HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Capablanca vs Rubinstein
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:35:48 GMT
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <16407@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
> What did Don Wedding's latest post have to do with Capablanca and Rubinstein?

well, absolutely nothing.
                                              
but i was commenting on something that SOMEBODY ELSE said which was also
not about capablanca and rubinstein.

the thread of discussion veared onto a different topic while we did not
change the topic of the post.

as opposed to saying a misleading and somewhat nasty remark with nothing
else posted, you might have at least had the courtesy to post the
discussion. if you had done that, everybody would have said....

"oh, obviously the discussion changed but the topic didn't"


but anyways, i think my comments, posted under the misleading heading
of capablanca and rubinsteing were very interesting and chess
related (unlike this one).

i encourage everybody to go back and read it.


don wedding
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: oyvind@hal.nta.no
Subject: Re: Interpolis
Keywords: Results Interpolis
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 14:40:08 GMT

In article <gewis.719227825@rwb.urc.tue.nl>, gewis@rwb.urc.tue.nl (GEWIS) writes:
|> Results third round (firstnamed player has white in first and black in
|> second game):
|> (..)
|> Winants       - Kamsky (8)         1-0  0-1

!!

|> Vizmanian     - Shirov (3)         1-0 draw  <-----
   ^^^^^^^^^
Is this Alexei Vyzhmanavin? If not, does anybody know 
anything about him?


-- 
{\O}yvind.    (oyvind@nta.no)

  -- Beware of the quantum duck. Quark! Quark! Quark! --
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: English (was book titles)
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:54:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.055026.16314@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.012337.25451@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.UUCP (James H.
>Coombs, 1271) writes:

>>How about: 1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5.  On 3.d3, I would consider 3...cxe4 4.dxe4,
>>exchanging a flank pawn for a center pawn.  

>3 ... cxe4 certainly looks like a TN to me.  In the face of such
>brilliance, we must seriously consider abandoning the English.
>Perhaps we should try the Caro-Kann with colors reversed, instead.

>But seriously, folks...the original question was; how can Black prevent
>White from establishing c4,d3, e4?  The answer is: Black should not be

Ok, my idea was that Black lets White establish c4,d3,e4 but that the
pawn structure does not stand for long.  In fact, I would expect that
White would come up with something better than 3.d3.  I don't know why
3...cxe4 looks or doesn't look like a TN: you don't say what is good or
bad about it.  Miles-Yusupov, Carthage Interzonal, 1985:

	1.c4	c6
	2.e4	d5
	3.exd5	cxd5
	4.d4	Nf6

Ok, here we do not have c4,d3,e4.  In ECO A11/A12, we see 1.c4 c6
2.Nf3.  On 2.e4, ECO transposes into B10, or the Caro-Kann:

	1.e4	c6
	2.c4	d5
	3.exd5	cxd5

Well, if there's a TN to be had in 3.d3 cxe4, it must be 3.d3, which
simply permits Black to exchange a flank pawn for a center pawn.  Or is
there a better response to 3.d3?  In any case, I do not find any
suggestion in ECO that 1...c6 is not a good response to 1.c4 or,
further, that 1...c6 does not or should not prevent the set up
c4,d3,e4.

In the end, then, ECO agrees with Ken: "In the face of such brilliance,
we must seriously consider abandoning the English."  At least for the
1...c6 games, we must play the C-K instead of the English; and, for the
C-K player at least, the English quickly tranposes to familiar ground.

--Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Benjamin vs Soltis??? (was Budapest)
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:00:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct9.200015.22904
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct8.095712.1@pa881a.inland.com>  writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.143602.22765@sequent.com>, edjohn@sequent.com (Ed  
Johnson) writes:
> > In article <30609@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark  
Ginsburg) writes:
> >>
> >>As Joel Benjamin notes in his Swill articles, beware any book with
> >>"Winning with..." in the title!
> >>
> >>-mark
> 
> Obviously, Benjamin is talking about Soltis.  Is it possible that the  
two just
> don't agree?????  I have read Soltis and found his books excellent.  I  
am a
> weak player however, and his advice helps me.  Maybe later it won't.  I  
have
> not read Benjamin so I can't comment.  
-----------------------------------|
No, Joel is not talking about Soltis. As I mentioned in a recent post,
these titles are dreamed up by publishers. what Joel properly
resents is the notion that you can win games just because you
play some opening that some person happens to like. But Benjamin
has very little experience with publishers (his only book as far
as I know is the one he co-authored with me).

So, though at least one of my publishers won't like this (shh!)
I think that basic distrust of books with such titles is
warranted. Look before you buy! And forget the title, ask
if the contents present you with whatever it is you need. If
someone tells you that the book will guarantee victories, forget
it.
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
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
From: jh867044@longs.lance.colostate.edu (john haigh)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Dying during a game
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:55:16 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

>What is the ruling when a player dies in the middle of a game?

Perhaps that depends whether you think he has been "promoted" or just plain
"sac'ed".

I can't imagine any ruling other than a win for the player remaining
and a loss for his opponent, who, if he objects, may take it too the Appeals
Committee.  

For any sudden departure, and illness, personal emergency,
snit, whatever, the player staying at the board should not be penalized--
whatever the position, he had at least a chance to win and his opponent's leaving
(however it happened) is not his fault.

Grandmaster Larry Evans wrote of an event during his first intl. tnmt.  A rather
strong player, Dutchman Prins I think, adjourned a lost position against a
tournament tailender.  Evans asked Prins why he didn't resign; Prins said
"Anything can happen."  As you suspect by now, his opponent had a fatal heart 
attack before the game was to be resumed.  Since any adjudication would have
awarded a posthumous point, I assume Prins (my apologies if I have the wrong name
here) must have gotten a win.
					Fraternally,
					john haigh
From: wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 10 Oct 1992 02:30:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pal.ucsc.edu

To: rgp@mpd.tandem.com
Subject: Re: Fischer's Back! (alas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
Cc: 
Bcc: 

>> So you think that Alekhine was chicken because he did not gave
>> Capablanca a chance at "his" title?  Look at chess history and you
>> will realize that in the old days the champion decided who the
>> candidate was and when he would play him.  In these days FIDE
>> regulates the Chess Championsi.  Get real, Fischer hasn't
>> earned a chance the play Kasparov or Karpov.  If they do decide
>> to rest once and for all.

>> Ramon Pantin


You do not seem to remember what Fischer was like 20 years ago.

I for one, if I were Kasparov, would begin battening down the hatches,
securing the tackles, removing the sails ...  

-wj
From: carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:30:44 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

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)

David Caraballo
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 06:47:57 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <9210121902.AA07916@hplwk.hpl.hp.com> albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert) writes:
>Kasparov is only obliged to play whoever emerges from the candidate's
>matches to defend his title.

And, subsequently, Fischer is 'obliged' to play whoever accepts to challenge
him for his World Championship. Depends on who you consider to be the
current World Champion :)


>Let's not forget that Kasparov has been a great champion by doing what
>a champion should-- promoting the game, remaining very active in tournaments
>instead of fearing public visibility-- ie being an active and visible
>champion who has made significant contributions to the game both on and
>off the board.  In this arena, Fischer's performance as a world
>champion has been dwarfed by the shadows of our world champion.

True, Fischer 'disappeared' soon after his win, but lets face truth here,
Fischer has done more in the past month to put Chess in the public eye than
Kasparov has in the past year. If being a 'great champion' is indeed being
'active and visible', making significant contributions to the game of Chess and
promoting the game, Fischer does indeed count as being a 'great champion'.

I'm not deriding Kasparov, not in the least, he is, as well, one of the best
champions that Chess has ever seen- he has worked hard to promote the game,
even in the public eye (K's game against David Letterman might have been
a 'silly' event, but it did bring the game more into the open, for example :)

What will have to happen, presuming that Fischer continues to perform well,
is that a Fischer-Kasparov match will have to be set, the winner emerging
as the 'true' World Champion. I agree Fischer will have to 'prove' that his
game is back to the level it once was, but making him go through the the
interzonals and whatnot is silly.
r.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: English (was book titles)
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:03:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.205429.20241@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.055026.16314@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.012337.25451@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.UUCP (James H.
>>Coombs, 1271) writes:

>>>How about: 1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5.  On 3.d3, I would consider 3...cxe4 4.dxe4,
>>>exchanging a flank pawn for a center pawn.  

>>3 ... cxe4 certainly looks like a TN to me.  In the face of such
>>brilliance, we must seriously consider abandoning the English.
>>Perhaps we should try the Caro-Kann with colors reversed, instead.

Fine!  As someone else pointed out, this should be 3...dxe4.  Now why
don't we all go blither about solvability and Fischer's strength
instead of making a genuine effort to discuss chess.  In other words, I
think we would all be better served if such obvious and trivial errors
were pointed out immediately and if the discussion were to continue in
a spirit of generosity.  In this case, 3...dxe4 is not an obvious chess
blunder, so why not skip over the notational blunder and discuss a good
response to 1.c4?  --Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 17 Postponed by Spassky
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:33:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct8.133347.16174
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Game 17 was postponed until Saturday today by Spassky, who was said to
be suffering from exhaustion and "professional stress."  This is from
the certificate from the match doctors.  

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: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Championship Games 13-18
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:02:39 GMT

What the devil is Smythescript?

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, 7 Oct 1992 02:23:36 GMT


                 THIS WEEK IN CHESS HISTORY
                     October 8-14, 1992

October 8
1908 - Vyacheslav Ragozin born
1929 - Arthur Bisguier born

October 9
1787 - William Lewis born
1927 - Jeremy Gaige born
1962 - Milan Vidmar died

October 10
1990 - Emil Diemer died

October 11
1914 - Reuben Fine born

October 12
Columbus Day (USA)
Thanksgiving (CDN)
1882 - Akiba Rubinstein born
1961 - Jay Whitehead born

October 13
1949 - Nana Alexandria born

October 14
1928 - Karl Robatsch born
1962 - Jaan Ehlvest born

Copyright 1992 Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved
From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Mating material on an infinite board
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:20:34 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

The question is minimum mating material on an infinite board.

So far I've seen support for Q+piece, 2R, R+2pieces, based on the
idea of "trapping" the Black King.  [The Q/R is used to keep
the Black King from running away while the rest of White's
troops shuffle over to the action; once on site, the mating
positions are simple.]  A well placed P can substitute for
one piece in these cases.
It's easy to see there are no mating positions with only Q,
or only R+piece or R+P.  (I'm assuming no P promotions exist.)

This leaves open:

Q + badly placed P(s)                Can the BK be forced to
R + piece + badly placed P(s)        walk in front of the Ps?
R + Ps

and positions with (only) minor pieces and pawns.

There are no mating positions with only three minor pieces.
(The WK covers three squares, leaving three of each color;
a minor piece can only cover two squares of one color in a
2x3 rectangle; three pieces leaves only one piece to cover
one color.)

The trapping method seems to work if there are two (oppositely
colored) bishops available, so the interesting remaining piece
cases seem to involve B+3N and 4N.

In B+3N, one of the knights can overtake the Black King, and
then, with the help of the bishop, build a smallish trap.
Is this trap good enough that White has time to bring up his
remaining forces?

In the 4N case, one knight can overtake Black's King, but two
cannot.  Can a lone WN hamper the BK enough to give another WN
the time to approach?  Presumably two WNs can delay the BK enough
that the rest of White's pieces can make the scene.

Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gzogbi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi)
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Organization: The Ohio State University
 (Paul Epstein) writes:
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:32:40 GMT


 Ken Smith claims that Fischer made this remark when he (Smith) asked Fischer
 why he occasionally played 1.b3 and 1.c4.  No mention is made of 1.d4.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Kasparov the dictator (was Re: who is world champion)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 09:14:18 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Oct13.193737.22738@midway.uchicago.edu> schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu writes:
>Fact is, kasparov is the only one who has  
>achieved anything for the community of professional chessplayers in the  
>last few years. True, his efforts benefit only the top professionals, but  
>that is how it is in all sports.

Total rubbish.
There are countless examples in all sports where the efforts of the elite
of that sport benefit everyone involved- from professionals who play the
game to amatuers to people who can't even play the game.
r.
From: tavernin@rd1.interlan.com (Victor Tavernini)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Pawn Power in Chess by Kmoch
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:48:35 GMT
Organization: Racal-Milgo, Sunrise, Florida

I saw the book "Pawn Power in Chess" by Hans Kmoch in a bookstore the
other day, looked very interesting ... anybody have any comments or
experience with this book!?

Thanks,

Victor Tavernini
tavernin@rd1.interlan.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: F-S II game 16 comments
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:09:00 GMT

In article <1b4ldbINN3am@agate.berkeley.edu> jeff@econBerkeley.EDU  
(Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:
> I think its interesting that this line with 5. Bg5 c5 6. d5 h6 7. Bh4  
etc. is
> given a whole column in the original ECO E, but is mentioned only in a  
footnote
> in the second edition.  not only that, but the line with ...Qa5 as in  
the
> game is not even mentioned.  Anyone have any guesses why?
> 
> I was thinking maybe they've moved this line into the Benoni  
classification
> (that's in another volume) but even then you would expect a note  
indicating
> a possible transposition.  Maybe Spassky doesn't have the old ECO  
volumes!? 

It is *important* to realize that ECO is not comprehensive. The space  
devoted to each line varies with fashion, as is the case in MCO and BCO as  
well. ECO boasts about 70% new material in new editions. Failing to
check old ones, especially in preparing for a match against someone
who hasn't played in 20 years, is a major error!
--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
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: tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.200540.700@erg.sri.com>, vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad) writes:
|> You know what. There still people who think that Fischer is the best in the
|> World today. It is pointless to argue one way or the other. The only way
|> this can be decided is through a bet. If Andy or somebody else claims that

Yeah, right.  A bet will decide everything...NOT.  What the heck would
a bet prove?  It just proves how strong people's opinions are?  As far
as that bet, I don't have $5000.  Another thing:  these  long term
bets are stupid.  It could be a year or two before such a match is
arranged (maybe longer).  Are you willing to make that same offer when
or if a match is arranged?

-- 
T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)
From: saba@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (John Saba, Univ. of Ariz. Computer Center)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Endgame books
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:43:36 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-User: saba

Several people have asked questions about endgame books.  The following
may be of some interest:

Basic Chess Endings Corrections
Samuel Louie
1990 ed. 11 pp.
1991 ed. 12 pp.
$3

Comprehensive Chess Endings
Edited by Yuri Averbakh
5 volumes hardcover
$180

-- 
John Saba
saba@ccit.arizona.edu
saba@arizvms
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: How do I play Deep Thought via internet?
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:52:11 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

How do I play a game against Deep Thought via internet?
I cannot ftp but I do have email access, is there some
format of email I can send to play a game?
-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Alekhine was chicken
Date: 10 Oct 92 14:20:40 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

The question was posed:

> So you think that Alekhine was chicken because he did not gave
> Capablanca a chance at "his" title?

And the answer is:

Absolutely - I thought this was common knowledge.

In the context of a Fischer-Kasparov match, Short or Timman will
be the official challenger, but if Kasparov avoids a match with
Fischer (and this assumes the challenge offers reasonable terms),
there will many people who will wonder who would have won.  The
"World Champion" is supposed to be recognized universally as the
best player.  If Fischer were to play a second match and lose
(say to Anand or Judit Polgar), then Fischer's claim will be
greatly weakened.  It would be interesting to see what would
happen if the winner of Timman-Short offered Fischer a match for
multi-millions, with the winner playing Kasparov.  It might be in
Kasparov's interest to agree to this, as then he might clear up
the situation and not have to risk a match with Fischer, although
he might also be unable to avoid such a match.  Of course, it
isn't clear who would win a Fischer-Short or Fischer-Timman
match, but I would think Fischer would be favored.

If Fischer doesn't fade away, this problem will have to be
addressed.
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 19 moves 1-53
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:00:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct14.180022.16390
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 21:45 GMT
    Sicilian Defense, Closed Variation:
    Fischer Spassky
    (White) (Black)
    1. e4 c5
    2. Nc3 Nc6
    3. Nge2 e5
    4. Nd5 Nge7
    5. Nec3 Nxd5
    6. Nxd5 Be7
    7. g3 d6
    8. Bg2 h5
    9. h4 Be6
    10. d3 Bxd5
    11. exd5 Nb8
    12. f4 Nd7
    13. 0-0 g6
    14. Rb1 f5
    15. b4 b6
    16. bxc5 bxc5
    17. c4 0-0
    18. Qa4 Bf6
    19. Rb7 Nb6
    20. Qb5 Rf7
    21. Rxf7 Kxf7
    22. Bd2 Rb8
    23. Qc6 Nc8
    24. Re1 Ne7
    25. Qa4 Qc7
    26. Kh2 exf4
    27. Bxf4 Be5
    28. Re2 Rb6
    29. Kh3 Ng8
    30. Rxe5 dxe5
    31. Bxe5 Qe7
    32. d6 Rxd6
    33. Bxd6 Qxd6
    34. Bd5+ Kf8
    35. Qxa7 Ne7
    36. Qa8+ Kg7
    37. Qb7 Kf8
    38. a4 f4
    39. a5 fxg3
    40. a6 Qf4
    41. Bf3 Nf5
    42. Qe4 g2
    42. Qe4 g2
    43. Qxf4 g1Q
    44. Be4 Qa1
    45. a7 Qxa7
    46. Bxf5 gxf5
    47. Qxf5+ Kg7
    48. Qg5+ Kf8
    49. Qh6+ Kg8
    50. Qxh5 Qc7
    51. Qg6+ Kh8
    52. Qf6+ Kg8
    53. Qe6+ Kh8
From: Teri A Meyers <tasst2+@pitt.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Tilburg
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:44:50 GMT
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.unl.edu


Does anyone have any news of the recently started Tilburg tournament? I
understand (my source is GM Shabalov) that the format has been changed for
this year.  First they are having a competition open to the top 100 players
in the world, and then a playoff among the top 6 finishers.  Play was to
have started a few days ago, so I am anxious for early results.
Jerry Meyers