HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: FS performances - second half
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:45:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.141157.25440@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.195117.24591@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.145906.24234@cis.uab.edu> sloan@willis.cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>>>
>>>"Better" Performance Ratings can be calculated by noting that the
>>>*difference* in PR should be approximately 110 points,
>>
>>By whose fiat?
>
>Elo's.  In particular, the table he gives, based on the logistic function.
>
>Really - this is too elementary for words.  If you question this
>calculation, then we have nothing to discuss.  You *have* read Elo's
>book, haven't you?  Or, at least the 2 page blurb from USCF?  Or, are
>you just making this up as you go along?

Aha! So you are deriving this 110 points difference from their match
performance, if I understand what you are saying. But then you use it to
calculate the performance, don't you? Isn't that circular argument at its
silliest?

>>>[hmmm - no matter how you slice it, the conclusion that the match is
>>>being played at a "solid 2600 level" continues to hold up.
>>>Interesting.... But then, it's hard for it not to, as long as we pick
>>>2655 as the midpoint.  Skeptics should do a sensitivity analysis.]
>>
>>Well, it is obvious that due to that pick the match is at a solid 2655 level.
>>
>"Skeptics should do a sensitivity analysis".  Which word don't you understand?

Come on! If the average pre-match rating is 2655, the average performance 
rating will also be 2655. They can play like babies, but the match would still
appear to be at the 2655 level.

BTW, who and how came up with 2760 for Fischer's rating? It is officially
2775 (after losing 5 points in Reykjavik), isn't it?

>>>[And...congratulations to the person who - *before* the match -
>>>estimated the players' strengths as 2600 and 2700.  The first half
>>>performances, and the current established rating calculations agree
>>>perfectly with that prediction.
>>
>>Sure - they are based on that prediction (with 10 points added to Fischer's
>>rating).
>
>No.  They were not.  The above calculations are based on the previously
>published established ratings of 2550 and 2760.

Are you sure? Somewhere you threw in the assumption that the difference is
110 points, didn't you?

>Exercises for the skeptic:
>    * assume pre-event ratings of 2600 and 2700, 
>      and calculate post-event ratings.  
>    *assume pre-event ratings of 400 and 500,
>      and calculate post-event ratings.  

There is a big difference between the two. Sure, calculation is the same, but
in one case we conclude that the match is played at a "solid 2650 level" while
in the other case it is at a "solid" 450 level.


	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Organization: Dept.Medical Cybernetics&Artificial Intelligence,Univ.Vienna,Austria,Europe
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:50:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.171802.1@ulys.unil.ch> jboschun@ulys.unil.ch writes:
>In the various questions about Fischer's strength somebody talked about
>inflations in ELO ratings...
>Is somebody able to give a quantitativ evaluation of it from 1972 and so
>to give, for instance, the value that Kasparov would have had at that time
>(or the value of the Fischer of '72 now) ?
>More can somebody explain the exact origin of the ELO's inflation (is it
>coming, like in the case of money, from the increasing number of chess
>players or is there other reasons to that fact, I once heard about a bad
>management of the system ?) ?
>
>Jacques Boschung, Lausanne Federal Institut for Technology (CH)
>
In our local ches club we have a Blitz rating which includes about 15 players who play
about 200 games between two successive rating lists (every two weeks).
The average rating usually goes up by at least one point between two successive lists.
I think this due to the following reasons:
- Weaker players have a higher factor that is multiplied with the difference between 
  expected and actual result. This means a weaker player wins/loses more points than a
  higher rated opponent loses/wins.
- Weaker players get stronger so their rating increases => The rating average increases,
  because the rating of the hegher rated players decreases by less.
Several other factors might be important (players entering and leaving the pool etc.)
but I think this is the main reason. The effect is stronger because this is a very small
pool of players with a very high amount of games plauyed. The average rating has increased
by more than 200 points in the last couple of years. This, of course, does not mean
that their actual strength has decreased *that* much, part of it is due to the
underlying mathematics.

					--- Juffi

P.S. Can a couple of people who read this e-mail me a short notice, I'm not quite sure
     my postings get the distribution they deserve ;-).

Johannes Fuernkranz                                    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5320652(Fax)
Schottengasse 3, A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe     juffi@ai.univie.ac.at 

                "Life is too short for Chess."  - Byron

* VIENNA * ECML93 * VIENNA * ECML93 * VIENNA * ECML93 * VIENNA * ECML93 *
-- 
					--- Juffi

Johannes Fuernkranz                                    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5320652(Fax)
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: worrying
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:09:30 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

During games I spend a lot of time wishing that I had played stronger moves,
and even analysing positions that would have occurred but no longer can.
This is part of the reason why I often get into time trouble.
Can anybody offer any advice about this?
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:8257 sci.math:12378
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,sci.math
Subject: Re: A different variant of chess (infinite board)
Summary: how do I mate thee?...
Keywords: infinite board chess
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:49:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep28.214906.15925
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Sep28.212539.20447@wdl.loral.com>
mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
>Chess on an infinte board is a very uninteresting game, because checkmates
>are virtually impossible. [...] the only mate I can think of is the obvious
>mate involving 2 rooks and the queen:
>
>R
> Q     K
>  R

Yes, it's considerably harder to mate without the benefit of the boundary of
the board, but you don't need that much extra material to do it: a King and
two Rooks will mate a King in finitely many moves from any initial position.
(Think about it.)

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: wchang@phage.cshl.org (William Chang at Cold Spring Harbor Lab)
Subject: Re: Standardized Notations for Xiangqi (LOOKING AHEAD)
Summary: Double chariots through the heart; Canons behind the cavalry
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Lab, Long Is New York
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:31:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.060021.4451@nuscc.nus.sg> engp2063@nusunix1.nus.sg 
(NG CHEE MUN SIDNEY) writes:
>I don't know what is the unambiguity you are referring to. 

I just meant situations where pieces of the same type sit on the same file:

  fR+2 [ front racer forward two ]
  bR=4 [ back racer to fourth file ]

  [ f and b instead of the initial file number common to both pieces ]

Same with most other pieces.  But what happens when three or more 
soldiers/pawns sit on the same file? 

Re: RNMSKSMNR     [I prefer RNBAKABNR]
>That's the different notations I have been referring to. But I believe
>that Xiangqi should have a distinct identity of its own and should not
>be 'younger brother' of International Chess all the time. Of course, the
>initial adjustments would be painful....but isn't this what we have to
>go through when we first learn something new?

I see your point.  Nevertheless, I would argue that a pinyin system
is not hard for non-Chinese-speakers to learn (after all Go terminology
is Japanese and quite popular).  Please accept my "criticism" as
constructive--I'm willing to use any system (so long as I get to play :-)
but if it's hard who else would use it?  Every existing player learned 
the game either as "XiangQi" or as "Chinese Chess"; it is up to them to
decide what notation to adopt.

There's really only one way to do this.  Please publish some positions
or games/analyses (with graphics, in each of these notations).  The choice 
might become clear--or perhaps there's no single best choice.

Here's another point I would like to make.  Notation consists of both 
symbols and descriptive words/idioms: "rank"; "file"; "crossing river";
but more importantly there's a rich vocabulary of tactics (similar to 
chess openings) that must be translated.  These allusions and compressions
are poetic phrases carrying cultural/historical context, and are to a large 
extent what makes the game (indeed the Chinese language) so interesting!  
A typical attack LOOKS AHEAD TWENTY MOVES, but only a few tactical steps:
if such and such then "double chariots through the heart"; if so and so 
then "canons behind the cavalry"; etc.  

I'm sure you hadn't planned to deal with this whole can of worms :-) 
but you might want to propose such a project, and in this context 

  RHMAGAMHR+C+S (i.e. CHARGES) might make more sense than either 
  RNBAKABNR+C+P ("Chinese" chess) or
  JMXSGSXMJ+P+Z ("XiangQi"--pinyin, making allowance for "Giang"). 


Good luck and best regards,

-- Bill Chang (wchang@cshl.org)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tisue@athens.uchicago.edu (Seth Tisue)
Subject: Re: What is this notation? Smythescript?
Keywords: Smythescript
Organization: Plaster Cramp Press
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:26:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.225450.16006@husc3.harvard.edu> elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>Better yet, a program to translate standard notation to this Smythes-crypt,
>and then stop this silliness once and for all?

I suggest that this program be written in Intercal, for maximum
obfuscation value.

--
= Seth Tisue (tisue@csnext.uchicago.edu) (NeXT mail welcome)
= U.S. Mail: c/o Plaster Cramp Press, P.O. Box 5975, Chicago IL 60680
From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Mates on infinite board (Re: a different variant)
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:53:12 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.

In article <1992Sep29.122454.15944@husc3.harvard.edu>
elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>[no longer x-posted to sci.math]

	Pity -- just as it's getting mathematical again!

>I think [KRBN v K is] possible:

	Yes, and there's an easier (more general) way of doing this and ...

>What about KQNvK and KQBvK ?

	Here is the simple way.

   a)	Set up a "trap".  Eg, a Q shuttling around b7, h7, h1, b1 traps
	the opposing king inside the c-g files and 2-6 ranks.  Because
	the Q cannot be directly attacked, and the K takes at least two
	moves to threaten to escape whereas the Q takes only one to
	shift corners, White has ample free moves to bring up the other
	pieces.
   b)	Bring up the king to the centre of the trap.  In the present case,
	K moves to e4.  [If it's prevented, eg by (WKd4) ... Kf4, the
	simplest "mend" is to move the trap by Qg7.]
   c)	Bring up the knight/bishop.  Eg, with Ke4, Qb7 vs Kd6, bring a N
	to d5.  Now ... Ke6 allows Qe7 mate and ... Kc5 allows Qb6+ and
	Qb4 mate.  Variations left to the reader.

	Similarly, R+piece can set up a "bottle".  Eg, Be8 can bottle
with a R shuttling between c6 and g6 to confine the opposing K to the
d-f files.  Since the bottle can be pointed in any direction, it is
easy to see that the WK can close the bottle into a trap, and with any
further material can drive the K up the bottle.  This gives elementary
mates with RBN, RBB, RNN or RR.  Here is an example of RNN:

	W: Ke1, Rc7, Ne8, Nf1;  B: Ke3 to move.

1 ... Kd3 [or Kf3 2 Rg7] 2 Kf2 Ke4 3 Ke2 Kf4 4 Rg7 Ke4 5 Nd2+ Kf4 6 Kd3
Ke5 7 Ke3 Kd5 8 Rc7 Ke5 9 Nf3+ Kf5 10 Rg7 Ke6 11 Nd4+ Kd5 12 Rc7 Ke5
13 Rc5 mate.

	Left as an exercise:  KQP vs K, KRNP vs K, etc.

	Note that it is necessary to find algorithmic solutions to these
problems;  brute-force tree searching fails because the tree is infinite.
Even with alpha-beta pruning, it is still infinite if both sides have at
least one long-range piece.  This gives rise to the possibility that
positions may be undecidable;  possibly even provably undecidable if,
as is quite plausible, a Godel numbering of positions can be established
in which legal moves correspond to logical inferences [not altogether
dissimilar from the way in which generalised NxN (but N finite) chess
is proved to be NP-hard].  That would be really neat -- to scatter a
few pieces onto the board and be able to say that it's impossible to
tell whether or not White can force a win here!  Remember -- you saw
it here first.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Subject: Re: What going on with F & S ??
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:30:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.091245.8964@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> tletski@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>What's up with Fischer & Spassky?  After a lot of traffic on the subject there
>hasn't been any activity on the match.  Is someone imposing a blackout?
>
>Paul Tletski
>Highland Hts. OH
>

No blackout.  The match site is switching to (or somewhere near) Belgrade as
Fischer has half the needed wins (5).

According to R. Byrne in the New York Times today, the game 12 is 
scheduled for tomorrow.

JOHN

-- 
JOHN A. SWARTZ - The MITRE Corp. Bedford, MA * John_Swartz@iegate.mitre.org
>Kill troll with sword

You don't have that!
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:38:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Victor Winter writes:
>
> To Ed Hummel: Go directly to jail, do not
>               pass go, do not collect $200.00 :)

This will be my LAST posting on this topic.  If anyone wants my
opinion on the topic of solvability, ask me via email.

> However some of you have spent all of your effort in trying
>to find "unreasonable" loopholes.

I find it interesting that in the game of chess, answers can
be found for the question "Can white force a win?", but the
question "What results from best play by both sides?" has no
answer.  (Unless additional assumptions are made.)

---------
Ed Hummel
From: James.H..Coombs@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (James H. Coombs)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Reti's books (was "My System")
Date: 24 Sep 92 22:29:38 CST

Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Reply-To: jhc@m2lll.UUCP (James H. Coombs)

In article <198@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>I also think Reti's "Masters of the Chessboard" is a good book.  Also good were

How about his *Modern Ideas in Chess.*  I have never seen it.  Is it as
good as *Masters*?  --Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Subject: >Sadler
  Since he may have access to this newsgroup, I'm restricting myself to
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:49:30 GMT

Paul Epstein

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: M.W.Juned@bradford.ac.uk
Subject: In-Reply-To: <5763@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 12:27:54 GMT


	Why not send in some analysis by Jack Peters on the FS games -
I (and I'm sure others not in L.A) would be interested to hear some more
concrete analysis on the FS games.
From: Tracy.Monaghan.{IS}@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Tracy Monaghan {IS})
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Theory of Bobby's Return
Date: 24 Sep 92 22:00:24 CST

Organization: UW Computing

In article <1992Sep24.185603.29273@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <19r23mINN3i2@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>>
[tirades deleted]
>>

Must we endure once again this thread.
Let's us discuss chess, not politics.
I accept you may feel this to be an immoral position.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Monaghan: arithmetic-mean, melanin-deficient, gender-advantaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jeff@econ.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Subject: re: F-S II game 12 Spassky wins - moves
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:12:26 GMT


>In Article 17413 (16 more), jarmo@ae.tut.fi (Jarmo Sorvari) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.173624.15979@husc3.harvard.edu> fry@zariski.harvard.edu (>David Fry) writes:

>>    Spassky Fischer
>>    White Black
>>    1. d4 Nf6
>>    2. c4 g6
>>    3. Nc3 Bg7
>>    4. e4 d6
>>    5. f3 O-O
>>    6. Be3 Nc6
>>    7. Nge2 a6
>>    8. h4 h5
>>    9. Nc1 e5
>>    10. d5 Ne7

>I wonder what the current evaluation is for the line where Black
>sacrifices a pawn here with 10.- Nd4 11. Nb3 c5 12. dc6 bc6 13. Nd4
>ed4 14. Bd4?  The Finnish GM Heikki Westerinen used to play this way a
>lot in the 70's (although I think he played 7.- Rb8 instead of 7.-
>a6).

Another advantage of Spassky's intricate move order is that this pawn
sacrifice makes less sense than in the main lines since Black has played
neither ...Rb8 nor ...Re8 yet.
From: loon@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (LOON M J)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: post
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:54:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: underdog.loon.67
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Undergrads).

In article <3OCT199212193561@zeus.tamu.edu> jrb7056@zeus.tamu.edu (BUSCHE, JOSEPH RAY) writes:

>Please disregard this.

Okay.
--
Marc Loon <loon@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>
Student No: 8807871/X
Elec Eng. University of the Witwatersrand
Johannesburg

Conversation: a voice competition between two people
in which the one taking a breath is called the listener.
From: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Gone fishing
Date: 3 Oct 1992 05:04:47 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


[This has little to do with chess itself, but might help maintain
the sanity of those who are tired of the "political" brickbats being
tossed around here -- this is a *new* subject!!]


Background:  The terminology of chess analysis is not one of my strong
	     points.

Question: I've seen the term "fish" (or in one case, "phish") used,
	  apparently as a reference to a relatively unskilled method of
	  play.  My question is, "what is the etymology of this term?"
	  Why say someone 'played like a fish'?  Why not 'dodo', or
	  <fill in the blank here>?

	  I'm looking for the history and derivation of this particular
	  usage.  And, while you're at it, I would not refuse a good,
	  concise definition of "fish" in this context.

Angling for a response,
-- 
John G Dobnick                          ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division             INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee     UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire
From: AER107@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: seeking e-mail partner
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:16:04 GMT
Organization: Penn State University


   I am a good "enjoyment" level player with little competitive experience.
I will likely soon join USCF as a Postal player.  I would like to have some
rational basis to estimate my strength in this field.  Anyone interested in
this proposition, please contact me by e-mail.  Algebraic or English notation
is acceptable (no International please).
                                    Thanks in advance,
                                    Alexander Richman
                                    AER107@PSUVM.psu.edu
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: (Long) Solvability Proof, Unsolvability Proof
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:50:59 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <BvMH7w.LBz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cec35848@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Chuck Carroll) writes:

   There you go again.  The rules of chess do not specify whether an
   infinite game is better than, equal to, or worse than a draw (for
   both players--it does not even specify that chess must be a zero-sum
   game in the case of an infinite game.)

"In the long run, we are all dead".

What do the rules say about players dying in the middle of a game? Is
it declared a draw? :-)

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: fhh@watson.ibm.com (Feng-Hsiung Hsu)
Subject: FS Match resuming Sept. 30
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:30:58 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

The starting time might be an hour later than before.
From: hopkins@cs.unc.edu (Terry Hopkins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Dates of Next Spassky-Fischer matches
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:39:31 GMT

Can somebody tell me the dates that the next few Fischer-Spassky games are
scheduled to be played?
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Standardized Notations for Xiangqi
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:37:40 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <6292@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> jk@cs.man.ac.uk writes:

> Why not use * instead [of $] for drops, this is used in all Shogi documen-
> tation that I have seen.

Actually, objections to * have been raised; sppecifically, it looks too much
like x, especially on computer screens where it isn't always raised.
In reality, any character not being used for another purpose will do.
From: marcusc@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chessmaster 2100 questions (Mac)
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:53:13 GMT
Organization: New York University

In article <1992Sep30.074007.1@bbs.mdcbbs.com>, niblack@bbs.mdcbbs.com writes:
> 
> I have just purchased Chessmaster 2100 for the Macintosh.  I must say I like
> the graphics, it plays a good game of chess (for me), and I think, overall, its
> the best chess program I've ever played (not that I've played a lot of them).
> 
> However, I do have some questions:
> 
>   1.) Is it possible to read in a text file of moves so that CM can analyze
>       them?  (I was hoping to anayze the F-S match.)
> 
>   2.) Is it possible to save information such as the "Human's" name and 
>       rating. (I have tried to save the settings, but this does not save
>       the name and rating.  I find it hard to play 10 games in one session
>       just to see how CM rates my playing.)
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> Shawn

I have used chessmaster 2100 for my mac but found it riddled with bugs.
I had many problems saving settings and using the rating feature
I will also say that it did not play a good game and only changed its
stock opening if I programmed the learn an opening feature.
It eventually crashed completely.
At least it taught me to register my sw from now on, ended up blwoing
30 stirling on a piece of junk.  I think you will find other people
have had problems with it too.

Clifford Marcus
New York

old me e ti