HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lee.matheson@synapse.isis.org (Lee Matheson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II Game 8 - 33.Qc
Date: 19 Sep 92 21:57:00 GMT
Reply-To: lee.matheson@synapse.isis.org (Lee Matheson)
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321

JHC>Oh, yes, I think Byrne/DTII are very misleading on Spassky's chances
JHC>after 33.Qc3.  No one has posted any followup that demonstrates those
JHC>"winning chances," but nor I nor Zarkov can find them.  Perhaps they
JHC>assumed Rxc3 instead of Nxc1.

I agree that 33.Qc3, Nc1 doesn't lead to strong winning chances for white,
but must confess I don't possess the same qualifications of those who say
different.

JHC>>And it's still unclear whether White is better after 33.Qc3 - it's definite
JHC>>"computer type of position"!

JHC>See my earlier posting ("by Zarkov and me").  It is clear that White is
JHC>better after 33.Qc3 than after 33.Rc3, 33.Rc6, or 33.Rxc7.  In fact,
JHC>it's very straightforward, after 33.Qc3, White has lost the exchange
JHC>but has a passed pawn in return.  After other moves, White has lost his
JHC>Queen.  Do you have other suggestions for 33?  Moves such as Qe1 permit
JHC>Rxc1+, which forces the exchange of Q for N.  Or take Qe2 Rxc1+ 34.Ka2
JHC>Nd4.  Now White has lost the exchange AND a pawn.  Similar with Qb4.

JHC>There is nothing particularly specific to computers about this
JHC>position.  It's not even a complicated position.  There are positions
JHC>that break my brain and stall my computers, but this is not even
JHC>close.

Jim,
   Another move that is fun to look at (for white) is 33.Qc2!
I've played over this with the help of Knight Stalker, and it leads
to a complex game after 33.Qc2, Nc1, 34.Qd1, f6! with chances for
both sides.  Knight Stalker initially prefers white, but after half
a dozen or moves or so it gradually changes its assessment to
prefering black, .... but nothing decisive.

Lee Matheson, Ottawa
---
 . OLX 2.1 TD . Set phasers on destruc.. oops, sorry - Wrong Echo
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 14 drawn - moves
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:36:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct3.163607.16047
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. d4 d5
   2. c4 dxc4
   3. Nf3 Nf6
   4. e3 e6
   5. Bxc4 c5
   6. O-O a6
   7. dxc5 Qxd1
   8. Rxd1 Bxc5
   9. b3 b5
   10. Be2 Bb7
   11. Bb2 Nbd7
   12. Nbd2 O-O
   13. Rac1 Rfc8
   14. h3 Kf8
   15. Kf1 Ke7
   16. Ne1 Bd6
   17. a4 Bc6
   18. axb5 axb5
   19. Rc2 Rc7
   20. Rdc1 Rac8
   21. Bf3 Bxf3
   22. Ndxf3 e5
   23. Rxc7 Rxc7
   24. Rxc7 Bxc7
   25. Nc2 Ne4
   26. Na3 b4
   27. Nc4 f6
   28. Ne1 Ndc5
   29. Nc2 Nxb3
   30. Nxb4 Nbd2+
   31. Nxd2 Nxd2+
   32. Ke2 Nc4
   33. draw
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The Big Clamp
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:36:31 GMT
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <343@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)  
writes:
> Lawrence Day is the big expert on the Big Clamp, but I hadn't heard that  
he had
> ever written a book on it.  I would look for articles in Canadian  
publications.
> 
> Incidentally, the Big Clamp doesn't involve an "eventual" f4 - it  
involves an
> immediate f4, as in 1.e4 e6 2.f4; or 1.e4 c5 2.d4; and so on.  I stand  
to be
> corrected, but I think the development of the Queen's Knight is delayed  
in the
> Big Clamp systems.
> 
> While Lawrence has won some impressive games with the Big Clamp, it's  
always
> permissible to wonder whether this was because or, or in spite or, the  
opening
> - or just because he's Lawrence Day.

Lawrence Day and Julian Hodgson collaborated on a book on the Grand Prix  
Attack, and Lawrence wrote a pamphlet on the Big Clamp. These two books  
should not be confused.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
                                  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: drosera@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Donald Burden)
Subject: Re: SHOGI-L mailing list, and list of books about Shogi. (was: Info abo
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:33:14 GMT

> In article <20591@drutx.ATT.COM> connors@drutx.ATT.COM (ConnorsPA) writes:
> >Does anyone know:
> >	(1) where I can get a shogi-playing program for an IBM PC?
> 
> I don't know and I fear there's none.
>
I found a shogi program for the IBM PC on America Online called "shogi.zip".
I uploaded it to the /pub directory at ftp.ulowell.edu.  I haven't tried 
this on my computer as it won't work without a mouse.  I think it only 
allows play between two human players.  It should be made available for download
soon.
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: NOW
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:53:10 EDT

In article <BvJosq.MpG@sju.edu>, tmoody@sju.edu (T. Moody) writes:
> A week of so ago, someone asked about the strength of the shareware
> chess program NOW.  I recently played it against Gnuchess 3.2.1
> (windows) on the 16mHz 386SX machine in my office.  NOW beat gnuchess
> playing black and playing white.  The time controls used were: Gnuchess
> was set for 40 moves per hour; NOW was set for average move time=1 min.
> 30 sec.
> 
> Incidentally, despite what it says in the help file, NOW will not run on
> an 8088-based machine.
> 
> -- 
> Todd Moody * tmoody@sju.edu  (That's St. Joseph's Univ., Philosophy Dept.)
>             "In what furnace was thy brain?"  -- William Blake

Can you post the games? I have played Waxman vs. Gnuchess an Waxman
kicked ass...

-Garrett
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 25 Sep 92 22:22 PDT
Subject: Re: Question about a term
Nf-ID: #R:1992Sep24.184109.1789@nntpd.lkg.:1044007751:cdp:1451600046:000:365
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Sep 25 22:22:00 1992


I believe that fyon KET o may be the best CLASSICAL way of pronouncing 
fianchetto, with the "fyon" almost one syllable and the "o" pronounced (English)
long, but cut short.  The meaning is "little flank" or "little side", because
etto is a diminuitive, but, in chess, perhaps the best definition is "develop-
ment on the short flank".

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ta2321s@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Testing our System
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:22:35 GMT

Please someone tell me if they received this message.
   We are testing out our system.
			Terry Asher
			ta2321s@acad.drake.edu
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Kasparov Dec 1993?
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:37:22 GMT


If you look at Kramnik's games and analyses, it's hard not to be 
impressed.  But I'd hold off until he's had the experience of playing
not just 2600 players consistently but 2670 players.  Remember what
happened to both Shirov and Dreev when they made that big jump?  Their
first results were not at all at the level everyone had come to expect
of them.  It's not that they weren't talented, but they needed more
experience against the very best.  There have been very few players
who haven't needed that: Spassky, the young Fischer and the young 
Kasparov all did very well against the very best in their own time, but
even they did not simply prove themselves first among equals at first.
Is Kramnik so good that he could just step in and defeat Fischer with-
out that experience?  Maybe, maybe.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 12 Spassky wins - moves
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:36:23 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Experts at the site said Spassky had a won position by move 25.

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.

   Spassky Fischer
   White Black
   1. d4 Nf6
   2. c4 g6
   3. Nc3 Bg7
   4. e4 d6
   5. f3 O-O
   6. Be3 Nc6
   7. Nge2 a6
   8. h4 h5
   9. Nc1 e5
   10. d5 Ne7
   11. Be2 Nh7
   12. Nd3 f5
   13. a4 Nf6
   14. Nf2 a5
   15. Qc2 c5
   16. 0-0-0 b6
   17. Rdg1 Nh7
   18. Nb5 Kh8
   19. g4 hxg4
   20. fxg4 f4
   21. Bd2 g5
   22. hxg5 Ng6
   23. Rh5 Rf7
   24. Rgh1 Bf8
   25. Qb3 Rb8
   26. Qh3 Rb7
   27. Nd3 Kg8
   28. Ne1 Rg7
   29. Nf3 Rbf7
   30. Rh6 Qd7
   31. Qh5 Qxg4
   32. Rxg6 Qxh5
   33. Rxg7+ Rxg7
   34. Rxh5 Bg4
   35. Rh4 Bxf3
   36. Bxf3 Nxg5
   37. Bg4 Rh7
   38. Rxh7 Kxh7
   39. Kc2 Be7
   40. Kd3 Kg6
   41. Nc7 Kf7
   42. Ne6 Nh7
   43. Bh5+ Kg8
   44. Be1 Nf6
   45. Bh4 Kh7
   46. Bf7 Nxd5
   47. cxd5 Bxh4
   48. Bh5 Kh6
   49. Be2 Bf2
   50. Kc4 Bd4
   51. b3 Kg6
   52. Kb5 Kf6
   53. Kc6 Ke7
   54. Ng7 resigns
From: vanderli@orion.fccc.edu (Michel van der List)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: strong chessplayer parents with strong children?
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:54:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: fccc.1992Sep28.155430.14948
Organization: Fox Chase Cancer Center

In article <BvAnEx.B83@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
(Charles Blair) writes:
>    I read somewhere that neither of the Polgar sister's parents
>  [...]
>                                                       Are there other
> cases?

The father of GM Jeroen Piket is quite strong. He used to play in the
highest echelon of the Dutch chess league. My guess would be the equivalent
of a USCF 2300-2400 rated player.

Michel
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan {IS})
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II - Important reminder!
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:22:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct1.152243.21688
Organization: UW Computing

In article <15883@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>During the first half of the match, it was generally agreed to use the
>following three categories for postings:
>
>F-S II Game # (moves)
>F-S II Game # (analysis)
>F-S II Game # (gossip)
>

D'accord!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Monaghan: arithmetic-mean, melanin-deficient, gender-advantaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jam+@cs.cmu.edu (Joe Mattis)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess is not solvable
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:33:35 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep25.164739.9546@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
>Joe Mattis (not Mathis!) responds:
>>Well, these arguments weren't talking about a *list* of positions, but
>>rather a *graph* that showed how positions were connected to each other
>
>If you use rectograde analysis, you don't need to show all the connections.

True, explicit connections aren't being maintained, but connections *are*
being derived "on the fly" (and then forgotten) as part of the steps:

>...[if white] can make a move that would result in one of the [+1] positions
		and
>...If ALL black's moves result in [+1] positions...

So mathematically, you're still working with a graph.  I thought it was
important to emphasize these implicit links between the evaluated positions.

Anyway, thanks for providing a concise description of "retrograde analysis".
I'd been wondered exactly how it worked!

-Joe Mattis    ARPA:  jam@isl1.ri.cmu.edu
               UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!isl1.ri.cmu.edu!jam@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: krause@math.tu-berlin.de
Subject: Re: F-S II Ratings
Reply-To: krause@math.tu-berlin.de
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 11:51:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.143550.14789@bnr.ca> pmarko@bnr.ca (Peter Marko)  
writes:
> After 15 games, this is how they measure up...
> 
> Assuming that the initial estimates (Re) are correct, Fischer would
> currently be number 8 in the world (and Spassky tied for the 20th
> place).
> 
>           Re   Pe    G  W  L  D   S   Pa    Rp    Rn
> 
> Fischer  2700  64%  15  5  3  7  8.5  57%  2647  2675
> Spassky  2600  36%  15  3  5  7  6.5  43%  2653  2625
> 
> Re  Estimated rating before the match
> Pe  Expected performance
> G   Games played
> W   Wins
> L   Losses
> D   Draws
> S   Score
> Pa  Actual performance
> Rp  Performance rating
> Rn  New rating (rounded average of Re and Rp)
> 
> 

Oh, please drop this rating stuff. Performance rating is nearly
meaningless. Why is Spasski's performance rating higher then
Fischer's, although Fischer has won more games.

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

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Krause               Technische Universitaet Berlin
                            Fachbereich Mathematik
		            Funktionalanalysis/Numerische Mathematik

E-mail : krause@math.tu-berlin.de
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Standardized Notations for Xiangqi
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:10:43 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Sep29.045938.7057@nuscc.nus.sg> engp2063@nusunix1.nus.sg (NG CHEE MUN SIDNEY) writes:
>
>Notation       Full            Han-yu-pinyin
>    C         Cannon               Pao
>    H         Horse                Ma
>    A         Assistant            Si
>    R         Rook/Chariot         Ju
>    G         General              Jiang
>    E         Elephant             Xiang
>    S         Soldier              Bing
>
>    +        Moving a piece forward   
>    -        Moving a piece backward
>    =        Moving a piece along the horizontal

most chess players will see the word "CHARGES" vertically, of course!

- nate :-)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: Youngest GM/IGM?
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:30:36 GMT

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

|> >Last night, my trivia team and I [*] were poised to win, and the
|> >critical question was about chess.  A collective team sigh was
|> >released, since yours truly is considered (by them) to be very
|> >knowledgable on this subject.  Anyway, the question was:  "In
|> >1970 he became the youngest person to attain the title of
|> >International Grandmaster."  Multiple choice answers were Karpov,
|> >Fischer, Kasparov, Spassky and one other.
|> >
|> >Now I know that Fischer was the youngest GM.  This was recently
|> >discussed in this very newsgroup when we were all wondering
|> >if Judit Polgar would break that record.  So, brimming with
|> >confidence, I confidently chose Fischer.
|> 
|> 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.

  Nope. Judit was the youngest. Younger than Bobby by at least a month.
 
|> But the source of this 1970 business: on the eve of the
|> Karpov-Korchnoi match in Milan, the New York Times Sunday Magazine had
|> a profile of Karpov in which it stated he was the youngest GM ever (I
|> was very upset by this error at the time!).  I think he became a GM in
|> 1970, and I conjecture that whoever wrote that trivia question read
|> that NYT article.  Or maybe I have the order of precedence reversed.

  Yes - the year seems to point to Karpov as the answer they were looking for -
 which made it the 'best' answer although it was factually incorrect!


|> 
|> In any case, the question is definitely wrong.

  Indeed! But so was his answer! ;-)

-Ron
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Polgar query
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:10:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsbcsl.5783


To my knowledge the middle Polgar sister (Sofia) has one GM result --
based on an icredible result when she was 13.  Since then she has not
come close to another GM result.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,comp.text.tex
From: kees@cv.ruu.nl (Kees de Graaf)
Subject: problem with latex chess macros (again)
Summary: problem with \footnote
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:30:21 GMT
Organization: University of Utrecht, 3D Computer Vision Research Group
Keywords: latex,chess

A week ago I posted:

| I've used with great satisfaction Tutelaer's chess macros for
| typesetting articles containing chess notation. Now I'm facing
| a problem with using the chess environment (that's a piece of
| text encompassed within a |...| pair, similar to $...$ for math)
| in a footnote. Here is an example portion of a document:
| 
| Black played |5 ... Be7|, heading towards the Marshall
| Gambit\footnote{The Marshall Gambit -- or Attack -- arises
| from this position after |6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0 8 c3 d5!?|}.
| 
| The first |...| string, within the main text, gives a nice
| figurine for the bisshop (very nice indeed, Piet!), however
| the |...| string in the footnote just produces boring characters
| R and B.
| Does it have to do with the "fragile" concept (which I've always
| failed to comprehend)? I tried inserting the \protect directive
| here and there without success.
| Any help will be highly appreciated. If appropriate I'll post
| the solution.

As a response I received a couple of mails like "Hey, I didn't
know you can typeset chess docs with latex - where can I get this
stuff".
Well, you can anon ftp these macros from archive.cs.ruu.nl
[131.211.80.5], directory tex/chess12, as is also mentioned in
the FAQ of rec.games.chess.

Unfortunately, nobody addressed my actual problem. Is there a
kind soul out there that can help me? Thnx in advance.

-- Kees de Graaf, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, kees@cv.ruu.nl
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:28:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.025752.12554@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>(Renato Ghica) writes:
>>There are a finite number of game positions, (even when considering
>>promotions, en-passant, wether a king or a rook has moved), but...
>>game positions are not important, it's the sequence of moves leading up
>>to them that are. This is because given a chess position, one has
>>no way of precisely determining what sequence of moves will create
>>that position (indeed, there are an infinite sequence of moves
>>that will create a position if there are no such things as the 50
>>move rule). 
>
>In a previous posting I rejected this argument because of the
>apparent equivalence of positions that contained the same state
>information (player to move, available moves of the pieces, etc.).
>Chuck Carroll has since convinced me that my objection is flawed.
>In fact, it would seem that there are indeed an infinite number of
>possible values for the finite number of chess positions.  As such,
>the game is unsolvable.
>
>I find this astonishing.
>

I find it laughable.  Chess always has been, is, and always will be
solvable.  Regardless of how stupid you expect my opponent to be, I am
an intelligent person and will play with the following rules, using the
"perfect analysis" that the hypothetical chess solver provides:

1.  If I can make a move that wins from my position, I will.

2.  If not, and I can make a move that draws, I will.

3.  If not, I will play a move that loses since I have no other
choices.

4.  If I repeat a position for the third time, I *will* claim the draw
as I will know that my opponent has this "perfect" analysis to use and he
will be able to continue repeating this position hoping that I make a
mistake.  

It is completely stupid to believe that someone will play on for days or
weeks, hoping that the opponent will finally blunder after repeating the
*same* position for 300 times.  Give me a break......

Bob Hyatt

BTW, the original point has been beaten enough already.  It's time to stop
the rediculous scenarios and go back to other more useful discussions.  Just
because the rules don't mandate a draw when the drawing criteria has been met
(50 move rule will eliminate the infinite cycles easily, even if you ignore
three-fold repetition) does not mean that the game is infinite.  It will only
be infinite if both players are idiots.


-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
From: jk@cs.man.ac.uk (John Kewley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Standardized Notations for Xiangqi
Date: 30 Sep 92 10:40:58 GMT
Reply-To: John Kewley: jk@fiveg.icl.co.uk or jk@cs.man.ac.uk
Organization: ICL Computers Limited, EDS Project
To: mucs!uknet!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.Vanderbilt.Edu!news

Why not use * instead for drops, this is used in all Shogi documentation that
I have seen.
--
        John M Kewley
 
ICL Computers Limited, Wenlock Way, West Gorton, Manchester. M12 5DR
Tel: (+44) 61 223 1301 X2138  Email: jk@fiveg.icl.co.uk or jk@cs.man.ac.uk
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:8282 sci.math:12397
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,sci.math
Subject: Re: A different variant of chess RECORD!
From: wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 10:43:34 GMT
 <CONVERSE.92Sep27001834@sloth.uchicago.edu> <1992Sep28.212539.20447@wdl.loral.com> <1992Sep28.214906.15925@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury
Keywords: infinite board chess

Well a number of people have posted their opinions as to the minimum sets
of pieces that might mate a lone king on an infinite board.

What poor efforts !

No long range pieces are needed at all. It can be done with K N N P P  !!

e.g.     . . N N .
         . . . . .
         . . . . .
         . . k . .
         . . P P .
         . . K . .  White (moving up) has just advanced the right pawn; mate !

Howbout that !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Bill Taylor              wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Doctors report that they have discovered a cure for apathy.
            However nobody has shown the slightest interest in it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess