HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sstrazdu@vulcan.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:52:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.142509.16384@husc3.harvard.edu> elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>In article <23889@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>:In article <1992Oct13.223044.3140@Princeton.EDU>
>:carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo) writes:
>:
>:> At what level of tournament play does it become the "norm" for the losing
>:> person to resign in a K+B+N vs. K endgame?  (one which is won for the
>:> opponent, of course)
>:
>:... and when you're done answering that question, you might answer the
>:same one for K+Q vs. K+R, which is even harder to win.
>
>Conversely, the marginally drawn R+B vs. R endgame is often played out
>until either the weaker side falters or the 50th move is at hand.

Is there a good endgame book with these harder endgames?  I remember looking
at Pandolfini's "End Game Course" in a store once, but I don't think it
really got into the more difficult endgames.

I have a book called "Modern Chess Strategy," or something similar, by
Edward Lasker.  In it he says that the KNN vs. KP end game is a win for
the Knights, and that it is an exception to the 50 move rule.  It would
be nice to have a book that goes into all or many of the exceptions.

Oh yeah, and who is the Edward Lasker guy anyway?  Any relation to Emmanuel?

--
Steve Strazdus    sstrazdu@sedona.intel.com
80960 Design      (602) 554-3867
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: R.A.Rayner@massey.ac.nz (R.A. Rayner)
Subject: Re: Kudos to David Fry!
Summary: Well done David Fry
Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
X-Reader: NETNEWS/PC Version 2c
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 18:57:11 GMT

	I think Davids provision of info on the FS match is excellent too.
Thanks.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE	god = INTEGER ;
VAR	EricClapton : god ;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:47:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.175105.9368@vax.oxford.ac.uk> annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>...>
>As far as I remember, to counteract this problem, junior players in Scotland
>have their ratings automatically increased each year up to a certain age.
>
>But I might be wrong.
>
>Don't other countries do the same?

The USCF does not.

A question: do Scottish juniors receive an automatic rating raise even
is they are inactive?  How about if they are active, but their
preformances are stable, or actually decline?

-- 
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: mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Date: 12 Oct 1992 22:50:01 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: rec
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <6002@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas) writes:
>
>He also played 1 b3 against Mecking (transposing to a Bird) and against
>Tukmakov at Buenas Aires.
>

In 1970, Fischer opened with 1. b3 three times: once against Mecking, as you
indicated; once against Tukmakov in Buenos Aires; and finally against Filip at
the Interzonal at Palma de Mallorca. BTW, he won all three games.

mrosen
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:38:55 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1992Oct15.002432.9842@panix.com>, nedwall@panix.com (Ned Wall) writes:
|> In <16285@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
|> 
|> >[Very long preamble omitted.]
|> 
|> >> Do you still place Fischer in the same league as Capablanca, Alehkine,
|> >Karpov or Kasparov?
|> 
|> >Yes.
|> As would I. Also, Reshevsky and Stein (were they alive) would probably
|> be surprised to learn they wren't "elite" players.

	Particularly as Reshevsky qualifed for the candidates
	from that tournament (after a play off) while Stein, who
	at least once failed to qualify only due to the "too many
	soviets" rule, had to console himself with lesser things
	like winning the soviet championship and the Alekhine
	memorial.

	Incidently, did Fischer *ever* win a tournament as tough
	as the (1972?) Alekhine memorial (in which, incidently, another
	player recently slandered on this list, R. Byrne, did rather
	well)?  Rovinj-Zagreb had many great players, but the tailenders
	were fairly weak.  The lower players in the interzonals were
	usually just barely of IM strength (including, alas, the
	canadians.)

	It seems that after the abolition of the candidates
	tournaments there were no category 15 or higher events
	until after Fischer's retirement.  What was the strongest
	tournament Fischer won?


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Could someone email game 17 to me?
Organization: VTT
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:51:41 GMT

Our newsreader stopped accepting news for some reason on Friday, so I
have not been able to obtain the listing for game 17 in which Fischer 
won.  I do have game 18, however.  Could someone please email a copy
of game 17 to me (only on Tuesday 13 October, I'm sure i'll receive
something today)?  Thanks.

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi
From: Robert_Ryan@brown.edu (Rob Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II, game 17, Is it "closed"?
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:51:57 GMT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

What exactly does a "closed" variation mean?  Looking at game 17 of the
F-S II match, it is said that a Closed Variation of the Sicilian was played.
Clearly, 2.Nc3 Nc6 can lead to a Closed Variation, but game 17 seems to
be distinctly un"closed" in nature.  In Fischer-Spassky's 17th game, it seems
that a lot of material is exchanged quite early resulting in a lot of
open lines down the center.  I always thought that a "closed" variation
was characterized by a solid pawn structure which basically shut down
any easy movement through the center.  That's not what I see in game 17.

So, if game 17 is really a "closed" variation, what makes it "closed?"
Or is the name merely a attributed to the first 2 or 3 moves irrespective
of the actual development of the opening?

Thanks.

-- 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: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:49:19 GMT

Besides, any decent player would sac one piece for one (or more) pawns and
win with a queen.
From: jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Lasker-Pelikan
Date: 9 Oct 1992 20:53:48 GMT
Organization: Econometrics Laboratory, U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily4.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Sicilian

In article <1992Oct9.194243.18692@ncsu.edu>, jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR) writes:
|> 
|> Does anyone know if the Lasker-Pelikan has been refuted, and or what is the best line of play against this opening?
|> Thanks,    jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu

I really like the lines following
 
	1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.Nd5! Nxd5 7.exd5

Black players usually don't know this line as well as others, but they should
because IMHO it gives white an excellent positional advantage and requires
black to take risks on the K-side in order to try to counter white's
simple and risk-free plan on the Q-side.  I think black's best is:

	7. ...Nb8 8.c4 Be7 9.Bd3 a6 10.Nc3 o-o 11.o-o

But unless they know this line, they rarely make the retreat to b8, instead
they'll play something like:

	7. ...Ne7 8. c4 Nf5 9.Bd3 Be7 (...a6? 10.Qa5) 10.o-o a6 11.Nc3 o-o
	12. f4! 

when white gets the kind of attack one usually must sacrifice a pawn for.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Ely                         |    "He said the Sun's not yellow...  
Department of Economics          |     It's Chicken!" 
UC Berkeley
From: jerry@hnrc.tufts.edu (Jerry Dallal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 19 opinion
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:16:49 GMT
Organization: USDA HNRC at Tufts University

In article <1992Oct15.112827.4914@maths.nott.ac.uk>, anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.215324.3884@math.utexas.edu>
> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
>>After 35 moves, my opinion is that Fischer has a 75% chance of winning
>>a 25% chance of drawing and maybe a 0.00000000001 % chance of losing.
> 				     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Are any stronger players willing to offer their opinions?
> 
> 	Yes.  My opinion is that, for [apparently] a mathematician, you
> have a weak grasp of the size of numbers [:-)].  If none of the zeros
> have been altered in transmission, you think F has a 1 in 10^13 chance
> of losing a position that you have a much bigger probability than that
> of having set up incorrectly, or of completely misunderstanding.
> 

My opinion as an expert statistician is:

 hyperbole, n., An exaggeration or extravagant statement used as a 
figure of speech.
From: annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Phil Weingart
Date: 14 Oct 92 09:08:17 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

If Phil Weingart is out there, could he get in touch with me? I don't seem to
be ale to send mail to him (we're in the middle of an email game).

-- 
James Annan.
                [--------------------------------------]
                [  "The only good Tory is a lavatory"  ]
                [--------------------------------------]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: colt@vaxeline.ftp.com (Colt Forsythe)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:00:38 GMT


If you feel you can learn something from continued play
then by all means do so. And by this I don't mean just
chess knowledge. There is a large psychological component
to tournament chess and playing in tournaments is the only
way to improve this part of your game. Another example of
why you might want to continue is stale mate.

By all means be polite to your opponent but when the clock starts
you should try to win using every tool at your disposal (preparation,
time pressure, etc)

Colt
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:10 PDT
Subject: Re: subscription
Nf-ID: #R:9210121558.AA18003@tor01.cselt.s:-691868196:cdp:1451600053:000:159
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Oct 12 18:10:00 1992


What is the "chessnews mailing list"?  Please enlighten me>  Is it "available"
to those on Internet through another BBS, as I am?

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
From: Tony-Preston@cup.portal.com (ANTHONY FRANCIS PRESTON)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: human vs computer
Date: Fri,  9 Oct 92 09:02:49 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Actually, I read that a GM can take positions to as many as 20 plies
at times.  It only takes 1 ply to hide a tricky sack that wins....
From: gross@math.utah.edu (Fletcher Gross)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: FS2.16 TN?
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:02:41 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Organization: Math Dept, University of Utah

In article <1992Oct7.195323.13720@midway.uchicago.edu>, schiller@whorf(Eric
Schiller) wrote:
> 
> 
> 7.Bh4 is a very unusual retreat. I am at my office and can't look
> in my library, but 7.Bf4 and 7.Be3 are normal. The early g5 looks
> to me like the reason that the 7.Bh4 move is not usually played.
> 
> Caveat: I haven't really checked transpositions. This is just a 
> gut reaction. Interestingly, I recall a Larsen-Reshevsky game from
> Santa Monica 1966 was somewhat similar, and I think Reshevsky
> also defended the line at Sousse Interzonal, While Larsen was
> Black in a Hastings game in the mid(?)-1980's. I'll look this
> stuff up later, unless anyone else chimes in first.
> --
> ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
> 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

In the Larsen-Reshevsky game from Santa Monica 1966 (the 2nd Piatigorsky
Cup), Larsen played 7. Bf4 and went on to win but not because of the
opening. More interestingly for game 16 in the present match, there is a
note by Reshevsky in the tournament book (the one in which the annotations
are by the players themselves) explaining why 7. Bh5 is bad. He gives
precisely the moves (the order is slightly different but the difference
doesn't matter and in any event the postion when Nxe4 is played is exactly
the same) used by Fischer. Reshevsky's analysis stops with Black's Qf6 move
and he comments that Black regains the piece and has the better game. My
impression of this note is that this was a trap well-known (at that time)
to grandmasters but perhaps not so well-known to non-GMs. (If it were
really a TN, I would have expected Reshevsky to keep it to himself to
perhaps use in the future.) Of course, both Fischer and Spassky were
present at the Santa Monica tournament (Spassky-1st; Fischer-2nd) and so
they must have seen the game.

Fletcher Gross                  
gross@math.utah.edu
From: turo1953@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Arthur Pomeroy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Game 16 Opening
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:47:43 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington

I wonder if Boris has a copy of the old Geller book on the King's Indian.
Interestingly, Geller gives his game with Stein and says the knight capture
on e4 is wrong and that White should get an advantage with h4 (he doesn't
mention the Timoschenko game). Perhaps Boris thought the line was good for
him (rudely disabused)!

Art Pomeroy
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Draw-offer etiquette? (Re: wusses)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:52:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.000147.16373@husc3.harvard.edu>, elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
|> something of a breach of etiquette to offer a draw, presumably
|> because the better-placed player can always offer a draw (which
|> quite certainly would be accepted) if he's not making progress,
|> and will not accept one if he believes there's still a chance for
|> a win.


	Tal discusses a similar incident in one of his game collections.
	Needing a draw to clinch the win at Porotoz he offered one
	to Olafsson.  He was surprised when the offer was declined but
	after studying the position he

	"realized that my draw offer had been rather tactless"

	i.e. it was an insult to Olafsson to offer the draw, as the
	implication was that either Olafsson didn't see how superior
	his position is, or that he'd be frightened enough of
	Tal's reputation to agree to the draw.

	So it's a bit of a faux pas, but I don't get the impression
	it's all that bad.  Offering a draw when losing outright
	is worse, but at the sub master level I don't see that it's
	anything to get worked up about.



						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Zarkov
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:53:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

I have learned that Grandmaster Chess is the commercial version
of the program Zarkov for the PC.  How highly rated is this program,
could it defeat CheckMate?

-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Kudos to me!
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:53:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct15.145332.16418
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Just to avoid a possible string of "me too" messages, I want to
say I'm glad you're enjoying my coverage so much. I'm enjoying doing
it, and I'd have to know the game scores this fast anyway, or I
wouldn't be able to sit still, so I might as well post them.  I've
received a large number of "thank you"'s, so let me acknowledge your
appreciation here.

*But* I make no promises about Tilburg coverage :-).

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: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: UnorthodoxOpenings
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:41:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.030824.4063@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
jpgraham@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John P Graham) writes:
> For the many people that enquire wrt 'good or not too well documented'
> replies to the massive array of currently topical openings .....
> 
> give the book 'Unorthodox Openings' a try ... by J.Benjamin and  
E.Schiller
> ... I'm not too sure who publishes it in the USA ,, but when I lived in
> Ireland I got a copy published by BATSFORD ,London.
> 
> I tried many of the 'good/ugly' variations with amazing success at club
> level (150 - 1800 USCF) games ... probably ~ 7-1.
>  A wee bit of a surprise can put an opponent off of his favourite  
opening
> for a while ... even if it isn't the 'best' line.
> Just a suggestion ..... John Graham.
After such kind words I am compelled to point out that you can indeed get  
this in the USA, published by Macmillan and carried by most chess book  
distributers. Hope this isn't too commercial a posting.

But since I am taking advantage, let me point out that sooner or later a  
revised edition will appear, so if you have an interesting game or bit of  
analysis, please send it along.

I am also working on a book devoted specifically to heretical ideas after  
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4, and am eager for more examples.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
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
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ROBERTS DD - PHILOSOPHY <ddrob@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Fine's BCE, revisions to
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: University of Waterloo
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:16:21 GMT

A pamphlet entitled "Basic Chess Endings Corrections" by Samuel Louie can
be purchased from Mr. Louie at: 910 Santa Paula Way, Davis, California,
95616. This was noted in Chess Life April 1991, page 8. I ordered it and
promptly received it for the $3.00 price given in Chess Life; then in June
Mr. Louie sent me a complimentary update! I don't know if the price is
still $3.00. It is very useful if you are using Fine's book.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: "Winning with Neat Chess Book Titles"
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:24:44

In article <9210091229.AA06219@alacron> alacron!adb@uunet.UU.NET (alan brunelle) writes:

   "Paul Rubin" writes:

   > My favorite is "How to Defeat a Superior Opponent", by Mednis I think.
   > I haven't read it yet, but if it really works, I won't have to study
   > any more!

   You would probably be taken aback by it's original title: "How to Beat
   the Russians". The story as my very forgetful mind remembers...

   Following the '72 Fischer-Spassky (I) title match, Mednis claims that the
   Soviet chess establishment was very concerned (to put it mildly) about
   the downfall of Soviet chess supremacy. Thus he takes all (?) of the
   games lost by "Russians" (Soviets) to "outsiders" in '73 and subjects 
   them to some analysis. His assumption is that, at the time, the Soviets
   in general were "Superior" chess players, and well motivated, and thus 
   their losses would be instructive. The original title was created by 
   the publishers back in the hay-day of the Cold War. (Can you remember 
   living back then? It seemed like it was so long ago!) The newer title 
   isn't really all that accurate as well, because I believe some of the 
   losses were by 2nd tier Soviet GM's to 1st tier non-Soviet GM's.

Hee hee.  I'm reminded of another Mednis book and accompanying story.
Mednis wrote one called "How to Beat Bobby Fischer", in which he
(lightly) analyzed every single one of Fischer's few dozen tournament
losses up to then.  Fischer later became World Champion and then
stopped playing chess.  After Fischer had been in hiding for several
years, the story began to circulate that he was busy at work on a
revenge book called "How to Beat Edmar Mednis".  It was taking so long
because it was going to be in nine volumes...
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 20 moves 1-8
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:20:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct15.132051.16415
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 16:26 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