HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:00:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.163606.2583@ai.univie.ac.at> juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johan
nes Fuernkranz) writes:
>Try 'The ideas behind the Chess openings' by Reuben Fine. It's available as
>paberback and therefore cheap (can't go much wrong).
>I think it gives a decent introduction to what the title promises. ...

Yes, this is a good choice here.  There aren't too many other books
that discuss the essential pawn structures as much (with diagrams).
Be careful though.  Much of the book is very outdated.  Also, the
new version has about 2 typos per page.

Openings for the Club Player by Harding is another good choice.

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mad4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Maddex)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Reply-To: mad4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Pranksters for Peace
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:09:23 GMT

In article <1bhf9hINNhs0@function.mps.ohio-state.edu> jgolds@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey A Golds) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.094255.9456@vax.oxford.ac.uk> annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.031256.9496@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>>> 
>>>            [random nonsense regarding why Fischer would be doing Kasparov 
		a favor by playing him deleted]

>>> 	1)  Kasparov makes a bundle.
>>> 	2)  Kasparov gets a shot at Fischer's title.
>>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   !!!
>>> 	3)  Kasparov gets to prove he is the best.
>>> 
>>> I wonder if these "critiques" are exclusively American.  How does
>>> Fischer's popularity in Europe compare with the US?
>>
>>I think in most of Europe you'll find that Kasparov is the World Chess
>>Champion, not Fischer.


>>-- 
>>James Annan.
>
>I believe the "Fischer's title" that Mr. Hummel was referring to was Bobby's
>claim to be world champion, not the "real" title that Kasparov has won.
>So, if Kasparov beats Fischer, then Fischer will no longer have a claim at the
>title whatsoever (except in his own mind...)
>
>Jeff

	For what it's worth, a few years ago the Washington state legislature
	passed a resolution recognizing Fischer as World Champion.  I think
	this was largely Yasser's doing, through Kent Pullen, a state senator
	and 2100 player.  I believe some such nonsense also circulated in the
	U.S. Congress, though I think that in a rare lapse that august 
	body somehow managed not to pass such an absurdity.  The mere fact
	of such bills being deliberated is a serious argument in favor of
	Eugene Debs' (I think--much as it sickens me to say this it might've
	been [gag] Adlai Stevenson) line that in a democracy people usually
	get the government they deserve. 


MADNESS


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Subject: folklore
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:51:38 GMT

How about starting a discussion of chess folklore?
like the time Fischer play blindfolded and beat an IM in blitz!
stories like this with more detail is what I'm looking for...


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: When Deep Thought Beats Kasparov...
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:20:27 GMT

ANTHONY FRANCIS PRESTON writes:

	One this that is being left out of that calculation is that 
	since the early chess programs, computer speeds have drastically 
	improved allowing the ply depth to be increased.  Programs are 
	limited to the speed of the computer.  To get another ply, you 
	exponetially expand the tree.  Even with all the pruning 
	techniques, you are approaching the limits.

Another point is that as computer programs getter better, so will Kasparov
and his heirs incorporate some of this wisdom into their own playing, and
they too will improve beyond today's levels.

							Fido
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: FS18- a quick comment
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:49:11 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

It was commented that Fischer thought for 25 minutes before 9 ... o-o.
That, I think, can be attributed to Spassky varying from the Queen's
Gambit Accepted at move 9. (Nbd2).

The interesting thing I thought was Fischer playing a good >defensive< game :)
r.
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Checkmate!
Summary: Sorry for the inadvertently misleading title:
Keywords: Mac Chess Program
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:05:30 GMT

It seems that the Fischer-Spassky match has sparked interest in chess
programs. When I ordered a copy of Interplay's Checkmate (my old copy
of Sargon III and GnuChess were not adequate), the program was on a
two week backorder. Even though Fischer's comments have done much to set
back chess players, the match has sparked a great deal of interest.

By the way, if I should avoid "Winning with ..." titles, should I also 
avoid "Beating the ..." books?

:)

Paul

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Monday, 12 Oct 1992 16:53:37 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Another chess variant proposal -- Nuclear Chess

i think "d4 boom" would be a good notation.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: arc5@chempc1.york.ac.uk (Alastair Cargill)
Subject: Fischers performance - rough calculation
Organization: University of York, UK
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:34:07 GMT

With reference to the various calculations been given to show Fischers grade
for the match - I have plugged the figures into the BCF way of calculating 
grades and it shows that Fischer is playing at a grade 88 Elo better than 
Spassky - whatever level you choose for him. This is only a rough calculaton 
based on Fischers score of 11/18 i.e. 61%. If anyone finds fault with this 
please dont flame as this was done on back of an envelope over a cup of 
coffee!!
Al
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: Championship Games 13-18
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:27:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.010429.28349@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> gls@windmill.ATT.COM (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes:
>Here are games 13 through 18 of the Smythescript World Chess Championship.
>The Bill Smythe Cabal would like to thank Messrs. Fischer and Spassky for
>generously donating their talents to advance the cause of Smythescript.
>
>  Game 13      Game 14      Game 15      Game 16      Game 17      Game 18    
>Bobby Boris  Boris Bobby  Bobby Boris  Boris Bobby  Bobby Boris  Boris Bobby  
>F     N      A     A      N     F-     A     7XXI   F     N      A     A
>7XXU  7XS    N     K      7XXU  7XXI   N     N      7XN   7XS    N     K
>34    S-     7XXU  7XXI   S-    A      A     A      7XXT  F-     7XXU  T-
>K     UJ     F-    F-     31    3A1    7XN   S-     S-    A      F-    7I
>4     3Z1    K     N      4     4      F     3XX1   FK    FJ     K     F-
>5     I-     4     T-     A     7XH    34    H-     31    A      4     N
>N-    7      AK    8K     7XXA  U-     3Z    S      7XN   7XI    AK    8K
>A     K      J     K      K     FJ     3A    83     7XXN  7K     J     K
[ rest deleted ]

Thank you so very much for the bandwidth.
If we join the club, do we learn the secret handshake too?

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Alekhin-Rubinstein
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:00:23 GMT

In article <1b9vklINN3lf@uwm.edu> mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen)
 writes:
>
>Some have also claimed that Alekhin was "chicken" because he didn't give
>Capablanca a re-match. Get your facts straight. Alekhin pursued a match
>with Capablanca for years without success. Capa avoided playing Alekhin
>despit (or because of) his dominance in most of his tournaments. The
> ...

The independent accounts that I have read (Ed Lasker, Schonberg, Fine)
seem to indicate that the match dodging was Alekhine's doing - for the
most part.

>Finally, Rubinstein was mentioned as one of the dominant players of his
>time. I'm not sure you could say that he dominated the game but he sure
>was a genius at the game. I don't have the game score handy, and the
>opposition wasn't great, but Rubinstein-Rotlewi (1908?) is one of the
>most incredible punishments of passive play that I've ever seen. BTW,
>Rubinstein apparently died of starvation during WWI.
>

Yes, the game is beautiful, BUT it's Rotlewi-Rubinstein.  Rotlewi
wasn't really as bad as you seem to indicate, although he was no
Spassky! :^)

Rubinstein DID NOT die of starvation in WWI (that was Schlechter),
he played in various tournaments during the 1920s but was not the
Rubinstein of the 1907-1912 era.  I believe he died in 1961.

Here is a game he played at the height of his powers.

Wh: A. Rubinstein
Bl: R Teichmann
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0
7.Qc2 b6 8.cd ed 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.0-0-0 c5 11.h4 c4? 12.Bf5 Re8
13.Bxf6 Nxf6 14.g4! Bd6 15.g5 Ne4 16.h5 Qe7 17.Rdg1 a6
18.Bxh7+! Kxh7 19.g6+ Kg8 20.Nxe4 dxe4 21.h6 f6(?) 22.hg exf3
23.Rh8+ Kxg7 24.Rh7+ Kg8 25.Qf5 c3 26.Rxe7 (1-0)

!s and ?s courtesy of V.Vukovic
-Mark
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 1992 U.S. Championship
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:13:14 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Hanon W. Russell writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <9210091812.0.UUL1.3#20523@intercal.com>
> Posted: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:12:10
>
> Org.  : Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
>
>
> USCF Press Release #50
>
> 1992 U.S. Championship Field Set for Durango, Colorado
>
> The U.S. Chess Federation's 1992 U.S. Championship promises
> one of the strongest fields of all time. This event, sponsored
> by The Software Toolworks is scheduled for December 1 to 20 at the
> Red Lion Inn in Durango, Colorado.
>
> Leading the pack will be 17-year old grandmaster (GM) Gata
> Kamsky of New York, the defending champion. A total of 14 GMs
> out of 16 players will participate in this $30,000 competition.
> The players include:
>
> 1  GM Gata Kamsky                 2739  Defending Champion
> 2  GM Alex Yermolinsky            2696
> 3  GM Alexander Ivanov            2678  1991 Grand Prix Champion
> 4  GM Joel Benjamin               2675
> 5  GM Boris Gulko                 2675
> 6  GM Sergey Kudrin               2669
> 7  GM Patrick Wolff               2665
> 8  GM Roman Dzindzichashvili      2653
> 9  GM Yasser Seirawan             2642
> 10 GM John Fedorowicz             2641
> 11 GM Michael Rohde               2638  1991 U.S. Open Champion
> 12 GM Larry Christiansen          2635
> 13 GM Walter Browne               2618
> 14 IM Igor Ivanov                 2616
> 15 GM Nick DeFirmian              2614
> 16 IM Alex Sherzer                2604  1991 U.S. Junior Champion
>
> Also co-sponsoring this event will be the Red Lion's Inn, the
> City of Durango, the American Chess Foundation and the U.S. Chess
> Federation (USCF)
>
>

Two questionspoints
 1, What are the players current FIDE ratings?
 2, What format does the tournament have?
Peter

--

----------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: who is world champion
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:02:08 GMT

Bruce Harper writes:

>If Fischer were to play a second match and lose
>(say to Anand or Judit Polgar), then Fischer's claim will be
>greatly weakened.  It would be interesting to see what would
>happen if the winner of Timman-Short offered Fischer a match for
>multi-millions, with the with the winner playing Kasparov.  It might be in
>Kasparov's interest to agree to this, as then he might clear up
>the situation and not have to risk a match with Fischer

Well, Botvinnik is a former world champion, so I assume you also
think that the winner of Timman-Short should first play Botvinnik
so we know for sure that Kasparov is better than Botvinnik.

Kasparov is only obliged to play whoever emerges from the candidate's
matches to defend his title.  If Fischer wants to prove that he is
the best in the world, he can go through the interzonals and candidate's.
If Kasparov agrees to a match with Fischer, whether motivated financially,
or to dispel critiques offered by some American amateurs that some
egocentric baby that won't be part of the system may be a better
chess player, then Kasparov is being generous to Fischer.

Let's not forget that Kasparov has been a great champion by doing what
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.  In this arena, Fischer's performance as a world
champion has been dwarfed by the shadows of our world champion.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Subject: Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 20:40:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.142412.10386@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>i'm amazed at how chess players are rating the play of the F-S match.
>in other words, i don't have to know how to paint to know a nice portrait,
>or know how to play the piano to appreciate music. in fact, i can even be
>a better assessor of these things since my opinion isn't biased by 
>professional jealousy. actually, its biased by hero worship ;-)
>
>with this in mind, as a lover of the game of chess, i will assess the
>playing strengths...
>
>i think Fischer, with the exception of a couple of grotesque displays in
>the early rounds, is playing great!
>
>he will then take on Karpov and beat him with a score of 10-1.
>when he faces Gary in december of 1993, he will publicly embarrass him with
>an unheard of 10-0 score.
>any other opinions out there?
>don wedding

  have you ever heard of Jim Oliver's Woofing Theorem?
  the more you Woof, the less whoever it is wins...    :-)

- nate
a kasparov fan, as well as a fischer fan on the board
From: rgp@mpd.tandem.com (Ramon Pantin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Back! (alas)
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:12:15 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers, Micro-Products Division

In article <16149@mindlink.bc.ca> Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen) writes:
>
>Leaving alone the technicalities,either K, trying to avoid a match
(with Fischer)
>would be ridiculed by the entire chess world from then on.
>It simply comes down to a game of chicken.
>Peter

So you think that Alekhine was chicken because he did not gave
Capablanca a chance at "his" title?  Look at chess history and you
will realize that in the old days the champion decided who the
candidate was and when he would play him.  In these days FIDE
regulates the Chess Championsip.  Get real, Fischer hasn't
earned a chance the play Kasparov or Karpov.  If they do decide
to crush him, it will be to collect on the money and to put Fischer
to rest once and for all.

Ramon Pantin
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 17 moves 1-13
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 10 Oct 92 14:16:16 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department



A Closed Sicilian from Fischer.

As you may know, Fischer has been wearing black visor during games.
Spassky wore a white won during the 12th game, which he won, but has
not worn one since.  Today, though, he showed up with a black one.

As of 17:46 GMT
   1. e4 c5
   2. Nc3 Nc6
   3. Nge2 e6
   4. g3 d5
   5. exd5 exd5
   6. Bg2 d4
   7. Nd5 Nf6
   8. Nef4 Nxd5
   9. Nxd5 Bd6
   10. 0-0 0-0
   11. d3 Be6
   12. Nf4 Bf5
   13. h3 Rb8
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair)
Subject: Re: Endgame books
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:00:54 GMT

   I haven't seen any mention of Euwe and Hooper, A GUIDE TO CHESS ENDINGS,
published by Dover.  It's dry (like most of these books) but looks solid
to me [I've gotten through most of the pawn endings chapter] and cheap.

   I've spent a lot of time on a small paperback by Cvetkov, PAWN ENDINGS.
I found one mistake, but it seemed a good, unpretentious presentation.
[the same people also have BOTTVINNIK ON THE ENDGAME (entertaining but
not enough explanation to be really helpful) and Mednis' PRACTICAL ROOK
ENDINGS (a lot of spelling mistakes, somehow not as much to my taste as
the other books)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Anyone Can Try (was Styles - "Masters' Forum")
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:54:59 GMT

Bruce Harper suggested the following experiment:
>>If someone wanted to try this as an experiment, post a game and give people a
>>week to estimate the strengths of the players.  Then try to find a
>>correlation between the estimates and the ratings of the people making the
>>estimate (too bad a Fischer-Spassky game can't be used...)

Anybody who is interested in this can play over the following
game and estimate the strengths of the two players.  Please
email me your estimates for the players of the White and of
Black pieces.  Don't forget to include your own rating!

If enough people respond, I'll post the results.

>Wh NN
>Bl NN
>
>1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.Nge2 e6
>7.0-0 Nge7 8.Be3 Nd4 9.Qd2 0-0 10.Nd1 e5 11.c3 Nxe2+
>12.Qxe2 h6 13.f4 Qc7 14.f5 gf 15.ef Bxf5 16.Rxf5 Nxf5
>17.Qh5 Nxe3 18.Nxe3 Qe7 19.h4 f5 20.Nxf5 Rxf5 21.Qxf5 Rf8
>22.Qg4 Kh8 23.Rf1b5 24.Rxf8+ Bxf8 25.Bd5 Qg7 26.Qf3 Be7
>27.Kh2 a5 28.Qh5 b4 29.cb cb 30.Kh3 Qf8 31.Qg6 Qg7 32.Qe6 Qf8
>33.Kg4 Kg7 34.b3 Bf6 35.Kh5 Kh8 36.g4 Be7 37.Qxh6+ Qxh6
>38.Kxh6 Bxh4 39.g5 Bf3 40.Kg6 e4 41.de Bd4 42.Kf7 Kh7 43.Be6 Bg7
>44.Bf5+ Kh8 45.Ke6 Be5 46.Kd5 Bf4 47.g6 Kg7 48.Kc6 Kf6
>49.Kb5 Be5 50.Kxa5 Bc3 51.Kb5 Kg7 52.Ka4 Kf6 53.a3 ba
>54.Kxa3 Ke7 55.b4 Kd8 56.Kb3 Be5 57.Kc4 Kc7 58.Kd5 Kb6
>59.Bd7 Bc3 60.Ke6 (1-0)

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: 1/4 K becomes 1/2 K??
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:38:11 GMT

IMHO, 1/4 K is fine for club meetings. You get several games in and won't
be hurt too badly if you have a bad night. However, I wouldn't bother going
to a 1/4 K tournament. If I'm going to the trouble and expense of making it
to a tournament, rate it fully.

Paul

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: English (was book titles)
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:40:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.210336.20638@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:

>>> (that's me)

>>>3 ... cxe4 certainly looks like a TN to me.  In the face of such
>>>brilliance, we must seriously consider abandoning the English.
>>>Perhaps we should try the Caro-Kann with colors reversed, instead.
>
>Fine!  As someone else pointed out, this should be 3...dxe4.  Now why
>don't we all go blither about solvability and Fischer's strength
>instead of making a genuine effort to discuss chess.  In other words, I
>think we would all be better served if such obvious and trivial errors
>were pointed out immediately and if the discussion were to continue in
>a spirit of generosity.  In this case, 3...dxe4 is not an obvious chess
>blunder, so why not skip over the notational blunder and discuss a good
>response to 1.c4?  --Jim

I did that - in the remainder of the article, which you have
conveniently deleted.  I didn't analyze 3 ... dxe4 because - obvious as
it might have been to you, it wasn't "obviously" what you meant, to me.

You asked: how to avoid c4,d3,e4.  I said: don't bother - it's not all
that powerful a weapon.  Allow it, and play chess.  The variations are
much too wide and deep to discuss over this narrow wire, where n oone se
ems tob eabl eto learn to type or proofread.

My current recommendation for a book treating 1.c4 lines is Soltis's
book "Winning with 1.c4" - but books with "Winning ..." in the title are
politically incorrect here.  To the best of my faulty recollection,
lines where Black tries to play the C-K are relegated to the
"miscellaneous" chapter, and as such I've decided to solve those
problems over the board.

I'm sorry if that's not responsive to your needs.  


-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
From: seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: FS-II Game 16
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:17:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

Brings to mind Robert Byrne's commemts after Fischer played ..c5 in F-S I Game 3:

"He's going to slug it out!"

Steve Hoell		seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu
From: riemann@gmd.de (Claus Riemann)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Cochrane gambit.
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:16:36 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Distribution: rec
Organization: GMD

In article <1992Oct9.212315.4670@math.utexas.edu>,
epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) wrote:
> 
> Has anybody got any opinions on the gambit in the Petroff's defence -
> 1e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7? 
> 
> Bronstein has been quoted as saying that this is just as strong as the
> more usual 4 Nf3.  However I have not seen this gambit in a recent
> grandmaster game.  Has it been refuted?

Bronstein wrote this in "200 Open Games", but he never played it.
Loewenfisch calls the Cochrane gambit 1940 in "Contemporary Openings"
unsound. Kasparow wrote that this gamibt is sound, but he never played
it. :-(

The only "strong" player I know playing this gambit regular is
GM Vitolins. GM Huebner plays this from time to time in blitz and
active chess.

I play this everytime against anyone. It's a good variant, because
there are only a few (often wrong) analyses on it. (Ok ok, I am not
a strong player.)

--cla

P.S.: If you are interested in analyses on this theme, we could
share our knowledge.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest (LONG)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:38:40 GMT

In article <PHR.92Oct14202554@napa.telebit.com>, phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
|>     >By the way, did you know that Fischer *** NEVER *** won a single
|>     >game against a world champion until his match with Spassky?
|> 
|>     Why, yes, I did!
|> 
|> Everybody realizes that he blew a won game against Bottvinnik at Varna
|> 1962.  But I've heard Fischer has recently claimed to have a bust to
|> Kasparov's drawing line Rc4 for that game.  Anyone know more about
|> this?

Who cares?  Bobby was what? 19, then? How about this for a factoid:
Why don't you look up Bobby's record vs. Spassky and Kasparov's
record vs. Spassky and compare and contrast and see what you find!
Not much comparing to do -- mostly contrasting.  This seems like it's
a lot more relevant than Fischer never winning a single game against
a world champions in his early days.  Why don't you just say: "Before
Bobby was good, he wasn't so good."

-- 
T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)
From: mikeg@techsup.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:09:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:<92286:201954:techsup:989000001:000:341
Nf-From: techsup.UUCP!mikeg    Oct 15 16:09:00 1992


I have been playing a computer in chess for quite
awhile, and it never resigns.  I find it is quite 
a challenge to keep from stalemating the king, which
the computer likes to play for.  

This taught me that in a losing position, I still might
play it out to the end, just to see if my opponent will
get careless and stalemate me.  

Mike
Organization: Sophomore, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA