HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gls@windmill.att.com (The Human Windmill)
Subject: Re: Piket-van Mil
Organization: Save the Dodoes Foundation
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:53:10 GMT

In <28536@option.GBA.NYU.EDU>, mginsbur@option.GBA.NYU.EDU writes:
> Hello, would someone with a reasonable 
> computer like to try this position:
> 
> 1. Nf3 f5
> 2. e4  fe
> 3. Ng5 d5
> 4. d3  Qd6
> 5. Nc3 h6
> 6. Nb5  Qc6
> 
> ... The game Piket-van Mil, Dutch Ch. 1992, saw but shed absolutely no light
> on the correctness of 7. de hg 8. ed.

Isn't this what used to be called Tennison's Gambit?  Anyway, I tried this
on Gnuchess 4.0 on a FAST mainframe.  (You said a reasonable computer, not
a reasonable program....)

The program apparently didn't think much of 8. ed -- it played for the end-
game with 8. Q:d5.  After 8... Na6; 9. Q:c6+ bc; 10. Nd4 Nb4 it was obvious
that White lacked compensation.

The game continued: 11. Bd3 e5; 12. Nf3 Ba6; 13. Kd2 Nf6; 14. Kc3 N:d3;
15. cd Ng4; 16. Be3 O-O-O; 17. Rad1 Be7; 18. h3 N:e3; 19. fe Bf6; 20. Rhf1
Rd7; 21. Rd2 c5; 22. Rfd1 Kb7; 23. b3 Rd6; 24. Rf2 Rhd8; 25. Rfd2 Bb5;
26. a3 Bd7; 27. g4 a5; 28. Rc2 a4; 29. Rb2 ab; 30. R:b3+ Ka6; 31. Rb2
Bb5; 32. Ne1 c4; 33. a4 Bd7; 34. Rdb1 Rb6; 35. dc Rh8; 36. Nd3 R:b2;
37. R:b2 Be7; 38. Rf2 B:a4; 39. Ra2 Ka5; 40. Nb2 Bb4+; 41. Kd3 Rd8+;
42. Ke2 Rd2+; 43. Kf3 Ba3; 44. R:a3 R:b2 (whew!); 45. Rd3 Bc6; 46. Rd8
Rh2; 47. Rh8 Kb4; 48. Kg3 Re2; 49. Kf3 Rc2; 50. Rh5 K:c4; 51. R:g5 Kd3;
52. R:e5 Re2; 53. Rc5 B:e4+; 54. Kf4 c6; 55. Ra5 Rf2+; 56. Ke5 K:e3;
57. Ra1 Bd3; 58. Re1+ Be2; 59. Rh1 c5; 60. Rb1 c4; 61. Rb7 c3; 62. Rc7
Kd2; 63. Rd7+ Bd3; 64. R:g7 c2; 65. Rc7 Rh2; 66. g5 c1Q; 67. R:c1 K:c1;
68. Kf4 R:h3; 69. Kg4 Rh1; 70. Kf4 Rg1; 71. Ke3 Bg6; 72. Kd4 R:g5; 73. Kc4
Bh7; 74. Kd4 Kd2; 75. Kc4 Ke3; 76. Kb4 Kd3; 77. Kb3 Rh5; 78. Kb4 Bg8;
79. Ka3 Kc3; 80. Ka4 Rg5; 81. Ka3 Ra5#.  Instructive in spots....

-:-
	"Mr. Goosebird!  Mr. Goosebird!!  YOU SPELT MY NAME WRONG!!!"
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
gls@windmill.att.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mginsbur@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: chess news        1/5
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:16:21 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Amusing comments from Wade & Keene, but remember:

(a) Keene is notorious for erroneous speculation about what is going on
in another person's head.  He states that Tal's death has shocked RJF
into returning, to ensure his place in 'the pantheon of chess greats'.
This is pure speculation, typical of Keene.  He actually has no idea
of RJ's motives, of course.

(b) Wade is hardly England's 'chief chess trainer'.  He is a bureaucrat,
involved with some of the UK's grassroots programs, but never was a 
particularly strong player.  He had very little to do with the
development of England's current crop of GMs.  Refer to Short's book,
as well as Adams'.

Look to Keene for continued speculation & opinions, which are amusing,
such as his statement that there is a risk that the match will be
between two geriatrics that can barely rub two pawns together.  Hmmm,
wasn't it Keene who was stung by an attack at one Karpov-Korchnoi match
by a Soviet attache saying, "There are many Grandmasters in the
world.  Can anyone in this room name one weaker than Raymond Keene?"  So
before we take him too seriously, remember that he is inactive and
many of his comments from a journalistic point of view are purely
sensationalistic.  I think the saying in England is "he's stirring the pot"
to generate more media interest in the match.

--Mark Ginsburg
From: watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computers in tournaments: Who cares?
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:33:19 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.
>
>   If so, then those 7 programs must get around a lot.  Didn't we
>just hear about a tournament which had 4 computers in a field of 20
>players?  What are the odds against that happening if there are only
>7 computer programs active?

If you can find a copy of the 1991 annual rating list, you can verify
it for yourself.  The computers are listed near the front just
after the list of senior masters.  There are two computer rating lists.
The ratings on the commercial program list are from the CRA, not from
tournament play.  Only the programs on the experimental program list
got real established ratings from playing in tournaments, and there are
only seven on that list.  

I'm not sure if the version of the rating list in the Jan issue
of Chess Life has the computer lists, but the big version sent
out to the affiliates definitely does.

>  I myself have played in many tournaments in which there has been
>a computer in my section, and until this year I didn't travel for
>chess very much.

I guess that means there are a lot of program developers living in
the Chicago area.  I've been an active tournament player for 13 
years, and I can't recall any tournaments I've been to that have
had computers in them except the 89 US Open.

BW
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Computer Ratings/Versions
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:36:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.121910.20431@kth.se> md85-epi@byse.nada.kth.se (Urban Koistinen) writes:

>From 'The Swedish Rating List' from the ICCA Journal 1992 #2.

>Mephisto Lyon           68030 36MHz     2259
>...
>ChessMaster 2000 (Atari)68000 8MHz      1850

>Notice: subtract 50 to get ELO-rating, add 50 to get USCF rating.

The ratings that you give are about 200 points lower than CCR's.  Note
that CCR adds 200 points to the ratings from the Swedish "Ply"
magazine, and these results agree reasonably well with Kaufman's
problem tests (intentionally) as well as with the occasional CRA
ratings.

In short, I think you need to add a lot more than 50 to get the USCF
equivalent.  From CCR vol. 2, no. 2, p. 10:

	... with 200 points added to all ratings to adjust for the
	difference between Swedish and USCF ratings as measured by
	comparison of C.R.A. ratings with "Ply" ratings.  Actually,
	some recent steps taken by the USCF to deflate our ratings
	appear to be working and may justify a smaller adjustment than
	200, perhaps 175 or 180, but until I have enough data to
	measure the deflation I'll use the 200 figure.

--Jim
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6194 rec.games.go:1596 rec.games.programmer:3492
From: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (N Bowers)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: comp.games.research
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:17:41 GMT
Organization: University of Leeds, England

In rec.games.chess and others, mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) signs:
>From article <1992Aug18.111846.24716@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, by neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (N Bowers):
>> strategy game design etc.  rec.games.board is not the place IMHO.
>
>Why?

Because it is just too broad in scope, which results in the high volume
of traffic, most of it about BattleTech, wargames etc, as you pointed out.
There will be quite a few people (again IMHO) who are interested in
strategy games, but who can't find an appropriate group to start a discussion.


>but if these look overpowering,
>that is so because these are the games that people are interested in.
>If there is so little traffic on these games, then a new group is even
>less necessary.

Not a valid conclusion.  If someone is new to usenet, and wants to
ask a question about Halma say, (s)he'll eventually find the rec.games.*
hierarchy, and guess that r.g.board sounds good.  After wading through
a couple of hundred articles they'd probably conclude that they were mistaken.


>> Several times I have almost suggested rec.games.strategy,
>
>This is a completely misleading title, apart from the fact that I do
>not think a new group is warranted for.

Misleading to you perhaps.  The type of games we're talking about here
are often referred to as `strategy games'.  I reckon this would be obvious
to a lot more people than plenty of other groups.


>Perhaps you should call it
>rec.games.board.traditional, or rec.games.board.abstract,

A lot of people would consider monopoly and ludo as `traditional'.
If there is to be a newsgroup I don't think it belongs under
rec.games.board, since strategy games don't necessarily have to have a board.


If anyone else would like to see a group for strategy games, and also
perhaps another for programming them, please email me, including your
view on the names: rec.games.strategy and rec.games.strategy.programmer,
and suggestions for alternatives (one in already: r.g.pure-strategy).
If there is enough interest for one or both of these, I'll sort out an RFD
etc.  If not, fine.

Neil
--
neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk
From: jriechel@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: (none)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:07:40 GMT



         #######  ##   ##  #######  #######  #######
         ##       ##   ##  ##       ##       ##
         ##       #######  #######  #######  #######
         ##       ##   ##  ##            ##       ##
         #######  ##   ##  #######  #######  #######

#######  #######  #######  ######   ##       #######  ##   ##
##   ##  ##   ##  ##   ##  ##    #  ##       ##       ### ###
#######  #######  ##   ##  ######   ##       #######  ## # ##
##       ## ##    ##   ##  ##    #  ##       ##       ##   ##
##       ##   ##  #######  ######   #######  #######  ##   ##


White:  Pb2c2d6f6g5h4 Nc3e7 Bg2 Rd1 Qh1 Kc1
Black:  Pa6e6f7g6h7 Nb7 Bd8 Rb6f8 Qd7 Kh8

  -----------------------------------------
8 |    |    |    | *B |    | *R |    | *K |
  -----------------------------------------
7 |    | *N |    | *Q |  N | *P |    | *P |   P = Pawn
  -----------------------------------------   N = Knight
6 | *P | *R |    |  P | *P |  P | *P |    |   B = Bishop
  -----------------------------------------   R = Rook (aka Castle)
5 |    |    |    |    |    |    |  P |    |   Q = Queen
  -----------------------------------------   K = King
4 |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |  P |
  -----------------------------------------
3 |    |    |  N |    |    |    |    |    |   *'s precede Black pieces
  -----------------------------------------
2 |    |  P |  P |    |    |    |  B |    |
  -----------------------------------------
1 |    |    |  K |  R |    |    |    |  Q |
  -----------------------------------------
    a    b    c    d    e    f    g    h

White to play.  From the game Riechel-Schumach, Correspondence 1992.

Problem #4:  In this position White can play 1. Bc6 recovering the exchange
with a winning position:  1. -Rxc6 2. Qxc6 Qxc6 3. Nxc6 Bb6 4. d7 ... etc.  The
problem is to find an alternative 1st move for White.  A move that is (at
least) as good as 1. Bc6.


I will post the solution in ~2 weeks.  Or mail me if you wish.

-James

jriechel@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
From: jriechel@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Users vs. MChess
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:05:09 GMT


  Is the MChess team still going?  Or -- and after MChess declared a winning
position on its last move -- are they verifying their win exactly?
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Review: Knightstalker
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:37:16 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug20.190058.2928@cs.brown.edu>, James Coombs writes:

>> Overall, I'd *highly* recommend Knightstalker.  It incorporates
>> many, many features not found in either Zarkov or MChess, and

> Other than storing games in a single database, what does KnightStalker
> offer that Zarkov does not?  I guess the ability to scroll through the
> moves of a game.  Anything else?

The information display is much better, and it is graphically superior.
However, the database features are what makes it, in my opinion, the
finest computer program for the money on the market.  For example,
if I want to study endgames by playing against KnightStalker I just
load my Pandolfini's _Endgame Course_ or Fine's _Basic Chess Endings_,
pick a position and go to it.  If I lose, I can then compare what I
did with the book line.  It's fantastic!  If I want to study tactics
or mates, I can load either of my versions of Reinfeld's _1001_
books and pick a problem.  If I want to do another, I just click on
another.

I own KnightStalker, Zarkov-Bookup, and M-Chess (in addition to
ChessBase), and KnightStalker is vastly superior compared to the
clumsy interface between Zarkov and Bookup.  With the recent
addition of KnightStalker to ChessBase, if you have the money
I'd say that's the way to go.  If you don't, then go for
KnightStalker.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 20 Aug 1992 14:32:12 CDT
From: <U55342@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Tournament design
Distribution: na
 <1992Aug19.120725.17952@athena.mit.edu>
 <1992Aug19.160021.13744@cco.caltech.edu>

Hi! I haven't played in very many Minnesota tournaments over the past
few years, but I don't think that this tournament design has been used
very much there since its first outing.

I'm just kinda wondering, is the behavior of this tournament design
approximated simply by pairing people within a scoregroup by performance
rating?

P.S.: As for that first tournament, I do remember that its reception was at
      first "quizical," but later when the results unfolded people became
      kinda warm to the idea. (Its hard for me to remember this CHESS
      TOURNAMENT from nine  years ago!)
                                                     See Ya!
                                                      Bert Wilson
........................................................................
: Bertrand L. Wilson                :"My friends, we can and we will,  :
: Department of Linguistics         : never, never surrender to what   :
: University of Illinois at Chicago : is right."          Dan Quayle   :
:                                   :                                  :
: U55342@UICVM.UIC.EDU              : "What a waste it is to lose      :
:                                   :  one's mind."       Dan Quayle   :
:...................................:..................................:

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington)
Subject: Re: Man vs Computer Checkers Championship
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:27:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.192524.24203@cs.UAlberta.CA> janet@cs.UAlberta.CA (Janet Service) writes:
>In article <UeZDeDM00k00FY5ZkQ@transarc.com>, Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM writes:
>> How can they play up to 4 games a day if the games are on the order of 5 hours?
>> 
>> It's incredible to me that Tinsley could maintain a pace of 12 games in 4 days.
>> Weekend chess tournaments used to be like this (3 games Saturday, 2 games
>> Sunday, at time controls which led to 5-hour games), but that format has been
>> almost universally abandoned because it was too strenuous.  International
>> chess tournaments are held at 1 game a day, and even this is too strenuous
>> for many players.
>
>They are playing 20 moves per hour.  The games on Monday lasted approx.
>4 and 5 hours, so only 2 games were played on that day, therefore the
>other 2 games were played on Wednesday (a scheduled rest day) thus
>keeping to the agreed 4 games per day schedule.
>

This is really ridiculous! This is effectively  giving the computer a huge
practical advantage in the match, where fatigue in the human is inevitable
(age notwithstanding). I have no idea why Tinsley would agree to such
match conditions, other than his oft-cited sportsmanship; however, he
has really carried his sportsmanship to an extreme to willingly give
his opponent such an edge. If he were playing a human I could fathom 
these conditions as _both_ participants would be subject to fatigue,
but against a machine it's ludicrous. I confess that I am a biased
observer, but it seems that many human-computer matches are played
on a field that favours the machines (i.e. Harvard Cup @ ~20mins per game
per side - a time control that clearly favours the computers). I just
hope that Tinsley doesn't live to regret such incredible match conditions...
It is my hope that the best player win the match, not the one with the
best stamina (infinite stamina).

-steve harrington
-texas a&m university
From: preiss@i31s15.ira.uka.de (Martin Preiss)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Piket-van Mil
Date: 19 Aug 1992 18:27:12 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s15.ira.uka.de

In article <1992Aug17.225310.10561@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, gls@windmill.att.com (The Human Windmill) writes:
|> In <28536@option.GBA.NYU.EDU>, mginsbur@option.GBA.NYU.EDU writes:
|> > Hello, would someone with a reasonable 
|> > computer like to try this position:
|> > 
|> > 1. Nf3 f5
|> > 2. e4  fe
|> > 3. Ng5 d5
|> > 4. d3  Qd6
  
 As far as I know a good alternative is still:
 5. dxe4  h6
 6. Qh5+  g6
 7. Qh4   Bg7
 8. Nf3   +=/=
 Has anybody new games or insights for this position ?

|> > 5. Nc3 h6

I played 5...c6 ? in the 2. Bundesliga this season and got a bad position
after 
  6. dxe4    d4
  7. Nb1 !   h6
  8. Nf3     e5
  9. Nd2 (Bc4!?) +=/+-    Braeuning (2400) - Preiss (2275), Germany 1991
  ( draw after about 20 moves.)

|> > 6. Nb5  Qc6
|> > 
|> > ... The game Piket-van Mil, Dutch Ch. 1992, saw but shed absolutely no light
|> > on the correctness of 7. de hg 8. ed.
|> 
|> Isn't this what used to be called Tennison's Gambit?  Anyway, I tried this
|> on Gnuchess 4.0 on a FAST mainframe.  (You said a reasonable computer, not
|> a reasonable program....)
|> 
|> The program apparently didn't think much of 8. ed -- it played for the end-
|> game with 8. Q:d5.  After 8... Na6; 9. Q:c6+ bc; 10. Nd4 Nb4 it was obvious
|> that White lacked compensation.
|> 
|> The game continued: 11. Bd3 e5; 12. Nf3 Ba6; 13. Kd2 Nf6; 14. Kc3 N:d3;
|> 15. cd Ng4; 16. Be3 O-O-O; 17. Rad1 Be7; 18. h3 N:e3; 19. fe Bf6; 20. Rhf1
|> Rd7; 21. Rd2 c5; 22. Rfd1 Kb7; 23. b3 Rd6; 24. Rf2 Rhd8; 25. Rfd2 Bb5;
|> 26. a3 Bd7; 27. g4 a5; 28. Rc2 a4; 29. Rb2 ab; 30. R:b3+ Ka6; 31. Rb2
|> Bb5; 32. Ne1 c4; 33. a4 Bd7; 34. Rdb1 Rb6; 35. dc Rh8; 36. Nd3 R:b2;
|> 37. R:b2 Be7; 38. Rf2 B:a4; 39. Ra2 Ka5; 40. Nb2 Bb4+; 41. Kd3 Rd8+;
|> 42. Ke2 Rd2+; 43. Kf3 Ba3; 44. R:a3 R:b2 (whew!); 45. Rd3 Bc6; 46. Rd8
|> Rh2; 47. Rh8 Kb4; 48. Kg3 Re2; 49. Kf3 Rc2; 50. Rh5 K:c4; 51. R:g5 Kd3;
|> 52. R:e5 Re2; 53. Rc5 B:e4+; 54. Kf4 c6; 55. Ra5 Rf2+; 56. Ke5 K:e3;
|> 57. Ra1 Bd3; 58. Re1+ Be2; 59. Rh1 c5; 60. Rb1 c4; 61. Rb7 c3; 62. Rc7
|> Kd2; 63. Rd7+ Bd3; 64. R:g7 c2; 65. Rc7 Rh2; 66. g5 c1Q; 67. R:c1 K:c1;
|> 68. Kf4 R:h3; 69. Kg4 Rh1; 70. Kf4 Rg1; 71. Ke3 Bg6; 72. Kd4 R:g5; 73. Kc4
|> Bh7; 74. Kd4 Kd2; 75. Kc4 Ke3; 76. Kb4 Kd3; 77. Kb3 Rh5; 78. Kb4 Bg8;
|> 79. Ka3 Kc3; 80. Ka4 Rg5; 81. Ka3 Ra5#.  Instructive in spots....

   no comment.

Back to the game Piket - van Mil:

To me -- I'm no reasonable program nor do I have one -- it seems that 8.ed 
gives good compensation. At least White has plenty of practical chances.
On the  black side I would try to improve by 6... Qb6.
The game could continue with 

 7. Qh5+   g6
 8. Nxc7+  Kd7
 9. Nxa8   ( Perhaps van Mil played  6... Qc6 to avoid this.  But ...)
	   Qa5+
10. Bd2    Qxd2+
11. Kxd2   gxh5

Black should be able to catch the knight a8 and gain a material plus.
Any human or silicon analyses are welcome.

Thanks.
From: mike@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Mike W. Burger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Forcing computers on players
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:26:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Hawaii at Manoa


	I do not think it is right to force people attending tournaments
to play against computers.  I can play against a selection of computers
any time I want.
	I go to tournaments to play people, across the board.
It is a special effort to seek out a tournament, get there, pay the
often rather stiff entry fees and set aside the time.  To then get
stuck playing a computer which you could have played any time with
no additional effort cheats the player who was specifically looking
for a new human opponent.
	While it might be a bit more convenient for tournament
directors to just say "play a computer or leave!", they
should not lose sight of the effort expended by the participants to
seek out and pay to enter their tournaments. 
	I enjoy playing computers.  They are always ready for a game.
But, when I put out the special effort, time and expense to attend
a tournament I am looking for the experience of playing against
people, not mechanical training aids.
From: malingka@cps.msu.edu (Richard Malingkas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: US Open - round 10
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:04:02 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: malingka@atlantic.cps.msu.edu

Leaders after 10 rounds :

9	: Gregory Kaidanov
8.5	: Ben Finegold
8	: Sergey Kudrin, John Fedorowicz, Igor Ivanov, Anatoly Lein,
	  David Strauss, Leonid Basin, Ron Burnett, Vadim Tsemekhman,
	  Glenn Johnstone, Josef Friedman

Results of the top 5 boards on round 11 (played Thur. Aug 13, 1992):
Finegold - Kaidanov	: 0.5
Tsemekhman - Kudrin	: 0-1
Fedorowicz - Basin	: 1-0
Ivanov - Burnett	: 0-1
Lein - Johnstone	: still playing

Round 12 (last round) is scheduled on Fri. Aug 14 @7pm.

Selected games from round 10
-----------------------------

Board #1 	[King's Indian, E73]
GM Gregory Kaidanov (2694) - Vadim Tsemekhman (2435)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 O-O 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.Qd2 e5 8.Nf3 Qe8
9.O-O exd4 10.Nxd4 Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Qxe4 12.Nb5 Qc6 13.Bf3 Qb6 14.Be3 c5
15.Qxd6 Qxd6 16.Nxd6 Rb8 17.Rad1 Ne5 18.Bd5 b6 19.Bg5 Bf5 20.Be7 Bc2
21.Rd2 Bd3 22.Bxf8 Rxf8 23.Nxf7 Rxf7 24.f4 Bxf1 25.fxe5 Bh6 26.Bxf7+ Kxf7
27.Rd7+ Ke6 28.Rxh7 Bxc4 29.Rxh6 Bxa2 30.Rxg6+ Kxe5 31.Rg7 [1-0]

Board #4	[Sicilian, B22]
Glenn Johnstone (2391) - IM David Strauss (2482)
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3 d6 5.d4 cxd3 6.Qxd4 e6 7.exd6 Qxd6 
8.Nbd2 Nc6 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.Ne5 Nb4 12.Qxd6 Bxd6 13.Nxc6 Nxc6
14.Nc4 Be7 15.Bd2 O-O-O 16.Ke2 e5 17.Rad1 f5 18.f3 Kd7 19.Be3+ Ke6
20.Rxd8 Rxd8 21.Rd1 Rxd1 [0.5]

Board #5	[Ruy Lopez, C90]
GM Sergey Kudrin (2672) - Dexter Thompson (2319)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 
8.d3 d6 9.c3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.Nbd2 Qc7 12.Nf1 Ne8 13.Ne3 Be6 14.d4 cxd4
15.cxd4 Rc8 16.b3 g6 17.Bb2 f6 18.Rc1 Qa7 19.Qd2 Nb7 20.Nd5 Bd8 21.b4 a5
22.Bb3 Rxc1 23.Rxc1 a4 24.Ne7+ Kf7 25.Nc6 Qb6 26.Bxe6+ Kxe6 27.dxe5 fxe5
28.Qd5+ Kf6 29.Nfxe5 dxe5 30.Qxe5+ Kf7 31.Qd5# [1-0]
-- 
*----------------------*
  _Richard Malingkas__                      
  malingka@cps.msu.edu                 
*----------------------*
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Man vs Computer Checkers Championshipy
Date: 22 Aug 92 20:19:02 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Thank you for posting the results of the Chinook match.There are quite a
few people interested in the outcome here in Vancouver. So we would be
very grateful if you could keep posting the results.
Many thanks
Peter Stockhausen

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------