HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cuban@athena.mit.edu (Federico A Garcia)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Why not Baghdad?
Date: 26 Jul 92 08:31:26 GMT
	<YeQWSCe00Vol82J1cU@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


I'd like to know what Fischer plans to do after the match is over.  If
he returns to the U.S., he probably faces arrest and/or large fines
for violating the sanctions (I'm not sure what the appropriate
penalties are).  Personally, I hope this is exactly what happens to
him.  He's one of the greatest players in history, but this doesn't
exempt him from the rule of law.  Mike Tyson was one of the greatest
boxers in history and this (rightly so) did not exempt him from the
law; neither should Fischer be granted any special consideration.
U.S. citizens and corporations who have broken sanctions in the past
(such as those against Iraq or South Africa) have faced stiff
penalties, and Fischer deserves the same.

By the way, since I believe France is also supporting the U.N.
sanctions against Yugoslavia, I think the same applies to Spassky.  

-Fred Garcia
M.I.T.
From: benwood@milton.u.washington.edu (Ben Henwood)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: J. Polgar and Olympiad, NOT!
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:00:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.benwood.711846014
Organization: University of Washington


Does anyone know why Judit Polgar did not play on the Hungarian
men's team.  Someone posted a while ago that she would have a spot.
I learned from a recent issue of Inside Chess that Pia Cramling was 
the only woman on a top 25 men's team.  The article also mentioned 
that none of the Polgars played on the women's team.

Ben Henwood

Applied Physics Lab/UW
Seattle

benwood@u.washington.edu
From: cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer taped statement?
Summary: Has anyone seen it?
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:48:13 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


	The first reports of the Fischer-Spassky match mentioned that
Fischer would release a videotaped statement on July 25.  Has anyone seen
this?

-- 
Mike Cummings

"Namoore of this!... Thy drasty rymyng is nat worth a toord!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jaslow@bissun.kodak.com (Russell Jaslow)
Subject: Re: Why not Baghdad?
Keywords: disgust
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 15:25:47 GMT

In article <7_km#ck.sears@netcom.com> sears@netcom.com (Daniel Sears) writes:
>Bobby Fischer was one of my idols as I grew up.  But his decision
>to come out of retirement to play a match in Serbia is repugnant.
>I wonder how he can reconcile this decision with religious beliefs.
>

Religious what?!?!?!  We're talking about Bobby Fischer here!!!!  The same man
who reportedly handed out pro-Nazi, anti-semetic phamphlets on the streets of
Southern Ca. while living as a bum.  And this despite the fact that Bobby
Fischer was born and raised as a Jew!!!!!!  I don't think Fischer gives a damn
about the horrible circumstances in that part of the world.  For a great book
on Fischer and the surronding rumors, read In Searching For Bobby Fischer by
Fred (?) Waitzkin (sp?).

And now for the biggest irony of this post -- Despite this, I, even as a Jew,
loves Bobby Fischer and cannot wait to see him play again, if all this it 
true!  Why?  Because, like the rest of you chess lovers, Fischer grabbed hold
of our imaginations and never let go.  And we never allowed him to, because
we never wanted to let go ourselves.  Fischer played chess like no one else
ever has or will, and because of this, we all look beyond the fact that he is
probably a terrible human being with a pathetic personality.  And as humans,
we cannot help ourselves when it comes to pure art, imagination, and 
intelligence.  Our weakness takes over, and we end up revering the man.

I can't wait for the match!!!!!!!  Please let it be true!!!!!!!!!!!
-- 
Russell Jaslow          | Spec Racer #33  Finger Lakes Region | My employer
Eastman Kodak Company   |     In memorium: Andrew Spiller     | has nothing
Rochester, New York     |       Cynthia Bishop Halstead       | to do with
jaslow@bissun.kodak.com | Keep the damn drunks off our roads! | my drivel.
From: saba@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (John Saba, Univ. of Ariz. Computer Center)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Top Women
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:31:48 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-User: saba

JULY 1992 FIDE RATING LIST

Top women

 1. Polgar J          GM HUN        2575
 2. Polgar Zsu        GM HUN        2540
 3. Cramling P       WGM SVE        2530
 4. Chiburdanidze     GM GEO        2505
 5. Xie Jun          WGM PRC        2480
 6. Polgar Zso       WGM HUN        2445
 7. Ioseliani        WGM GEO        2445
 8. Arakhamia        WGM GEO        2435
 9. Gaprindashvili    GM GEO        2435
10. Matveeva         WGM RUS        2435
11. Levitina         WGM USA        2415
12. Madl             WGM HUN        2410
13. Akhmilovskaya-Donaldson
                     WGM USA        2405
14. Galliamova-Ivanchuk
                     WGM UKR        2400
15. Maric A          WGM JUG        2390
16. Basagic          WGM BNH        2390
17. Demina           WGM RUS        2385
18. Sofieva          WGM RUS        2385
19. Akhsharumova     WGM USA        2385
20. Gurieli          WGM GEO        2375
21. Zaitseva         WGM RUS        2370
-- 
John Saba
saba@ccit.arizona.edu
saba@arizvms
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: fishers teeth
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:28:51 GMT


what does fisher look like these days? last i heard, in that sports 
illustrated article, he had all his fillings removed so that no one could 
control his mind with a radio ray gun or anything. he probably looks about a 
million years old. what has he been doing? is there _anybody_ who sees him? 
all i hear are rumors, more rumors, and larry evans on his "i used to know 
bobby" tyrade....
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jlesgold@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jacob Lesgold)
Subject: Ultima(te) Chess:  Anyone know the rules?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:29:59 GMT

Anyone know the rules to Ultima(te) Chess?  All I remember is that
all the pieces did different things from the standard chess,
and one of the rooks was upside down.  (okay, actually I remember a
little more:  pawns were pinchers, knights were leapers, bishops 
chameleons, etc.  And practically everything moves like a queen...)

Thanks much,
JJ Cool L
jlesgold@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
From: wang@ibma1.cs.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Castling and Check
Date: 26 Jul 92 05:23:03 GMT
Reply-To: wang@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

>elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>>... On the other hand they would do well to plug another recently
>>discovered hole, this one concerning the definition of check: as the
>>rules now stand, you're in check if you king is attacked by 1 or 2
>>pieces, but not if attacked by 3 or more.  Thus Norman claims a White
>>win in the position WKf6,Qe5,g5/BKh8,Rb7,Bh5,Nb8 with 1.g6?! Nd7+ 2.Kf7+
>>N:e5++ 3.g7+!!? (Kf7 is no longer in check!) Kh7 4.g8Q+ Kh6 5.Qg7#,
>>and Dinort goes one further suggesting that for instance with
>>WKf5/BKe8,Qd8,Bf8,Ng8 White mates in two with 1.Ke6 and 2.Ke7!!?

Dinort is clearly mistaken, since Black escapes by capturing the
checking piece with 2. ... Nxe7.  :-) :-) But then I think technically
the game would be drawn, because White now satisfies the definition for
stalemate!  (i.e. if you've got no pieces at all, obviously you can't
legally move any of them!)

richardr@sco.COM (Richard Robinson) writes:
>If the rulebook does not use 'exactly 1 or 2' pieces, or synonymous
>language I would think that being attacked by 3 or more pieces is still
>being attacked by 1 piece.  That is, they are not ruling out the case
>of being attacked by more than one piece.  My default interpretation
>would be that 'attacked by 1 piece' should be equivalent to 'attacked
>by at least one piece'.

Well, obviously, this is what everybody MEANS by the concept of check.
But it's hard to define a set of formal rules that exactly match
intuitive concepts like this -- the rules usually end up covering too
much, or (in this case) too little.  That's why legalese is such a
foreign language.  :-)

In fact, I remember when Norman posted his problem a couple of years
ago, along with a copy of his letter to USCF or FIDE (I think it was
FIDE), in which he quotes the rule defining check, and it does indeed
explicitly say "one or two".  Can somebody re-quote the rule?  But you
gotta figure, If it could be *reasonably* interpreted as extending to
all N >= 1, then there wouldn't be all this fuss about it, ergo there
must really be something wrong in the wording.

(I think Norman already got FIDE to panic-convene once when he pointed
out the flaw in the B/(~B)+P 50-move draw rule -- apparently, the side
with just the B could claim the draw as soon as the 50 moves were up,
even if the B+P side was about to promote with mate!  Has this been
fixed?)

Eric Wang
wang@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen)
Subject: Re: Alekhine Defense
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:22:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.164426.19767@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.093723.12747@jyu.fi> ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul27.105407.36@swvcc.wvnet.edu> cc3@swvcc.wvnet.edu (Allen Farley) writes:
>>>Hi!
>>>
>>>I'm posting this for a friend:
>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>>What is white's best line against the Alekhine Defense (1. e4 Nf6)? I'd like to
>>>use your responses in our club newsletter, with your permission of course.
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Definetely 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 and +-
>
>If only life were so easy! 

Well, I think Nf3 really is very dangerous for black, but of course I could
have inserted :-)!
>
>While I don't play the Alekhine as Black (my own repertoire tends
>towards the French, Sicilian, Petroff, and a few other lines against
>1.e4), I don't think it's yet possible to say that it's been refuted.

Of course not. But it certainly offers white good chances. I myself
really like the opening but Nf3..... :-(

>While in one postal game I'm involved in I'm using that line, it's still
>at move 5, so no comment yet.
>
>Anyone who's interested should definitely see Lev Alburt's book on the
>subject; also, there is a 1977 Chess Digest pamphlet which isn't too
>bad, but isn't nearly as good as Alburt's work (Alburt uses the Alekhine
>as virtually his only reply to 1.e4).
>

I think Alburts book is not very impressive. It thinks blacks changes too
highly and has been written without much effort. Much better books are
Burgess: Complete Alekhine (New!!! Batsford) and a german 1200 pages long 
bible printed in the end of 1980's. It is most throghout book ever made
on any opening!!!

Alburt by the way has had very hard times with the opening. According to a
 statistics in  NIC he has had less than 40 % with his favourite g6-system.
(the usual white percent is 55.6) Other systems for black aren't much better.
Kengis's 4.-de 5.Nxe5 g6 ia among the best bets.
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: chessathon
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:53:59 GMT
Distribution: rec


There was another such exhibition many years ago (20) in Chicago's
Daly center plaza.  I played from 10 AM till 5 PM and I figured that
I went 128-2 or so.  Dick Verber estimated that we played in the
range of 10,000 games, but I think that overstated the numbers a
bit.
From: Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:01:34 GMT


>Humans blunder; humans forget.  Computers do not (at least in theory).

I don't understand.  What is this ``theory?''  Computer memory can and does
fail.  This goes for both primary memory and secondary (e.g. disk) memory.

If the argument is that computers are fundamentally different from humans
because they're infallible, then you're drawing the right conclusion for the
wrong reason.  In a hundred different ways, the chess-playing computer works
differently from the human mind.  But both computers and humans rely on
memory that is fallible.

Computer memory is pretty reliable in practice.  There is a certain practical
argument that it isn't equivalent to human memory.  But if we are talking
about practical arguments, remember that knowledge of book openings has been
a weak point, not a strong point, for the master-level computers and programs.
Deep Thought was notorious for getting into trouble in the opening.

>I am suggesting that the human opponent of the computer be allowed
>to play by correspondence rules, as long as the computer is doing so.
>(S) he should also be allowed to have someone else keep score and
>punch the clock for him/her, as long as the computer does so (as
>is the case with the opponent of a blind player).

Interesting suggestions.  However, bear in mind that, even if you believe that
computer memory is infallible, the computer still isn't playing by
correspondence rules.  In correspondence, I can consult any reference I can
get my hands on.  The computer is limited to its own memory.

Both suggestions strike me as somewhat unlikely to catch on.  Who is going to
want to play a game under tournament conditions with an ECO at their elbow?
If I did that, I'd be too embarrassed to show up in the skittles room
(or in the bar) afterwards.  As for having someone to keep my score and press
my clock, such a deal.  I have never seen anyone who was playing a blind or
handicapped player invoke this rule.  But who knows.

I guess what this is leading to is that no amount of tinkering with the rules
is going to help much.  A computer opponent is not equivalent to a human
opponent and anyone who owns a chess computer or chess software and uses it
regularly knows this.  But for a single game, under tournament conditions,
playing a computer is similar to playing a human, and this has led to the
practice of entering computers in tournaments.  I've played ChipTest and
Hitech (twice) and I enjoyed it.  But it's a serious error to think that
human vs. computer is equivalent to human vs. human or that the ethical issues
involved have an easy solution.
From: wagner@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Why not Baghdad?
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:58:53 EDT

In article <1992Jul26.233837.17228@samba.oit.unc.edu>, ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce) writes:
> In article <CUBAN.92Jul26043119@e40-008-9.mit.edu> cuban@athena.mit.edu (Federico A Garcia) writes:
> 
>    It would be nice if things like chess and the Olympics were above the
> petty politcal bickering that seems to change from day to day.  Those who
> love the game couldn't care less where the match is played.  I suggest
> that those who would like to discuss the politics of the match do so
> elsewhere than rec.games.chess.
>      -Andy
> ajpierce@med.unc.edu

It's a pity Leni Riefenstahl isn't still around to make an apolitical 
documentary of this apolitical event.
						-Luke
					wagner@mps.ohio-state.EDU
From: ffl@skywalker.EBay.Sun.COM (Frank Lindquist)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Berlin 6800
Keywords: what a deal?
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:48:28 GMT
Reply-To: ffl@skywalker.EBay.Sun.COM (Frank Lindquist)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: skywalker.ebay.sun.com


In my mailbox yesterday was an advert from ICD for a Berlin 6800 for
$ 399 *after* the $100 credit for my Mach III Master trade-in.

$ 100 for my Mach III - ouch!  ICD listed the pros & cons for trading
in the Mach III - pros >> cons - whatta surprise :-) ...

Why go from one 16-bit 68000 to another 68000?  I would think the
uP costs would continue to drop and the 68020 or 68030 would be reasonably
priced soon...


I understand the software may be superior, if you are unable to upgrade
the cpu, why not wait for the next big jump?

thanks

Frank <fish city - I'm swimmin', I'm swimmin' ...>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer - Spassky II
Date: 31 Jul 92 03:31:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Jul30.233133.14341
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Jul30.203828.28466@linus.mitre.org> jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz) writes:
>I have a comment on Fischer's claim to still being the World Champion.  I 
>have seen this several times in the past, and supposedly there were even
>motions in the U.S. Congress (don't know when, probably in the 70's) after
>Fischer "lost" the title to recognize Fischer as the World Champion.

It was in the mid-80s, with the help of Seirawan, I believe.

>This is ridiculous.  I saw a copy of a telegram from Fischer to FIDE, in 
>which he clearly states that he "resigns" the title.  I'm sorry, but if you
>resign your title, you (nor anyone else) has the right to claim that you 
>are still the legitimate champion.  Yes, Fischer did not lose the title in
>a match play, but to remain a champion, you must prove worthy of remaining
>champion.  Furthermore, while it may be said that Fischer was stripped of 
>the title, he clearly states in his telegram that he resigns the title
>(an act of free will). 
>
>Fischer was (and may still be--hopefully we'll soon find out) a great chess
>player, but any claims to the title by him are unfounded, and anyone who
>would still recognize him as the world champion is living in world of fantasy.

It's just a claim.  Fischer would simply respond that he resigned the
*FIDE* championship, and he has no claim to the *FIDE* championship.
Of all the things Fischer says and does (reportedly), I think this is
one of the most reasonable.  If he were to play and beat Spassky and
start playing other "title matches," I don't think he'd have much
trouble setting up an alternate championship which would recognize its
own champions and challengers.  Boxers do it all the time. 


David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.EDU
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138            
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: olesen@math.uiowa.edu (Martin Olesen)
Subject: Biel.
Originator: olesen@sycamore.math.uiowa.edu
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 09:05:16 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA





     Does anyone know any results from the tournament in Biel where former
      World Junior Champions are invited (Karpov, Curt Hansen, Miles, Lautier
       etc., and even Shirov, though he can at most be a coming WJC).


                                          Thanks, Martin
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot)
Subject: Fischer match for real!
Summary: Fischer really will play!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:23:41 GMT
Keywords: fischer

According to a UPI report in clari.news.interest.people, Fischer
really IS going to play!  I can't repost the whole article (due
to copywrite restrictions), but here's the basic summary:

The match is scheduled to begin Sept 1, with a $5 million dollar purse
(so THAT'S why he's coming out of retirement!).  There may be a
possible hangup, though, because "There were serious questions over
whether the match would violate the May 30 economic sanctions imposed
against the rump Yugoslavia federation of Serbia and Montenegro for
thier support for the Serbian territorial offensive..."
The match was arranged by Jezdimar Vasiljevic, the director of the
private Jugoskandik bank.

Predictions, anyone?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Subject: Re: Is the Kings Gambit any good?
Organization: University of Limburg
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 21:08:17 GMT

lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>I read in a chess openings book that the Kings Gambit had
>been poplular in the last century, but refuted at the
>higher levels and had therefore gone out of fashion.
>However (the book continued) since it is now lesser known
>it can be used by the casual player (like me) for a bit
>of fun.

>What is net.experience of the Kings Gambit in action and
>is it good to use because it is out of fashion?

I don't believe the KG is refuted. There are a lot of good chess
players (even grandmasters) who play this opening. I think the
frequency of chess openings has to do with fashion: nowadays
1.e4 e5 will usually become a Ruy Lopez (Spanish). Until recently
nobody played Scotch (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4), but since Kasparov
is playing it, more and more people are going to play it.

I myself play the Kings Gambit for 3 years (I used to play
the Italian: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4), and like it very much.
My advice (for what it's worth): if you like to play it,
play it! I think it will give you many white wins (and a few
losses too, of course ;-)

Have fun!

Dennis Breuker, ELO ~1850
(breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl)
From: U55342@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: The StoneWall Attack
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:04:45 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

Hi! I noticed that there has been discussion on the Colle, and this
has sparked a question in my mind about another opening that is considered
(more or less) the mark of Novice-hood: The StoneWall Attack.

My question: for defenders below Senior Master, if they don't fianchetto
             their king-bishop, are they in as much risk of losing as when
             they are on the black side of more popular openings like the
             Orthodox lines of the Queen's Gambit, or say, the Nimzo_Indian.

             (This would be useful info to have, for it means that the
             the StoneWall can be a serious option if you happen to know
             that your opponent doesn't like to kingside fianchetto.)

Really, I want to know! Sometimes I'm not in the mood to play from memory 10-15
sophisticated moves in the Queen's Gambit, and then spend more energy
squeezing a pawn out of my opponent, and then more energy gaining control
of c7 or the light squares on my opponent's queenside, et cetera....

Sometimes I just wanna play Sledge-Hammer Chess!
                                                   See Ya!
                                                    Bert

........................................................................
: Bertrand L. Wilson                :"My personality has been sanitized:
: Department of Linguistics         :   for your protection."          :
: University of Illinois at Chicago :                     Bert Wilson  :
:                                   :                                  :
: U55342@UICVM.UIC.EDU              : "The only problem with resisting :
:                                   :   temptation is that it may never:
:                                   :   come your way again."          :
:                                   :                     Anonymous    :
:...................................:..................................:
From: RLS112@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Alekhine
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:27:53 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

No one seems to be considering 4..., dxe5 in the 4.Nf3 line.  I've been
playing this for five years and find it very effective.  Black gets active
pieces and white does not have a good clear plan in the position.  Has
anyone found anything to refute black's play?
Ron
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess