HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Book Review: Alekhine in the Americas
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:19:55 GMT
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)


ALEKHINE IN THE AMERICAS by IM John Donaldson, IM Nikolay Minev 
and GM Yasser Seirawan, 1992 International Chess Enterprises, PO 
Box 19457, Seattle,WA 98109, 47pp (8.5x11"), $8.95

The staff of the twice-monthly magazine "Inside Chess" has 
lately also been producing high quality very affordable books 
which nicely complement their fine chess journal. Recent titles 
have included not only opening and tournament books, but also 
perhaps the best single-volume work on the 1990 world 
championship, "Five Crowns." "Alekhine in the Americas" is the 
first venture into historical areas.

Although not specifically designated as the first volume of a 
series, we read in the introduction that "...three members of 
the 'Inside Chess' staff have collaborated to produce a series 
of booklets with the hope of bringing lesser-known Alekhine 
efforts into the public eye." The implication of additional 
publications seems clear.

It is difficult to view this work as an original piece of 
historical chess journalism. It acts more as a forum where 
material from various existing publications is pulled together. 
Thus, some of the sources given in the bibliography, such as 
issues of various newspapers from the 1920's, would not have 
been readily available to most readers. In addition, certain 
basic historical facts are not treated well. For example, a 
brief item from the December, 1923 "American Chess Bulletin" 
gives Alekhin's birth as October 19, 1892. In the introduction 
to this booklet, we are told it is October 10, 1892. In fact, 
the correct date, adjusted for the modern calender, is October 
31, 1892. A simple check of Gaige's work would have revealed 
that.

The material is presented in triple-columned large pages, which 
means a great amount is packed into a total of 47 pages. There 
are six chapters: Alekhin's play in the U.S. in 1923, 1924, 
1929, 1932-33, in "the Americas" (outside the U.S. and Canada) 
1926-39 and his 1924 record blindfold exhibition. There are not 
only games, but also articles and other information culled and 
reprinted from the major and minor sources of the day.

Pure historians will not be overly enthusiastic about this 
publication. Certainly  more independent historical research and 
conclusions would have been welcome; there is no doubt that 
there is ample room in that regard, particularly in the part 
about Alekhin's tours through the southwestern United States and 
Mexico in the late 1920's and early 1930's. However, this 
booklet is still a good contribution to our overall perception 
and knowledge about the great tactical genius. And at $8.95 it 
is a bargain. You will not be disappointed adding "Alekhine in 
the Americas" to your chess library.

Copyright 1992 Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved
From: marcelk@blade (Marcel van Kervinck)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Request for Fischer moves
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:25:55 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

A few months ago someone posted Fischer's opening moves to this group.
Accidently I lost them. Could someone mail them to me? (Only the black
part.) Thanks in advance.

  - MvK 
   marcelk@stack.urc.tue.nl (in case the From-line is bogus again...)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hay@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za (Angus Hay)
Subject: World champions
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:12:19 GMT

This is one of those real Trivial Pursuit questions:

I need to know the following:

Who are the last five world chess champions (the easy part) and
what are their favourite openings etc (if such a question makes sense)?

Reply by mail, please.

-- 
     *   *  Angus Hay, Dept of Electrical Engineering,   
    **   *  University of the Witwatersrand,                 
   *******  Private Bag 3, WITS, 2050, New South Africa   
  *  *   *  Internet: hay@nyquist.ee.wits.ac.za Tel:(27)(11)716-5423
 *   *   *  NeXTmail: hay@turing.ee.wits.ac.za  Fax:(27)(11)403-1929
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: 3-D chess set
From: taebsen@ualr.edu
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:27:34 GMT
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock

I would like to have a 3 Dimensional chess set.  Does anyone know where I might
be able to get one?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky and rating points
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:19:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.155850.19175@osf.org> ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum) writes:

>------------------

>In article <92230.165832U55342@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U55342@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>  I guarantee you that Fischer will not lose any rating points, and neither will
>  Spassky. This isn't a FIDE sacntioned match, so no rating points will be
>  exchanged.

but can't they just send in their score sheets and _have_ the game rated? it 
works for me. they'll just have to remember to include the five bucks in the 
envelope.

how can fide ignore this? the fools.
From: malingka@cps.msu.edu (Richard Malingkas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: US Open - round 11
Date: 15 Aug 92 04:55:45 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: malingka@atlantic.cps.msu.edu

Leaders after 11 rounds :
9.5 : Gregory Kaidanov
9.0 : John Fedorowicz, Ben Finegold, Anatoly Lein, David Strauss,
      Ron Burnett, Vadim Tsemekhman
8.5 : Ray Stone, Martin Olesen

Selected games from round 11:

Board #1	[Queen's Indian, E13]
IM Ben Finegold (2543) - GM Gregory Kaidanov (2694)
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 Bb7 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 d6
9.Nd2 Nbd7 10.f3 Qe7 11.e4 e5 12.Be2 Nf8 13.Nf1 Ng6 14.Bg3 O-O 15.Ne3 Nh5
16.Qd2 Ngf4 [0.5]

Board #2	[Grunfeld, D89]
Vadim Tsemekhman (2435) - GM Sergey Kudrin (2672)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6
9.Be3 O-O 10.O-O Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bd3 cxd4 13.cxd4 Be6 14.Rc1 Bxa2 15.Qa4 Be6
16.d5 Bd7 17.Qb4 b6 18.Ba6 e5 19.Nc3 Bf6 20.Bh6 Bg7 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.f4 Qf6 
23.f5 g5 24.Ne2 Rfd8 25.Ng3 Kh8 26.Rc7 Kg8 27.Nh5 Qh6 28.g4 Bc8 29.Qe7 Rf8
30.Bxc8 Raxc8 31.d6 Rcd8 32.d7 b5 33.Kh1 f6 34.Rc8 Nb7 35.Rfc1 b4 36.Rxd8 Nxd8
37.Rc8 [1-0]


-- 
*----------------------*
  _Richard Malingkas__                      
  malingka@cps.msu.edu                 
*----------------------*
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: US Open
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:36:06 GMT

In article <1451600022@igc.org> capsa@igc.org (CAPSA) writes:

>I don't understand why we simply can't boycott tournaments which
>require humans to play computers.  I plan to do this.  If the majority
>of the membership of the USCF boycotts such tournaments, we probably
>won't have too many of them to boycott.

Yes, you can boycott, but it is friendlier to express your opinions
first.  The dialog gives people a chance to find better solutions and,
if nothing else, to get a good sense of the costs of each proposal.

--Jim
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:48 PDT
Subject: Commercial Chess League of NY
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1451600028:000:1711
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Aug 21 18:48:00 1992


The next annual autumn team captains's meeting of the Commercial
Chess League of New York will be held in Room 1425 of the Con
Edison Building at 4 Irving Place, New York, NY 10003, on Wednes-
day, 2 September.  The meeting will start promptly at 1830 hours
(6:30 pm).
 
The CCLNY plays a team tournament of 14 rounds (roughly every other
Wednesday) from the end of September or the beginning of October
until the end of March or the beginning of April.  There are four
boards to a match, so teams should have six players.  The time
control is 50/2 & 25/1, so there are adjournments.  The League
plays in three (or more?) divisions of eight teams (a double round
robin).  Teams must consist of bona fide emplyees of a single
employee group (almost always a commercial firm or a governmental
agency).  Games are rated by the League (very similar to the USCF;
new players in the League start off with their USCF ratings), but
NOT by the USCF.  There is an individual championship tournament,
run on the alternate Wednesdays, from January into March or April. 
Prizes (trophies only) for team scores, division winners, indivi-
dual tournament scores and best played games (both in the team and
individual tournaments) are given out at the annual dinner.  The
League publishes a yearbook, including the best played games.
 
Should you have any questions or should you wish to suggest items
for the meeting's agenda, please feel free to call me at (914) 939-
5023 or contact me by email.
  
I look forward to greeting you at the team captains' meeting.
                                 
Fraternally,
                  
Jerome Bibuld
President/Acting Secretary
CCLNY                                                `


Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6150 rec.games.go:1573 comp.ai:3121 rec.games.programmer:3465
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,comp.ai,rec.games.programmer
Subject: comp.games.research
Summary: suggestion for new newsgroup - computing research in games
Keywords: chess go othello games comp research
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:43:51 GMT
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin)
Organization: y


From rec.games.chess:

In article <SJE.92Aug17174710@xylos.ma30.bull.com> sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com writes:
>Many recent postings in rec.games.chess have dealt with various
>aspects of computer chessplaying programs.  Although much of it may be
>interesting to some readers, others would like to concentrate on the
>mainstream topics of chess.

[stuff deleted]

>The second group (comp.chess.research) would
>be for program authors, program tournament organizers, researchers,
>and others with a bona fide scientific interest in computer chess.  A
>sort of "ICCA of the Internet", this second group could be moderated
>to prevent spillover or cross-posting from the first group.
>
>Please post your responses.  If there is sufficient interest, someone
>(probably other than me) could start an official RFD and CFV.
>

I think this is a fine idea!  I'd even like to expand on it a bit..

How about a more general newsgroup devoted to computing research in
any and all tactical/strategic games?

Maybe a "comp.games.research" could be created, which would deal with
any and all tactical strategic games.  Since there is so much in common
between the approaches taken in different sorts of games; and since ideas
from one area might be interesting to people in another, I think it makes
much sense to combine it all into one newsgroup.

Perhaps someone can think of a better name than "comp.games.research",
since it might not be readily apparent that the focus is on tactical 
and strategic board games like Chess, Go, Othello, and other things of
this sort.

Actually it surprises me that such a thing does not already exist.  I
searched through the list of newsgroups available at my site, and 
was surprised when such a thing wasn't there.  Maybe I missed it!
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: US Open
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:29:46 GMT

In article <SCHILLER.92Aug11214041@tira.uchicago.edu> schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:
>throw in lots of fun like Fred Gruenberg does.

Could you expand on this?

>Why do people feel so threatened by freedom of choice?

They are not threatened by freedom of choice: they are threatened by a
reduction in choice.  There is a limited supply of tournaments.  For a
variety of reasons, I could not play in any tournaments in July.  So,
when this limited supply is reduced yet further by some of the
tournaments being made undesirable, then players have the freedom to
choose among a reduced number of possibilities.

Let's say there are 4 tournaments a month in driving range.  Now 2 of
those tournaments choose to permit computers.  Well, the anti-computer
player's choices have been reduced from 4 to 2.  You could say that he
still chooses among 4 and simply rejects 2 of them.  But now he rejects
them not because he dislikes the time control or because he will be out
of town but because they include computers.  It's similar to my
favorite restaurants doubling their prices: there are just as many
restaurants for me to choose from in the abstract, but I have fewer
that I can *practically* choose among.  The problem applies to time
controls, entry fees, etc.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Gligoric 6.5-1.5 (Blitz) ?
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:01:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.124715.10934@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:

>The last FIDE rating list I've seen has Gligoric at 2465.  What would Fischer's
>performance rating be (for 6.5-1.5)?

I get 2715 with a standard deviation of 100 and a probable error of 67.4.
(The logistic formula gives 2719; linear approximation, 2715.)

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Review: Knightstalker
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:00:58 GMT

In article <Aug.20.08.39.19.1992.18173@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:

>  The datebase functions are quite extensive (basically, it
>  incorporates a small version of ChessBase), and I really
>  can't do them justice.  You can load a database of games, pick
>  one out and then (easily!) scroll forwards and backwards through

So it stores games not in individual files but in a database?  Seems
that this would save a lot of disk space.

>Overall, I'd *highly* recommend Knightstalker.  It incorporates
>many, many features not found in either Zarkov or MChess, and

Other than storing games in a single database, what does KnightStalker
offer that Zarkov does not?  I guess the ability to scroll through the
moves of a game.  Anything else?

Thanks.  --Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Computers in tournaments: Who cares?
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:30:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.205138.14901@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.184203.20864@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
>
>>Judging from the flood of posts about this new rule revoking
>>human players' right to refuse to play computers in C tournaments,
>>many people must be under the misconception that this rule
>>will actually have a practical impact on them.  It won't.
>
>Unless it does.
>
>>There are only 7 computer programs with established USCF ratings
>>in the entire country.  That's right, SEVEN!
>
>Only 7 now, perhaps.  But how many in the pipeline?
>
>>When you compare this number to the thousands of human tournament
>>players, you see that the chance of actually getting paired against one
>>is incredibly small.  It's not worth worrying about.
>
>Gee, then there's no point in changing the rules.  If the chances of
>computers actually being paired with humans is infinitesimal, then why
>would we take away people's option of refusing to play them?  According
>to you, it's just not going to come up.
>
>>Let's drop this pointless discussion so we can get back to the
>>really important issues that effect the game.
>
>The point of the discussion is to make the issues clear to everyone and
>to express preferences to the proposed change in the rules.  If you
>don't find the discussion interesting or useful, don't participate.
>
>--Jim


You didn't read carefully enough.  The chances of any particular human
being paired against a computer is vanishingly small...  the chances of
A human being paired against a computer (possibly against his wishes) is
exactly 1.000 and no less.  So, the problem WILL arise, it just probably
won't affect the majority of us.  At present, the TD is in an untenable
position and the USCF needs to set a policy and stick with it.  If the
policy is no computers, I've lived without playing Cray Blitz in a human
tournament for nearly 10 years.  However, hiding and pretending that the
problem will go away sounds like congress and the deficit. (let the
kids worry about it in 20 years.....)

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: Strategic games, computational cost & implications
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: go
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 13:06:00 GMT

karttu@mits.mdata.fi (Antti Karttunen) writes...
>1) What is the most complex (human invented) game 'computationally'?
>Go???

I will assume things which require dexterity and hand eye coordination are
called 'sports'.

Go will be the last major game to have a computer world champion. The best
programs in the world are still rated as beginners. It is concievable that
a 'deep thought' could beat the best players within our lifetime, but it
would require a totally different algorithm than Deep Thought's 'brute force'
approach (since there are ~300 possible moves, and the best players look
~70 moves deep, that's 300^70 = 10^175 positions to consider. At 10^12
positions per second, that would take 10^140 ages of the universe to
compute 1 move! )

Dave Ring  5kyu
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: stupid chess trivia
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:24:57 GMT
Distribution: US
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU

My guess is that the most common first name of USCF
players rated over 2000 is Mark.  Any comments?
-benoni
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Organization: Self-similar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:21:25 GMT


In article <1992Aug18.022521.2346@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
| In article <BszGqo.BrF@cs.psu.edu> bralick@asm.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes:
| >Why don't they put up $$$ to play matches against these strong players who don't 
| >want to play the computer.  A developer could stake, say, $500.00 on his machine 
| >being stronger than the human Master -- winner take all.  That is one way to
| 
| >motivate a starving chess player.
| 
| Yeah, right.  But what about us starving chess program developers?  This
| has been an ongoing struggle.... and misconception....  all of us are not
| supported by companies with big advertising budgets.  Cray supplies us
| with machine time and that's it...  the rest of our money comes out of
| our pockets (the cray blitz team here).

With all due respect, just because chess program developers can't afford 
to pay a human opponent doesn't mean that they should be able to force 
the human to play for free.  

The ``starving chess program developers'' out there who favor forcing 
humans to compete against their programs to either (1) improve the program 
or (2) establish a rating for the program seize the moral low ground.
Why?  Clearly the program doesn't benefit from either (1) its improvement 
or (2) the rating.  Who does?  It seems that the developers and/or the 
equipment supplier (e.g. Cray whose name is advertised in ``Cray Blitz'') 
benefit from forcing said competition.  ``Benefit'' in this context is 
not restricted to monetary gain but can also include papers published, 
research grants obtained, fame garnered, curiosity satisfied, academic 
promotion and tenure decisions decided favorably, etc.  This is not ethical.

I think that we can view human-computer competition on the computer side 
as artificial ``intelligence'' research, but on the human side it is 
cognitive psychology experimentation and hence the normal rules concerning 
experimentation on human subjects should apply.  In particular, humans 
should not be experimented upon against either their will or their 
informed consent.  If you want human subjects for your experiments then
you should get unpaid volunteers or a grant for your research and pay 
the volunteers for their participation, but in any case the humans 
should not be forced to participate.


Regards,

-- 
Will Bralick                          |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
             wbralick@afit.af.mil     |  we must proportion our efforts to 
             bralick@cs.psu.edu       |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz
From: todd@numep2.phys.nwu.edu (NUMEP)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Girls
Date: 13 Aug 92 05:21:00 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug12.175207.9371@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes...
> 
>> 
>> Okay, there's this girl whom I desperately like (the whole thing is rather
>> sick, actually) and we get together and play chess every once in a while
>> and I wind up beating her easily.
>>
> 
>ok, i think that what we have here is NOT a chess problem...it is
>a MALE-FEMALE problem. i do not profess to be an expert on women,
>but i do know enough to tell you....
> 
>   LET HER WIN!!!!

Excuse me...er..but.. that's about the last thing you want to do...
she may not take that well at all, given the history of their play.  
the best thing to do is, i think, what he's suggested for himself.  show
an interest in her interest in chess... letting her win is just wrong,
if she has any self respect at all.  she'll most likely take that as
an insult...
> 
>that will keep her interested!!! if she starts getting bored, then
>win a couple of games....just barely. that adds a bit of suspense!
> 
>don't rip her lungs out over the chess board and make her feel
>stupid and then expect her to be romantically inclined towards
>you.
> 

I'm not saying he should blow her away, but rather use the time to
work on things yourself - openings, etc.  developing her skills can
help the relationship.  Unfortunately, being apart won't help...

______________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                !
Graduate Student              !   ...said one termite to the other at Smokey's
Department of Physics         !   Bar & Grill, " Is the bartender here? "    
Northwestern University       ! 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6310 rec.games.go:1643 rec.games.board:8064 rec.games.programmer:3552
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:48:44 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <v__n=0@lynx.unm.edu>, by quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk):
> Furthermore, when I think of 'strategic' games, I tend to think of
> 'strategic level military simulations'.  

This argument was ruled invalid already earlier in the discussion
(i.e., before it included rec.games.board), because you can't prove
that 99% of Usenet readers think like you do.

-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.board