HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Capablanca vs Rubinstein
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:09:17 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Oct14.061624.8531@cc.umontreal.ca>, abel@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Abel Yvon) writes:
> If we begin to talk about who has been the greatest chess player of all times,
> we will start a so long discussion that I fear it will never end (a little like
> the solvability of chess). The same about who has been the greatest chicken.
> But for the latter I have an idea: it was without any doubt Howard Staunton,
> who refused many times a match to Paul Morphy.
> But when we talk about the greatest of ALL TIMES, a recent and supposed very
> serious study based on life performances ranked:
> 
>                  - First: Kasparov (without any doubt, is that clear?)
>                  - Second: Karpov
>                  - Third: Bobby.
> 
> I remember that I was sad when I read that. But any reasonable chess player
> will have to recognize it. Gary is really strong. What can we do?

what can we do??? well, for one thing...NOT BELIEVE IT! 

i want to know who rated these guys...what criteria was used.

kind of interesting that these three also happen to be the last three
world champions. it amazes me that nobody from the last century...like
perhaps Morphy was in the top three.

lists like these are subjective and also prejudiced towards one's
favorite.

the thing i hate the most is when bozo's like some of the IM who have
been bashing bobby think their opinion is the last word on the subject.
far from it.

but for one thing i would like to ask anybody on the net the following
question...if ANYBODY such as kasparav, karpov, etc. sat down and
faced bobby in the late 60's and early 70's...do you REALLY think that
they would have stood a chance in hell???

i also suspect that when bobby comes completely up to speed he's going
to eat these jokers for breakfast and not break a sweat. (of course,
then he'll go into retirement again :-(  )


don wedding



> 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Subject: Schotch games wanted
Reply-To: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Organization: University of Limburg, Maastricht
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 20:54:06 GMT

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some Scotch games with the following variation:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5 8.c4 Qb4+

Any game would be welcome! I want to know some black plans in this
variation. Please reply by e-mail because I won't be able to read news
for about 10 days.

Thanks in advance,
Dennis Breuker
(breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:05:52 GMT

In article <92285.142055RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>there seems to be an attitude of "fischer's opponents get sick because
>fischer's incredible desire to win every game wears them out..."
>
>gimme a break.
>
>if i were to play fischer a bazillion games, yeah, he'd kick my butt every
>time without thinking, but i would not become physically ill because of it.
>
>
And you wouldn't expend any energy playing games you have resigned to lose.
I know a guy you quit chess after losing several pounds during a particularly
arduous match.  The physical aspect is real.  Whether it's Fischer.....

-T

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: fhapgood@world.std.com (Fred Hapgood)
Subject: Re: A question about chess copyright law...
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:20:38 GMT

You have the Court's decision _backwards_!  O'Connor, writing
for the majority, explicitly and specifically rejected the
claim that telephone-book type compilations have any valid
copyright claim.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
     <1992Oct8.123217.3463@gwinnett.COM>
     <1992Oct8.200139.15122@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:52:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.194431.13491@midway.uchicago.edu> Eric Schiller,
schiller@whorf writes:

  >Anand-Fischer would be more interesting. I think Anand would
  >be about a 5-3 favorite. But then I am conservative! <grin>
  >
  >More reasonable odds:
  >
  >Fischer-Damljanovic (reportedly next match), 25-1 Fischer,
  >	6-1 on a shutout?
  >
  >Fischer-Speelman or Fischer-Timman (3-2 against Fischer)
  >
  >Fischer-Karpov (4-1 against Fischer)
  >
  >Fischer-Seirawan (5-1 Fischer)
  >
  >Fischer-Kasparov (50-1 Kasparov)

Eric,

You should consider specifying the conditions of the above matches, as
the odds would be greatly dependant on them (i.e., length of match,
whether draws count, whether a tie is possible and the meaning of a tie,
etc.).

I would be interested to see a repost with the above, so I can do my
estimates in reply.

   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:25:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct13.132507.16333
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Novices aren't the only ones who don't resign. I was playing a Master
once when I was about 1750 USCF (so I wasn't a complete idiot), and I
got a big advantage early, started an attack, and after
simplification, I had a K,R and a few P's versus his lone K and few
P's, with no chance for pawn advances or any tricks.  But he played it
out until I mated him.  I was fairly miffed, so I retaliated by making
the game take as l...o...n...g... as possible.  No "shortest win for
White" considerations that time.  It was embarrassing for him to sit
there while his Master friends watched him losing in this horrible
position to such a patzer.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138            
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Subject: Re: Grandmastet award(was RE: kings gambit)
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:34:00 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <1992Oct7.083535.1@pa881a.inland.com> nason@pa881a.inland.com writes:

> In article <BvMxwo.3LJ@world.std.com>, ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow) writes:
> > Not to be overly critical of what might just be a typo, but Joe Gallagher is
> > something like 2150 last time I looked, which was a few days ago.
> > 
> > Another case of Winslow possibly completely screwing up the data, but that
> > is what I remember.  Perhaps the author is thinking of the Gallagher from 
> > Europe?
> > 
> > --Elliott
> 
> I thought that once a grandmaster title is awarded, it is kept for life,
> regardless of rating.  I thought master was an achievement, but grandmaster was
> an award, once you got it, you got it.  With my understanding, calling this
> person a grandmaster would be correct even though his rating is only 2150,
> provided he was awarded the grandmaster title at some previous point in time.  
> 
> Someone straighten me out if I am wrong.
> 
> Thanks.
> -- 
> My opinions are my own and not those of my company.  
> Free advice is worth its cost.  
> --- John M. Nason - NA9U ---|--------------------------------------------|
> Inland Steel Company        |  -- nason@pa881a.inland.com                |
> Process Automation Dept.    |  -- Fax:   219-399-7856                    |
> 			    |  -- Voice: 219-399-2450                    |
> ----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|

Actually, the distinction is primarily between USCF and FIDE.
USCF titles:
Master:  Current rating 2200+
Sr. Master:  Current 2400+
Life Master:  300 games played at 2200+

Except for LM, these can be gained and then lost.

FIDE, OTOH, grants all its titles (FM, IM, GM) for life.

Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Mt. Juliet Capulets--Ultra Cricket
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: FS-18 (Analysis)
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:40:16 GMT

In article <Bw0vvG.L29.2@cs.cmu.edu> berliner+@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Hans  
Berliner) writes:
 The most dramatic move
> 30.-- Nd7!! in game 18 shows his defensive sharpness.  On the obvious
> 20. N:a6,Bb6+; 21. Kf1,Nd6!!; 22. N:d6,K:d6; 23. Nc5,N:c5 and black is
> slightly better.

Unless my scoresheet is wrong, 30...Nd7 31.Nxa6?? just drops a piece to
31...Bxa6.  And the numbering from move 20 defies logic.

What, exactly, are you talking about??

--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: BCO
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:06:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct12.190618.9949
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


The point of BCO is to provide a one-volume travelling companion, and also  
to provide a survey of modern opinion, so that a player can look an  
opening over before investing time and effort in learning it. Fine's Ideas  
behind the opening represents outmoded opinion, and pretty dogmatic stuff  
at that. I do not recommend it for beginners. Mike Basman wrote a good  
survey book.

But BCO is useful. In 1984 I had White against Pia Cramling, the female  
star who outpointed me by 200 rating points at the time. I knew that she  
would not "cooperate" with my favorite anti-Benoni system. I spent the  
morning before the game (civilized tournament, Gausdal, starts at 1:30)  
looking over the Nimzo, which I hadn't played since I was 11. I knew  
roughly which lines she played, of course, from checking Informant. I  
obtained a wonderful position from the opening on that little preparation,  
though let the win slip to a draw in time trouble. Until then, I really  
hadn't appreciated BCO, even as one of the compilers!

I do think that BCO belongs on the shelf of every tournament player. it is  
not, however, a book aimed at teaching how to play the opening. I think  
that monographs are best for this. But first you have to choose an  
opening, and I do think BCO is very helpful there. Jon Tisdall is a  
brilliant intellect and wonderful writer, and I think his introductions  
are superb.

I am clearly biased. Hell, BCO is is one of my fattest royalty checks. But  
I do urge you to take a look if you want a one-volume survey.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
From: albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Longevity of Lasker
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:17:22 GMT


Lasker's longevity may have been shortened had Pillsbury lived a long and
healthy life. Pillsbury's brilliant victory over Lasker at Hastings,
when Pillsbury entered the European scene was when Lasker was still
mid-career, not in his later reign.

Just speculation, but there does seem to have been a big gap between
Lasker and Capablanca.  Lasker remained champion into his 60's, not
so much out of domination, as from a dearth of competition.  My belief
is that Pillsbury was the missing champion between Lasker and Capablanca,
the champion that never came to be after Pillsbury's premature death,
to syphillis, if I'm not mistaken.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
From: jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Date: 9 Oct 1992 23:09:35 GMT
Organization: Econometrics Laboratory, U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily6.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct9.200627.23168@midway.uchicago.edu>, schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller) writes:
|> 
|> The only real question is: just how well is Fischer playing, and
|> how much and how quickly is he likely to improve? Only time
|> will tell (it usually does), but I have to admit that I just
|> plain get annoyed seeing people proclaim Fischer some sort of
|> contemporary chess god without any foundation. 

	I remember just when the rumor of this match was breaking,
you posted odds giving Fischer a strong edge over everyone except
Kasparov....


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Ely                         |    "He said the Sun's not yellow...  
Department of Economics          |     It's Chicken!" 
UC Berkeley
From: gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 16
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:15:24 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University

fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
>Game 16 started out as a Benoni, but transposed into another King's
>Indian.  I'm not up on the delicacies of either opening, but I guess
>the absence of an eventual ...e6 is what made this game a KID.
>
>Experts at the scene felt that Fischer's ...Nxe4 sacrifice was a TN,
>but Fischer said it was "an old opening trap, 20 or 25 years or more
>old."  Spassky then questioned the strength of the move, and Bobby
>responded, "all I know is that I remember seeing a game or two where
>black was winning or should have been winning."

It's in ECO E73, in a footnote.  I think it is impressive that Fischer
adapted this line... the move order is completely different.

Scott
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:31:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.160151.27862@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>
>Let's take a few examples:
>
>Player2: plays in 5 tournaments, receiving an initial established rating
>of 1200.  Continues to play for 2 or three more tournaments, raising his
>rating to 1250 - and then gives up.
>
>Player 3: playes informally for a long time, and gets quite good.
>Enters USCF play and receives an initial established rating of 1800.
>Plays for 50 years, acheiving a peak rating of 2350 - after which the
>ravages of time reduce his skill and his rating drops to 2100.  
>
>Player 4: enters USCF play after years of study in Bolivia, receiving an
>initial established rating of 2299.  Discovers Bill Goichberg, and
>sandbags his rating down to 2100.  Wins $10,000 every year at the World
>Open, and spends every weekend the rest of the year getting his rating
>back down to 2100.  Eventually retires to Aruba with his winnings.
>
>Player 5: Player 4's brother.  Smarter than his brother, he sandbags
>during his Provisional Rating days, and enters with an initial
>established rating of 986.  Wins a different section in a Goichberg
>tournament every year - moving up as slowly as he can, and doing lots of
>sandbagging along the way.  Retires with a rating of 2399 and *buys*
>Aruba with his winnings - taking along Goichberg as his personal body
>slave. 
>
>Player 6: plays for 15 years in Bolivia, developing a completely new
>style and several TN's.  Wins everything in his first 5 tournaments and
>gets an initial established rating of 2650.  This gets the attention of
>the local masters, who study his games and unravel his novelties.  They
>then beat him back down to his natural level of 2150 - at which point he
>moves to England, hoping to do it again before Inside Chess does a story
>on him.
>
I like those Bolivians :-)
Anyway, I think that your posting helped me see where your (or Elo's, if it
is his) argument for deflation is wrong. Note that players 3-6 all LEAVE the
pool with quite similar ratings. They ENTERED with very different ratings,
though. But what is the effect of initial ratings?

Well, in normal cases, none. Player gets a rating based on his results, with
a mininum (or, in case of FIDE, none at all) disturbance of others' ratings.
Eventually, he retires, "taking away" some points. But actually, nothing is
taken away: as long as the statistical distribution of initial and final
ratings remains constant, no inflation or deflation should occur.

Of course, smart-asses like your player 5 will disturb the system, but there
are few of those. And BTW, Goichberg wouldn't allow player 4 to play in the
same section again, so he would remain poor and would have to work for his
brother.

	Sven
From: savage@csb1.nlm.nih.gov (Allan Savage)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Book on Polgars
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:24:59 GMT
Organization: National Library of Medicine

Does anyone know where to obtain the new book on the Polgars?  I believe it is
called Three Sisters.  Also, who is the publisher?

--
___________________________________________________________
Allan G. Savage
National Library of Medicine             savage@nlm.nih.gov
Bethesda, MD 20894                           (301) 496-1495
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 20 moves 1-26
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:09:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct15.150958.16419
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 18:58 GMT
   Sicilian Defense, Closed Variation
   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 c5
   2. Ne2 Nf6
   3. Nbc3 e6
   4. g3 Nc6
   5. Bg2 Be7
   6. 0-0 d6
   7. d3 a6
   8. a3 Qc7
   9. f4 b5
   10. Kh1 0-0
   11. Be3 Bb7
   12. Bg1 Rab8
   13. h3 Ba8
   14. g4 b4
   15. axb4 cxb4
   16. Na4 Nd7
   17. Qd2 Rfc8
   18. b3 a5
   19. g5 Bf8
   20. Ra2 Ne7
   21. Nd4 g6
   22. Nb2 Bg7
   23. Nc4 d5
   24. Nxa5 dxe4
   25. dxe4 e5
   26. Ne2 exf4
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: strgh@warwick.ac.uk (J E H Shaw)
Subject: Re: Budapest gambit
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:45:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.213405.19184@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
>Is anybody willing to give any opinions on this rarer version of the
>Budapest Gambit 1 d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. de Ne4?  Otto Borik recently wrote
>a book on the Budapest claiming that this opening is o.k.
>I'd be interested to hear what people think of it.
>

I was a teenage Budapest addict.

After the Fajarowicz (3...Ne4) variation, White's simplest is an
immediate 4.a3.  This is covered in many openings books - often
with enthusiastic but suspect analysis to try and show Black has
`dynamic equality', or something.  IMHO, Borik's book has a lot
of enthusiastic but suspect analysis!  More fun can be had from
another recent Budapest book by Tseitlin (and maybe co-authors).

There's also a recent `Trends' (i.e. 100 games) book by Hodgson,
and an article in a Correspondence Yearbook.  I don't know what
these are like.

I think 3...Ng4 is better, but doubt even that can recover from
the demolition job of Polugaievsky-Nunn 198?.  Sad.

[ personal message to Mark Zabel - sorry for not sending you Budapest   ]
[ games - I seem to have lost a load of score-sheets while moving house ]

Disclaimer - I haven't played chess, even on a computer, for years.

                -- Ewart Shaw
-- 
J.E.H.Shaw,  Department of Statistics,  |  JANET:  strgh@uk.ac.warwick.cu
             University of Warwick,     |  BITNET: strgh%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL
             Coventry  CV4 7AL,  U.K.   |  PHONE:  +44 203 523069
Sarah (20 months) on first seeing juggling:  `Balls skipping in the sky'.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: Game 16 Opening, Spassky-Fischer
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:55:40 GMT


ECO Analysis

Well, having finally had the oppornity to do a little research,
it seems that there was no TN by Fischer - The line as played
is designated a lemon by ECO. For those who have the ECO series,
it is volume E (IV), p. 334, c. 13, n. 91. The game position is
reached via transposition (it appears Qd2 is the proper response
to Qa5, not Bd3?).

13 Rc1 Qf6! (exclamation point by Minev in ECO - He is now living
in Seattle and has a regular column in "Inside Chess!") and now
Radomski-Timoshchenko, USSR 1976 continued 14 Qh5 Kd8 15 h4 g4!
(Timoshchenko's idea, used by Fischer) 16 Bd3 f4 17 Bf4 Qf4
18 Ne2 Qf6 -+ . Alternatives also given in the same note (91)
are 13 Ne2 Qf6 14 Bc2 f4 15 h4 Rf8 -+ Stein-Geller USSR 1966,
I 2/639; and (instead of 13...Qf6!) 13...Qg7 14 h4 fe4 15 Qh5
Kd8 hg5 += .

So it is all rather old hat. As Yogi Berra (?) said, you can
look it up.

HWR
From: rdumain@igc.apc.org (Ralph Dumain)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Standardized Notations for Xian
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:09:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:apple.apple.com:73180:cdp:1451600052:000:21
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!rdumain    Oct  7 21:09:00 1992


s variants, however.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:51:43 GMT

In article <d+npgv@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>What will have to happen, presuming that Fischer continues to perform well,
>is that a Fischer-Kasparov match will have to be set, the winner emerging
>as the 'true' World Champion. I agree Fischer will have to 'prove' that his
>game is back to the level it once was, but making him go through the the
>interzonals and whatnot is silly.
>r.

Why the hell not?  What if Spassky, or, for goodness sakes, Botvinnik, wanted
a world champion match?  Just because they used to be the best doesn't mean
they deserve any special consideration.  Do you think Botvinnik, out of chess
for longer than Fischer, could even make it to an interzonal?  If Fischer is
so damn good, he should have no trouble with interzonal.  And if you think
Fischer is somehow "outside" of the current system (which make suck, but is
better than the match ducking days of old), then I claim the world championship
for myself, and will consider my self such until beaten.  Of course, there
will be a few terms to the match....

-T

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: infmx!tioman!lti@uunet.UU.NET (Lian-Yean Ti)
Subject: Please Add My Name
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:50:07 GMT


Hi,

Please add me to the mailing list: lti@informix.com

Thank you.

- ti -
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Subject: Cochrane gambit.
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:23:15 GMT

Has anybody got any opinions on the gambit in the Petroff's defence -
1e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7? 

Bronstein has been quoted as saying that this is just as strong as the
more usual 4 Nf3.  However I have not seen this gambit in a recent
grandmaster game.  Has it been refuted?



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess