HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer-Gligoric 6.5-1.5 (Blitz) ?
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:39:43 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department

A few days ago a rumor was circulating here that Fischer beat
Gligoric 6.5-1.5 in an 8-game blitz match in or near Belgrade.
Apparently Vesna Dimitrijevic had read this in a Belgrade
newspaper; no scores of actual games seem to be available.
I'm wondering whether this has been confirmed.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
From: watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Computers in tournaments: Who cares?
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:42:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Judging from the flood of posts about this new rule revoking
human players' right to refuse to play computers in C tournaments,
many people must be under the misconception that this rule
will actually have a practical impact on them.  It won't.

There are only 7 computer programs with established USCF ratings
in the entire country.  That's right, SEVEN!  When you compare this
number to the thousands of human tournament players, you see that
the chance of actually getting paired against one is incredibly
small.  It's not worth worrying about.

Let's drop this pointless discussion so we can get back to the
really important issues that effect the game.  How many people
would like to see the 50 move rule extended to 739 moves for the R+B 
vs 2N's endgame? :-)

Bradley
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Computer Ratings/Versions
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:23:42 GMT

In article <2a895317wnr070@ark.abg.sub.org> ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan) writes:

>But I don't think it will be a problem to rate software because it will be
>run on the fastest available machines anyway and the speed of these machines
>won't increase in a way that affects the rating exorbitantly. One says that
>a 100% speed increase improves the rating by 30-50 ELO but that surely is
>valid only to a certain limit.

I don't know.  CCR vol. 2 no. 2 p. 4 says that the Fidelity Designer
2325 is about 2.4 times as fast as the 2265, which "should imply a
rating difference of about 90 points."  As I understand it, the 2325 is
a 20 MHz 68020, while the 2265 is a 16 MHz 68000.  Seems that Kaufman
is giving over 60 points for a 100% speed increase.

>Now think of the fact:  Given PC software like M-Chess and a 80486-50, when
>are you likely to get a rating improvement of 30 to 50 just by speed? You
>have to wait for a 100 MHz processor.  Or you can try to parallelize your

You can get a rating improvement of 30-50 points just by chance.  You
said "likely" to, but remember that the standard deviation for the CRA
48 games is 40 points---1/3 of the ratings will be off by more than 40
points.  So, 30-50 points hardly seems worth bothering about.  Of
course, that is probably exactly what you are saying!  On the other
hand, from the developers/players perspective, two increments of 50
gives you the 100 that is significant (informally).

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: kirk@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu (Kirk Gunsallus)
Subject: Re: US Open
Organization: Alchemy International
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:36:11 GMT

In article <SCHILLER.92Aug11214041@tira.uchicago.edu> schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:
>Right! If those of us who hate machines don't play in events
>where we have a reasonable chance of playing the beasts, the
>old fashioned fun tournments will return. Get rid of class

... other examples deleted ...
>
>And if Joe Nodebrain wants to run a tournament with 5%
>of the players made of wire and silicon, let him.
>
>Why do people feel so threatened by freedom of choice?
>
>Eric Schiller

I think people are threatened by the possibility of NO choice (or at least
no satisfactory choice).  I don't live near any huge cities and tournament
chess requires significant effort just to participate.  If I thought that
all tournaments would be Comp. tournaments and I didn't want to play a
computer, I would feel threatened--the size of an already small 'source'
is shrinking.  I think Dennis (mega-post) Baker had those feelings about
action vs. long-time chess.

Kirk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Subject: handicap in chess
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin Wells)
Organization: y
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 21:49:08 GMT


Several recent posts have discussed ways to give handicaps in chess. 

There is an interesting handicap "system" that I have played under a
few times, which is extremely useful when the difference in playing
skill isn't enormous.  It isn't really useful between absolute
beginners, but it is fairly useful between people who know the game.

It's just simple: Rather than removing men from the board to ham string
the stronger player, simply add a restriction.

eg: The weaker player operates under the usual rules.  However the
	stronger player must use his knight to checkmate.  Or to make it
	easier and reduce the handicap, say he can only checkmate with
	his queen.

I've thought about making it even harder by expanding this to include
check (stronger player may only call check with knights, for example),
but this seems to begin distorting the game nearly as much as just
removing men from the board.

- - -
 
Related somehow by some vague train of thought: 

  In chinese chess, there is no stalemate situation.  The rules require
  you to move a man every turn.  If at the end of your turn your king
  (emporer) remains in check, you lose.

  Does anyone know why, historically, the stalemate rule was introduced
  into Western chess?  And does anyone else feel that the chinese rule
  makes much more sense?

  (in case you missed it: there is no rule forbidding you to move into
   check.  If you are forced to move into check, you lose.)


   [reply to sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca or post]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Subject: Stalemate (was Re: handicap in chess)
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca  (Justin Wells)
Organization: y
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 02:59:56 GMT

In article <16utotINNji@agate.berkeley.edu> emarkp@ocf.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.214908.4373@ists.ists.ca> sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin Wells) writes:
>
>}  In chinese chess, there is no stalemate situation.  The rules require
>}  you to move a man every turn.  If at the end of your turn your king
>}  (emporer) remains in check, you lose.
>
>inferior play (if you can't win in such a situation...).  The concept of a
>draw allowed a more reasonable rule.  Certainly the party which caused the
>stale shouldn't get the full win, because he has prevented the game to end
>with a checkmate via legal moves.  And it does seem kind of silly to give a
>full win to a player who is stalemated, because he probably should have
>lost.  Eventually, it became the practice to score a stalemate the same as a
>draw:  .5-.5.

I was very pleased to read your history of the stalemate.  It gives a
lot more insight into what different people expect from the game..

But somehow to me the stalemate/checkmate distinction seems to be 
theoretically impure.  The object of the game can be stated
quite simply as being: "To capture the enemy king."

Instead of having rules for stalemate, checkmate, check, and so forth,
why not just have one rule that says: "If you remove the enemy king from
the board, you win."

Maybe I'm just a purist, and this seems like a purer game to me.
Or maybe I've just been spoiled by playing Go, where the rules themselves
take on quite an elegance.

I know if you answer: "I just don't see it that way" then there aren't
any further arguments to be made by either of us.  I guess I'm also a
little curious to know why someone would actually PREFER the stalemate
approach though.

Justin
(reply to sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca or post)
From: gls@windmill.att.com (the Colonel)
Subject: more on Tennison
Organization: F. K. Dingy & Son
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:25:26 GMT

Last night I tried Gnuchess on the position after 1. Nf3 f5; 2. e4 fe;
3. Ng5 d5; 4. d3 Qd6; 5. Nc3 h6; 6. Nb5 Qc6; 7. de hg; 8. ed.  White
fared no better than with 8. Q:d5.  Black retreated with 8... Qd7, and
after 9. B:g5 Nf6; 10. Nc3 c6; 11. dc N:c6; 12. Bd3 Qe6+; 13. Qe2 Q:e2+;
14. N:e2, White was just a piece down.

Here's the rest of the game:  14... Ne5; 15. Bb5+ Bd7; 16. B:d7+ Ne:d7;
17. f3 (quite a useful move) Rh5; 18. h4 Rh8; 19. Nf4 Kf7; 20. O-O-O
Rc8; 21. Rhe1 e5; 22. Nd5 N:d5; 23. R:d5 Ke6; 24. Rd3 Nc5; 25. Rd2 Bd6;
26. g4 Rhf8; 27. f4 g6; 28. fe Bc7; 29. Rd4 Nd7; 30. Bf4 B:e5; 31. Ra4
Kd6; 32. Rd1+ Kc6; 33. Bg5 Nc5; 34. R:a7 Bf4+; 35. B:f4 R:f4; 36. Rg1
Rh8; 37. h5 gh; 38. g5 Na6; 39. g6 Kb6; 40. g7 Rg8; 41. Ra8 R:a8; 42. g8Q
R:g8; 43. R:g8 h4; 44. Rh8 Kb5; 45. Kd2 Nc5; 46. a3 Rf2+; 47. Kc1 Rh2;
48. Rh5 Kc6; 49. b4 Ne4; 50. c4 b6; 51. b5+ Kd6; 52. Rh6+ Kc5; 53. Rc6+
Kd4; 54. c5 N:c5; 55. R:b6 Kc4; 56. Rh6 K:b5; 57. Rh7 Ka4; 58. Rc7 Nb3+;
59. Kb1 K:a3; 60. Ra7+ Kb4; 61. Ra4+ Kc5; 62. Ra3 Nd4; 63. Rc3+ Kd5;
64. Rc8 h3; 65. Rd8+ Ke4; 66. Rh8 Rh1+; 67. Kb2 h2; 68. Re8+ Kf5; 69. Rf8+
Kg6; 70. Kc3 Kg7; 71. Rf2 Rc1+; 72. K:d4 h1Q; 73. Rf8 K:f8; 74. Ke3 Qh3+;
75. Ke4 Kf7; 76. Kf4 Rc4+; 77. Kg5 Qg4+; 78. Kh6 Qh4#.

I know that 73. Rf8 looks strange, but it's probably the best way to give
up the rook.

-:-
	"Well, that was better.  My opponents are getting weaker, at
	 any rate.  This one didn't even know how to mate me.  He
	 just kept queening pawns for no reason.  I ought to get a
	 really easy opponent for the last round."
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
gls@windmill.att.COM
From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Torre Attack
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:06:36 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <1992Aug18.192345.29043@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> gene@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Gene E. Johannsen) writes:

>I was looking at the first couple moves of the Torre Attack (has it been
>elevated to a system yet?) that goes: 1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bg5 4 c3 and I was
>wondering just what made this thing worth anything, and I relized that
>it is the Caro Kann reversed.  Really.  The only thing is that black is
>prevented from playing fun things like a reversed advanced variation
>or something because white has the extra move.

There is a reason why 4.e3 is preferred over 4.c3:

Sangla - Karpov, USSR Team Ch 1968:
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 c5 4.c3 (4.e3 or 4.e4?!) cxd4! (4.-Qb6 is also
good) 5.cxd4 Qb6 6.Qb3?! (6.Qc2 Nc6 7.Bxf6 gxf6 8.e3 d5 9.Nc3 Bd7 =,
Larsen - Portisch, Tillburg 1980) Ne4 7.Bf4 Nc6 8.e3 Bb4+ 9.Nbd2? g5
10.Bxg5 Bxd2+ 0-1 (11.Nxd2 Qa5 12.Qc2 Nxd2 -+) 

But of course you can play e3 and c3 later, and that is normal Torre
attack. One example line:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 c5 4.e3 Be7 5.Nbd2 b6 6.Bd3 Bb7 7.O-O Nc6 8.c3
O-O 9.Re1 Rc8 10.Rc1 (10.dxc5 bxc5 11.e4) Nh5! 11.Ne4 f6! 12.Bh4 g6 =

Mika
-- 
Mika Kukkonen = Mika.Kukkonen@Helsinki.FI
Trying to learn to live in Helsinki University of Computer Science.
"I am studying, so I am, or am I (studying)?"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: This Week In Chess History
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:20:33 GMT


                       THIS WEEK IN CHESS HISTORY
                           August 20-26,1992

August 20
1872 - Henry Atkins born
1909 - Olga Rubtsova born
1929 - Leonard Barden born
1942 - Rudolph Spielmann died

August 21
1911 - Gedeon Barcza born
1945 - Lev Alburt born

August 22
1870 - William Lewis died
1958 - Alonso Zapata born

August 23
1813 - Karl Jaenisch born

August 25
1903 - Arpad Elo born
1934 - Max Blau died

August 26
1958 - Jonathan Tisdall born
1959 - Michael Rohde born

Copyright 1992 Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved

Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6322 rec.games.go:1648 rec.games.board:8085 news.groups:17049
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Keywords: checkers, shogi, othello, hex, etc.
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:08:46 GMT
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin Wells)
Organization: y

In article <12629@ecs.soton.ac.uk> prj91@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Paul James) writes:
>
>Before we consider making a new group rec.games.strategic, can someone
>tell me which games discussed in rec.games.board are NOT strategic. It
>seems to be that 95% at least are. Creating a new group would just
>confuse the issue. The group at present is not too large and forcing
>people to read two groups instead of one when one does not take too
>much bandwidth is silly.

Perhaps the group is not too large if you like war games.  But for 
those of us who have no interest in them...

It doesn't seem silly to me.  It would be a great relief.  My killfile
is becoming rapidly unmanageable.  You are ignoring the context of
strategic.  Perhaps a better name would be something like:

rec.games.board.abstract.strategic.like.shogi.go-moku.pente.checkers.etc

But it really is unpleasant to have to type that every time you want to
move to the newsgroup.  So, given the context of "strategic", and that
there would be a mandate posted to the group defining it's subject,
95% of the games in rec.games.board would be inappropriate in 
rec.games.strategic.

What you are quibbling about here is whether the precise name
"rec.games.strategic" is appropriate.  Don't attempt to blur this
minor but valid point with the larger issue of whether or not the
newsgroup itself is needed (whatever the name finally is).

You can't be so naive as to imagine that the majority of games discussed
in rec.games.board would be at all interesting to most people who play
games like checkers or shogi.  To be sure there are people who are
interested in both, just as there are people who subscribe to both
comp.theory and comp.ai -- but it is largely two completely separate
groups with little in common.  Anyway this is a point that need not
be debated, since it is clear from the large number of posts:  shogi,
checkers, othello, go-moku, pente, draughts, etc., players are not
interested in reading rec.games.board.
.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pgh@cs.brown.edu (Paul Howard)
Subject: Re: handicap in chess
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Brown University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:46:21 GMT

One other way of giving a handicap that works well for a series of
speed chess games is to change the time limit.  For instance, in a
series of "5-minute" chess games, there are always 10 minutes alloted
to the game, but whenever one player wins, he gives one minute to the
other player; so for instance, the second game would be 6 minutes to
4, the loser of the first game getting the extra time.  If the players
are reasonbly close, they soon "find" a comfortable level (a level
level, so to speak).

-- Paul
--
Paul G. Howard    Dept. of Comp. Sci.   Brown Univ.   Providence RI 02912-1910
email pgh@cs.brown.edu    phone 401-863-7672    FAX 401-863-7657    ham KA1YNE
From: CAPSA <capsa@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:15 PDT
Subject: Re: Fischer vs Treasury Dept.
Nf-ID: #R:1992Aug19.204707.8295@murdoch.ac:-497018982:cdp:1451600027:000:170
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!capsa    Aug 19 22:15:00 1992


I was told tonight (19 Aug) that the Fischer-Spassky match will be played in
Budapest, beginning 2 Sep.  Has anyone else heard this story?  

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: alopez-o@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
Subject: Man vs Computer Checkers Championship
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:25:47 GMT



Today's newspaper has a picture of Marion Tinsley palying a computer with 
the caption [my comments are in brackets].

   World checkers champ Marion Tinsley ponders his next move against
   the Chinook Supercomputer in London, England, yesterday during the 
   World Draughts [checkers] Championship. The computer is ranked 
   second in the world [the checkers program was written by J. 
   Schaeffer of the Univiersity of Alberta]. Tinsbury, of Tallahasee,
   Florida, as of yesterday had won one game and drawn five in a 40-game
   series against the computer.


Does anybody has more information on the match?


Alex


-- 
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              alopez-o@maytag.UWaterloo.ca
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 20 Aug 1992 13:57:33 CDT
From: <U55342@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Piket - van Mil Computer Analysis


Hi, this is Bert WIlson. I loaded the game onto my Zarkov 2.51, and set it on
'selfplay' with a time control of 16 moves in 420 minutes. I ran this on my
Dell 386sx, and its speed is 25 Mhz. (Maybe from all this you will want to
estimate roughly what USCF rating it was simulating.) The below is a copy of
the analysis file it generated. Maybe I should let it run at about 45 minutes
per ply and then post the results. I don't think that the final position is
'quiescent' and so would be a strong place to end analysis and evaluate; I
started the program last night and stopped it this morning before I left
my apartment to go to my university.

P.S.: my computer thinks I'm German and I haven't told it otherwise!

                                                See Yaz!
                                                 Bert
==============================================================================


Move               Score    Suggested Line

  1. Sf3
  1.       f5
  2. e4
  2.       fxe4
  3. Sg5
  3.       d5
  4. d3
  4.       Dd6
  5. Sc3
  5.       h6
  6. Sb5
  6.       Dc6
  7. dxe4            -39    d3e4  h6g5  e4d5  c6d7  c1g5  c7c6  b5c3
  7.       hxg5      -61    h6g5  e4d5  c6d7  c1g5  a7a6  b5c3  g8f6
  8. exd5            -61    e4d5  c6d7  c1g5  a7a6  b5c3  g8f6  f1c4
  8.       Dd7       -54    c6d7  c1g5  a7a6  b5c3  g8f6  f1c4  b7b5  c4e2
  9. Lxg5            -45    c1g5  g8f6  f1e2  a7a6  b5c3  e7e5
  9.       a6        -40    a7a6  b5c3  d7d6  h2h3  e7e5  f1d3  f8e7  g5e3
 10. Sc3             -23    b5c3  d7d6  f2f4  d6b4  a2a3  b4b6  d1c1
 10.       Dd6       -41    d7d6  d1d2  c8g4  d2d4  g4f5  c3e4  f5e4  d4e4
                            h8h2  h1h2  d6h2
 11. Dd4             -53    d1d4  e7e5  d4d3  g8e7  d3e4  a8a7  f1d3
 11.       e5        -58    e7e5  d4e3  g8f6  e1c1  f6g4  e3g3  g4f6
 12. Dd3             -60    d4d3  d6b6  a1b1  f8c5  c3e4  g8e7  e4c5  b6c5
                            g5e7  c5e7
 12.       Se7       -69    g8e7  d3e4  b8d7  f2f4  d7f6  e4e5  d6e5  f4e5
                            f6d5
 13. De4             -58    d3e4  b8d7  f2f4  d6g6  e1c1  g6e4  c3e4
 13.       Sd7       -71    b8d7  f2f4  d6g6  e1c1  g6e4  c3e4  e7g6  f4e5
                            d7e5
 14. f4              -62    f2f4  d6g6  e4e2  e7f5  e2e4  f8e7  g5e7  f5e7
 14.       exf4      -65    e5f4  g5f4  d6c5
From: jc79+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Anthony Chanak)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Where is the FAQ?
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:55:06 GMT
Organization: Junior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Is there an FAQ for this group?

If so, where can I find it?
If it is not available via ftp, could someone please mail me a copy?

Thanks!

-John Chanak
jc79+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: cfc@isr.harvard.edu (Christopher F. Chabris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: US Women's Championship Announcement
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:13:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: burrhus.1992Aug13.041301.22280
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA


---------------------------------------
1992 UNITED STATES WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP
---------------------------------------

August 19-30, Bentley College, Waltham, MA (and Boston locations).

The following players will participate: Irina Levitina (USCF 2433), Esther
Epstein (2365), Julia Tverskaya (2361), Beatriz MacArthur (2293), Yulia
Levitan (2287), Leslie Pelech (2191), Alexey Root (2188), Vera Frenkel (2168),
Vesna Dimitrijevic (2129), Sharon Burtman (2106).

Format: 9RR, time control 40/2 followed by 20/1.

The opening ceremony will take place at Bentley College, Lindsay Auditorium,
at 7:30 PM on Wednesday, August 19. It features pianist Ilan Rechtman. It is
free. Tickets to a reception afterward may be purchased in advance for $3.50.
(See end of message for contact people, addresses, and telephone numbers.)

The rounds will take place at Bentley College, Pavilion, Adamian Graduate
Center, on the 20th (4:00 PM), 21st (4:00 PM), 22nd (1:00 PM), 23rd (1:00 PM),
25th (4:00 PM), 26th (4:00 PM), 27th (4:00 PM), 28th (4:00 PM), and 30th
(10:00 AM). Admission to the playing site is free. Admission to concurrent
master commentary is $2 (free with student ID). I will provide the commentary
on the first round.

Many other public events, including a human chess enactment, giant chess set
game, art gallery reception, family festival, blitz tournament, closing
ceremony, and the "Chess Explorations Day Camp" will take place throughout
the tournament at Bentley College and various sites in Boston.

Please contact Joel Altman at 508-543-5404 (PO Box 391, Foxboro, MA 02035)
or Marcia Duran at 617-547-4581 (Arts Computer Products, 33 Richdale Avenue,
Cambridge, MA 02140) for more information. If yousend me email or post here,
I will answer to the best of my ability based on the flyers and schedules I
have received from the organizers, but I may have to refer you to Joel and
Marcia, who are unfortunately not accessible by email.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: US Open
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:55:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.175836.21990@cco.caltech.edu> direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Kathy Watts) writes:
>(please reply to Hal Bogner, direwolf@seismo.gps.caltech.edu)

>Richard Lang's, for instance), it's hard to avoid the conclusion that
>the best way to find out how much progress one has made is by trying it
>out against people.  And tournaments are where those people are!

Why not play computers against computers that have already been rated.
Computers can play in a separate rating pool, and we already have
enough rated machines to seed the pool.  And professional players have
already demonstrated a willingness to participate from time to time to
provide some correlation with the pool of people.

Most of us care primarily about the strengths of machines relative to
each other (and cost, features, etc.).  And a developer can certainly
sit there bench marking a program against a Mach III or the like for
the testing process.

--Jim
From: price@crc.ac.uk (Mr. P.M. Rice)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Boris
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:02:22 GMT
Organization: MRC Human Genome Resource Centre



Lots of comment so far about Bobby Fischer and US attitudes to Serbia.

Can one of the French lurkers on the group tell us whether Boris Spassky
will be allowed to play?

Peter Rice
Rice@EMBL-Heidelberg.DE
and occasionally price@crc.ac.uk
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: Re: Girls
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:43:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.175207.9371@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:


>> Okay, there's this girl whom I desperately like (the whole thing is rather
>> sick, actually) and we get together and play chess every once in a while
>> and I wind up beating her easily.
>>

>ok, i think that what we have here is NOT a chess problem...it is
>a MALE-FEMALE problem. i do not profess to be an expert on women,
>but i do know enough to tell you....

>   LET HER WIN!!!!


not entirely a bad idea, but how about doing it more honestly, like by 
spotting her a rook.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess