HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Udo.Sprute@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Udo Sprute)
Subject: Proposal: How to provide the state of F-S-II
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:15:50 GMT

Hello chessfans !

Fischer-Spassky-II is very interesting for me,
so I'm very keen on getting the latest information
about the current match.

I have to  telnet valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu 5000
or to read rec.games.chess or to read my mail from CHESS-L for that.

The first one is overcrowded and it takes some time
to get the thread, the second is half a day behind the news,
the third a whole day.

The idea:
I've remembered "finger quake@geophys.washington.edu"
to get the newest earthquake-infos.

Perhaps the nice guys who play RFischer and BSpassky on valkyries
could write the moves into the ~/.plan-file of chessclb@valkyries
(or any other account).

That would be a very easy way to provide live information
about "our earthquake" :-) to everyone.

I would advocate the following format:   (dates without guarantee)

   01.  Wed, Sep 02.  F-S  1  -  0
   02.  Thu, Sep 03.  S-F  1/2-1/2
   03.  Fri, Sep 04.  F-S  1/2-1/2
   04.  Sat, Sep 05.  S-F  1  -  0
   05.  Wed, Sep 09.  F-S  0  -  1
   06.  Thu, Sep 10.  S-F  1/2-1/2
   07.  Sat, Sep 12.  F-S  running

      01  e4   ...
      02  ...  ...

   08.  Sun, Sep 13.  S-F  next


The complete games are well placed at
anonymous@valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu:/pub/chess/Fischer-Spassky-92, as they are.

Udo Sprute  (sprute@unibi.HRZ.Uni-Bielefeld.DE)
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 4 Sep 1992 14:07:16 CDT
From: Howard Wachtel <U13054@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Sudden Death/PA Championship Controversy

In article <BtwJ4F.GI@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles
Blair) says:

[Referring to a time-forfeit controversy in sudden-death]
>
>   I think that incidents like the one above are unavoidable with sudden
>death controls, and that therefore sudden death should not be used.  The
>more common situation is that in a clearly drawn (but not insufficient
>mating material) situation, the side with a minute more time tries to
>win a button-pushing contest.

   BINGO!  There you have it.  Trying to mix SD and normal time controls
is an inherently flawed concept, and when doing so it will be impossible
to avoid disputes of this kind.  No matter how much you mess with the
rules for claiming "no losing chances" in sudden death, sad incidents
like the one described by the original poster are going to happen.

  The USCF rules committee is doing the best they can (from the draft
of the new rulebook I was at the US Open) to try to create a fair and
equitable set of rules for sudden-death, including a claim of "no losing
chances", but it really cannot be done.  (Wait until you see the new
rulebook; it should be be at least 50% larger than the present one!)
The only way to minimize such unfortunate incidents, in my view, is
that sudden-death should only be used as the first (and only) time
control, not the second or third.  Speed chess and tournament chess
just don't mix.
________________________________________________________________
Howard K. Wachtel              University of Illinois at Chicago
U13054@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU        Phone (312) 975-7970
From: wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer
Date: 9 Sep 1992 23:20:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pal.ucsc.edu

So the legendary Fischer stumbles and falls after a 20 year
hiatus.  Will he get back up?  Can genius restore itself after
such a long time?

-wj

Organization: Senior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:31:25 -0400 
From: William Stephen Kish <kish+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: ICS Blitz Tournament!


There will be a blitz (10 minute) tournament on the
valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu chess server TODAY  (Friday, September 11) at 
6:00 pm EDT (22:00 GMT). 

It will be a  4 (or possibly 5) round swiss system, depending on the
number of entries.

Hope to see you there,
Bill Kish
Valkyries Co-Admin
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 5 complete moves
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:03:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep9.160337.15501
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


   Fischer Spassky
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 e5
   2. Nf3 Nc6
   3. Bb5 a6
   4. Ba4 Nf6
   5. 0-0 Be7
   6. Re1 b5
   7. Bb3 d6
   8. c3 0-0
   9. h3 Nb8
   10. d4 Nbd7
   11. Nbd2 Bb7
   12. Bc2 Re8
   13. Nf1 Bf8
   14. Ng3 g6
   15. Bg5 h6
   16. Bd2 exd4
   17. cxd4 c5
   18. d5 Nb6
   19. Ba5 Nfd7
   20. b3 Bg7
   21. Rc1 Qf6
   22. Rb1 b4
   23. Ne2 Qe7
   24. a3 bxa3
   25. Bc3 f5
   26. Bxg7 Qxg7
   27. Nf4 fxe4
   28. Nh4 g5
   29. Ne6 Qf6
   30. Qg4 Nxd5
   31. Nxg5 hxg5
   32. Qxd7 Nb4
   33. Qxb7 Nxc2
   34. Rxe4 a2
   35. Rf1 Nb4
   36. Rg4 a1Q
   37. Rxa1 Qxa1+
   38. Kh2 Qg7
   39. Qf3 Qe5+
   40. g3 Rf8
   41. Qg2 Qf6
   42. f4 Ra7
   43. Rxg5+ Rg7
   44. Rh5 Qe6
   45. g4 Rxf4
   White resigns

   Final positions:
   White: Kh2, Qg2, Nh4, Rh5; pawns b3, h3, g4.
   Black: Kg8, Qe6, Rg7, Rf4, Nb4; pawns a6, c5, d6.
From: jb118@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeffrey N. Burch)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky - Game 4 - the mistake
Keywords: New World Champion
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:14:22 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute -- EOL

In article <ovel.716056589@Minsk> ovel@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Ove Lundberg) writes:
>jb118@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeffrey N. Burch) writes:
>
>>And I'd claim that Bobby's blunder in the first game against Spassky in 
>>the '72 match was worse than his play in game 4 of this match.  
>Bobby's "blunder" 29..Bd6xh2, in the position:
>White: Kd3, Bc1, Pawns:a3,b5,e3,f2,g2,h2
>Black: Kf8, Bd6, Pawns:a7,b7,e6,f6,g7,h7.
>The game continued:
>30.g3 h5 31.Ke2 h4 32.Kf3 Ke7 33.Kg2 hg 34.fg Bg3 35.Kg3 Kd6
>36.a4 Kd5 37.Ba3 Ke4?!(a6!) 38.Bc5 a6 39.b6 f5? (e5!)
>and Bobby lost in the 56th move.
>
>In his book "Analysing the Endgame" GM Speelman concludes that,
>though bad, 29..Bh2 doesn't lose. Bobby could have drawn with
>39..e5!
>So Bh2 is not a blunder!

I am aware of Speelman's analysis, but 29...B:h2 gives Black losing
chances that he didn't have before, and Fischer obviously found a 
way to lose.   The fact that he didn't come back to find 39...e5
reinforces my point anyway, that he didn't play that game well.
In Game 4 of the current match he had several chances to hold on,
but his level of play seemed better than in that first game of his
first match.

Perhaps "blunder" is too strong a term (I'd argue this a little), but
"poor move" certainly isn't.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^  Dr. J(effrey Neil Burch)                 jb118@prism.gatech.edu    ^
^  Georgia Tech Research Institute                                    ^ 
^  Electro-Optics and Physical Sciences Laboratory                    ^
^  Atlanta, Georgia       "This sort of thing has come up before,     ^
^  30332                    and every time, it has been due to        ^
^  404-894-3628                      human error".                    ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: lehman@csed-11 (Dan Lehman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: notation.
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:54:10 GMT
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


   I think that with usage you'll find "algebraic" notation amply readable,
if not more so than "descriptive" notation.  As for advantages, ... :

	e4	d5		v.		P-K4	P-Q4

  the algebraic offers less to read;
  when pieces move to >A< square, the SAME square, it has the SAME NAME
    (not a context-sensitive one);
  an entire range of moves (viz., the pawn moves) are give a special syntax
    (square-designation only (vs. "Pe4")), which lessens typing/reading.

   I was *raised* on descriptive, and resisted the algebraic; and even
though I now prefer the latter, I find myself making mistakes based on
color-biased counting of ranks (7 vs. 2, & esp. 4 vs 5!)!

   When I record games, I often use an abbreviated algebraic, where move
x might be given in a form that is meaningful only given the previous
moves (e.g., "B+  fN" could be all that's needed to indicate that a
bishop gave check (could only be one, right; and in some contexts, could
only be from one square) and a knight interposed--the knight from the f
file).  (I record games only for my personal use; I've not practised the
above in a tournament, e.g..)

   What one loses though, with algebraic, is the absoluteness of the
rank numbers:  in descriptive, "5" through "8" indicate penetration (!),
but in algebraic it depends whether white or black is moving to "2",
e.g..

---Dan
------- *
From: ntmtv!prupisvi@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Victor Prupis)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: 1992 US Women's Championship
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:36:17 GMT
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)



Final standings:

 1. Levitina		(2415)		8.0
 2. Epstein		(2255)		6.0
 3. Levitan		(2280)		5.5
 4. Tverskaya		(2250)		5.5
 5. Pelech		( NA )		4.5
 6. Root		(2025)		4.5
 7. Burtman		(2050)		3.5
 8. Dimitrievich	(2090)		3.5
 9. McArthur		(2175)		3.5
10. Frenkel		(2120)		0.5

Best game:
White:	Levitina
Black:	Pelech
1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 Bf5 4. c4 e6 5. 00 Be7 6. d3 c6 7. Nbd2 h6
8. b3 00 9. Bb2 Nbd7 10. Qc2 Bh7 11. a3 b5 12. cb5 cb5 13. Bc3 Qb6
14. b4 Rfc8 15. Qb2 Rc7 16. Rac1 Rac8 17. Bd4 Qb7 18. Nb3 Rc1 19. Rc1
Rc1 20. Qc1 Bd8 21. Qc3 Bg6 22.Ne5 Ne5 23. Be5 Bh5 24. Bf1 Ne8 25. Na5
Ba5 26. ba5 f6 27. Bf4 e5 28. Bd2 Bg4 29. Qc5 Nc7 30. h3 Bh5 31. g4
Ne6 32. Qd6 Bf7 33. Bg2 Nd4 34. e3 Nb3 35. Bb4 Kh7 36. a6 Qa8 37.Qc7
Qe8 38. Qa7 Nc1 39. Qb7 1-0

Because this event was a FIDE Zonal competition, Epstein, Levitan and
Tverskaya qualified to participate in the 1993 Interzonal.
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer-Spassky - chess only.
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:52:19 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I'm sure this posting will have the opposite effect to that desired, but I wish
to second the earlier posting that personal opinions of players, pointless
speculations and similar postings are accomplishing little and could well be
posted in some other group.  It seems to me some facts are obvious:

1. (Like it or not), Fischer is playing again;
2. Fischer's political opinions are no different this month than they were
   before - the only difference is they are being publicized;
3. No one knows how good Fischer is after 20 years - including Fischer.
   Presumably he's doing his best;
4. No one knows if Fischer can beat Kasparov (or Karpov, or Timman, or Short,
   etc....).  We don't even know if he can beat Spassky - that's why they're
   playing a match;
5. What's interesting about all this is the games, since they represent
   Fischer's conclusions on opening theory during his retirement.  Isn't that
   enough?  Will chess players in ten, twenty or fifty years be reading over
   the transcripts of Fischer's press conferences?
6. If everyone can't agree on what to post, can we at least agree on how to
   list the subjects (as Eric Schiller proposed)?  How about:
      F-S (#) - 1-37 (for moves only)
      F-S (#) - analysis (for actual discussion of the games)
      F-S - gossip (for discussions of Fischer's politics, who he will play
                   next, how he'd do, how much money he'll get, and so on)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky II
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:17:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.172221.11976@physics.ucla.edu> reynolds@physics.ucla.edu (Reynolds) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.070350.14812@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:

>The performance rating has been discussed many times recently in this
>newsgroup but there has never really been a discussion of their
>worth.  I think it's pretty clear that they are not really worth as
>much as people would like to believe.

How much is that?  What would constitute worth?  Let's say that I have
a good day this week and a bad day next week.  Well, my performances
have been very different, and my performance ratings will also be very
different.  One would have to be foolish to confuse a 4 game
performance rating with a cumulative rating based on many games against
many opponents.

Of course, the question was about 19 games, which is enough to give a
reasonable idea of the relative strengths of the players in a match.

>They are most accurate when the
>score is about equal, then the players are about equal.  But when
>the score becomes lopsided, the performance rating means very little.

Evidence please.

>As has been stated, a perfect score against an opponent will not tell
>you what your rating is - more data is needed - but the performance
>rating formula gives an answer.  This answer is meaningless.

The performance rating does not "give an answer" to the question of
"what your rating is", if you mean by the latter, your cumulative
rating.  It does not even attempt to provide a cumulative rating.  Was
never intended for that purpose, etc.

>This is just my way of saying that the performance rating, while
>couching itself in mathematics, is not a very worthwhile number.

Well, if you look at the full statistical model, you will find that the
performance rating is accompanied by measures of its expected accuracy:
standard deviation and probable error.  Of course, accuracy is not
"worth."

If you read Elo, I think you will be impressed.

--Jim
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:7300 rec.games.programmer:3768
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Spassky-Fischer #8, by Zarkov & me.
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:40:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.042354.3529@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.uucp (James H. Coombs) writes:

>Better is 33...Nxc1 34.Qa3 b4 35.Qxa6 Kf8 36.Nc2 b3 37.Kxc1 Ra7 38.Qd3
>bxc2 39.Rxc2 Ra1+ 40.Kd2 Rh1.  Black has given up a passed pawn for the
>exchange and the initiative.

This is misleading.  I mean that Black has a Rook for Knight+Pawn, and
that leaves White with a passed pawn on b.

--Jim
From: Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: QGA games (was: Re: Bruce Harper's credentials - (!?))
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:44:00 GMT

I think that Fischer's error in game 6 was 14 ... Rhb8.  There is really
nothing wrong with his position if he just plays natural moves such as
14 ... Nb6 followed by 15 ... Rhc8.

Usually lost tempos in an opening between two GM's can't be taken at face
value.  However in the case of game 4 I think that Fischer was just confused.
He tried to create a setup with the pawn on b6, the bishop on e7, and his
king on g8.  Then he realized that this would lose so he returned the bishop
to c5, pushed the pawn to b5 to make room for the bishop's retreat, and put
the king at e7 where it belongs.  The kind of thing that happens the first
time you play the QGA.

Spassky's play in game 4 was good.  Not a lot of deep combinations, but it
takes courage to sac the exchange for long-term compensation.
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Game 2: a good endgame to try a computer on?
Date: 5 Sep 92 23:16:33 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Sep5.215250.6883@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Rennan.Barkana@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Rennan Barkana) writes:
>[...]
>White: Kb4, Ba3    and Black: Kd3, Ra1, pawn on a4
>Then after 58.Bb2 Rb1 (or Ra2 59. Ba3) 59.Ka3, how can Black achieve 
>anything more if White just moves his Bishop on the long diagonal?

the position after 58...Ra2 59.Ba3 Kc2! is won for Black even without
the a-pawn: 60.K(x)a4 Kc3 0-1.  If instead 59.Be5 Kc2 with the idea a3,
Kb1, R?2 (attacking the Bishop), a2.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept of Mathematics, Harvard University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pope@gold.kpc.com (John Pope)
Subject: Analysis of Game 6
Organization: /nfs/gold/u/home/pope/.organization
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:25:25 GMT

An interesting try in game 6 would have been 38.Rg5 (instead of 38.Bg5).

	a) 38...Ne1 39.Kf1 Rb1 40.Ke2 +-
	b) 38...Rb1 39.Kh2 Ne1 40.Rf5 Rb2 41.Rh5 Nf3 42.Kh3 +-

Black's best try seems to be 38...Kf7!: now 39.Rh5!? Kg6 40.Rg5 Kh6
41.Rf5 Ne1 42.g4 leads to a very interesting endgame, where white
may have some practical winning chances.

--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mgleibma@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Gleibman)
Subject: The chess via e-mail
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 09:51:25 GMT

Hello! Can aybody tell me, how can I play chess via e-mail,
may be, there are any chess servers on the Internet?
Thanx.
Michael Gleibman.
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 06 Sep 92 18:47 PDT
Subject: Re: Fischer-Karpov rumor
Nf-ID: #R:1992Sep6.102120.15412@husc3.harv:-224329161:cdp:1451600036:000:260
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Sep  6 18:47:00 1992


Is Fischer negotiating with the lowest of the low (or something to that effect)
to play a match against him?  (WHO actually is the lowest of the low: Karpov,
Kasparov or Kortschnoi?  Or did Mr. Fischer mean some other "three Ks"?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld

Organization: Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:16:11 -0400 
From: "Steven M. Stadnicki" <ss7m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Carlos Torre

I should point out that while Torre may be known for beating Lasker, he's
probably far better known for losing one of the most famous games in history
to Weaver ('White To Play And Win') Adams... (I used to have a chess book that
printed this as a game between 'two relatively unknown amateurs'...)

                              Steven Stadnicki
                              ss7m@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: nash+@cs.cmu.edu (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: F-S II, game 3 update (11:03EDT)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:30:15 GMT


The very kind folks that were bringing you the moves on ICS are probably off 
for the weekend. They work.

Richard V. Nash
-- 

Richard V. Nash
nash@vi.ri.cmu.edu
From: gene@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Gene E. Johannsen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Scoring on the Fischer, Spassky game
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:02:40 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:

>In article <1992Sep15.115737.13028@ifi.uio.no> sigurdg@ifi.uio.no (Sigurd Gl{rum) writes:

>> From what I have heard Fischer demanded that he should win
>> the match in case of a 9-9 tie, effectively giving him a
>> 2 point advantage since Spasskij must score at least 10-8
>> in order to win.

>Not true -- the score can reach 10-9 without first reaching 9-9.

How, pray tell?  If draws are counted as zero, I don't see it.

gene
>-- 
>				--Andrew Koenig
>				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cpf@alchemy.TN.Cornell.EDU (Courtenay Footman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Cancel "Interesting endgame"
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:02:16 GMT
Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y.

At the request of Rod Malpert,  I am cancelling the article "Interesting
endgame, GM Rohde-Malpert".  I am sorry that my first posting to
rec.games.chess produced such controversy; that was not my intention.  I
posted the article because it was an endgame that interested me, and
thought would interest others.  I would never post one of my own games,
owing to my (lack of) ability.  Someone a few weeks ago described their
chess style as "blunder randomly";  mine is much more reliable:  it is
"blunder continuously".  Thus I was happy to have a well played game to post
to the net.
 
Obviously, something went wrong here, or I would not be apologizing for it.
The really bad thing is that I am not sure exactly what I did that was wrong.
I hope that it is not wrong to post other's games;   if I am incorrect, please
tell me!  In any event, did I do something wrong, or was I just unlucky?  The
net has more than enough controversy already, without me creating more
inadvertently.
 
Thank you,   Courtenay Footman(1615)
 
P.S.  I just discovered that rn will not let me cancel the article!!  (Some
screw up about me not being the poster.)  Please consider the article
cancelled.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Fischer press conference
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:09:22 GMT

fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
#
#* Nonetheless, Fischer said, "I'm doing quite well, considering I've 
#been blacklisted for the last 20 years by world Jewry."

I find this very dissapointing. As a kid in 1972, Fischer was my hero.
What has happened to this guy? I know many great chess players are not
completely balanced, but this and other remarks cannot be justified
or explained by the "chess weirdness syndrom" (excuse me folks, this
is the best my English allows me).

Fischer is a shithead. I hope Kasparov, if not Spassky, crushes him.

By the way, I was wondering what better players than me (i.e. the
large majority of readers of this newsgroup) think about the level
of the games, and what they reflect on Fischer's current ability
compared to that of Kasparov, Krapov, etc.

-Danny Keren.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fischer press conference
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:05:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.191228.15447@husc3.harvard.edu> fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
>
>* He said he underestimated the strength of Spassky's exchange sac.  
>"That is chess, sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose," which 
>seems amazingly philosophical for him.
>

Actually, one good thing to say about Fischer's character is that he never
was a sore loser. The "worst" comment he made after a loss (that I know of)
was after 0-4 to Tal in '59 candidates, (approximately:) "I was winning in
all four games, but I lost them." I haven't read of him ever attributing his
losses to conspiracies, cheating, telepathy, Jews... not even to excuses
normal people make. He left tournaments, accusing "the Russians" of cheating
when he was in the lead, not when he was losing.

After his biggest upset loss of all times, to Vlado Kovacevic (now a GM, but
then only a FM) in Zagreb 1970(?), he congratulated the young Croatian with
no trace of bitterness.

I guess this is the reason: wins and losses are part of chess, a direct 
consequence of the moves on the board. And on the board, Fischer is a genius
and also very mature. It is only in real life, when chess is not an issue,
that he is a lunatic, a social idiot and a rebel without a cause.

Sven
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: FSII - Game 5 (analysis)
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:53:49 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

After 20.b3 Bg7 21.Qd2 Bxa1 22.Rxa1 Kh7 23.Qf4 Qe7 24.Re1 b4
25.Nf5!? seems quite strong - 25...gxf5 and either 26.Qf5+ Kg8
27.e5 or 26.e5 are both interesting.  24.Nh4 is also worth
looking at.  h3-h4-h5 should probably only be played if Black
goes into a shell with (24.Re1) Qf8.  The positions are
complicated, and not many people seem too interested in them
(including Fischer, judging from 9.d3 in Game 7), so I'll leave
it at that.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess