HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jas@src.umd.edu (Jon A. Sjogren)
Subject: Re: S for solvability
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:24:44 GMT

From Mailer-Daemon@src.umd.edu Sat Oct  3 10:03:31 1992
Received: from ampere.src.umd.edu 
	by silserv.src.umd.edu (4.1/UMDSRC-0.2/08-10-91)
	id AA22902; Sat, 3 Oct 92 10:03:30 EDT
Received: by ampere.src.umd.edu (4.1/UMDSRC-0.2/08-10-91)
	id AA10367; Sat, 3 Oct 92 10:01:21 EDT
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 10:01:21 EDT
From: Mailer-Daemon@src.umd.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
Message-Id: <9210031401.AA10367@ampere.src.umd.edu>
To: jas@src.umd.edu
Status: R

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
421 Host .engr.trinity.edu not found for mailer ether.
550 peter@.engr.trinity.edu... Host unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by ampere.src.umd.edu (4.1/UMDSRC-0.2/08-10-91)
	id AA10365; Sat, 3 Oct 92 10:01:21 EDT
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 10:01:21 EDT
From: jas (Jon A. Sjogren)
Message-Id: <9210031401.AA10365@ampere.src.umd.edu>
To: peter@.engr.trinity.edu
Subject: Anti-Chess
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math,rec.games.chess
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

The variation of "Anti-Chess" I am familiar with (also called
"Give-Away"), has the same rules you mention except:  the King is
a piece like any other, and can be given away.  The game
continues until one side *has no legal move*.  That side is the
winner.

This is a very useful game, especially for teaching novices
about chess.  It is less confusing since the choices for a move
are more limited (like in checkers), and a good way to teach how
the pieces move.  Also it is a more *stable* game (see below) so
a game between a chess expert and a novice is a much more even
match at Give-Away.

By "stable" I refer to the fact that, in general, winning
material at chess helps win more material, and the opponent is
soon caught in a material landslide and mated (in a game between
experts, resignation occurs earlier).  Thus an advantage of a
Pawn, or certain subtle postitional features (in games played at
a high level) cascade into victory along time honored patterns
(involving calculations that are often only 2 or three moves
deep:  this could be called "technique").  So chess is
*Unstable* ... a slight perturbation leads to a decisive
advantage.

On the other had, in Give-Away, if you are "behind" (your
opponent has got you to capture more material)... you have more
material with which to influence the course of the game, and in
particular, **more material to give away**, so there is a
tendency toward *parity* of material.  Sequences of forced moves
and combinations tend to be quite long, and there doesn't seem
to be a *positional* theory per se.

			lundin (x. tigran)







Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
Subject: F-S Match, ratio wins/draws. WHY?
Organization: UIUC SCS
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:41:42 GMT

I'm a total chess moron, with a rating of 0 (i.e. I never managed to
avoid losing, even to babies).


But looking at this F-S matchm compared the last couple of world
chatmpionship matches, there seems to be a very high ratios of wins/draws.


WHY?

Doug McDonald
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 15 moves 1-7
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 4 Oct 92 13:12:06 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department



Fischer plays 1.c4!

As of 16:45 GMT
   Fischer Spassky
   (White) (Black)
   1. c4 e6
   2. Nf3 Nf6
   3. g3 d5
   4. Bg2 Be7
   5. 0-0 O-O
   6. d4 Nbd7
   7. Nbd2 b6
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Strategy or Tactics?
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:14:07 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I hope nothing I else is quoted from Northwest Chess magazines that are over
10 years old!
From: ljs4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (LEE J. STANLEY)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S Match, ratio wins/draws. WHY?
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:18:16 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Does anyone think the no-adjournment/Fischer clock format might be a factor
in the high frequency of decisive games?  Exhaustion, loss of concentration,
etc.?  This could also be a *partial* explanation of the many blunders (though
not of those which occur early on, of course).

Best,

L.
-- 



Lee J. Stanley                     E-Mail:  LJS4@LEHIGH.EDU
Department of Mathematics
14 Lehigh University
Christmas-Saucon Hall
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Kasparov Dec 1993?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:20:44 GMT

In article <8enSq6a00awQQ2vEli@andrew.cmu.edu> "Clifford T. Tanaka" <ct20+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>I got the impression at the start of the match that Fischer had no
>intention of playing Kasparov when he called Kasparov one of the lowest
>dogs or something like that and insisted that he was still the champ.  I
>assume the match between Fischer and Kasparov if it were to take place
>would have to be called a world championship match, but who would be the
>challenger and who would be the champion??  There might be some problems
>in arranging the match since both players insist he is the champion.

To which the proper response to both of them would be...PROVE IT.

Gerald
From: skumar@cs.arizona.edu (Shailesh Kumar)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Ratings of top players
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:07:39 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

Could somebody post the current ratings of the top chess players.

Thanx,
-aks
From: Robert_Ryan@brown.edu (Rob Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chessmaster 3000 features??
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:02:32 EDT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <1992Sep29.193115.3461@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jpgraham@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John P Graham) said:

>Can anyone tell me how CM3000 is supposed to estimate
>ratings for its opponent? Is this based on a series of
>stored positions (as in chessplayer 2150) or based on
>actual games played against the program.. if based on
>games .. just one game or a series of games?

ChessMaster 3000 estimates ratings by presenting you with a series of
puzzles (10, I think).  You are asked for the best move.  You are given
3 tries, receiving full credit if you get it the first time, half credit
if you get it the second try, and 1/3 credit if you get it on the third
try (or something like that).  This system is similar to articles that
I've encountered in Chess Life that help you rate yourself.  Unfortunately,
I got radically different result between my ChessMaster results and the
Chess Life results (Chess Life said I was 1800-2000 and ChessMaster said
I was 1500).  So, I'm not convinced of the effectiveness of the method.

>Also how effective are the 'different personalities'
>claimed by the CM3000 people??

They are very good.  I don't know about how Morphy-esque the Morphy player
is, or whatever, but I do know that you can definitely see the results.  For
example, I find that the default ChessMaster puts too much emphasis on
material and by shifting it more towards positional play, this is lessened.
The different personalities (and the ability to modify them yourselves) is,
IMHO, excellent.  I just don't know how realistic they are when they identify
a particular profile with an actual (or former) grandmaster.

-- Rob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rob Ryan, internet:   Robert_Ryan@brown.edu or robr@brownvm.brown.edu
           bitnet:     ROBR@BROWNVM
           Compu$erve: 70324,227
 Brown University, Providence, RI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: F-S II Ratings
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:28:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.145604.25574@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>
>I find it amusing that it is the *critics* of these calculations who
>appear to believe that the numbers are intended to be carved in stone.
>The folks offerring them up don't think so, and haven't claimed so.  

Funny that you would say so. When I pointed out that, with proper treatment
of errors (uncertainties), the results of your calculations contain no
information, as according to them Fischer might be #1 in the world as well as
not be among first 100+, you were trying to prove me wrong.

(If it was not you *personally*, sorry. But you are talking for *all* the
folks who post these performance ratings, so I am talking to all of you, too.)


>All we've done is make our assumptions *concrete* and examined the
>implications of those assumptions.  If you disagree with the
>assumptions, then make your own (but be sure to examine the implications
>- reality checks are useful).

I have showed that performance rating based on one match, where only one  
player's previous rating is well-defined, is useless. Thus it wouldn't help
to start from different assumptions.

>  If you simply think that ratings are
>silly,

Not ratings in general, but this kind of 'ratings', certainly.

> then go and read the (un)solvability thread, instead.

I've been doing that all the time. And it is *much* more sensible than this.


	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: Chess is not solvable
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:02:08 GMT

In article <Bv3t3K.2yF.1@cs.cmu.edu> jam+@cs.cmu.edu (Joe Mattis) writes:
>Keep doing these cycles until an entire cycle is performed during which
>no new evaluations were determined.  The remaining unevaluated positions
>represent positions where, due to repetition or lack of material, neither
>side can force checkmate or stalemate.  Evaluate all such positions as:
>        Neither side can force checkmate or stalemate:  0

You have to make an assumption in order to assign this a value.  The
method you are using is searching for "best play" by looking for
the best possible value for downstream (one ply hence) positions.
When that turns out to depend upon the value of the node itself
you are ARBITRARILY assigning the value zero.  This does not 
consistitute a proof that the best play leads to a value of
+1, 0. or -1 for the initial position.

Consider the following trivial graph tree.  It has two nodes
A and B.  B is a final position and has value zero.  The linkages
are two arcs.  The first goes from A to B.  The second goes from 
A to A.  So, what value do we give to node A?  It should have the best
of the two possibilities (A or B).  We know B is zero, but we
don't know A.  According to your argument, we must assign
the value zero, because there can be no other outcome.  I think
this is using an additional assumption.

(Note that when A is life and B is death, we find a way to choose
life -- and are comfortable with the evaluation that it is better
than death.)

Anyway, I'm awaiting a proof.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pope@walnut.kpc.com (John Pope)
Subject: Re: F-S II game 12 Spassky wins - moves
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:08:40 GMT

Egad. A total wipe-out...

15...c5 must be a mistake, but black already looks worse by then.
Spassky's plan of omitting 8.Qd2 in favor of quick development is very
interesting (don't have my database handy right now, so I'm not sure
if this is brand new or not). It was somewhat surprising that Fischer
played on so long a full piece down - maybe Spassky was in time
pressure...


--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gzogbi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi)
Subject: Re: Solvability
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:29:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.193013.4359@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.o
hio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>     What do you think, George?  Is chess solvable?

Gee, I dunno...maybe.  Well, what do you think?
From: kvdoel@cs.ubc.ca (Kees van den Doel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Please stop
Date: 30 Sep 1992 21:22:35 -0700
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca

In article <1992Sep30.233850.25643@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>...
>It is not possible, even in principle, to travel at the speed of light.
>It is possible, however, to solve chess, at least in principle.
>...
>	Sven

That is a *very* bad analogy. It is *logically* impossible that
chess is not solvable but the impossibility of traveling at
the speed of light (for a massive object) is a consequence of
Lorentz's special theory of relativity, which is only an
hypothesis. In fact in Hilberts general theory of relativity
superluminal transport is possible.

--Kees
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:8350 sci.math:12484
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 18:04:21 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,sci.math
Subject: Re: A different variant of chess (infinite board)
 <BvBE5D.KrA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1992Sep29.104211.6272@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
 <BvCznn.4u4@news.orst.edu>

someone said, with regards to infinite chess, "wouldn't kq v. kr be drawn
in almost all cases?" or some such.

the word "almost" there interests me.  are you proposing that there is some
position that kq v. kr is NOT drawn? if so, please tell what position that
would be.

there are always eight squares around the black king.  the white queen
controls at most five of them, and in order for the black king to NOT be able
to take the white queen, the only other of the eight which the white king
controls is the white queen's square.  this leaves two escape squares for
the black king.  the black rook may occupy one, but there is always the
other.
From: gpylant@admin1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: RE: (morphy better) Natural Ability vs. hard work
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:52:37 -0600
Distribution: na
Organization: Memphis State University

> |> I once read an interview with Russell Potter, a teacher from Virginia
> |> rated around 2300. He said that anyone with average intelligence can
> |> become an Expert!
   Perhaps, but having good players to both play and  study with is more
of an advantage.   I have know several players with great natural abilities,
but no ummppph!!! or drive to improve.  On the other hand, there are players
with this drive and they do go far.  The biggest factor that propelled me
to Expert was dissatisfactional motivation.   I  slipped to 1919 after
playing in the North American Open last January  in Las Vegas.  In June
at the National Open I decided to play in the Open section and did a lot better
with a 3:3 score that jumped me to 1967.  A year ago I was 2055 and I had hopes
of breaking 2100, but I got my butt kicked by a few 1900s and dropped under 
2000.  Swiss systems are notorious for wearing you out, especially if you
play 3 games in one day.

> 
> 

>   Sure - teachers say stuff like that all the time. It's good for generating
> students! How many D players with average natural ability would keep up taking
> lessons if they thought they didn't have a chance to get beyond B strength! 
>

   I know a Senior Master ( I wont mention his name) that jumped from A to 
master  in 2 years by reading the RHM book on Tal seven times cover to cover.
Now that is very convincing that work and pure will do help.
 
> I think that natural ability in chess is like pitching is to baseball - 80% - 
> may depend on it. So, a player with average natural ability probably 
> couldn't even make the A class! Of course, this is just conjecture, but it's 
> every bit as reasonable as stating that any average person can become an expert!
> That I just don't believe.
>

  No! I was told in High School that I had an average IQ and I made it there,
but maybe that is why I keep jumping from A to Expert and back again!
Every time I put away all my Informants and ECO's my rating jumps.  I
think Botvinnik once said that it is good to take  short vacations from chess
to make one play with more vigor.

--- Gary Pylant
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,sci.math
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: A different variant of chess
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:57:53 GMT

In article <CONVERSE.92Sep27001834@sloth.uchicago.edu> converse@cs.uchicago.edu (timoshenko) writes:
>In article <1992Sep21.152035.12341@newstand.syr.edu> hgraber@lynx.cat.syr.edu (Harry Graber) writes:
>
>	The simultaneous-move variant of chess discussed here reminds
>me of another variant that occurred to me a while ago:  "open-field"
>chess, or chess on an infinite board.  Here, the pieces would start in
>the usual configuration, and moves would be made as usual, except that
>rather than being 8x8, the board would extend infinitely in all
>directions.   
>
>	The "limited-distance" pieces (kings, knights, pawns) would
>move in exactly the same way, while there are two alternatives you can
>imagine for the other pieces (queens, bishops, rooks):  they could
>move bounded number of squares (8?) in their permitted directions on
>each move, or they could move an _arbitrary_ number of squares on 
>each move.  The latter version is probably more interesting, although
>I'm not at all sure that either one would be a fun game to play. :-)
>	
>	There are a number of problems with this game, both in rules
>(queening pawns? repeated-position stalemates?), and in interest of the game
>(pawns, for example, would probably become very unimportant).
>
Interesting idea.  I think you need more rules.  Otherwise it is very drawish.
K+B+N, K+B+B, K+R, and K+Q v. K are all draws.  You need at least K+R+R to con-
struct a mating position, and that might not be forcable.  (One rook simulates
the edge of the board to get the standard K+R v. R, right?  Except the king
has infinity to run sideways to.  I don't know if opposition can be forced.)
An ordinary chess can be decided by a single pawn, and most certainly by a
piece.  How competitive is a game where a queen isn't decisive?


>	--tim
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tim Converse  U. of Chicago CS Dept.  converse@cs.uchicago.edu  (312) 702-8584


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: F-S Match, ratio wins/draws. WHY?
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:52:51 GMT

In article <15884@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
|> A good question.  I think there are two possible answers:
|> 
|> 1. The format of ten wins being required (draws not counting) means that
|> treading water by playing for draws is unlikely to produce results.
|> 
|> 2. The match is not being played at a particularly high level, so blunders
|> are occurring on both sides.
|> 
|> Amplifying point 2, Spassky's health might have cost him a few games (I bet
|> he's feeling better now!), while Fischer's rust might have done the same for
|> him.
|> 
|> It's possible to add:
|> 
|> 3. If you get over $1.5 m if you lose, it makes it a bit easier to take
|> chances.
|> 
|> All in all, I think 2 is the answer, but 1 plays a part too - I doubt if
|> either player wants to risk wearing down the other.  Age plays a part in
|> this.

	I suggest:

	4). No adjournment analysis by teams of seconds.

	Having to play a position out may favour the stronger side
	in a technically drawn endgame.  Admittedly, some hard to win
	endgames may only be drawn in play though the win would easily
	be found in adjournment (game 2?) but I suspect that on the
	whole lack of adjournment analysis will lead to more decisive
	games.  My personal experience is that adjournment has
	earned me a few draws I otherwise would not have had, but
	no wins.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The weenieness around here
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:58:08 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

It is rather amazing - I would have thought the person who claimed that most
people can't become experts was wrong, but now I'm not so sure.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Mon,  5 Oct 1992 20:51:46 -0400 
From: Jeff Sokolov <sokolov+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Articles on computer chess


I am looking for a recent article reviewing computer chess programs,
especially anything comparing human and computer chess players.
Although I will settle for a review of some techniques used by
the current generation of computer programs.  Any pointers would
be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jeff (sokolov@andrew.cmu.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: F-S 
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:09:08 GMT

Looks like ol' Bob lost.

Onar.
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II Interview w/GM Szabo
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:59:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: pv7426.palane.718311572
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

An interesting interview. However, it seems that Szabo makes the error
of generalizing the results of early games to the entire match (e.g.,
Fischer's being down 2-1 means flaming defeat). By the same token,
Fischer's 5-2 lead did not mean that Spassky could not win another game.
Let the games be played and the results, taken in context, be discussed.
If there are any future implications, I'm content to wait for them.
In the meantime, I'm enjoying the match and eagerly awaiting Short-Timman.

Paul
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: wkg@csi.compuserve.com (Wilson Gibbins)
Subject: Re: Strategy or Tactics?
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:18:16 GMT

I know this is heresy, but I believe that most cases that chess players
will improve most rapidly by

  (1) Studying the aspects of chess they find most interesting, and
  (2) Choosing openings that allow them to play in a manner that they 
      enjoy (I assume that it would be related to what they studied-
      see (1) above).              

If you enjoy tactics and/or attacks, study Alehkine's games and play
openings like the Blackmar-Diemer and Marshall Gambit.  If you prefer
strategic games, study Botvinnik's games and play the French.  If
you find endgames interesting, then study endings, play openings that 
reach early endings (such as the exchange variation of the King's Indian 
defense), and watch your opponents squirm.

I know that a lot of people are thinking that this will result in
an incomplete understanding of chess.  But even people who try to
avoid sharp games or middlegames altogether will occasionally 
reach such positions.  The exchange variation of the KID can be avoided
(and your opponents will avoid it once they find out how strong your endings 
are and how weak the rest of your games is).  This approach allows people to
concentrate on one aspect of the game while slowly being exposed to others.
As a player improves his/her deficiencies become more evident, and
often those areas of the game which were neglected earlier become more
interesting.  When a tactical B player loses a "won" rook-and-pawn endgame 
to an A player, rook-and-pawn endgames suddenly become "interesting".
(I know they did for me <g>).

For the non-professional, chess should be fun.  Study what you enjoy...


Wilson Gibbins, a chronic 2100 player who was temporarily over 2200 for
a year or so.  Maybe I didn't study tactics enough.