HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Youngest GM/IGM?
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:17:40 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep30.123340.15972@husc3.harvard.edu>, David Fry writes:

> Fischer became a GM in 1958 (or he earned his title then, maybe it was
> awarded later), and is the youngest.  I think Judit Polgar earned her
> GM title before she was 16 as well, but I guess she was still older
> than Bobby.

No, Judit Polgar is the youngest ever, followed by Fischer, followed
by Kasparov.  I'm not sure who the fourth is, perhaps Michael Adams.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@willis.cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: FS performances - second half
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:59:06 GMT

Another two day hiatus - so it's time to update the ratings
calculations.  As always, recall that these are crude - use them to
confirm your a priori expectations, or as flame-thrower targets, or ...
For those who care - these are actually USCF calculations. FIDE
calculations differ slightly.  Anyone who believes that the differences
matter is welcome to do them "right".

It seems right to treat the two halves as separate events - so here's
the final tally on the first half:

Player           Prev Perf Post
Robert J Fischer 2760 2659 2736   (round to 2735)
   Boris Spassky 2550 2650 2573   (round to 2575)

"Better" Performance Ratings can be calculated by noting that the
*difference* in PR should be approximately 110 points, and using your
favorite method of choosing a mid-point.  For example, it is reasonble
to choose (2760+2550)/2 = 2655 as the midpoint - giving PR's of 2710 and
2600 for Fischer and Spassky, respectively.

After 4 games, the second half rates as:

Player           Prev Perf Post
   Boris Spassky 2575 2835 2597    (round to 2600)
Robert J Fischer 2735 2475 2712    (round to 2710)

My, my - how volatile those pesky PR's are.  Or, perhaps they simply
reflect different performances (what a concept!).  Again, choosing a
midpoint of (2575+2735)/2 = 2655, and a spread of 100 points (in the
opposite direction this time!) we get PR's of 2705 and 2605 for Spassky
and Fischer, respectively.

[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.]

[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.   The second half performances are a bit
problematic, but there are at least 5 more games to go ...]

Some may want to continue to peg all of the performances to
Spassky's well-established (and current) 2550 (or is it 2560?).  In
which case, we get for Fischer a PR of 2670 for the first half and 2450
for the first 4 games of the second half.  Under this assumption
Spassky's performances are an unvarying, rock solid 2550.  [*N O T*]

Enjoy!




-- 
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: SCHAUB,.KEITH.BRADLEY@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (SCHAUB, KEITH BRADLEY)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess solvable
Date: 25 Sep 92 07:16:00 GMT

Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services


	How far into the ground are you guys going to beat this?


_____________________________________________________________________
'Grok' means 'to drink'. 

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: "Solvability" in Chess
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:57:26 GMT

In article <23749@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.200304.8012@ugle.unit.no> andreas@idt.unit.no (Andreas Lothe Opdahl) writes:
>
>> 3. Define it away by saying that any game of chess must ultimately terminate.
>
>But how?  Suppose both players agree that they will play on without end?
>You can't just wave the rule book at them and say "you can't do that -- the
>game must terminate" because of the response: "All right -- what have we
>done so far that is illegal?  Nothing, right?  Well, will our next move
>be illegal?  Presumably not.  Then go away and leave us alone."
>-- 
>				--Andrew Koenig
>				  ark@europa.att.com

I believe that chess must already terminate.  A TD will eventually walk up
and explain how the people who rented us this nice hall have very little
interest in solvability, and decide the game as a win, loss or draw.  This
may not sound you theoretical, but it is part of the rules.  Since the
rules incorparte human behavior, chess is insoluble, or is as soluble as
behavior.



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: solvability and the end of the universe
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:48:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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
From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Kasparov Dec 1993?
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:37:50 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <lcrqfrINNh3j@coltexo.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.123503.10310@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>> But Fischer will have to play a lot better than this to make the
>>> match respectable.
>>not only will Bobby's play be "respectable", i think he will do
>>to Kasparov what he did to everybody back in the early 70's...
>>crush their egos to the point where they were never quite the
>>same.
>>and while we're at it, i'm among the folks out here who are fed
>>up with all the Bobby bashing. comments from people like, "he's 
>>playing like he's rated 1600..." etc.
>I suppose if it weren't for fans (short for "fanatics") there
>wouldn't be any money in any sport of game.  And loyalty is a
>wonderful thing.  But there's something to be said for realism,
>too.
>


Agreed.  As a further sobering thought, let me tender the following opinion:

we have a 16-year old, Vladimir Kramnik, who I consider a Clear Favorite
in a match versus the new Bobby.  No, not the 1972-Bobby, but the 1992-Bobby.

What's the basis for this speculation:

a)  take a look at Kramnik's result in Manila Olympiad.  Purely Bobby-esque,
performance rating oh, around 9,000 (just kidding but he did amass a 
phenomenal score - crushed numerous world-class GMs).

Not convinced?  Never heard of him?  My advice is to watch out in the coming
one or two years.  He should be challenging for the WC in the next cycle.

b)  Other supremely talented players (Kasparov, Shirov) point to him as
a fantastic talent.  How often does that happen?  In the media, players
usually criticize their competition as Garry does with e.g. Timman or Short.

As Kasparov said, "I smile at Kamsky, I laugh at J. Polgar.  But Kramnik plays
real chess."

BTW, I think that Shirov is ALSO a favorite vs. the New Bobby.  

Absurd?  I don't think so.  And Alexei Shirov is an old man at 20.

These hypothetical matches would not be walkovers.  They would have lots
of tough games.  But seconds or no seconds, I think it's time to
recognize that the world has two new geniuses.

--IM Mark Ginsburg

[apologies to Bobby fanatics - thought I would introduce a bit of futurism.]
From: John.Black@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (John Black)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...
Date: 28 Sep 92 05:02:07 CST

Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1992Sep27.224321.3043@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>In article <Sep.26.18.30.11.1992.2404@thorogood.rutgers.edu> miklas@thorogood.r
>utgers.edu (Keith Miklas) writes:
>>suppose that you are playing a novice who is quite an inexperienced
>>chessplayer.  He knows that you are a superior player, and decides to
>>mirror each and every one of your moves.  What's the best strategy to
>>play against this person?
>
This is the old Sam Loyd puzzle: Black copies White and mates in the fewest 
moves.  1. c4 c5  2. Qa4 Qa5  3. Qc6 Qc3  Qc8#.  There are other solutions
as well.

Loyd then asked another interesting question; what if Black copies White and
wants wants to LOSE?  What's the shortest move sequence White can play and 
force Black to mate him?

Answer follows...


1. e4 e5  2. Ke2 Ke7  3. Ke3 Ke6  4. Qf3 Qf6  5. Ne2 Ne7  6. b3 b6  7. Ba3 Ba6
and now 8. Nd4+ forces 8. ... ed#

>How 'bout 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 Qxe5????
>          6.Qxe5 and the mirror is cracked!
>
>I doubt he'll mirror that one too many times.
>
When I was a kid, my friends used to use this move copying strategy on me (so
most of my early games were Petroff's!) but they never would have fallen for
5. ... Qe5??? so the response was always 5. ... d6 instead, which regains the
piece.

What would you recommend against someone who decided to copy your moves, but
wouldn't copy them if you made a move which required them to hang a piece (as
the above does) or get mated in one move?  I realize this isn't a very precise
definition, but you know what I mean... what would you have recommended to me
when I was 12 years old and my friends were copying my moves?  Winning combos
have to be at least a couple moves deep or they'll be detected...

john//

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: taylor@dominy.enet.dec.com (Bruce J. Taylor)
Subject: Re: Standard piece pattern?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:29:42 GMT


>This isn't really a question about chess as a game, but rather about chess sets.
...
>Is it true? Is there a "standard" for piece height, profile, and weight?
...
>I'll promise to summarize all responses, and report on whatever I find.

Wow! What a response! You folks are great. Many thanks to:
	"vanderli@relay.fccc.edu" "Michel van der List"
	"gene@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu" "Gene E. Johannsen"
	"bhahn@oldno7.sw.stratus.com" "Bill Hahn"
	"sloan@cis.uab.edu" "Kenneth Sloan"
	"asnd@erich.triumf.ca" "Donald Arseneau"
	"cpf@alchemy.ithaca.ny.us" "Courtenay Footman"
	"ath@linkoping.trab.se"
	"jh867044@longs.lance.colostate.edu"
	"reynolds@physics.ucla.edu" "REYNOLDS, MARK ANTHONY"
	"lehman@ida.org" "Dan Lehman"
for insight and experience. Responses were fairly unanimous:

1. Is there a standard pattern?
   A: Yes - 'Staunton', but there is lots of individual variation set to set.
	Other patterns mentioned were 'Jacques', 'Lardy' and 'St. George'

2. Is there a standard size?
   A: No - but kings run from 2-1/2" to 3-3/4", and other pieces are sized in
      proportion.

3. Is there a standard weight?
   A: No - but most players like them HEAVY for stability, assertive moves,
      and offensive projectiles.

4. Are there standard woods?
   A: No - but white and black should be easily distinguished after an
      eight-hour marathon. Boxwood is popular for white, ebony or walnut
      for black.

5. How can I best get profiles?
   A: Buy the cheapie USCF plastic set as models.

6. Anything else?
   A: Size the bases to proportion with common board square sizes.
   A: Don't include small details that break off easily.
   A: Felt on the bottom, please.
   A: No sharp points on the queen.
   A: Make pawns and bishops EASILY distinguishable.

7. What would you charge to turn me a set?
   A: A lot. Since I won't be tooling up for a production run, these will all
      be turned freehand. Much labor and many discards.


Many thanks.
				bruce taylor
Date: Friday, 2 Oct 1992 13:48:46 EDT
From: Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject:    (Short) Solvability Proof, Unsolvability Proof

I just posted a rather long discourse on chess solvability in the
(probably) vain hope of convincing some of the naysayers.  I probably
shouldn't have, but after several hours of composing the note, what
the heck  --  I went ahead and posted it.

Anyway, it occurs to me that the naysayer's argument can be summarized
very briefly.

  1. They acknowledge that there are a finite states of the chess
     board.

  2. They assert (correctly) that absent some sort of termination
     criterion, that there are an infinite number of possible chess
     games.

  3. They claim that the 50 move limit and the 3 repetition rule do
     not qualify as termination criteria because players need not
     claim a draw to they are otherwise entitled.

  4. Finally, they claim that since there is no termination criterion,
     the number of possible games is indeed infinite and that therefore
     chess is unsolvable.

I think the crux of the matter is that even if you are able to demonstrate
that White cannot force a win and that Black cannot force a win, the
naysayers are unwilling to conclude that the game is a draw as long as
both players can continue to make legal moves, even if the position
repeats itself an unlimited number of times.  Until you get over that
conceptual hurdle, I don't think you will ever convince somebody that
believes otherwise that chess is solvable.
Date: Friday, 25 Sep 1992 18:14:32 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: DEEP THOUGHT II vs KASPAROV
 <1992Sep21.165525.9338@Princeton.EDU> <1992Sep21.180729.8798@cis.uab.edu>

someone said something, when speaking of a theoretical chess-playing
computer which has "god's algorithm" or whatever, to the extent that
this computer would not play well, because it wouldn't allow itself
to be put in a dangerous position.

it amazes me that you honestly believe that being able to see all possible
moves in chess would be a DISadvantage to a chess player.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Anand-Ivanchuk 3-1!
Keywords: Ivanchuk Anand Linares Match
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:55:57 GMT

Thank you for this! Now I have really interesting games to look at! But why
did we never hear about this match on the net before? When was it played?
During the F-S circus? If so, it would mean that F-S is actually bad for
chess - less information available than usually. Drawing attention from
real chess to bogus chess - something like what the Republicans are doing
in politics...  ;-)

	Sven
From: gewis@rwb.urc.tue.nl (GEWIS)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: mirror, mirror on the board...
Date: 27 Sep 92 12:45:39 GMT
Reply-To: gewis@urc.tue.nl

miklas@thorogood.rutgers.edu (Keith Miklas) writes:

>suppose that you are playing a novice who is quite an inexperienced
>chessplayer.  He knows that you are a superior player, and decides to
>mirror each and every one of your moves.  What's the best strategy to
>play against this person?

>(ps don't play the stonewall! :)

The easiest would be 1. d4 d5 2. Qd3 Qd6 3. Qh3 Qh6 4. Qxc8 mate
So the best strategy (which was the question) would be: checkmate your opponent.


Mark Huizer
gewis@urc.tue.nl
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: F-S II game 13 moves 1-15
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:00:04 GMT

After move 15 it looks like a Fischer game.

As of 17:37 GMT
  Fischer Spassky
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 c5
   2. Nf3 Nc6
   3. Bb5 g6
   4. Bxc6 bxc6
   5. O-O Bg7
   6. Re1 f6
   7. c3 Nh6
   8. d4 cxd4
   9. cxd4 O-O
   10. Nc3 d6
   11. Qa4 Qb6
   12. Nd2 Nf7
   13. Nc4 Qa6
   14. Be3 Qxa4
   15. Nxa4 f5


from fry@math.harvard.edu



Onar.
Date: Thursday, 1 Oct 1992 01:04:09 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: ENRAGED FISCHER STRANGLES SPASSKY!

there has been much talk which can be summarized thus: "even if chess were
solvable, you couldn't solve it anyway, because no computer could compute
all the possible moves before the end of the universe."

well duh.

1. it is currently not known if the universe WILL end or not.  it could
   quite conceivably go on expanding forever.  in fact, as far as we
   currently know, it WILL go on expanding forever.  this is because
   the average density of known mass in the universe is about one-tenth
   the amount which would be needed to halt the expansion of the universe.
   see "a brief history of time" by stephen hawking.

2. even assuming that the universe will one day stop expanding, and then
   start contracting (one HELL of an assumption), how do you know that
   there wouldn't be enough time to calculate all possible moves before
   the universe crunched? people state this as a fact, while having no
   factual basis for it.

in short, unless you can somehow show that the average density of mass in
the universe is about ten times greater than the average density of mass
in the KNOWN universe, don't give me any of this crap about there not
being enough time.

sorry for dragging physics into chess.




Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tusk@daimi.aau.dk (Martin M|ller Pedersen)
Subject: Can't compile xics
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 14:38:59 GMT

I have ftp'd xics-source from valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu but get this strange
message when I try to compile it.

	cc -g -o xics main.o windowx.o board.o read.o telnet.o events.o 
-L/usr/local/lib -lX11 -lm
ld: Undefined external - 
        _getdtablesize
ld: ouput file still contains undefined symbols
*** Error code 1

Stop.

What can I do??

Where can I find a compiled version for HP9000s300, HP9000s400 or 
HP9000s700???

....................................................................
tusk@daimi.aau.dk

This life is only a test.
If this life wasthe real life, we would now have received further
instruction about where to go and what to do.
This life is only a test.

....................................................................
From: mazzarel@spam.berkeley.edu (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Living World Championsy
Date: 26 Sep 1992 21:52:20 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: spam.berkeley.edu

I stopped to get some gas last night,  and I saw Tal buying a pack of Marlboros.

Ariel
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: Re: F-S II Ratings
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:07:23 GMT

In article <SOO729N@mailgzrz.tu-berlin.de> , krause@math.tu-berlin.de
writes:

  >Oh, please drop this rating stuff...

Martin,

You do not have to read postings about ratings if you do not wish to.

  >... Performance rating is nearly
  >meaningless. Why is Spasski's performance rating higher then
  >Fischer's, although Fischer has won more games.

Please explain why performance rating is meaningless.  The situation that
is occuring here is very common in chess practice (i.e., somebody's
performance rating is higher despite a lower score; it all depends on how
strong the opposition is).

  >I also doubt your estimated ratings before the match! You got them
  >from nowhere.

You have probably missed one of my earlier postings in which I explained
these estimates.  So, for your benefit, here it is again:

  "When Fischer quit in 1972, he had a rating of 2780.  He was 29 years 
  old,   probably not yet at his peak.  Had he played during the past 
  twenty years, we would have seen his rating go up to about 2820, and 
  then slowly dropping to around 2740 by this year (he is 49, well 
  passed his theoretical peak).  Because he had not played since 1972, 
  his current strength should be estimated by deducting another 40 
  points or so from this, or at about 2700.

  Spassky's current rating is about 2600 (I do not have the exact 
  figure as I have not been following chess closely for quite a while -
  could somebody post his official rating?)."

It turned out that Spassky's current official rating is 2560, so, taking
into consideration his higher-than-usual motivation, the above estimate
(2600) is pretty good.

The only thing that is not accounted for in the above is the possible
inflation or deflation of FIDE ratings during the past 20 years.  Since
nobody seems to have reliable data on this topic, I have assumed that
this movement can be ignored (i.e., it is not significant).

  >The calculation above is a good example of the misuse of
  >mathematics/statistics. Do something with many numbers and parameters
  >and most people believe it, whether it is true or not.

I would advise that you read Arpad Elo's book on this subject (The Rating
of Chessplayers) before making sweeping generalizations like this.  By
the way, after the first half of this match Fischer's and Spassky's
performance were exactly 100 points apart, making the above estimates
more believable.

   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: peters@cs.city.ac.uk (Peter Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 12 Spassky wins - moves
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:14:20 GMT
Organization: City University

In <1992Sep30.234319.25715@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.173624.15979@husc3.harvard.edu> fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
>>
>>In other news, the Hungarian news agency MTI is reporting that talks
>>are underway for a possible match between Fischer and Judit Polgar.
>>Fischer has not commented on this, but MTI says that Polgar's father
>>said talks have been going on for months.
>>

>You mean, FISCHER would play a WOMAN and a JEW ?
>What if he loses to those 'inferior species' or whatever he consideres them?
>Will he then kill himself? Will he finally shut up?

It has been reported in the press in the UK that Fischer played a casual
game against Cathy  Forbes, the (Ex?) British Ladies Chess Champion. I have
seen the game, Fischer had black, it was 0-1 in 20something moves. He even
showed some sense of chivalry by pointing out that a white move near to the
end of the game would have led to a draw. Although only a casual game, it is
important because it is a recent game by Fischer that is not against Spassky.
Has the guy mellowed with age?


Peter Smith

>	Sven
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess