HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: RFFCC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Ralph Frisch)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Anand-Ivanchuk 3-1!
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:43:35 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

Does anyone have any information on the 8-game match between Anand and
Ivanchuk in Linares, in which Anand won 3-1?
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The Big Clamp
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:21:49 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Lawrence Day is the big expert on the Big Clamp, but I hadn't heard that he had
ever written a book on it.  I would look for articles in Canadian publications.

Incidentally, the Big Clamp doesn't involve an "eventual" f4 - it involves an
immediate f4, as in 1.e4 e6 2.f4; or 1.e4 c5 2.d4; and so on.  I stand to be
corrected, but I think the development of the Queen's Knight is delayed in the
Big Clamp systems.

While Lawrence has won some impressive games with the Big Clamp, it's always
permissible to wonder whether this was because or, or in spite or, the opening
- or just because he's Lawrence Day.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tho@tik.vtt.fi (Timo Honkela)
Subject: Re: Progressive chess (mate in 5?!)
	<1992Sep24.211835.2453@craycos.com>
	<THO.92Sep26171744@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi>
	<1992Sep26.124236.15864@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Laboratory for Information
	Processing (VTT/TIK)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:59:31 GMT
Distribution: rec


Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu) writes:
>In article <THO.92Sep26171744@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi>
>tho@tik.vtt.fi (Timo Honkela) writes:
>>1. d3
>>2. Nf6 d5
>>3. f3 Bg5 Kd2
>>4. h6 hxg5 Rxh2 Rxh1
>>5. Mate in five (or less) moves?? (It's possible!)
>
>c4 Nc3 Nb5 Qa4 Nd6#, with many minor alternatives (e.g. Nxc7#).
>What's the idea behind White's f3?

This game was played in 1988. Therefore it's difficult to be sure
of the reason. It seems though that the idea is to protect
one's queen (compare black's Bg4 Bxe2 Bxd1 and Bg4 Bxf3 Bxe2 Bxd1).
The difference of one move is significant. If black had followed
the latter series of moves (4. Bg4 Bxf3 Bxe2 Bxd1) white would
have had easy win from Ne5 and Bxf7.

>--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
>  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University

Timo Honkela (tho@tik.vtt.fi)
Technical Research Center of Finland
From: pmarko@bnr.ca (Peter Marko)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II Ratings
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:35:50 GMT
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1

After 15 games, this is how they measure up...

Assuming that the initial estimates (Re) are correct, Fischer would
currently be number 8 in the world (and Spassky tied for the 20th place).

          Re   Pe    G  W  L  D   S   Pa    Rp    Rn

Fischer  2700  64%  15  5  3  7  8.5  57%  2647  2675
Spassky  2600  36%  15  3  5  7  6.5  43%  2653  2625

Re  Estimated rating before the match
Pe  Expected performance
G   Games played
W   Wins
L   Losses
D   Draws
S   Score
Pa  Actual performance
Rp  Performance rating
Rn  New rating (rounded average of Re and Rp)


   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: solvability and the end of the universe
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:34:50 GMT

In article <BvM9oK.5JM@acsu.buffalo.edu> v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.224734.28586@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>>In article <BvHyCz.94A@acsu.buffalo.edu> v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr) writes:
>
>>>The point is:  given an infinite time to think about it, is
>>>chess solvable.  That's the only interesting question.  Whether
>>>there will actually be enough time to do it is a bore.
>>>
>>>MG
>> 
>>Completely wrong. Infinity has nothing to do with it. Chess is solvable in
>>FINITE number of steps.
>> 
>>	Sven
>
>I'm not sure we disagree on this.  If it's solvable, then it's solvable
>in a finite number of steps.

It seems indeed that there is no real disagreement. The only problem is that
you used the word "infinite" while you meant something else.

>  But some people want to say:  the universe
>will end before you go that number of steps.  My point is that that
>sort of limitation is irrelevant.  When we do math, we don't bother
>about such insignificant things as the end of the universe.

Of course. The notion of a 'large number' is completely arbitrary. For 
example, a trillion German marks sounds like an awful lot today, but it 
couldn't buy a decent lunch at some point in 1921 (or was it '22?). The
difference between a 'small number' and a 'large number' is insignificant.
The difference between a finite number and infinity is very significant.

>  By
>"given an infinite amount of time", I mean:  "Give the solver as much
>time as s/he needs."

"Infinite" is really a wrong word to use in this meaning. Also, there is
a difference (although not as significant as finite-infinite) between a
quantity that is fixed and one that changes without fixed limits depending
on something else (like 'as much time as ... needs'). This, however, is not
significant for the solvability problem.

>  The fact that the solver may
>need more time than there is left in the universe doesn't matter.
>But to confuse that with the sort of infinite series business in
>calculus and so forth is a mistake on my part.  Thanks!

Even though this is a chess group, the discussions are not touch-move, so
a corrected mistake is not a mistake at all.

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:40:33 GMT

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


More hogwash and boulderdash......  and obfuscation......  If you reach
position "N" because that is the absolute best that you can do, and
then you reach it a second time because you can't do any better, then it
*IS* a draw.  If you claim that you can elect not to reach it the third
time and avoid the draw, then why couldn't you elect not to reach it the
second time?  or the first time?  Don't confuse stupid play with "best"
play.  Best play means just that.... no bull**** about infinite games and
so forth....  Each player *must* play the best move in a position.  The
best move is that move proven to either (a) lead to the shortest win
(b) leads to a draw  (c) if neither of the above, then it leads to the
longest-off loss.  There is no room for decision making unless two moves
lead to the same shortest win or to a draw, or to the same longest loss.
If you keep the math in this, and the bull**** out, the discussion would
have ended a week ago.

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
From: edward.m.hummel@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (edward.m.hummel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Solvability in Chess
Date: 25 Sep 92 07:13:11 GMT

Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep24.114243.11063@athena.mit.edu> jmh@athena.mit.edu (J Michael Hammond) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.075146.6437@ifi.uio.no> runed@ifi.uio.no 
>(Rune Djurhuus) writes:
>>If the threefold repetition and the fifty-move rule do not result in
>>an automatic draw - it must be claimed by one of the players 
>
>  Posit a computer big enough and a
>time span long enough to solve the game subject to the proviso that a
>position is simply not allowed to occur more than twice and that the
>fifty- (or in some endings seventy-five or more) move rule is simply
>not violated.  We then leave a "dangling branch" in the tree at each
>point where the third repetition of a position or the Nth move without
>a pawn move happens and analyze that branch no further.
>Now go back and consider the parent of each of the finite number of
>dangling branches.  If the value of the parent is W (or statement (i)
>in my earlier syntax), then Black had better claim the draw in the
>dangling branch position or else he's behaving suboptimally (or on the
>basis of other considerations like time on the clock etc.)  If the
>value of the parent is D (ii) then it really doesn't matter whether
>either player claims the draw here; we can prune this
>possibly-infinite branch without changing the value of the parent
>node.  If the value of the parent is B (iii), then White must claim
>the draw in the dangling branch to be behaving optimally except as
>above.

What if the value of an infinite loop is indeterminate?  How can
you prove it is greater than, (or equal to) the value of a draw?

>Therefore, the fact that *in practice* a player may not claim a draw
>in a position when it would be to his advantage to do so, this
>practical consideration does not affect the fact that the game can be
>analyzed and solved as a finite two-person zero sum game of perfect
>information.

Can you even prove that chess is a zero sum game?

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Subject: Budapest gambit
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Distribution: rec
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:34:05 GMT

Is anybody willing to give any opinions on this rarer version of the
Budapest Gambit 1 d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. de Ne4?  Otto Borik recently wrote
a book on the Budapest claiming that this opening is o.k.  
I'd be interested to hear what people think of it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chessmaster 2100 questions (Mac)
From: niblack@bbs.mdcbbs.com
Date: 30 Sep 92 07:40:07 GMT
Organization: EDS, DELCO CHASSIS
Nntp-Posting-User: niblack


I have just purchased Chessmaster 2100 for the Macintosh.  I must say I like
the graphics, it plays a good game of chess (for me), and I think, overall, its
the best chess program I've ever played (not that I've played a lot of them).

However, I do have some questions:

  1.) Is it possible to read in a text file of moves so that CM can analyze
      them?  (I was hoping to anayze the F-S match.)

  2.) Is it possible to save information such as the "Human's" name and 
      rating. (I have tried to save the settings, but this does not save
      the name and rating.  I find it hard to play 10 games in one session
      just to see how CM rates my playing.)

Thanks in advance for your help,
Shawn
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: solvability and the end of the universe
Date: 3 Oct 92 22:47:34 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <BvHyCz.94A@acsu.buffalo.edu> v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr) writes:
>If you allow people to say things like, "The universe will end
>first," or "the computer will break down before it's through"
>and so forth, you're missing the point.  If you don't allow
>infinite calculation, infinite series, etc.  i n  p r i n c i p l e ,
>then mathematics just grinds to a halt.  
>
>The point is:  given an infinite time to think about it, is
>chess solvable.  That's the only interesting question.  Whether
>there will actually be enough time to do it is a bore.
>
>MG

Completely wrong. Infinity has nothing to do with it. Chess is solvable in
FINITE number of steps.

	Sven
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Solvability - new angle
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:48:46 GMT

In article <BvoEFH.CqL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cec35848@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Chuck Carroll) writes:
>rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva) writes:
>
>>It has been claimed, with some justification, that unending games cannot be
>>regarded as draws.  However, because of the finite number of different game
>>states, this does not prevent a mini-max procedure from deciding whether a
>>given position is won for one side or the other.  Hence it is decidable in
>>finite time and space whether the starting position is a win for White, a win
>>for Black, or a win for neither.
>
>This would be true, except that you must consider the possibility
>that an infinite game may be *better* for either or both sides
>than a win.  (Weird and unlikely, but not impossible)  Since the
>value of an infinite game is undefined, we do not know.
>

Chuck, did you forget a smiley face? Or did you forget the meaning of "win"?
Or do you want to say that "maybe a win is not a win"?

	Sven
From: tennis@ziff.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Solvability...sigh
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:18:32 EDT
Organization: Ziff-Davis, Medford MA

Gosh, all these messages about the solvability of chess are starting to
give me bloodshot eyes, especially as 1200 baud ;)

There seems to be some confusion that has permeated (sp?) this thread.
Are we arguing about whether chess is philisophically solvable, whether
chess is pratically solvable, or whether a computers will ever be able to
defeat the best human player in a match.  I think we are all in agreement
about the first two points - 

Chess is philisophically solvable.
Chess can not be solved due to phisical limits (the lifespan of the universe)

The last point may be more debatable. My $.02, computers will be the best
chess playing things on this planet (best = most wins, not most original,
etc...) before ad 2000.  And then FIDE and the USCF, etc., will ban
adjournments so the players can not use their computers, and chess will
be better for it.

Now THERE is some gasoline for the fire!   ;)

Tony Ennis

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: FS performances - second half
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:51:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.145906.24234@cis.uab.edu> sloan@willis.cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>
>"Better" Performance Ratings can be calculated by noting that the
>*difference* in PR should be approximately 110 points,

By whose fiat?

> and using your
>favorite method of choosing a mid-point.  For example, it is reasonble
>to choose (2760+2550)/2 = 2655 as the midpoint 

Why is that reasonable? Because it is Timman's rating (if it is)?

>
>[hmmm - no matter how you slice it, the conclusion that the match is
>being played at a "solid 2600 level" continues to hold up.
>Interesting.... But then, it's hard for it not to, as long as we pick
>2655 as the midpoint.  Skeptics should do a sensitivity analysis.]

Well, it is obvious that due to that pick the match is at a solid 2655 level.

>
>[And...congratulations to the person who - *before* the match -
>estimated the players' strengths as 2600 and 2700.  The first half
>performances, and the current established rating calculations agree
>perfectly with that prediction.

Sure - they are based on that prediction (with 10 points added to Fischer's
rating).

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tennis@ziff.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: checkers
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:42:00 EDT
Organization: Ziff-Davis, Medford MA

In article <1992Sep24.180004.13882@samba.oit.unc.edu>, jdmce@med.unc.edu (Duncan McEwen) writes:
> Forgive the posting here if it seems innapropriate, but since I have
> enjoyed so many strong chess playing programs, and technically, its easier
> to program strong checkers than chess, I wonder if anyone knows of 
> strong chess programs available through the net.  The relative
> lack of checkers programs puzzles me.
> 
> Thanks in advance.

If you program, write us one!

I do not play checkers, but I have heard that it is not the simple kid's
game we think of.  In fact, a reputable source (plays checkers and "B" chess)
says that at his checkers club the visiting chess players *always* get
crushed.

Checkers trivia - In tournament checkers, starting moves are determined by lot.
There are some variations that allow the first player to win a checker for
free.  These moves are disallowed by the drawing. :)

Tony Ennis
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: A different variant of chess
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 13:21:48 GMT

timoshenko writes:

	The simultaneous-move variant of chess discussed here [by
	Harry Graber] reminds me of another variant that occurred 
	to me a while ago:  "open-field" chess, or chess on an 
	infinite board.  Here, the pieces would start in the usual 
	configuration, and moves would be made as usual, except that
	rather than being 8x8, the board would extend infinitely in 
	all directions.   

Alternatively, one could play the game I often use for some computational
problems in hydrodynamics -- use a circular boundary condition at the
sides. It is as tho' there were a string of boards, side by side by side,
with identical piece placement, and with pieces moving across the 
boundaries. It is is quite easily played on a single board, of course. 
You just have to remember that going out one side means coming in the 
other. There are some interesting changes to checking, castling and taking 
pawns en passant.

							Fido
From: phillies@wpi.WPI.EDU (George D. Phillies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Assessing Fischer and opponents
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:01:58 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

Re: How can we assess Fischer's strength?
In  <1992Sep26.071713.15552@midway.uchicago.edu>
hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
writes in part

[long interchange deleted]

> >Consider - before the games played so far, how much would you have
> >seriously wagered on Judit Polgar vs. Fischer?  How much would you
> >seriously wager *now*?

It is reasoable to argue that Fischer's play against an Spassky indicates that 
he is no longer a 2700+ range player, though he may be recovering his 
greatness.  

> I would have considered Fischer's chances slightly greater, provided I knew 
> he was not demented by his possible psychosis - information for which I don't
> need to see his games, the news that he arranged the match sufficed. I haven't
> changed the assesment during this match.

> (BTW, Fischer will *never* play a match against a woman unless she is *at 
> least* World Champion, which Judith probably won't ever be and certainly won't
> be while Fischer is in reasonable physical health.)

The cynic suggests that the size of the purse, and other psychological factors, 
may play a modest role in Fischer's availability.  The possibility that his 
good friend may convince him to take up residence in the country producing the 
best wine in Europe (Tokay Aszu), rather than returning to an uncertain legal 
position in the USA is perhaps also relevant.  Whether (your choice of obvious 
female players) would put up with Fischer is another question.  

Also, we have had people play for world Championships at quite young ages 
(there was this Fischer fellow in the 60s, yes? [8^) so, given that chess skill 
appears to advance by saltation, one cannot exclude the possibility that one of 
several women will be world champion after the next round, at which date 
Fischer's health will probably still be intact.

To my knowledge (I don't have access to a good data basis), the only tourna-
ment-time control game Polgar has played against a top-line candidate of the 
K's-Short-Anand range (sorry, I don't take Blitz chess seriously, largely 
because I play even worse at blitz than I do under non-blitz conditions, so I 
won't count the recent NY Blitz event) was a game against Anand, which she won.  

George Phillies  (rating probably > 0, though the alternative is perhaps not
                  impossible under the rules.)
phillies@wpi.wpi.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jam+@cs.cmu.edu (Joe Mattis)
Subject: Re: Solvability
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:33:05 GMT

In article <gemX4m22ATvuF2a1Zm@pitt.edu> tasst2+@pitt.edu (Teri A Meyers) writes:
>[...]

I agree with all of your reasoning and conclusions, up to *one* crucial point.

>[...] Of course, you
>could try to evaluate each position in the graph independently, and in this
>way immediately class a large number of positions as wins,

So far, so good (although the word "wins" should be replaced with the more
precise "forced wins for White with best play by White, or forced wins for
Black with best play by Black.")...

>but the problem
>remains what to do with the left over positions where it wasn't so clear
>whether they were wins or draws.

...and *there* is the flaw.  These left over positions provably *cannot* be
wins for either White or Black (with best play by both sides).  The only
possibilities (with best play) are (1) the position will lead to a draw or
(2) the game will never finish.

Most KQvsKQ positions are examples of this (e.g. Ka1Qa2 vs Kh8Qh7).  Either
of the following constitute best play:
	(1) exchanging queens and ending the game -or-
	(2) shuffling queens for all eternity
Thus, (with best play) the game might end in a draw or it might never
end...but *clearly* neither side can force a win (against best play) from
such a position.  In essence, such positions are drawn (with best play).

>Lastly, and most importantly, I am troubled by the adequacy of the kind
>to solution we are talking about here to really teach us much about chess.

You're certainly right about this.  Such a solution teaches us next to
nothing about playing chess (it teaches us a great deal about math, however).

-Joe Mattis    ARPA:  jam@isl1.ri.cmu.edu
               UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!isl1.ri.cmu.edu!jam@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
From: mazzarel@spam.berkeley.edu (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Is bughouse solvable?
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:45:05 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: spam.berkeley.edu

Heh heh... pretty funny...

That WAS a joke question,  wasn't it??? 

Ariel
From: cayley@plains.NoDak.edu (Michele Cayley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: I had a buch of content besides the title in my last post and i sincerely hope that in this one I'll be able to say stuff, just so everyone knowsthat I actuallydid have a post and not just a goofy title :)
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:10:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess