HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: Re: When Deep Thought Beats Kasparov...
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:19:37 GMT

In article <16139@mindlink.bc.ca> Peter Stockhausen,
Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca writes:

>  1,  Deep Thought never achieved anything resembling a 2600 rating
>performance against Grand Masters in tournament play. As a matter of
fact, as
>stated earlier, it played in only one (1) Grand Master Tournament in
1990 or
>1991 in Hanover Germany. The score was +1 =2 -4 with a performance rating
>below 2400 and missing an IM norm.
>
>  2,  To the best of my knowledge Deep Thought has not played any other
Grand
>Master Tournaments since.
>
>  3,  We should not be misled by promotional "off hand" games and the
>occasional IM and GM "scalp".  Those kind of performances do not make a
World
>Champion.
>
>  4,  I think we will have to wait until Deep Thought or Deep Thought II
will
>play a string of GM tournaments, say five or six with some sixty or
seventy
>games before a conclusion can be reached.

I quote from the article:

"By the summer of 1990 [...] Deep Thought had achieved a 50 percent score
in 10 games played under tournament control against grandmasters and an
86 percent score in 14 games against international masters.  Some of
these games and dozens of others against less distinguished opponents had
been played under the auspices of the U.S. Chess Federation, which used
the results to derive a chess rating of 2552.  [...]  In the games played
after August of 1988, when the computer reached its current analytical
speed of 750,000 positions per second, its performance rating exceeded
2600."

So I take it that the 2600 rating was derived from ALL the games Deep
Thought had played between August 1988 and the summer of 1990.  This,
apparently, included 10 games against GMs, 14 games against IMs and
dozens of games against LDOs ("less distinguished opponents").  Since
much more than 30 games were used for the calculations, there is no
reason to doubt the accuracy of the above rating.

I do not have the facts before me, just taking the article at face value.

   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: STOP BASHING ALEKINE
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:48:37 GMT
Organization: Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden

In article <1992Oct12.080034.25848@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:
>>
>How about Euwe?  He offered Alekhine a rematch after only a year, and then
>said he lost to a superior oppenent.  That's a chess first, 

Losing to a superior opponent? :-)

Steinitz was, I believe, quite decent about losing to Lasker. He even
proposed a cheer for the new word champion! That might very well be
both a chess first as well as a chess last.

-- 
Anders Thulin       ath@linkoping.trab.se 	013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
From: tcmaint@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (-Broadband Network Maintenance)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: fs2
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:29:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: sail.12727
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


I looked over the record for the fs2 match, if my records and counting are
correct its Fischer lead 7 games to 4 with 9 draws. 

If this match was only twenty games if would be over with Bobby Fischer as
the winner. I like the idea to play to one wins 10 games and let the 
match continue. 

From what I can tell draws count as preventing a loss. Forget the 1/2 point!

--Bruce
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:21:13 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

[Very long preamble omitted.]

> Do you still place Fischer in the same league as Capablanca, Alehkine,
Karpov or Kasparov?

Yes.
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Resigning
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:21:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23880
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <1992Oct13.165628.13610@pbhya.PacBell.COM> gdridle@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Guy D. Ridley) writes:

> When the outcome of the game becomes certain, I lose interest entirely.
> What's left to prove?  (Of course, one player might blunder, but I hate
> winning by blunders as much as I hate losing by them.)

Well, there is sometimes a question as to what's "certain."  For example:

	  *   *   *   k
	* b * r *   p
	p *   *   *   p
	* p *   q N *
	  *   b P *   *
	*   * Q *   *
	P *   *   * P P
	* B * R *   * K

This game is from Von Popiel-Marco, Monte Carlo 1902.  Marco, to play,
has his d4-bishop pinned against the rook at d7.  It is attacked thrice
and defended only twice; no other defenders are available.

Marco therefore resigned in this position.  The reason that was a mistake
is left for the reader to find.

[This game is from a wonderful book by Mullen and Moss caled Blunders
and Brilliancies.  It has a whole chapter devoted to unwarranted resignations.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Tilburg news - Karpov knocked out
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:55:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct14.195547.16395
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Karpov was knocked out in the second round at Tilburg by 63rd out of
64 ranked Alexander Chernin.  I don't understand this listing very
well, but here are the 2nd round results and 3rd round pairings from
CompuServe.

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138            


Second round aggregate results from Tilburg:                  
Vassily Ivanchuk (No.1) (Ukraine) 2 - 0 Vladimir Epishin (Russia)
Yassar Seirawan (No.16) (US) 2 - 0 Alexander Wojtkiewicz (Poland)
Gata Kamsky (No.8) (US) 1 - Vasil Spasov (Bulgaria)
Artur Yusupov (No.9) (Russia) 3 - Alexander Goldin (Russia) 1
Boris Gelfand (No.5) (Belarus) 3 - 2 Eduardas Rozentalis (Lithuania)
Edvins Kengis (Latvia) 1 - Mikhail Gurevich (No.12) (Belgium)
Jeroen Piket (No.13) (Netherlands) 2 - 1 Jonathan Speelman (Britain)
Viswanathan Anand (No.4) (India) 1 - Loek van Wely (Netherlands)     
Alexei Shirov (No.3) (Latvia) 2 - 1 Lembit Oll (Estonia)
Predrag Nikolic (No.14) (Croatia) 1 - John van der Wiel (Netherlands)
Ilia Smirin (Israel) 2 - 1 Curt Hansen (No.11) (Denmark)
Nigel Short (No.6) (Britain) 2 - 1 Ian Rogers (Australia)
Grigory Serper (Russia) 2 - 1 Lev Polugaevski (No.10) (Russia)
Jan Timman (No.7) (Netherlands) 1 - Robert Kuczynski (Poland)
Michael Adams (No.15) (Britain) 3 - 1 Alexander Beliavsky (Ukraine)
Alexander Chernin (Hungary) 2 - 1 Anatoly Karpov (No.2) (Russia)
Joel Lautier (France) 1 - 1 Gerald Hertneck (Germany) 0
Ulf Andersson (Sweden) 2 - 0 Murray Chandler (Britain
Luc Winants (Belgium) 2 - 0 Friso Nijboer (Netherlands)
Alexey Dreev (Russia) 2 - 1 Vladimir Akopian (Armenia)
Igor Stohl (Czechoslovakia) 2 - 1 Vlastimil Hort (Germany)
Michael Rohde (US) 1 - Julio Granda Zuniga (Peru)
Viktor Korchnoi (Switzerland) 1 - Larry Christiansen (US) 1/2
Sergei Tiviakov (Russia) 1 - Dibyendu Barua (India)
Alexey Vyzmanavin (Russia) 2 - 1 Jaan Ehlvest (Estonia)
Jesus Nogueiras (Cuba) 1 - Anthony Miles (Britain)
Anthony Kosten (Britain) 1 -  Ivan Sokolov (Bosnia- Herzegovina)
Margeir Petursson (Iceland) 1 - Johann Hjartarson (Iceland)
Vassily Smyslov (Russia) 2 - 1 Boris Gulko (US)
Evgeny Sveshnikov (Russia) 3 - 1 Smbat Lputian (Armenia)
Kiril Georgiev (Bulgaria) 1 - Petar Popovic (Yugoslavia)
Andrej Kovalev (Russia) 1 - Rafael Vaganian (Armenia)

Draw for third round, starting today, first-named start with white:

Lautier-Ivanchuk
Seirawan-Andersson
Winants-Kamsky
Yusupov-Dreev
Stohl-Gelfand
Kengis-Rohde
Korchnoi-Piket
Anand-Tiviakov
Vyzmanavin-Shirov
Nikolic-Nogueiras
Kosten- Smirin
Short-Petursson
Smyslov-Serper
Timman-Sveshnikov
Georgiev-Adams
Chernin-Kovalev
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: tweaked boring calculations
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:28:10 GMT

Private e-mail conversation with someone who's judgement I trust on
matters of 2500+ level chess performance has led me to re-calculate the
match so far - with Fischer starting as "unrated".

                      Fischer-Spassky II (Part I)
                  2 September 1992 - 20 September 1992
Player           Prev Perf Post     rounded
Robert J Fischer 0000 2659 2659      2660 
   Boris Spassky 2550 2549 2552      2550


And now - giving Fischer an established 2660 for the second half (note:
K=16 for both Fischer and Spassky, below.  A "more precise" calculation
might use K=15 for Fischer and K=10 for Spassky.)

                      Fischer-Spassky II (Part 2)
                        30 September 1992 - ...
Player           Prev Perf Post     rounded
Robert J Fischer 2660 2607 2651      2650 
   Boris Spassky 2550 2602 2558      2560

Clearly, this is a vast improvement over the previous results of
2720/2590.   *not*

After another 10 games or so, the difference between the two sets of
assumptions will vanish.  So - pick your favorite assumption.  I'm going
to return to using the last published ratings as the starting point for
both players, and leave the "adjust the ratings by disputation" exercise
to someone else.

-B5/N


-- 
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
Date: Wednesday, 7 Oct 1992 10:25:42 EDT
From: Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject:    Can Black Force a Win?

An interesting speculation that is discussed from time to time is: suppose
chess were solved.  What would be the solution?  Would it be a forced
win for White, a forced win for Black, or a Draw?

"A forced win for Black" certainly seems like the least likely of the
three possibilities.  There is a simple proof in game theory that can
be used for some games to prove that the second player cannot force a
win.  The proof works for two person games where the players alternate in
making moves, and goes roughly as follows:

Assume the second player can force a win.  The first player makes any
random move on their first move, and thereafter follows the alleged
winning strategy of the second player.  In the event that at a subsequent
point in the play, the correct move (copied from the second player's
alleged winning strategy) cannot be made because it has already been
made, then make another random move and continue as before.  Therefore,
the first player can force a win by copying the second player's alleged
winning strategy, and the assumption that the second player can force a
win is false.

This proof is a little loose, but could be tightened up if required.
However, I did omit one crucial assumption.  The proof works for any
game where the extra move never does any harm to the player making it.
For example, the proof is sufficient to show that the second player
cannot force a win in Tic-Tac-Toe, because an extra move in Tic-Tac-Toe
can do no harm to the player making it.  The proof does not work for
chess because an extra move *can* do harm.  Also, even for games where
the proof does apply, it does not prove that the first player can force
a win, only that the second player cannot.  Indeed, Tic-Tac-Toe is a
draw.
QUIT
ndeed, Tic-Tac-Toe is a
draw.
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II Ratings (20)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:33:14 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca> writes:

>After 20 games, this is how they measure up...

>          Re   Pe    G  W  L  D    S   Pa    Rn

>Fischer  2700  64%  20  7  4  9  11.5  58%  2675
>Spassky  2600  36%  20  4  7  9   8.5  43%  2625

>Re  Estimated rating before the match
>Pe  Expected performance
>G   Games played
>W   Wins
>L   Losses
>D   Draws
>S   Score
>Pa  Actual performance
>Rn  New rating

>Assuming that the initial estimates (Re) are correct, Fischer would
>currently be number 8 in the world, and Spassky tied for the 21st place.


>   ...Peter

>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
>Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

I simply can't understand why Peter Marko and some others who give these
estimates consistently give Spassky's estimated prior rating as 2600 which
is much higher than his actual F.I.D.E rating of about  2560.
I get the impression that there is some vague notion that perhaps he 
plays better in important games.
I haven't seen any actual data to support this notion and this revision
of the actual rating of an active professional chess player seems 
completely absurd.
From: winders@aux.support.apple.com (Scott Winders)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:07:11 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <92285.142055RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu
wrote:
> 
> 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.

Logically, you are correct.  But logic does not explain why so many of
Fischer's opponents became sick while playing against him.  Look at the
men Fischer played on the way to the World Championship in 1972.  It
appears that most of his opponents were "sick", mentally or physically
at some point.

Scott Winders
winders@aux.support.apple.com

"My opinions are my own, not my employer's"
From: terry@gwinnett.COM (Terry J. Gardner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:32:17 GMT
Organization: Zachary, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.142412.10386@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>-----------------------------
>
>i think Fischer, with the exception of a couple of grotesque displays in
>the early rounds, is playing great!

He's winning, isn't he?

>
>i think he will pollish off boris pretty soon, and by that time will be
>back to his old form. he will then take on Karpov and beat him with a
>score of 10-1.

No way. Karpov's too strong for that. He can waste Karpov, but
Karpov will win more than 1 game.

>
>when he faces Gary in december of 1993, he will publicly embarrass him with
>an unheard of 10-0 score.

Nobody, repeat nobody can hold Kasparov to 0 wins. That's like saying that
FIscher can't lose. Fischer went 18 or 19 straight in the candidates in
70-71, UNTIL HE MET PETROSIAN. Same thing with Kasparov, and Kasparov is
a much stronger players than Petrosian ever was.

Bobby can beat Kasparov, but more like 10-9!
-- 
terry@pequod.gwinnett.Com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:17:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.143447.17929@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
>...
>The main difference between Fischer's claim to a WC match and
>everyone else's is that Fischer won the title and never lost it.
>It was taken away from him.

No.  He resigned the title.



-- 
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: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II game 19 opinion
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:18:57 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

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.

>	Even if we assume that S truly does have no realistic way of
>winning from that position, we then have to remember that even the
>greatest players occasionally have complete hallucinations.  If F
>blunders once in a thousand games, that gives S a chance of around
>0.1% of winning.  Not to mention the chances of F falling asleep and
>losing on time, or having an argument with the organisers and walking
>out, or [invent your own better-than-one-in-a-million scenario].

>	Even if those odds were correct, can you really afford to
>bet 100 billion [US] dollars to one cent on the outcome?

>-- 
>Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
>anw@maths.nott.ac.uk


My opinion is that for [apparently] an intelligent person, you have a weak
grasp of the concept of emphasis by exaggeration.  
You completely ignore the point of the posting which is to ask for an
evaluation of a position and make an unnecessary pedantic point instead.
 If you display these same attitudes to your students, then the probability
that you are an effective teacher is perhaps less than the infinitesimal
(in the colloquial sense) that I came up with.
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Tuesday, 13 Oct 1992 08:52:48 PST
From: Thomas Hyer <IOR@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds
 <1bceueINNs85@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU> <achut.718912764@nairobi>
 <1992Oct12.213101.10485@uoft02.utoledo.edu> <1992Oct13.145057.3009@bnr.ca>

In article <1992Oct13.145057.3009@bnr.ca>, Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca> says:
>
>>Eric Schiller says:
>>I'll make it easy. Any time control averaging greater than 2.5
>>minutes per move. Any place. Ties invalidate the "bet". Any
>>length > 6 games < 32 games.
>
>Supposing a first-to-win-10-games match, here are my odds:
>
>Kasparov        9-1 in Kasparov's favour
>Karpov          8-5 in Karpov's favour
>Anand           1-1
>Timman          8-5 in Fischer's favour
>Seirewan        6-1 in Fischer's favour
>
>This is based on FIDE's July 1992 list and an estimated rating of 2690
>for Fischer.  If anybody has more recent ratings for the players above, I
>will be more than pleased to repost the new numbers.

Peter,

  you need to keep in mind the fact that the source of uncertainty
isn't the uncertainty of outcomes of games between players of known
strength, but the uncertainty of Fischer's strength itself.

  Consider (for example) a Kasparov-Anand match.  If they play until
one game is won, Anand has perhaps a 30% chance; if they play until
one player has 6 wins, that chance drops to moke like 5%.  (I made
up these numbers, so don't bother checking them.)

  On the other hand, saying Fischer has a 50% chance to beat Anand
is essentially saying that there is a 50% chance that Fischer is
now a stronger player; the length of the match doesn't affect that.
So using Fischer's rating (however you determine it) is a mistake.

Tom Hyer
From: rgp@mpd.tandem.com (Ramon Pantin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:08:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: devnull.2651
Organization: Tandem Computers, Micro-Products Division

In article <1992Oct14.143447.17929@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
>
>The main difference between Fischer's claim to a WC match and
>everyone else's is that Fischer won the title and never lost it.
>It was taken away from him.  This is where the controversy is
>being generated on this thread of legitimate claims to a match.

Fischer could have simply played as the champion with the same
rules that where in place when Spassky was the champion.

Was there something special about Fischer that made some rules ok
for Spassky when Spassky was champion but where somehow wrong for
Fischer when he was the champion? 

Any of those Bobby fanatics care to give a reasonable and objective
answer to this question?

I'll be amused be the unreasonable ones also, I just thought that
chess being a game played by rational people I could expect some of
that rationality shown here also.

Ramon Pantin
From: gerbaudo@jorasses.inria.fr (Pascal Gerbaudo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: human vs computer
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:45:48 GMT
Organization: INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis (Fr)

A GMI, I don't remember who exactly, say in the 70's I think
that for beating a world champion the computer must
calculate a depht of 7 moves, 14 half-moves.

(if someone has the complete reference, please send me)

So, if your computer compute over 14 half moves at the speed
of 40 moves by 2 hours, you play vs a WORLD CHESS CHAMPION.
From: amarnath@aura.cis.upenn.edu (Amarnath Mukherjee)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: In defense of Bobby Fischer
Date: 13 Oct 92 12:48:23 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania




Folks,

Here's something on the lighter side...in defense of Bobby Fischer: 

"The Reasonable Man adjusts himself to the world, the Unreasonable One persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man."

		- George Bernard Shaw.


-am
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:00:20 GMT


A followup to my own post.  Bill Maddex has pointed out that Fischer
and Tal played in Leipzig during Tal's tenure as world champion.  So
the final statistics are 4 draws and a loss.  But let's continue the
search:  Did Capa ever beat Lasker before their match?  Did Alekhine
eat Lasker during his tenure as world champion (I know he had not
defeated Capa before their match)  Did Tal defeat either Smyslov or
Botvinnik before their world championship match?  Did Kasparov defeat
Karpov before their match?  The answe to most of these questions is no.
That suggests that this statistic is little more than rhetorical fodder,
and has little to do with an evaluation of a player.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess