
From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: (book titles)
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:18:39 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen) wrote : 
>In article <Bvs0Gp.98L@news.orst.edu> linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin) writes:
...
>>There are so many books on the semi-open defenses, but nowadays, almost
>>all tournament games are closed games or semi-closed games.  It seems
>>that there would be a great demand for books with titles such as 
>>Winning with 1 c4 b5!! or something like that.  Seriously though, I am

Actually, I have lost few ICS blitzes as white to 1.c4 b5?! ...

>>looking for a good way to reply to 1 c4.  In a recent tournament, I 
>>tried both 1...g6 and 1...b6.  How is it possible to prevent White's
>>setup with c4,d3,e4 ?  Or how is it possible to take advantage of it?
>>  

Only way to prevent that setup is to play d5 before white gets c4 + e4 in.
As to taking advantage of it, see below.

>>
>
>There are many ways to do it, but the suggestions here may not suit to 
>your other systems. 
>
>1.c4 e6
>

Forcing transposition into Queens Gambit or Reti (2.g3 d5 3.Nf3), not
good if you prefer Nimzo-Indian.

>1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5
>

This leads to Grunfeld, but white can benefit from this move order by
delaying d4. Actually, that is quite strong for white, so I don't
recommend this.

>1.c4 c6
>

Safest transposition, into Slav (2.d4 d5) or Caro-Kann (2.e4 d5)


>One way to respond to e4, c4, d3:
>
>1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.e4 d6 5.Rge2 e5 6.0-0 c6
>7.d3 a6 with the idea Nbd7, b5,d5 (BCO 1)
>

From my experience as white (and also as black!), the best way to combat
this c4,d3,e4,g3 setup is to play c5, not e5, so that bishop at g7 has
clear diagonal and Q-side play is possible.

So: 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 (3.-d5 is also interesting, but considered
good for white) 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.e4 d6 6.Nge2 Nc6 7.O-O O-O 8.d3 and now
black can start immidiate action on Q-side by 8.-a6 or play interesting
manouvre 8.-Ne8!? + 9.-Nc7

Mika
-- 
Mika Kukkonen = Mika.Kukkonen@Helsinki.FI
Trying to learn to live in Helsinki University of Computer Science.
"I am studying, so I am, or am I (studying)?"
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: human vs computer
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:10:51 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <31271@sophia.inria.fr> gerbaudo@jorasses.inria.fr (Pascal Gerbaudo) writes:
>A GMI, I don't remember who exactly, say in the 70's I think
>that for beating a world champion the computer must
>calculate a depht of 7 moves, 14 half-moves.

That sort of sounds like me, except for the fact that (a) I'm a crummy
chess player and (b) it was marked an extremely wild guess at the time.  I
think it was 1973, and I was *speculating* based on far-fetched
extrapolations of comparative runs with my relatively low-ranked program
(TECH, C-MU) that 13-14 ply would be enough to hit world champion level.
A very strong chess player and chess programmer suggested that a strong
player trying for a draw could probably avoid the sort of tactical
situations that would allow a brute force program to find an edge.

I'm not giving up on the prediction yet... time will tell.
-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	jim@rand.org
From: ml@world.std.com (Mark Limont)
Subject: FS-II Game 19 First 40 Moves Closed Sicilian
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:55:37 GMT

Fischer Spassky
White   Black
1  e4   c5
2  Nc3  Nc6
3  Nge2 e5
4  Nd5  Nge7
5  Nec3 Nd5
6  Nd5  Be7
7  g3   d6
8  Bg2  h5
9  h4   Be6
10 d3   Bd5
11 ed5  Nb8
12 f4   Nd7
13 O-O  g6
14 Rb1  f5
15 b4   b6
16 bc5  bc5
17 c4   O-O
18 Qa4  Bf6
19 Rb7  Nb6
20 Qb5  Rf7
21 Rf7  Kf7
22 Bd2  Rb8
23 Qc6  Nc8
24 Re1  Ne7
25 Qa4  Qc7
26 Kh2  ef4
27 Bf4  Be5
28 Re2  Rb6
29 Kh3  Ng8
30 Re5  de5
31 Be5  Qe7
32 d6   Rd6
33 Bd6  Qd6
34 Bd5  Kf8
35 Qa7  Ne7
36 Qa8  Kg7
37 Qb7  Kf8
38 a4   f4
39 a5   fg3
40 a6   Qf4

-- 
Mark Limont
ml@world.std.com

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ace3@quads.uchicago.edu (AA Acero (Tony))
Subject: GIICS 1.42 uploaded to valkyries
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Summary: bug fix
Keywords: ICS GIICS
Reply-To: ace3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:51:38 GMT

I uploaded giics142.zip to valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu on Tuesday.  The
ICS administrators will eventually move it to the directory
pub/chess/ics-clients.  You NEED unzip50 to unzip it; you can get
unzip50.exe from wuarchive.wustl.edu in the directory
mirrors/msdos/zip.

Version 1.42 is mostly a bugfix.  As in all known bugs are fixed.  If
I'm sadly deluded, as I often am :-), please drop me a note.  I've
dropped support for style 1 and hopefully included all the information
necessary for people to recompile GIICS with only minor hassles.

I still haven't heard from anyone that has gotten the present version
to work over ethernet, so I will continue to assume that it isn't
possible.  Please, please disabuse me!

enjoy,

tony

-- 
Anibal Antonio Acero (tony) | University of Chicago | `To baldly to go where
ace3@quads.uchicago.edu     | 5640 S. Ellis Ave.    | no one has gone before',
(312)702-8214 (lab)         | James Franck Inst 340 |  what Patrick Stewart
(312)702-8387 (office)      | Chicago, IL 60637     |   _should_ be saying
From: miklas@remus.rutgers.edu (Keith Miklas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Question about 1 e4
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:14:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I would like theoretical opinions on which defenses for black to 1. e4
yield a closed, positional game as opposed to a more open tactical
game.  Basically, what is, in general, the most closed, positional
defense to e4?  Ruy Lopez?  Sicilian (closed Sicilian)?  Maybe (even
probably) Caro-Kann?  _Definately_ Not Alekhine's, Scotch,
Center-counter.  Pirc? or (personal opinion: Yuck->) the French?

Any comments/opinions (even brief ones) appreciated.

Thanks,
--Keith
From: mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Alekhine was chicken
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:20:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc11.mlbruce.718827605

Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:

>The question was posed:

>> So you think that Alekhine was chicken because he did not gave
>> Capablanca a chance at "his" title?

>And the answer is:

>Absolutely - I thought this was common knowledge.

>In the context of a Fischer-Kasparov match, Short or Timman will
>be the official challenger, but if Kasparov avoids a match with
>Fischer (and this assumes the challenge offers reasonable terms),
>there will many people who will wonder who would have won.  The
>"World Champion" is supposed to be recognized universally as the
>best player.  If Fischer were to play a second match and lose
>(say to Anand or Judit Polgar), then Fischer's claim will be
>greatly weakened.  It would be interesting to see what would
>happen if the winner of Timman-Short offered Fischer a match for
>multi-millions, with the winner playing Kasparov.  It might be in
>Kasparov's interest to agree to this, as then he might clear up
>the situation and not have to risk a match with Fischer, although
>he might also be unable to avoid such a match.  Of course, it
>isn't clear who would win a Fischer-Short or Fischer-Timman
>match, but I would think Fischer would be favored.

>If Fischer doesn't fade away, this problem will have to be
>addressed.

Not necessarily! As long as Fischer continues to believe that he is
*still* World Champion, he would see no need to challenge anyone whom the
rest of civilization believes is World Champion. We can allow Fischer to
continue with his delusion, and unless/until he himself recognizes
Kasparov as champ, the rest of the chess world can carry on business as usual.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Teaching chess to young children -- replies (LONG)
From: schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer)
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:53:23 CDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN
Nntp-Posting-User: nason

I have been teaching my 3 year old son chess.
It has been a difficult but interesting experience.

He seems to like the time we spend together and I
give him many "high-fives" to keep him interested.

The problem has been with me.  The more he learns, the
higher my expectation has been.  He learned very quickly
the names, how to setup the board, position names (KN4),
and basic rules of movement.  Next we started playing out
games (with my help).  He became very upset when he realized
that my objective was to attack and capture his King.  As 
he realized that I was capturing his pieces more than he was
mine, he began to try to break the rules of movement to get
mine.  I think he was beginning to feel helpless and is not
yet able to construct attacking lines.

My solution has been to just setup board positions with very
little material and to allow him to make multiple moves to 
capture.  He seems to like this and it breaks the game down
to smaller parts which he can handle.



Don Schiewer   | Internet  schiewer@pa881a.inland.com    | Onward Great
Inland Steel   | UUCP:     !uucp!pa881a.inland!schiewer  | Stream...
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Benoni/Knight's Tour
From: currie@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca
Date: 14 OCT 92 15:28:14 CST
Organization: University of Winnipeg

Hello Net:

I've come up with a way of avoiding the Knight's Tour in the Benoni. I 
don't know whether this method is any good or not; hopefully the Net can 
give me some feedback.

A brief word about myself: My rating is now somewhere in the 1900's; I 
have been rated as high as 2080. I played my Knight's Tour idea against 
Aron Kapstan and Kevin Gentes of Winnipeg. They are both strong masters 
and have played in the Canadian Closed. I lost to Kapstan and drew Gentes. 
I'll first present my idea with a few comments, then my games against 
these players.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 ed 5. cd d6 6. Nf3 g6 7. Nd2 a6 8. 
a4 Ng4!?

This move seems to restrict White to variations  where Bg2 is played:

9. h3? (or f3?) Ne3 10. Q-move N:f1
9. Nc4? N:f2 10. K:f2 Qh4+ 11. K-move Q:c4
9. e4 Bg7 10. Nc4 Ne5
or           10. Nf3 f5
or           10. f4 Bd4
or           10. Be2 Bd4 11. B:g4 Qh4 12. g3 Q:g4
9. Nf3 Nf6 (chess humour)

If 9. g3, what happens if Black plays f5, then Nf6?

Here are the games:

Kapstan-Currie
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 ed 5. cd d6 6. Nf3 g6 7. Nd2 Ng4 8. 
g3 a6 9. a4 Bg7 10. Bg2 0-0 11. 0-0 b6 12.h3 Ne5 13. f4 Ned7 14. Nc4 Nf6 
15. e4 Ra7 16. Be3 Ne8 17. Bf2 Nd7 18. Re1 f6  19. Qb3 Kh8 20. Rad1 Rb7 
21. Ra1 Ra7 22. Qa3 Rb7 etc. and Black got strangled. Not an impressive 
sales pitch for my idea. What if f5 on move 9 or 10?

Gentes-Currie
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 ed 5. cd d6 6. Nf3 g6 7. Nd2 Ng4 8. 
e4 Bg7 9. Bb5+ Kf8 10. Be2 h5 11. h3 Ne5 12. Nf1 (In Kapstan's published 
analysis of this game, he says "After the simple 12. 0-0 and 13. f4, Black 
is lost." However, 12 0-0 a6 13. a4 b6 14. f4 Ng4 15. Nf3 c4 with the 
threat of Qb6+ seems good for Black. If 15 hg, then 15... hg with threats 
involving Bd4+ and the h-file.) 12... f5 13. ef gf 14. Nh2 a6 15. a4 c4 
16. 0-0 Nbd7 17. f4 Qb6+ 18. Kh1 Ng4 19. hg hg 20. g3 Nf6 21. Kg2 Rh3 
22. Rh1 Nh5 23. Nf1 R:h1 24. K:h1 Qf2 25. Be3 N:g3+ 26. N:g3 Q:g3 27. 
Qd2 b5 28 ab Bb7 29. Bf1 Kf7 30 Bg2 Rh8+ 31. Kg1 B:c3 32. bc Rh2 33. Bb6 
ab 34. Kf1 Kg6 35. Bg1 Qf3+ and the ending is drawn after White loses 
his pawns. B:f3 R:d2 37. Bg2 B:d5 38. B:d5 R:d5 39. Bd4 b4 40. Ra4 bc 
41. B:c3 g3 etc.

I realize that both these games are rough, but perhaps there's something 
there. It is unpleasant to submit to the slow squish of the Knight's Tour.

Thanks,

J. Currie
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rjm@cs.brown.edu (Ralph Marshall)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:52:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.202413.15165@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
>Sven Hauptfeld writes:
>>Nobody has so far posted a viable model of how a deflationary
>>mechanism could sustain itself in a large pool for a long time.
>
>OK, I'll try to explain this one more time:
>
>1. Chess is a game of skill, so the average beginner is weaker
>   than the average experienced player.  This will be true from
>   now to eternity no matter how big the rating pool is.
>

I don't usually enter apparently pointless(!) discussions just for the
fun of dragging them out, but I wonder how valid this point is.  I am
posing this as a question, since I am not rated under any system, and
don't know how levels are assigned to beginners.  In the extreme case
you'd start with 0 and work up, in which case this assertion is true
without regard to the players involved.

However, if a non-zero rating is assigned upon entry, it is certainly
conceivable that some number of people will deserve to be rated lower
than that based on their ability, and thus will actually have a lower
rating when they leave (dejected and bruised, no doubt).  So, the
question I have is how the initial value is assigned under the USCF
and FIDE systems.  Is it based in any way on some a priori assessment
of your ability, or do all entrants start at the same level?

Note that none of this is intended as an informed opinion as to
whether or not inflation/deflation is taking place - it is rather a
question of how potential problems influence the way initial ratings
are handed out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I valued the honorable gentleman's opinion, I might get angry."
	Winston Churchill
From: jeff@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 16
Date: 8 Oct 1992 22:14:24 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily10.berkeley.edu
From: andy@ninja.csuohio.edu (andy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Keywords: bobby, champ
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:32:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: ninja.1992Oct14.193209.27411
Organization: AMC at Cleveland State University, Cleveland

In article <1992Oct14.174445.23735@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>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.

Everyone knows that the U.S. would be at a severe disadvantage
if faced with a team matchup with many of the top world chess
powers.  The Dream Team would certainly not be from the US, in
my opinion, but chess isn't really meant to be a team sport, either.

andy
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Distribution: rec
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:58:18 GMT

I think in the sixth game vs. Spassky, 1972.

-Danny Keren.
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: A question about chess copyright law...
Date: 10 Oct 92 14:25:17 GMT
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Distribution: rec
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <DUBACH1.92Oct9181732@husc10.harvard.edu> dubach1@husc10.harvard.edu (joev dubach) writes:

> Is there any legal reason why someone could not extract the games from
> the Informant CD-ROM, save them as text, and make them available for
> FTP? 

Well, there's this thing called `collection copyright.'  Even though individual
items might not be copyrighted, it is possible to copyright the whole collection,
so that wholesale reproduction would require permission from the copyright holder.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 17 Fischer wins - moves
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:56:03 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department


   Fischer Spassky
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 c5
   2. Nc3 Nc6
   3. Nge2 e6
   4. g3 d5
   5. exd5 exd5
   6. Bg2 d4
   7. Nd5 Nf6
   8. Nef4 Nxd5
   9. Nxd5 Bd6
   10. 0-0 0-0
   11. d3 Be6
   12. Nf4 Bf5
   13. h3 Rb8
   14. Bd2 Re8
   15. Re1 Rxe1+
   16. Qxe1 Qd7
   17. g4 Re8
   18. Qd1 Bxf4
   19. Bxf4 Be6
   20. Qf3 Nb4
   21. Qxb7 Nxc2
   22. Rc1 Qxb7
   23. Bxb7 Nb4
   24. Be4 Bxa2
   25. Bd2 Bd5
   26. Bxd5 Nxd5
   27. Rxc5 Nb6
   28. Kf1 f6
   29. Ra5 Re7
   30. Bb4 Rd7
   31. Bc5 Kf7
   32. Ke2 g5
   33. Kf3 Kg6
   34. Ke4 h5
   35. Bxd4 Re7+
   36. Kf3 h4
   37. Bc5 Re1
   38. Rxa7 Nd5
   39. Bf8 Re8
   40. Bd6 Re6
   41. Rd7 Nb6
   42. Rd8 Nd5
   43. b4 Re1
   44. b5 Rb1
   45. Rb8 Rb3
   46. Ke4 Nc3+
   47. Kd4 Nxb5+
   48. Kc4 Rc3+
   49. Kxb5 Rxd3
   50. Kc6 Rxh3
   51. Kd5 Rf3
   52. Ke6 Rxf2
   53. Rg8+ Kh7
   54. Kf7 Ra2
   55. Rg7+ Kh6
   56. Bf8 Ra7+
   57. Kxf6 Ra6+
   58. Kf7 Black Resigns
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:07:12 GMT

In <epstein.719029752@pelican.ma.utexas.edu> epstein@pelican.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:

>palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:

>>Besides, any decent player would sac one piece for one (or more) pawns and
>>win with a queen.

>Why?  The majority of strong players have studied this ending and so can
>win it without thinking.  
>You seem to be assuming that because the ending is difficult for you, it is
>difficult for everyone.

>Paul Epstein

Sheer laziness. Actually, I haven't bothered trying the ending, though my
endgame does need work. However, it strikes me as a mostly theoretical
enterprise.

Paul
From: sjaak@cca.vu.nl (Jacques Schuurman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Tilburg
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:29:45 GMT
Organization: VU Amsterdam - dienst CCA

sjaak@cca.vu.nl (Jacques Schuurman) writes:
|
| One of the biggest surprises was Karpov who got knocked out in the 2nd
| round.  Also Gelfand, seeded as 5th or something, lost against Smyslov (!).

Uh oh.  As usual, my memory didn't serve me right.  It was of course Boris
Gulko who lost against Smyslov.  

As to the Karpov-Chernin game, they had to play an extra blitz (30 minutes)
and when the position was [Kf7,Qe8,Rg5,Pe4;Kd6Rb7,Pg4,Ph5], (Karpov's white
pieces first mentioned) Karpov was to move.  Note that White is in check.
With just a few seconds on the clock, he touched his Queen, even to play
Qe8-e6+ which was, obviously, illegal.  Completely within the accepted
rules for blitz, Chernin took the king by Rb7xf7, but the referee nullified
this move and ordered Karpov to make a legal move, but with the Queen.
Karpov hadn't an alternative but Qe8-e7, upon which Black played Rb7xe7+,
and won the (deciding) game.

And now the results of the third game:

Vyzmanavin (Rus)	b. Shirov (Let, 3)
Nikolic (Bos, 14)	b. Nogueiras (Cub)
Kosten (Eng)		-  Smirin (Isr)
Short (Eng, 6)		-  Petursson (Isl)

Smyslov (Rus)		-  Serper (Rus)
Sveshnokov (Rus) 	b. Timman (Ned, 7)
Adams (Eng, 15)		b. Geogev (Bul)
Kovalev (Rus)		b. Chernin (Rus)

Gelfand (Byr, 5)	b. Stohl (Cze)
Kengis (Let)		-  Rohde (Usa)
Korchnoi (Swi)		b. Piket (Ned, 13)
Anand (Ind, 4)		-  Tiviakov (Rus)

Ivanchuk (Ukr, 1)	b. Lautier (Fra)
Seirawan (Usa, 16)	-  Andersson (Swe, 17)
Kamsky (Usa, 8)		-  Winants (Bel)
Jusupov (Rus, 9)	b. Dreev (Rus)

Indicated is whether the first mentioned player already beat the opponent,
or that an extended blitz is still needed.
I have arranged the games in such a way, that you can simply descend the
binary tree to the right.

Apologies for not having stated wether the tied games are the result of a
double draw, or a 1-0 and 0-1.

Maybe I can post later more, but I am afraid I am in Zeitnot now.

sjaak
-- 
Jacques Schuurman VU Amsterdam |    [             ---/\---             ]
Telefoon +31 20 548 26 63      |    [ Mirko, pazi metak! Hvala Slavko! ]
Email sjaak@cca.vu.nl          |    [             ---\/---             ]
From: alba@ph-cip.uni-koeln.de (Alexander Baldus)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: 1.d4 d5 2.Sc3
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:28:34
Organization: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, F. R.
	Germany
Distribution: rec
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.ph-cip.uni-koeln.de

Can you mail me information about 1.d4 d5 2.Sc3 (Versov-opening)?              Do you have made some experiences with this alternartive to stupid theory?!     
 
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: In defense of Bobby Fischer
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:28:00 GMT

In <92766@netnews.upenn.edu> amarnath@aura.cis.upenn.edu (Amarnath Mukherjee) writes:

>Folks,

>Here's something on the lighter side...in defense of Bobby Fischer: 

>"The Reasonable Man adjusts himself to the world, the Unreasonable One
>persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress
>depends on the unreasonable man."

>		- George Bernard Shaw.


I like this quote, and although somewhat philosophically, I must reply:

Technological Man is unreasonable by this definition, for technology is
an attempt to conform our environment to ourselves.  Furthermore, it would
seem that Shaw considered 'progress' to be the creation of technologies and
increased levels of civilization.

But this is only the definition of progress in an unreasonable man's eye, for
he views progress as conforming one's environment to one's self.  To a
reasonable man -- a man who adapts to his environment -- progress would
represent a more personal experience of reaching a balance or 'harmony' with
his surroundings.

From this quote, I would say that the whole of Western Civilization is far
more unreasonable than Fischer ever was -- He merely fights against superficial
rules, and artificial barriers, while we fight against nature itself.


---Xeno



>-am

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess