HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson)
Subject: Re: DMC is really Don Wedding
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:53:46 GMT

Peter Bruhn writes:

 > I thought this article was really cool.  I can't vouch for the validity
 > of the research inovlved, but it was well written and fun to read.  I
 > only wish I had read more of Don's postings before this DMC came along.
 > I didn't know until just now that Don was from U of Toledo.  Apparently,
 > he was using someone's account over the holidays.  Perhaps his threat to
 > return to r.g.c was because he was using this account illegally while
 > the real user was not using it and he didn't want the user to find out
 > how his account was being abused.  This would also be supported by the fact
 > that he unleashed his postmaster on people who continued to send email
 > to that account.  Coincidentally, he is the only person I have ever heard
 > of that has such a strong opposition to replying to personal email, but
 > is perfectly willing to reply all day long via USENET posts.  I don't know
 > if the real dcrosgr@... gave Don his password or if Don found out in
 > some other manner, but I think the U. of Toledo should be informed of
 > the situation.  I think Mr. Thompson should submit his data (it would be
 > inappropriate for anyone else to do so without his permission) and report
 > this abuse.  What do you think?
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 > 
 > ================================================================
 > =             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
 > =                                                              =
 > = This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
 > ================================================================

:I think this is really a bad idea. There is no proof that this account was
:abused. I have got the feeling that your proposal is some sort of
:(inappropriate) revenge for the rude postings of DMC. If you really think
:that the account was abused by DMC, wait two weeks and send a mail to
:this account indicating what you believe. Then the owner of the account
:will read your message and take appropriate actions.

I agree with Andy.  The University of Toledo should be aware that the
security of its computer system has probably been compromised.  Now that
Mr. Weddding's cover has been blown on this newsgroup, he may find
some new form of mischief to do with the stolen account to keep himself
entertained.  His new activities may not be as harmless as the DMC postings.

I don't think Peter's suggestion of sending mail to the owner of the DMC
account will work.  The account's owner probably does not log in frequently
(otherwise Wedding couldn't have kept this up undetected for so long),
so Wedding will probably intercept any e-mail before the owner gets
a chance to read the warning.

Bradley
From: fitzpatr@maths.uwa.edu.au (Simon Fitzpatrick)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Australian Open Championships
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Date: 12 Jan 1993 06:37:43 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac145.maths.uwa.oz.au

The Australian Open Championships were held as an 11 round swiss tournament
in
Sydney from 28 December to 10 January.
1st: GM Ian Rogers (New South Wales) 10
2nd: IM Peter Leko (Hungary)          9
3rd: IM Guy West (Victoria)          8.5

Several players were tied for 4th on 8 points including WGM Zsuzsa Veroci
(Hungary) who was undefeated (as were Rogers and Leko).  There were 163
players competing, including a Novag Scorpio 68000 which scored 7 points
against a weak set of opponents.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tobill@mac.lerc.nasa.gov (William B. Wright)
Subject: Re: F-SII, Game 2 - Endgame Analysis
Reply-To: tobill@mac.lerc.nasa.gov (William B. Wright)
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:44:11 GMT

Although I agree that in F-S II #2 50...Nb3 is ?! at worst, I beleive Black 
still has a win after the more correct 50...Nxc4 (!) .I believe the 
difference between this position and Campos-Henao is that White's bishop 
controls the queening square in F-S II #2 but in Campos-Henao it is on the b8-
h2 diagonal. Remember that the key to winning R vs B endings (no pawns) lies 
in the ability to drive White's king into a corner which is the same color as 
the bishop, whereas the drawing method is for the king to hide in a corner of 
the opposite color of his bishop. Therefore, F-S II #2 should, in theory, be 
a win for Black because Spassky is left with the wrong color bishop in your 
example whereas Campo-Henao has the 'right' color bishop. The best way seems 
to be your second line, i.e., 51. Bxc4 Rxc4 52. Bxb6 Rxa4 53. Kxc5 Ra2 54. 
Kb5 a4 55. Be3 Kg6 56. Kb4 Kf5 57. Bc1 Ke4 58. Bh6 Kd5! 59. Bg7 Rg2 60. Bf6 
Rg4+ 61. Ka3 Kc6 62. Be7 Kb5 63. Bd6 Re4 64. Bf8 Re3+ 65. Ka2 and now 
65...Rb3! keeps the King in the right corner. White has nothing to do but 
move back and forth while Black's king moves to c2 (for example 65. Ba3 Kc4 
66. Bf8 Kd3 67. Be7 Kc2) The win lies in forcing White to capture on a3 with 
the bishop again allowing a zugzwang win as in Seirawan's notes. Now after 
68. Ba3 Rd3 69. Bf8 a3!! 70. Bxa3 (70. Be7 Rb3 71. Bf8 Rb2+ 72. Ka1 a2! 73. 
Bg7 Rb7 74. Bd4 Rb8 and the pawn can not be captured due to the mate threat.) 
70...Rd8 71. Be7 Ra8+ 72. Ba3 Ra7 wins. The point I made earlier about having 
the wrong color bishop becomes obvious because if everything is pushed back a 
square then the White king is stalemated in the corner. Now if in the 
original position, Spassky can force the ending of R+RP vs Light Squared 
Bishop, then it becomes a draw again. I don't see how this is possible though.

The iceman cometh!
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot)
Subject: Re: Informant/Sahovski - commerce with Serbia?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:44:57 GMT

cerulean@access.digex.com (Bill Christens-Barry) writes:

>Doesn't the buying and selling of Sahovski products like the Informant violate
>the UN trade sanctions against Yugoslavia (sic)?  All of the Informants I own
>indicate that they originate in Belgrade, Serbia, "Yugoslavia".

>Personally, I'm moving to New in Chess.

>Bill Christens-Barry
>cerulean@digex.com

They are being published out of Cyprus now.  I assume that they are still being
edited, etc by the same people, but the most recent Informant has a Cyprus
label.

Marc
From: cerulean@access.digex.com (Bill Christens-Barry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Walker's LaTex chess font etc. for Macintosh
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:05:08 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Summary: How to use Walker's font on Macintosh?
Keywords: postscript, font, LaTex, Macintosh

I've seen and used a set of LaTex macros and a postscript font that prints
incredibly good chess diagrams and all of the notational goodies needed to
produce good chess manuscripts under Unix.  Unfortunately, I'm not soph-
isticated enough to know how these things can be used on a Macintosh.  I
know it is possible (the author, A. Walker emailed me that it's do-able),
and it's probably fairly easy for a Mac or TeX guru.

Has anyone out there gotten these incredible tools up and running on the
Macintosh?  KNow anyone who has?  Want to give it a try?  Getting this
done will represent a major breakthru for Macintosh chess writers.

I can get you more detailed info and the postscript font and other stuff
needed if you're willing to be our hero.  Just let me know.  This would
come in real handy if it were taken care of by the time Short beats Timman.

Bill Christens-Barry
cerulean@digex.com
wacb@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (weekdays)
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Help! Chess game in Blade Runner
Date: 7 Jan 1993 13:41:29 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <C0GF12.4qB@cs.uiuc.edu>, wang@cs.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang) writes:
|> As for this being the game in Blade Runner: I agree that it's out of
|> place; Anderssen clearly had the mating net planned before he played his
|> 17.Nd5, so if Sebastian needed Roy's help, either it couldn't have been
|> the Immortal game, OR Sebastian is the LUCKIEST damn fish to ever swim
|> through an E tournament AND Tyrell's seeing-eye dog needs its own
|> seeing-eye dog.  I don't for a second accept that two supposedly decent
|> players could BOTH miss a queen sac mate-in-two in a correspondence
|> game.  (In an OTB mutual time scramble, perhaps, but that obviously
|> didn't apply here.)  Heck, give me enough hours and even _I_ can see
|> those coming.  I've always considered this to be an outright error by
|> the script writers, who clearly weren't chess players themselves, and
|> didn't understand how to characterize "good" chess.  (Star Trek was
|> guilty of this, too; in one episode, Spock gives Kirk a mate-in-one,
|> then complains to McCoy that Kirk's mating move was "illogical; he
|> should have moved his Rook".  Grrr -- NOTHING is more logical than
|> instant mate.)  Things like this make me feel like lightly wrapping my
|> fingers around some screenwriter's neck and screaming quietly, If you
|> don't KNOW about it, don't WRITE about it!!  Try ASKING a REAL EXPERT
|> for a REALITY CHECK for a change!!
|> 
|> Phew.  Now back to you regularly scheduled squawks and squabbles.
|> 
|> Eric Wang
|> wang@cs.uiuc.edu

Perhaps the makers of the movie would say that it really doesn't matter
much because most of the audience wouldn't notice or care.  However, it's
kind of stupid to go through the trouble of digging up the Immortal game
without doing something about the fact that the whole scenario is unreal-
istic.  Perhaps they couldn't find an easy way around it and they chose to 
please the larger 'chess-ignorant' crowd (for lack of a better term).  It
seems like they could have at least backed up a couple moves and had
Sebastian announce "Mate in two, I think."

As for the Star Trek episode, perhaps Spock meant that it would have been
"logical" for Kirk to make that move based on Kirk's patterns in previous
play.  Or perhaps he could have also mated with the Rook, but moved the
piece a shorter distance than the distance of the piece he actually moved.
Or perhaps I'm just getting too caught up in this devil's advocate thing?

-- 
================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Watters)
Subject: dumbing down CM3000                     
Reply-To: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:20:00 +0000

>I've also got GMChess -- It has selectable ratings, Beginner, Novice,
>Intermediate, Expert and Grandmaster.  I find this program much easier
>to dumb down to a good level.

Yes.  On the non-gm levels, the bad moves it makes seem to be genuine
human-style errors rather than horizon effects.  Does anyone have any
comments as to how to alter source code to do this when desired?

  //\/\/

>>>MATRIX version  1.21e
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: this has got to stop
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:55:56 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <19228@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
> It's a matter a will power.
> 
> I've only broken my New Year's Resolution once.  And I haven't posted on this
> topic at all since Jan 1 - nothing to it....urk.

Well, when you are getting puched low, you have every right to come out of a
tuck.

> 
> Anyway, I agree with the eloquent statement.  In the meantime, Bruce
> Leverett, whoever he is (USCF 23something) challenged both dmc and me to a
> match.  I accepted.  I don't know if our friend did.

Does it matter? I do want to play YOU, as you made the original claim that I
couldn't play. Losing to Mr. Leverett proves nothing for you. My winning
(doubtful if he is rated that high!) would prove you were wrong, but so what?
The point is I have to go through effort to prove you are wrong, when I KNOW
you are wrong. I play chess and at worst, for you, you STILL don't suffer.

Not worth my time...

> 
> So some good came out of it - a two-game postal match against a master will
> either help get me into form again or make me give up chess for another 10
> years.  Either way I come out ahead!
> 
> I like the guy who has volunteered to drive to Toledo (USCF 16something) to
> beard the lion in his den.  I'm even getting along with Sven now (a Sven-dmc

Well, in order to 'beard the lion in his den', someone's fur MUST be at stake.

> match, which is what I originally proposed, didn't happen.  Probably Sven
> wanted dmc to play nude...)

Nah. I just placed the purse to high...


> 
> Well, the next time you want to respond to a dmc posting, just write me
> instead.  I'm always happy to hear from you!
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: checkers
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:56:24 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1993Jan5.022113.3309@cis.uab.edu>, sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.203742.822@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>...
>>Listen idiot, did I say the current champion was a computer???
>>NO! I said that no human can beat the programs we have out there for checkers!
> 
> A very well publicized match was held recently between the generally
> accepted best computer checkers machine and the generally accepted best
> human checkers player.  The human won.

I would be curious to know who went first most of the time. Checkers may be
a game with a 'forced mate' in X moves, depending upon who goes first.

> 
>>It is finished. They don't even work on the programs anymore as the maximum
>>number of permitations is EASILY crunched by your average home PC.
> 
> Checkers is still an active area of research for several people.
> Including the folks who built the machine which lost the match to the
> human.
>

Hmmm... according to one of the AI programming profs here, the issue is dead.
Perhaps it is that the home PC still does not have enough braun to run the
program, while a mainframe can, and they are trying to build the
machine/program more and more compact.
 
> The computer in question is quite a bit stronger than "your average home
> PC".  It is very, very good - but still not quite there, yet.
> 

This is very interesting, as it contradicts what one of the 'academics' here
believes. Could you give me the name of the match or a cite to the article so I
can do more research on it? In truth, with only 32 squares and only two
possible moves per piece (well, four if you have a king), I would think that
the amount of possible 'realistic' possibilites of play would be low enough to
have the average home PC crunch it out. How many possible moves does the best
home chess program crunch through in a second? That same PC should be able to
slice through and find the route to the forced win against a human checkers
player.

Please, a cite so I can do more research.


> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Knights Tour
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:06:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24595
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <1993Jan11.215214.7373@csc.ti.com> anderson@skylitskylit.dseg.ti.com () writes:

> Can the knights tour be completed starting from any square on a regular
> 8x8 chess board.

Yes.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: "bob warren" <bob.warren@canrem.com>
Subject: volga/benko gambit help
Reply-To: "bob warren" <bob.warren@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:16:59 EST

NE>Play the Nescafe Frappe Attack! Read the recent book by Graham Burgess
NE>(published by Chess Enterprises). For non-believers, the line goes
NE>
NE>1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cb a6 5 Nc3 ab 6 e4 b4 7 Nb5 d6 8 Bc4,
NE>
NE>when Black has every chance of getting his head kicked in.

NEI don't get it.  Why can't Black take on e4?  Or was White's 8th move
NEsupposed to be 8.Bf4, reviving the tactical point Nxe4 9.Qe2 (x d6)?


   In `The Complete Benko Gambit', Fedorowicz demonstrates,

  7.Nb5 d6 8.Bc4 Nxe4 9.Qe2 Nf6? 10.Bf4 Ra6 11.Nxd6+ Rxd6
 12.Bb5+ Rd7 13.Bxb8 Nxd5 14.0-0-0 +-, Haik-Fraguela, Lanzarote 1976.

   or    9...f5 10.f3 Nf6 11.Bf4 Ra6 12.Nh3 g6 13.0-0 Bg7 14.Rfe1 h6
         15.Rad1 +=, Zhuravlev-Grushko, Kaliningrad 1976.

      Black has invested a pawn for active pieces on the Q-side, and
   really has no business opening the e-file, IMHO.

---
  SLMR 2.1a #1696  "He'll live."  -The TERMINATOR.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jay@tweekco.uucp (Jay Whitley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II Book Distribution
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 23:32:31 PST
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615

I haven't seen the Fischer-Spassky II books in
the various bookstores (including those with reasonably
large chess sections).  Have the events of Fischer and
his indictment, etc., caused bookstore chains,etc. to
balk at carrying the books?  Or perhaps there is little
interest regardless of the controversy?  Have others
here seen the books widely available?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: Should r.g.c be split into 2 groups?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:11:26 GMT

tobill@mac.lerc.nasa.gov (William B. Wright) writes:

>> Maybe we should separate this newsgroup into 2 separate groups, say:
>>
>>rec.games.chess
>>-and-
>>rec.games.chess.misc
>>
>>the former would be restricted (absolutely) to posts which provide the
>>scores of games, analysis of games/positions/openings, or questions
>>answers are of the form of the first two items in this list.
>>
>>rec.games.chess.misc would be a free-for-all in which anything conforming
>>to USENET guidelines, with some, no matter how remote, connection to
>>chess, could be posted.
>>
>>is there enough interest to organize a formal RFD?

>I would also like to see this newsgroup split up. My system takes a very long time to load all the 
>headers for this group because of all the crap.

>The iceman cometh!

How about splitting 3 ways: one for real chess, one for the silly
arguments, and one for chess computers?
 

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: kevin@eye.com (Kevin Stokker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Keep it up and I will come back!
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:43:14 GMT
Organization: 3D/EYE, Inc.  Ithaca, NY

In article <1id5n2INNc42@agate.berkeley.edu> jeff@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:
>
>Somebody ought to send that article to whatever USENET authority exists.
>It seems like pretty good evidence of what all of us have suspected all along.
>(Uh oh... I hope DMC doesn't start disputing my understanding of the
>theory of evidence).  I'll bet there are quite anumber of newsgroups that
>DMC holds hostage at any one time.  Is there some way to find out?
>

Actually, I've got another idea.  How about sending that article, or perhaps
a collage of his 'best', to

faculty@uoft2.utoledo.edu


I'm sure some of his profs would be quite interested!

-ks
From: doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 2267 rating for ten year old
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:48:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1993Jan8.162506.8497@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell) writes:
>>Here is a list of players by age and their ratings from USCF rating
>>supplements. I've only listed the top rated in each age group. - Bill Wall
>
>>Name		AGE	RATING  YEAR
>
>...             ..      ....    ....
>
>>WINSTON,P      14      2200    1972  (master at age 14 years, 3 months)
>>ROGOFF         14      2200    1967  (master at age 14 years, 8 months)
>
>What ever happened to these folks? Did they get real jobs or something?
>I remember watching Rogoff at the 1975 U.S. Championship, where his
>2nd place finish qualified him for the Interzonal.
>
If the second person is Ken Rogoff, then I can tell you that he is extremely
well-regarded Economics professor at either Princton, Penn, or Berkley.  He
used to be at the Universtiy of Wisconsin-Madison.  He works mainly in
Macroeconomics and growth theory.  (My guess is that he is at Princeton


-David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
From: mcfadm@dnrhal.dnr.wisc.gov ((Non omnia possumus omnes.))
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Tim
Date: 11 Jan 1993 15:19:43 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

This helpful note was posted to the rec.games.chess news group by Rob Ryan.
I'm reposting it to the list so CHESS-L can see the game score.  I just hope
this isn't duplicating someone else's effort:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game one of the World Chess Championship eliminator match ended in a draw
after 46 moves.  Some of the later moves (upto 40) were reportedly rushed
because of time trouble, but Nigel forced the draw 6 moves later.  The
opening is the Tartakower Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined.

       Timman Short
    1.  d4    d5
    2.  c4    e6
    3.  Nc3   Nf6
    4.  Bg5   Be7
    5.  e3    O-O
    6.  Nf3   h6
    7.  Bh4   b6
    8.  Be2   Bb7
    9.  Bxf6  Bxf6
    10. cxd5  exd5
    11. b4    c6
    12. O-O   Re8
    13. Qb3   a5
    14. b5    c5
    15. dxc5  bxc5
    16. Rac1  Bxc3
    17. Qxc3  Nd7
    18. Rc2   Qb6
    19. Rd1   Re7
    20. h3    Rae8
    21. Qb2   a4
    22. Kf1   Qa5
    23. Qa3   d4
    24. exd4  Be4
    25. Qc3   Qa8
    26. Rcd2  cxd4
    27. Rxd4  Nf6
    28. Qa3   Qb7
    29. Rd8   Nd5
    30. Rxe8+ Rxe8
    31. Bc4   Rc8
    32. Ne5   Bxg2+
    33. Kg1   Be4
    34. Rd4   Nf6
    35. Bxf7+ Kh8
    36. Kh2   Qxb5
    37. Qg3   Qb1
    38. Rxe4  Qxe4
    39. Bg6   Qd4
    40. Nf7+  Kg8
    41. Nxh6+ Kf8
    42. Nf5   Qc5
    43. Nxg7  Kxg7
    44. Bf5+  Kf8
    45. Bxc8  Qxc8
    46. Qa3+  Kg7
    Draw Agreed

===============================================================================
                                                                  Mark McFadden
                                              EMail: mcfadm@dnrmai.dnr.wisc.gov
                                      Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                                                     Madison,  Wisconsin  53707
                                        fax: (608)267-9380 voice: (608)267-9804