HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Winning with the XYZ opening
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:32:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct13.193210.22545
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <9210121843.AA07911@hplwk.hpl.hp.com> albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM  
(Joseph Albert) writes:
> 
> Unfortunately, chess is not organized as a scholarly activity, so that  
chess
> publications are not scrutinized by a referee, as would be the case for
> scholarly works.  Rather, we have a situation where chess players must  
try to
> balance their chess with making a living.
> 
> Of course an author who is a GM doesn't guarantee honesty.  Even  
informants are
> likely to be problematic, where an international competitor doesn't want
> to `spill the beans' on a discovery that may be useful in a future game. 
> 
> Joseph Albert
> albert@hplabs.hp.com
I think you would find that if referees were involved, many books written  
by GM's (or, as is often the case, in their names) would fail to pass,  
while well-researched books by "amateurs" would get through.

GM's often hold back material, or worse, print misleading material.  
Opening books are essentially matters of research, and few GM's other than  
John Nunn are willing to put in the amount of work necessary.

In my prejudiced view, the best books are collaborations between GM's and  
researchers.

Most strong players use opening monographs as sources of ideas, not as  
bibles. Is it pure coincidence that Kasparov started playing the Catalan  
in 1983, just after getting my manuscript. Or the Tarrasch in 1984  
(ditto)? 

IMHO, some of the best writers are non-GM's. John Watson is an IM. John  
Lutes, who does wonderful compilations, is not titled at all.

And you would be amazed how many "GM" books are not written by GM's at  
all.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hsieh@math.toronto.edu (Paul Hsieh)
Subject: Re: Kudos to David Fry!
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 18:12:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.152142.7105@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
>tycchow@athena.mit.edu (Timothy Y Chow) writes:
>
>>I think David Fry deserves a standing ovation for his up-to-the-minute
>>coverage of the F-S match!
>
>>Tim Chow
>
>I agree

Here!  Here!  An excellent job Mr. Fry.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: smmurthy@comet.lerc.nasa.gov (PLN Murthy)
Subject: FS game 17
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:58:53 GMT


-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLN Murthy			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: smmurthy@comet.lerc.nasa.gov 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: marino@dxcern.cern.ch (Massimo Marino)
Subject: Re: human vs computer
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:08:39 GMT

This would be true assuming that the computer will be able to compute the strongest 7 moves depths line in 40 by 2 hours. My personal experience with
computers indicates that the strongest program not always is the one that goes deeper in the same time. Actually market evolution showed in the last years tendency to strenght the selection of variants rather then going as deeper as possible...

Of course, all that I said is MHO...
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massimo Marino     |internet: marino@hplaa01.cern.ch| marino@dxcern.cern.ch     
CERN - PPE Division|bitnet:   marino@cernvm.bitnet  |  
1211 Geneve 23     |decnet:   vxcern::marino        |   
Switzerland        |FAX:      (41) (22) 785 - 0207  |  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pals@ipact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Benjamin vs Soltis??? (was Budapest)
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:10:41 CDT
Organization: IPACT, Valparaiso IN

In article <1992Oct8.095712.1@pa881a.inland.com>, 
nason@pa881a.inland.com (John Nason) writes:
> In article <30609@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU 
>(Mark Ginsburg) writes:
>>
>>As Joel Benjamin notes in his Swill articles, beware any book with
>>"Winning with..." in the title!
> 
> Obviously, Benjamin is talking about Soltis.  Is it possible that the two just
> don't agree?????  I have read Soltis and found his books excellent.  I am a
> weak player however, and his advice helps me.  Maybe later it won't.  I have
> not read Benjamin so I can't comment.  

Certainly, Soltis has quite a number of books out that begin with "Winning 
with."  As Eric Schiller has pointed out, it could be that those weren't
Andy's first choices for titles.  And yes, that phrase is not too 
descriptive, and smacks of snake oil.  However, in my experience it is not 
a good indicator of the contents.  I, too, have found Soltis' books good,
and my all-time favorite book is _Winning with the Dutch_ by IM Robert
Bellin (although it is no secret that Joel scorns the Dutch).

Maybe Benjamin's comment was intended to more generally warn against some
of the junk out there on the market.  Certainly, this warning is well 
taken - I just wish I could tell the books by their covers.

-- 
Randy Pals                |pals@ipact.com
IPACT, Inc.               |
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cec35848@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Chuck Carroll)
Subject: Re: A question about chess copyright law...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: rec
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:53:41 GMT

dubach1@husc10.harvard.edu (joev dubach) writes:

>Question:
>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? 
>If annotations are a problem, could someone just use the algebraic
>notation without annotations?

I remeber reading just recently (I don't remember where--it was
either in this group or in Chess Life) that the games themselves
are in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted, but the annotations
can.  So presumably it would be legal to make the moves available,
but not the annotations.

-- 
Chuck Carroll					      cec35848@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Counselor Troi, do you sense anything from this 'Stimpy?'"
"I sense extreme stupidity...wait, there's something else...
I feel...Happy Happy Happy, Joy Joy Joy!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Is Spassky 2600?
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:14:55 GMT

In article <16415@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>...
>So while I agree it's not particularly useful to try to calculate
>Fischer's strength using performance ratings from the match
>(looking at his moves gives a better indication), I think Spassky
>is clearly playing above 2550, and it would be surprising if it
>were otherwise.

OK - you've seen the moves.  What's your calculation of Fischer's
strength? 

Also - note that the conclusion:
"Spassky is clearly playing above 2550" is also produced by simply
cranking the normal Elo calculations, without "ratings adjustments by
disputation". 


-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: eb11@quads.uchicago.edu (Ernest Barreto)
Subject: Re: F-S II game 19 opinion
Reply-To: eb11@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:06:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.151857.7047@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:


>
>My opinion is that for [apparently] an intelligent person, you have a weak
>grasp of the concept of emphasis by exaggeration.  
>You completely ignore the point of the posting which is to ask for an
>evaluation of a position and make an unnecessary pedantic point instead.
> If you display these same attitudes to your students, then the probability
>that you are an effective teacher is perhaps less than the infinitesimal
>(in the colloquial sense) that I came up with.



This of course, depends on whether you're teaching chess or mathematics.

E
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tim@research.nj.nec.com (Tim Van Der Avoird)
Subject: Kasparov the dictator (was Re: who is world champion)
Originator: tim@mercury
Organization: NEC Research Institute
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 00:26:45 GMT

Finding its way out of the mind of Joseph Albert:

[a lot of bla-bla deleted]

>a champion should-- promoting the game, remaining very active in tournaments
>instead of fearing public visibility-- ie being an active and visible
>champion who has made significant contributions to the game both on and
>off the board.

What do you mean by "the board"? The board of the Grand Masters
Association??  Yes, Kasparov made some significant contributions to
the board of the GMA by his dictatorial, selfish and childish
behaviour. Is that what you mean by an active world champion...?

I think it is not a compliment for Kasparov that almost all players do
like Karpov if they compare him to Kasparov. Taken into account that
in the seventies and the beginning of the eighties some players called
Karpov a son-of-a-bitch.


Regards,

Tim


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim van der Avoird	       `The "brief quotation" is often some kind of 
NEC Research Institute, Inc.    disclaimer, stating that the autohor's  
Princeton, NJ, USA	        opinions aren't the views of his employer.'
From: watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Sudden Death Rule
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:11:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

I'd like to know how most people interpret rule 10.D in the 
sudden-death rules section of the USCF rulebook.  The rule states:

    In positions that are clearly drawn, such as positions
    with no pawns remaining for either side and with greatly
    simplified material (for example, king and knight versus
    king and knight), the director may intervene to declare
    the game a draw.  In these same positions either player
    may stop the clock and ask the director for a draw.  If 
    the request is rejected, two minutes will be added to the
    time of the opponent of the person making the request.

How "clearly drawn" does it need to be?  Last month in a tournament
I directed, two 1300's reached an endgame with just a king, bishop, and
pawn versus a king and a rook.  The guy with the bishop and pawn claimed
a draw under this rule.  Even though this isn't as stone cold
drawn as K+N vs K+N, I couldn't see any conceivable way he could 
blow it, so I gave him the draw.  (His king and bishop weren't 
separated, and his king wasn't trapped on the edge where mating
or zugswang threats might develop.)  Was that the right decision,
or does it really need to be something like K+N vs K+N to invoke
this rule?

Bradley
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo)
Subject: Longevity
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 11:41:47 GMT

With all the discussion about Fischer's comeback it seems appropriate to post
something about Lasker.  The following is taken from the back cover of my
Dover edition of his _Manual of Chess_ (published in 1960):

"Emmanuel Lasker was probably the greatest chess player of modern times.
 Certainly no man has ever held the world championship longer -- 28 years --
 or kept his powers so long.  In his sixties, Lasker began what amounted to
 a fresh career in chess by playing his first serious game in ten years, and
 defeating the man who was the following year to become himself world
 champion:  Max Euwe. ..."

David Caraballo
From: gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric Eaton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:48:19 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article (Brent Edwards) writes:
>I'm a novice myself and have been reading a wide variety of books,  
>including ones on openings, and I've never seen an author plainly say what  
>the strategy and objectives of various opening lines are. Are there any  
>good books that discuss standard openings and don't just list hundreds of  
>variations?

The one that I use (which seems fairly popular) is "Modern Chess Openings"
by Walter Korn.  I'm using the 12th edition, but I think the 13th has been
released.  The 12th is in the Old Descriptive notation, I *think* the 13th
is in algebraic.  This is a good book, it covers many lines and gives the
general idea of the opening at the beginning of each one.

Another book that I've heard of is Bradford's Chess Openings.  I may be
wrong on the first word of the title.  I know it starts with a 'B'.
It is similar in nature to MCO, but I don't know much about this one.

-Eric Eaton

gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: Dying during a game
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:20:37 GMT

M E Fletcher writes:
>In the referenced article, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>>What do the rules say about players dying in the middle of a game? Is
>>it declared a draw? :-)
>
>I've never seen anyone die during a game but a few months ago I saw
>someone slide onto the floor having an epileptic fit during a tournament.

I once had an opponent die during a game.  It was in a postal
tournament and I was awarded the win on forfeit.  (My rating 
gained a few points, my opponents remained the same.)

Ed Hummel
From: chuck@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Charles Rissmeyer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's back! (alas)
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:02:22 GMT
Reply-To: chuck@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Charles Rissmeyer)
Organization: StPaul

In article <1b7k4gINNgs2@agate.berkeley.edu> oliveira@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Jorge-Nuno Oliveira Silva) writes:
>
>why are some people so hard on Bobby Fischer? 
>
>jn

It bothers me too, but I guess he's been some sort of polical activist.  I
haven't followed the news about his political exploits, but that's what seems
to be driving so much of the criticism.  I don't know what he's done politically
in the past or in the present; I do know that he used to play one hell of a 
game of chess and that he could possibly be the best in the world again.
I want to see this magnificant master do great things with a chessboard like
he once did.

Bobby's political views are irrelevant since its his ability to play chess
that has given him the recognition he deserves.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: Budapest gambit(book titles)
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:32:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.143602.22765@sequent.com> edjohn@sequent.com (Ed  
Johnson) writes:
> In article <30609@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark  
Ginsburg) writes:
> >
> >As Joel Benjamin notes in his Swill articles, beware any book with
> >"Winning with..." in the title!
> >
> >-mark
> 
> But who is going to by a book titled "How to draw with ..." or even "How  
to have
> slightly better chances with ..."
> 
> Ed
> 
> 

Well, my friend Joel has a point, but look, these titles are often
chosen by a publisher. for example compare my titles for two books
with those chosen by the publisher:

Me: A Practical Opening Repertoire for White
Chess Digest: White to play and win with 1.e4

Me: A Practical Opening Repertoire for Black
Chess Digest: Black to play and win with Classical Defenses

Ray Keene and Me: The Hypermodern School of Chess
Batsford: Winning with Hypermodern Chess

You get the idea...
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Polgar
Keywords: world champ?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:01:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.220301.16439@news.iastate.edu> baarniy@iastate.edu (Scott A Coon) writes:
>I've noticed that there seems to be some strong feeling on
>this group that Judit Polgar has no realistic chance of ever
>becoming world champion.    Would this be because everyone is
>a little gunshy about prodigies not panning out, or because of
>her particular results against strong competition?
>Basically I'm askin, can everyone really say they'd feel the same
>if she were a teenage boy, and why?
>Scott Coon

I am one of those who think her chances are very low. I'd feel the same if she
were a he, and here is why: she was trained from an earlier age and more 
systematically than any other chess player ever, with the additional benefit
that her two older sisters had already gone through same steps before her.
Therefore it is probably wrong to compare her to other players of her age;
she will probably reach her peak earlier than anyone else. But while we may
*believe* that that peak will be higher than the competitors', there is no
firm evidence that it will be so. Competition among players slightly older
than her (Ivanchuk, Anand, Shirov, Kamsky, Kramnik, Adams, Lautier...) is
very tough and her chances are probably not higher than chances of those
players. I am sure she will soon be in the top 10, and perhaps at times in
the top 3-5; but I predict that she'll never get further than the candidates'
finals (even that would be quite a surprise).

	Sven
From: lee@zeta.kpc.com (On Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: USCF
Keywords: chess
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:43:15 GMT
Reply-To: lee@zeta.kpc.com (On Lee)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computers Inc.

I want to renew my USCF membership.
Does any one have their phone number ?

If I remember correctly, they are located in New York, New York.
I called the operator, USCF is not listed there.

Any pointers is appreciated.
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Game 16 Opening, Spassky-Fischer
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:16:00 GMT


Eric, I guess the answer to the question of how Spassky could not know
about the line might reside in whether he has ever played Bg5 in these
lines before.  Want to do a search to see whether he has played this 
anytime in the recent past?

By the by, I finally got to see a copy of *Karpov on Karpov*.  I noted
his description of the atmosphere in Spassky's camp before the firs
F-S match.  Very revealing.  I can't believe that Spassky, who is now
20 years older, has changed all that much in his attitude toward 
preparations.
From: mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Longevity of Lasker
Date: 14 Oct 1992 05:49:33 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <16303@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>> Apparently Capablanca had pursued a championship match with Lasker
>beginning
>at least in 1911. So they negotiated for ten years before playing the
>fateful match.
>
>There was a minor event called World War I.  It wasn't Lasker's fault.

I agree with you completely. Lasker absolutely had nothing to do with starting
World War I. As far as his playing a match against Capablanca, and when such
a match was played was certainly more his *fault* (being the tilte holder)
than Capablanca's.

What's the point of all this? The argument that some Grandmaster was "chicken",
or scared while another was a wonderful sportsman is foolishness.

Personally, I have found the games of the world champions' to be greatly
instructive or at least very interesting and entertaining. Who cares about
issues *no one* can prove?

All of these "arguments" can be distilled into the following lines:

"Oh yeah?!"

"Yeah!!"

mrosen
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:39:40 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

I might actually start getting convinced that the rating system IS intrinsi-
cally DEflationary. The argument that none of my 'opponents' have provided,
and which undermines some of my arguments (notably the one about initial
ratings being determined by the inside factors only) is that there is a
positive feedback on the initial ratings, i.e. that if there is deflation at
some time, there will also be a deflation of INITIAL ratings, so the distri-
bution of initial ratings will NOT stay the same, which was the basis for my
claim of a steady state.

So we might eventually agree. I have to think a little more about this, but
I emphasize that this positive feedback is crucial for generating deflation.
More to come!

And yes, I still intend to simulate the system to see quantitatively how it
works. I think we could learn something from it. (And, BTW, I've been planning
for some time to do a simulation to study how effective the 'Swiss gambit'
is, and many subroutines will be common to both programs...)

	Sven

P.S. I will, eventually, read Elo, but I think this kind of discussion is
much more useful.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: smmurthy@comet.lerc.nasa.gov (PLN Murthy)
Subject: Re: FS game 17
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:00:28 GMT

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: FS game 17
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Keywords: 
I have not seen anything much said about game 17 which Fischer had won. The movewere ofcourse have been posted but no analysis or comments on errors or mistakesby either of the players etc. 

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLN Murthy			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: smmurthy@comet.lerc.nasa.gov 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: drchip@cup.portal.com (MYRON A LIEBERMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Check
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 09:34:18 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

Since you appear to agree that two pieces can give check, the three piece
scenario is covered. Three pieces cannot give check unless two pieces are
giving check - any two of the three.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess