HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:58:25 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec31.063627.18077@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> In article <1992Dec29.225755.726@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>
>>Ha ha ha! I bet Sven would approve wholehartedly if some Iraqi court were to
>>pass sentence on an Iraqi that moved here, but had not yet legally become a
>>U.S. citizen. According to Sven, they would still be under Iraqi law for the
>>two years it takes to become a U.S. citizen.
>>
> Three years of law school and you don't know how long it takes to become a US
> citizen? Shame on you!
> 
> 	Sven
> 	(who would be a US citizen if dmc's claims were right)
> 
> 

Two years if you marry someone.

But I suppose you will have to wait, as I doubt many American women are
offering.

Oh, I noticed you didn't address the issue raised in the post. (Just used your
usual tactic of trying to divert attention away from the butchering of your
'truths'.)

What about it Sven--should an Iraqi be under the laws of Iraq while he or she
is waiting to become a US citizen? If Saddam should make a law stating it is
illegal to buy US cigarettes, and the Iraqi person does, should they be forever
barred from entering their coutry again to, let's say, visit their family?

And, if that law governing the Iraqi citizen is unjust in your eyes, how do you
distinguish between that situation and what Bush has doen to Fischer?

Please Sven, enlighten us with your answer.

If you can.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: To (mostly) all; Sven especially.
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:04:05 GMT

I still don't think dmc knows how to play chess.  I think he and Sven should
have a match on the net, so we can all watch.  I would miss the brilliant and
compelling advocacy which we have all come to love, but I for one would be
willing to make that sacrifice.

Don't hold your breath, usenet.rec.games.chess readers.  Wasn't it Lasker who
said "Lies and hypocrisy don't survive on the chessboard?"

[By the way, there's nothing wrong with asking a question to which you don't
know the answer - it's asking a question where the answer can hurt you that
can be dangerous.  If you become a lawyer some day you'll learn all sorts of
interesting things - if you keep an open mind.  No charge for the advice.]

So who's going to be White?
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: A question for DMC
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:25:03 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <18767@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
> Worthless non-GM Ginsburg was referring to the first Kasparov-Karpov match,
> in which Kasparov deliberatedly played to draw when he was behind in order to
> exhaust his opponent.  (At least, that's Kasparov's story.  Fischer's view is
> the match was fixed anyway).
> 
> You also state:
> 
> "Reducing chess to math is to leave out 99% of the game".
> 
> While I have been involved in discussions on the net as to whether Fischer
> played poorly in some games or deliberately employed risky plans in order to
> try to win otherwise balanced positions (the (in)famous King walk in Game 8
> is the best example), I find this remark somewhat astounding.  It is doubly
> astounding considering that Fischer is one of the greatest seekers of "truth"
> on the chess board in history - he would never make a move which thought
> objectively inferior for psychological reasons, although he has made "risky"
> moves which he assessed as playable (rightly or wrongly) in order to try to
> win (taking the h Pawn in the first game of the 1972 match is a good
> example).

When I summed up my views on the game, I stated my views. Unlike others on this
board, I do not let outside opinions, even those of Fischer, dictate what I
will feel.

You or Fischer seek the 'truth' of chess. I seek the truth of conflict. My
opinion is that while the math of chess positions may be graphed, playing the
game against a human is always a crap shot. (admittedly, a good player has
loaded dice when playing a poorer player...)


> 
> So my question is simply whether you have played tournament chess and have a
> rating, or actually play chess at all.

I'll answer that if you can tell me what difference my tournament play matters
in the views I present. And, it must be a reasonably valid argument/view you
make.
  
					The view that there is little
> objective truth is chess is very unusual, and not knowing about the first K-K
> match has me wondering whether you play chess or are just discussing all this
> abstractly.

I did not in any way, shape, or form discuss the K-K matches when I was
referring to Fischer's playing to wear down his opponent. I find it difficult
to believe you do not know the histroy of the Fischer tournament way back
when...



> 
> If you don't wish to answer this question, that's fine, but please spare us a
> posting that this is avoiding some issue or another.

You've been spared...sort of.

DMC
From: sol.steinberg@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Sol Steinberg) 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: DEMO.QWK
Date: 19 Dec 92 11:50:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, (313)663-4173, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Reply-To: sol.steinberg@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Sol Steinberg) 

     Using Telix (Zmodem), I just d/l a DEMO.QWK packet from the Looking
Glass BBS, although I had 3 packets from your BBS in my subdirectory.
Although you both use DEMO.QWK, it was no problem. It just named the new
packet DEMO.QW2 and all packets are intact.
     This is in response to some previous posts on the subject in which
you said that one of you would have to register and change the name.
---
 * SLMR 2.0 * Hire the left-handed. It's fun to watch them write
 . Cam-Mail . The Chess Board BBS 803-236-7711 : Myrtle Beach, SC
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Harper vs. DMC
Date: 31 Dec 1992 14:35:47 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <1992Dec30.210659.744@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Dec30.224451.2878@progress.com>, disabito@progress.COM (Paul Disabito) writes:
|> > At any rate, it will be interesting to see if DMC accepts
|> > this offer. I'm just afraid that it will divert people's
|> > attention away from his original positions :-)
|> 
|> "...to see if DMC accepts this offer....?
|> 
|> Paul, DMC MADE this offer. Go back and read the times of the posts. I threw
|> down a rather spiked guantlet, and Mr. Harper is trying to get away...

Paul was obviously referring to the match on ICS which was NOT made by you.
It would be quite difficult for the rgc readers to see the match if it were
not on ICS.

By the way, your offer to Bruce is not exactly even since you get the luxury
of a plane flight either way (if you lose, you have to pay for your own
flight, though).  If Bruce wins, he gains nothing (unless you pay for some
flight of his to somewhere).  I do like the idea of the loser not posting to
the net for a year, though.

================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: To (mostly) all; Sven especially.
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:02:05 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3


No, man; the reason that people here don't like you is probably
very much akin to the reason people elsewhere don't like you:
you are rude, boorish, nasty, intolerant of the opinions of 
others, humorless, arrogant, smug, self-satisfied and 
loathsome.  
Little things like that.

Bill
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:49:01 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec23.134846.9584@iscsvax.uni.edu>, wallingf@nova.cs.uni.edu ( Eugene Wallingford ) writes:
>      First, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu offers:
> 
>>>>Oh sorry, next time unless it is posting of a game record, I'll route it
>>>>through you for you approval.
> 
>      And then, when the offer is accepted, he replies:

As only a moron, and no reasonable person, would have believed that was a
genuine offer, there was no offer. If no offer is issued there can be no
aacceptnace (you need to brush up on your contract law.)

I apologize for confusing you.

> 
>>Eugene, if you do not how to operate your killfile, contact your computer
>>services people. It really is not that hard.
> 
>      Really?  Thank you so much.  If you took as much time to answer
>      your e-mail (containing serious responses) as you did fiddling
>      around with ad hominem stuff, much of this traffic would be off-
>      line, among the folks who care.  

The trouble with e-mail is that you wind up repeating way to much. Twenty
people all asking the same questions...

Further, you must appreciate that my ad hominem attacks are never the first
puch, but always a counter-punch. (As Johnny Carson said "He who give it, get
it.") If you do not like my ad hominem blows, stop issuing them yourself. (And,
get everyone else to stop as well. Yeah, I know, fat chance.)


					But of course, obfuscatory
>      avoidance of arguments works much better over an unfocused and
>      wider channel.

Ah, this what a psychologist would call sublimation and transference.

You are trying to pin YOUR avoidance of my sole debate point on this thread:

-----------------------Debate issue begins

The GMs (Benjamin included) have given little proof to their claim that Fisher
is not as good as he used to be. That coupled with their admitted bias against
Fischer, renders their claims under-substantiated. I call for more.

-----------------------Debate issue ends

Now, just for you, since you seem to have great difficulty understanding what
that means, you may e-mail me, and I will explain what all of that means. I
will be most patient, as it appears that the last two weeks, when I have stated
that at least once a day, flew right by you. You, like many others, seem to
either:

1. Be unable to understand that.
2. Be unwilling to keep it at that.

Since the first one is merely human error, while the second is intentional,
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it is the first which
prevents you from writing on point here.

E-mail me, and I'll help clear this up for you.
  

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:01:19 GMT

In article <BzMF1E.L9o@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>In article 5444@midway.uchicago.edu, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>>
>>Nonsense. Fischer wasn't indicted for playing chess, but for doing business.
>
>I'm not going to bother pointing out how ridiculous this is.
>(Hmmm...guess I just did.)  What makes it all the more ridiuclous is
>that it's true.
>

Unless you explain WHY it is `ridiculous', I must point out that your comment
is precisely such.

	Sven
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: MAYBE BUSH WILL PARDON FISCHER TOO!
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:04:35 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <19006@mindlink.bc.ca>, Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen) writes:
>> NEIL REGAN writes:
>>
>> Msg-ID: <1992Dec29.080217.1205@netcom.com>
>> Posted: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 08:02:1
>>
>> Org.  : Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
>>
>> IT SEEM RIDICULOUS THAT BUSH CAN PARDON WEINBERGER,YET OVERLOOK
>> BOBBY FISCHER AS A CANDIDATE FOR A PARDON.  IT SEEMS EVERY 4
>> YEARS ALL THE CROOKS IN THE ADMINISTRATION GET OFF FOR FREE
>> WITH A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON WITH THE CHANGING OF THE GUARD!
>> IF SO  WHY NOT  INCLUDE  BAD BOY  BOBBY?!
>>
>>                       NEIL
>>
> 
> President Bush followed the "discussions" on this net every day. He based his
> decision to exclude Bobby Fischer on the well informed contributions by our
> most frequent writers.
> Peter
> --
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>    Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 

Oh Peter! A joke! FINALLY you contribute SOMETHING to the debate. Good job.
From: lumme@sara.cc.utu.fi (Mikael Lumme)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Users vs MChess
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:08:00 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland

In the game Users vs MChess the move of
MChess move is 39. - Qg7

>Ben Sloss    39.  Qg4+ Qg7   739,600,000 nodes.     Eval -0.17
>Brad Culter  39.  Qg4+ Qg7   367,500,000 positions. Eval 0.00.

If you want to be in on the vote for the next move,
send your suggestion (along with any comments 
that you may have) to me.  On Wednesday, I will 
send copies of everyone's  suggestions and comments 
to everyone on the participants list.  

If you want to receive the discussion notes without
making a vote just let me know.

If you are participating for the first time in game #2,
Please include some indication of your chess playing strength.

 Game #2 so far:      1 e4   e5   13 OOO  Na6   25 Rxf8+ Kxf8  37 Qc4  Qf6
                      2 f4   ef   14 Nd4  Ng3   26 Qc2   Kg8   38 Re2  Rf7
 8 - - - - - b k -    3 Nf3  d6   15 Bb5  Qe5   27 Qf5   g3    39 Qg4+ Qg7
 7 - - p - - r q p    4 d4   g5   16 Rhe1 Nc5   28 Qd7   b5
 6 p - - p - - - -    5 h4   g4   17 Nb3  Nxb3  29 a3    b4
 5 - - - P - - - -    6 Ng1  f5   18 cb   a6    30 axb4  Qe7
 4 - P - - - - Q P    7 Bxf4 fe   19 Bd3  Bf5   31 Qg4   Qe3
 3 - P N - - - p -    8 Nc3  Nf6  20 Bb1  Rae8  32 Qd7   Re7
 2 - P K - R - P -    9 d5   Bg7  21 Bf4  e3    33 Qc8+  Bf8
 1 - - - - - - - -   10 Nge2 O-O  22 Bxe3 Bxb1  34 Kc2   Qf2+
   a b c d e f g h   11 Qd2  Nh5  23 Kxb1 Nf1   35 Rd2   Qf1
                     12 Bg5  Qe8  24 Rxf1 Qxe3  36 Qg4+  Rg7
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:53:37 GMT

In article 5444@midway.uchicago.edu, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>
>Nonsense. Fischer wasn't indicted for playing chess, but for doing business.

I'm not going to bother pointing out how ridiculous this is.
(Hmmm...guess I just did.)  What makes it all the more ridiuclous is
that it's true.

ObChess: 1. e4

gak

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------|
Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| Did ye spill wor pint?!?
ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--|
Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------|
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: 928s4@leland.Stanford.EDU (Benjamin Sloss)
Subject: Re: MChess Pro vs. ChessMachine
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 17:06:21 GMT

uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes:
>ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (R.Stephan) writes:
>>   One CM win in one game is by no means a "defeat".  Here you see 30 games.
>>   And more coming...
>
>OK, perhaps the tourney can be declared invalid, but in fact MChess Pro
>and the chessmachine only met in 1 game, and in that game the result
>was decisive, The Chessmachine won the game outright.  The fact
>is, if they had met 30 times, perhaps MChess pro would have won,
>but IN MADRID THEY ONLY MET ONCE, and MChess Pro LOST THE GAME.

  Statistically speaking, it is irrelevant whether MChess or ChessMachine
won the Madrid game.  Even with a rating difference of 100 points, the
weaker player is expected to win a substantial percentage of the games, so
you cannot begin to estimate the strength of the two programs from a single
data point.  In reality, MChess Pro (50 mhz) and ChessMachine (30mhz) are 
probably within 30 points of each other.  

  MChess's excellent result in the 30-game match is very impressive, but
computer-computer tests tend to exaggerate the rating difference between the
machines by roughly a factor of 2.  Applying this standard contraction 
gives MChess-Pro a 2475-2500 rating on a 486/50, which is probably
an an accurate picture of its strength.

-- 
Ben Sloss        Email: ben@osc.versant.com   Work: (415) 329-7500 x172
Quote:          "It's all fun and games until someone gets paid."
Transportation: '83 CB650SC (straight roads) '93 CBR 900RR   (twisty roads)
		'91 XR 250L (dirty    roads) '87 Mustang 5.0 (wet    roads)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:26:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.104922.684@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.050119.13835@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>> In article <BzMF1E.L9o@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>>>In article 5444@midway.uchicago.edu, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense. Fischer wasn't indicted for playing chess, but for doing business.
>>>
>>>I'm not going to bother pointing out how ridiculous this is.
>>>(Hmmm...guess I just did.)  What makes it all the more ridiuclous is
>>>that it's true.
>>>
>> 
>> Unless you explain WHY it is `ridiculous', I must point out that your comment
>> is precisely such.
>> 
>> 	Sven
>> 
>
>Let me help.
>
>It is 'ridiculous' because it is a limit on one's work/art/love. Christ.

Gee. Let's say I smuggle cocaine for living. Or run a teen brothel. And then 
some government pops up and limits my work! How ridiculous!

Or say my art is making child pornography movies. And I am the best in the
world at that. Until some ridiculous FBI clowns lock me up, limiting my art.

Or I love this actress so much that in order to show her my love I shoot the
President. And instead of praising my love, this ridiculous judge limits it,
putting me in a madhouse...

Yeah, limits on one's work/art/love are sooo ridiculous!

>If an American were to write a book of poems entitled--
>
>"Suffering of the Serbs" (or whatever ethnic group you fill in) and sold
>copies of it outside of the FS match, would the State department be calling
>for blood? 

No, unless the publisher is Serbian. (I assume `calling for blood' was a figure
of speech...)

>Tell us Sven, would you be as in favor of locking them up?

Whom? The State Department?  ;-)

>
>And, if not, please explain how what that person did would be any different
>than what Fischer did.

No business with Serbia. I rest my case.

	Sven
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: This Week In Chess History
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:34:28 GMT
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.unl.edu


                     THIS WEEK IN CHESS HISTORY
                         January 7-13, 1993

January 7
1889 - Hans Johner born
1916 - Paul Keres born

January 8
1914 - Herman Pilnik born
1931 - Nikolai Minev born
1947 - Igor Ivanov born
1949 - George Botterill born
1981 - Alexander Kotov died

January 9
1884 - Daniel Harrwitz died

January 10
1870 - Henri Rinck born
1949 - Walter Browne born
1952 - Oleg Romanishin born

January 11
1933 - Ervin Haag born
1941 - Emanuel Lasker died
1958 - Shaun Taulbut born

January 12
1920 - Simon Winawer died
1944 - Vlastimil Hort born

January 13
1882 - Samuel Boden died
1977 - Anthony Santasiere died

Copyright 1993 Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved




Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@willis.cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: US Invitational (final bulletin)
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:40:41 GMT

Many thanks to Elliott Winslow for posting timely bulletins on the US
Invitational Championships.  I have collected them all, done minor
editing, and placed the compilation where it can be fetched via anonymous
FTP.  

Host: willis.cis.uab.edu

File: pub/sloan/USIC92.Z

This is a compressed (UNIX compress) text file.  Remember to set 'bin'
when you fetch it.  The compressed version is 37074 bytes long.  The
uncompressed compilation is 81511 bytes long.  Enjoy!

Again - thanks Elliott!
-- 
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: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Harper vs. DMC
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:06:59 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec30.224451.2878@progress.com>, disabito@progress.COM (Paul Disabito) writes:
> I'd love to witness this game. It should be a classic.
> 
> Frankly, I'd like to see DMC lose. He is, after all, a
> self-confessed arrogant lawyer wannabe.
> 
> But, in all fairness, his losing would not mean much. 
> A worthless non-GM like Bruce Harper is still a pretty
> tough opponent, no matter how worthless he is and no
> matter how pointless his life may be away from the
> chessboard. When a player loses to a master, it does
> not prove that the loser knows nothing about chess. In
> fact, I'm not sure it proves much of anything other than 
> the result. A match would be a better indicator, although
> losers can be very creative ("He's not better, he doesn't
> know more--he just got lucky").
> 
> At any rate, it will be interesting to see if DMC accepts
> this offer. I'm just afraid that it will divert people's
> attention away from his original positions :-)

"...to see if DMC accepts this offer....?

Paul, DMC MADE this offer. Go back and read the times of the posts. I threw
down a rather spiked guantlet, and Mr. Harper is trying to get away...

> 
> --Paul DiSabito
> 
>   
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Subject: Re: US Championship Results
Organization: UW Computing
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:18:38 GMT

In article <1h5gmgINNmsa@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin) writes:
>at tactics? 
>
>>His openings (scillian as black; d4, c4 or Nf3 as white) didn't seem
>>conservative to this fish, but how did they compare at least in diversity to
>>the other players?
>
>Sicilian?  I saw only the first few rounds, and he used the Caro-Kann.
>

Right you are!
(except for his round 10)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: broglia@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (marco broglia)
Subject: Bratko-Kopec Test
Organization: Computer Science Dep. - Milan University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:07:26 GMT


Is there anybody that has the opportunity to read

    "Advances in Computer Chess 3", 1982

and that would help me ? Okay, go to page 57-72 and check if the article is

    "The Bratko-Kopec Experiment: A Comparison of Human and
     Computer Performance"

written by Bratko and Kopec.
If so, can he send me a brief explanation about the method to compute
the score (for how many minutes the machines think ?) ?
In which way Bratko and Kopec determine the second (third, fourth)
choice (after how much time ?) ?

If I will have these infos, I'm able to test ~20 chess programs and post
later the results obtained.

Thanks.

Marco.

//
// The road goes ever on and on. - Bilbo Baggins
//
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess