HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drchip@cup.portal.com (MYRON A LIEBERMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Re: Youngest GM/IGM?
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 09:34:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Oct9.033859.26393@adobe.com>

>In article <67129@cup.portal.com>, drchip@cup.portal.com (MYRON A LIEBERMAN) s
t
>ates:
>mal>Fischer was indeed the youngest player to achieve the IGM (GM) title
>mal>but it was most assuredly not in 1970 - try 1958. The only other
>mal>possible argument for the youngest player is Judit Polgar (1992), who
>mal>earned the title at essentially the same age as Fischer. Since Fischer
>mal>received his title 12 years before 1970 and Polgar 12 years after
>mal>1970, the average is...... Perhaps that is where 1970 came from.  :-)
>
>No one seems to have remarked upon Mr. Lieberman's math.  The 1980's
>did go by quickly, but I still don't think 1992 is 12 years after
>1970.

Did you not see the :-) in my post?? Presumably this should have made it
clear that I was being facetious and that it is this kind of flawed logic
that would lead to an answer of 1970. If I had been mathematically correct
the post would have lost meaning. I suspect many people have seen and 
understood the post, but for those that haven't let this serve as the
explanation. Don't take anything that I or most other people write
seriously if it is followed by a :-)   .
From: berliner+@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Hans Berliner)
Subject: FS-18 (Analysis)
Originator: berliner@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:09:15 GMT

There have been queries about why there are so many decisive games
in this match.  For this observer it appears clear that the defensive play
of both participants is considerably below that of what one would expect
from someone in the top 50 in the world.  Spassky has never been an
exceptional defensive player, but Fischer was for a long time the best
in the world.  However, his failures in the early stages of this match have
been indicative that this is no longer so; cf. move 19 in game 4 where Nc5!!
draws, albeit with a lot of finesse.  So it is very intersting to see how
much better he has been playing recently.  The most dramatic move
30.-- Nd7!! in game 18 shows his defensive sharpness.  On the obvious
20. N:a6,Bb6+; 21. Kf1,Nd6!!; 22. N:d6,K:d6; 23. Nc5,N:c5 and black is
slightly better.  The ability to see such turns is what distinguishes a
great defensive player.  Here Spassky's promising position is nullified
in one fell swoop.

On a related subject: The actual ratings of both players. One would think
that anyone wishing to make such calculations would at least bother to
look up Spassky's rating (saying that you have never read a chess book or
don't subscribe to any chess periodical is no excuse).  Those that bother to
look it up will find it to be 2550 ELO.  So let the computation start from
there.  In mathematics one can prove anything from unsound premises.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: schiller@whorf(Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:44:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.142412.10386@uoft02.utoledo.edu>  
dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> i'm amazed at how chess players are rating the play of the F-S
> match. i've seen comments ranging from one extreme "they're both
> playing like gods" to the other "my grandma could beat em with one
> hand tied behind her back".
> 
> this lack of consistancy -- especially at the grand master level --
> only confirms my belief that even us flunkies out here can make
> valid assessments of the play. 
> 
> in other words, i don't have to know how to paint to know a nice  
portrait,
> or know how to play the piano to appreciate music. in fact, i can even  
be
> a better assessor of these things since my opinion isn't biased by 
> professional jealousy. actually, its biased by hero worship ;-)
> 
> with this in mind, as a lover of the game of chess, i will assess the
> playing strengths...
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> i think Fischer, with the exception of a couple of grotesque displays in
> the early rounds, is playing great!
> 
> 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.
> 
> when he faces Gary in december of 1993, he will publicly embarrass him  
with
> an unheard of 10-0 score.
> 
> 
> any other opinions out there?
> 
> don wedding

Was this intended to be provocative, or just silly. No 
qualified chessplayer in the world agrees with this.

Fischer has shown no evidence that he can handle Karpov,
let alone Kasparov. And ridiculous claims of shutouts just
make you look silly.

On the other hand, I could use some money, and would be
happy to offer odds of, say, 200-1 against a shutout of
Kasparov, even in a 6 game match.

But then, I am conservative. 10,000-1 might be a Vegas line.

Anand-Fischer would be more interesting. I think Anand would
be about a 5-3 favorite. But then I am conservative! <grin>

More reasonable odds:

Fischer-Damljanovic (reportedly next match), 25-1 Fischer,
	6-1 on a shutout?

Fischer-Speelman or Fischer-Timman (3-2 against Fischer)

Fischer-Karpov (4-1 against Fischer)

Fischer-Seirawan (5-1 Fischer)

Fischer-Kasparov (50-1 Kasparov)

Eric Schiller
 


--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
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: baljeual@uther.calvin.edu (Alan Baljeu)
Subject: Chess buddies?
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:47:40 GMT

>bobby will win and karpov will NEVER BE THE SAME (like spassky in 1972)

I can't help but notice the number of people on a first name basis with
Mr. Fischer.  It's really quite amazing because I thought he was always quite
reclusive, especially after the last 20 years.  Could be just wishful thinking
I suppose, too have known such a great player, but it isn't quite realistic.
Were you also good friends with Einstein?  Oh well.

Alan Baljeu
			Go Anatoly!!!! :) :) :) :)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black)
Subject: Re: Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:49:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.151511.17236@alchemy.ithaca.ny.us> cpf@alchemy.TN.Cornell.EDU (Courtenay Footman) writes:
>In article <Bw546n.Fzo@world.std.com> jkenton@world.std.com (Jeff Kenton) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.205247.27303@ichips.intel.com> sstrazdu@vulcan.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus) writes:
>>>
>>>Is there a good endgame book with these harder endgames?  I remember looking
>>>at Pandolfini's "End Game Course" in a store once, but I don't think it
>>>really got into the more difficult endgames.
>>>
Pandolfini never treats difficult endgames; his is a book for beginners.

>>There's always Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings.  It has nearly everything,
>>including some reported errors.  The section on K+Q vs K+R is complex.
>>
*IMHO*, Fine gives a poor treatment of this ending; I believe his line is 
non-optimal at times (but Fine was a better player than I'll ever be, so take
this with a grain of salt) and it's very difficult to extract any learnable
techniques from the example he gives (which, apparently, is taken from a study
by Berger).  He definitely does not give optimal lines from the Philidor
position (I can post more on this if there is interest).

Keres's "Practical Chess Endings" is by far the best of the 8-10 endgame books
I own, much better than Fine as a readable endgame text; Keres's treatment of
the K+Q vs. K+R ending is very good, but not comprehensive.

>I have just gotten this book.  The bookseller said that someone had
>compiled a list of errata, but that he (the bookseller) had no idea
>of where to get it.  Can the net do better?
>
Fine has a *lot* of errors; the last time I saw the list of errata, it was very
long (sorry I don't remember where I saw it).

>(The net seems to have found one error already-- Fine gives KBN v K as a
>34 move win;  the net consensus seems to be 33. ) 
>
Personally, I'd be very impressed if Fine were able to analyze this ending and
conclude that the worst case is 34 moves when it turns out (with the benefit
of computer analysis) it's only 33 moves.  It's amazing that endgames analysts
have been proven correct in a lot of very complicated endings now that we can
analyze them exhaustively!  (Of course, they've been proven wrong sometimes 
too...)

john//
From: marcelk@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Marcel van Kervinck)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: A question about simple endgames
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:53:11 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

I (marcelk@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl) wrote:
: : c)  K+B+B v K
: N=18
Here I meant 19, actually.

I recently built the databases of those 4 simple endgames for my
chess playing program. The results so far confirm some publications
in the literature.
The values 10 (KQK), 16 (KRK), 19 (KBBK), 33 (KBNK) are considered
to be correct. 

Some books:
(dutch) "Schaken voor computers", by J. van den Herik & P. van Diepen
That book references, amongst others:
(dutch) "Computerschaak, Schaakwereld en Kunstmatige Intelligentie",
by H.J. van den Herik
(english) "ICCA Journal", by International Computer Chess Association
--
Marcel van Kervinck
marcelk@stack.urc.tue.nl 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo)
Subject: Re: max Fischer rating
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Fischer rating
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:51:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.172510.11468@cs.ruu.nl> xawemmer@cs.ruu.nl (Xander Wemmers) writes:
>Would anybody know what happens when Spassky wins this match?
>
>Would Fischer recognise him as the (new) World Champion?

In an article in The Star Ledger (in NJ), it was reported that Fischer, when
asked this question, said he would regard Spassky as World Champion in that
event.  When Spassky was asked if he would consider himself Champion if he beat
Fischer, he declined to make any real comment.  He shrugged or said "we'll
see" or something like that.  If I can find the article, I'll post part of it
verbatim.

David Caraballo
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 20 moves 1-19
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:15:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct15.141546.16417
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


As of 17:26 GMT
   (Sicilian Defense, Closed Variation)
   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 c5
   2. Ne2 Nf6
   3. Nbc3 e6
   4. g3 Nc6
   5. Bg2 Be7
   6. 0-0 d6
   7. d3 a6
   8. a3 Qc7
   9. f4 b5
   10. Kh1 0-0
   11. Be3 Bb7
   12. Bg1 Rab8
   13. h3 Ba8
   14. g4 b4
   15. axb4 cxb4
   16. Na4 Nd7
   17. Qd2 Rfc8
   18. b3 a5
   19. g5 Bf8
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: edjohn@sequent.com (Ed Johnson)
Subject: Re: Budapest gambit(book titles)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:36:02 GMT

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

But who is going to by a book titled "How to draw with ..." or even "How to have
slightly better chances with ..."

Ed



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rivin@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Igor Rivin)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Alekhin-Rubinstein
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:48:36 GMT

In article <1b9vklINN3lf@uwm.edu> mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen) writes:
>[Fischer commentary omitted]
>Some have also claimed that Alekhin was "chicken" because he didn't give
>Capablanca a re-match. Get your facts straight. Alekhin pursued a match
>with Capablanca for years without success. Capa avoided playing Alekhin
>despit (or because of) his dominance in most of his tournaments. The 
>negotiations led to a deep rift in the relationship between the two. 

What is your source for this? I have heard uniformly the opposite
story, even from Soviet sources (generally pro-Alekhine as much as
possible). 

>Finally, Rubinstein was mentioned as one of the dominant players of his 
>time. I'm not sure you could say that he dominated the game but he sure
>was a genius at the game. I don't have the game score handy, and the 
>opposition wasn't great, but Rubinstein-Rotlewi (1908?) is one of the
>most incredible punishments of passive play that I've ever seen. BTW,
>Rubinstein apparently died of starvation during WWI.

Rubinstein died in (I think) 1962, in a rather comfortable
"sanatorium" in Switzerland. He played throughout the 1920s, despite
some mental problems, which affected his results and led to his
eventual withdrawal from chess.




Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jqtaylor@boi.hp.com (John Quill Taylor)
Subject: Game Sought (Short - Korchnoi French)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:32:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]



I am having an e-mail game playing against the French, and my opponent
says that Short beat Korchnoi with 7. h4. I am looking for the game (or
any game with this position), but I have no database of games. If you have
either of the above on-line, could you send it to me? Thank you.

jqtaylor (usa)  sasha (russia)
--------------  --------------
1. e2-e4        e7-e6
2. d2-d4        d7-d5
3. Nb1-c3       Bf8-b4
4. e4-e5        c7-c5
5. a2-a3        Bb4xc3 check.
6. b2xc3        Ng8-e7
7. h2-h4 (!)    Nb8-c6
8. Bc1-g5       Qd8-a5
9. Qd1-d2
From: brucec@tekgen.bv.tek.com (Bruce Cheney)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Please Put FSII Score on Subject Line
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:07:37 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

It would be very convenient if those posting
the games of FSII would also put the score
on the subject line. For example:

Subject: FSII Game 10 (Fischer:6 Spassky:2)

The local papers are really bad at printing news
on this match.

Thanks!

Bruce Cheney
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Subject: Re: Polgar
Keywords: world champ?
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 19:32:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.020137.22892@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.220301.16439@news.iastate.edu> baarniy@iastate.edu (Scott A Coon) writes:
>>I've noticed that there seems to be some strong feeling on
>>this group that Judit Polgar has no realistic chance of ever
>>becoming world champion....[]...
>>Scott Coon
>
>I am one of those who think her chances are very low. I'd feel the same if
>she were a he...[]...
>	Sven

infact i think i've detected a reverse discrimination nuance in the total
flavor of the posts in this group.  i think if she were a he the tone would
be even LESS likely...but thats just a faint feeling i get.  i hope she does
get that far...some day....

- nate
From: lizn@uts.amdahl.com (Elizabeth Neely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:35:30 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

rjm@cs.brown.edu (Ralph Marshall) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.202413.15165@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
.....
<stuff deleted>
.....

>So, the
>question I have is how the initial value is assigned under the USCF
>and FIDE systems.  Is it based in any way on some a priori assessment
>of your ability, or do all entrants start at the same level?


I think your initial rating is based on how you do in your first 20 games,
and the ratings of those first 20 oponents. Its possible to earn an initial
rating higher then you deserve, by playing your first 20 games against people
with really high ratings.

			Liz Neely
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen)
Subject: Re: Richter-Rauser, Sozin
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:33:25 GMT

I wrote:

>What books have been written on the next line:
>
>1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6
                                           ***!

Sorry! A typing error! It had to be : 5.-Nc6


>
>Now 6.Bg5 is most popular, but I have only one very old Batsford
>book form the 70's. 6.Bc4 is being played more and more often, but
>here too only Kasparovs SIS e6+d6 systems is available (being printed
>1n the beginning of 80's). How about 6.Be2?
>
>It is surprising that there are so few books on this interesting opening.
>Can anyone help me?
>
>Antti
>
>
From: baljeual@uther.calvin.edu (Alan Baljeu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:33:22 GMT
Organization: Calvin College

jph@stein.u.washington.edu (Jeff Hanson) writes:

>In article <PHR.92Oct14203844@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>>I think it was GM Nick DeFirmian who said somewhere that studying the
>>KNB vs K mate was useless because it comes up so rarely in practice.
>>Your results will improve more if you spend the time studying K+P
>>endings or something instead.  Apparently many Russian grandmasters
>>don't know how to mate with N+B (though they might be able to figure
>>it out over the board).
>>
>>On the other hand, Capablanca in "Chess Fundamentals" said figuring
>>out KNB vs K was worthwhile because it taught you about the power
>>of the different pieces.  He too didn't imply that it was a situation
>>you were likely to see in a real game.

>Capa is right.  I spent some time studying this endgame and found it
>helped in middle games that involve bishops & knights; especially
>open or semi-open middle games.

But then again, there's always the chance that you hit that endgame and your
opponent makes you play it through.  I heard a story once about a GM who had
30 seconds in which to play the mate.  He won, but only because he knew the 
moves.
From: comfrank@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Frank Tutzauer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Summary: random anecdotes
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:31:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


In the very first rated game I ever played, I reached (against another
unrated opponent) a rook and pawn endgame that was very clearly drawn.  I
offered a draw and he refused.  Not understanding tournament ettiquette,
I said something like, "Look, I can keep you out over here, and you
can't penetrate there, so clearly it's a draw."  He still refused, so
I started shuffling my rook.  Well, because I was so convinced (correctly)
that it was a draw, I didn't parry one of his (easily met) threats...
and lost!!

Boy, that humbled me.

A couple of tournaments later, I got into the endgame against an
opponent that was rated 18 or 19 hundred.  When we adjourned,
I was a pawn up.  I was rated 1100 at the time, although that
was probably conservative (it was only my second tournament 
ever, and  I got the upset prize for beating 
someone who was in the 1600s).  Anyway, I thought, "Great.  Here
I am up a pawn over this macho honcho, and if I hold on I can
beat him."  Well, I didn't; we drew.  (He got me into a tricky
exchange that left me with just a rook pawn, that I couldn't,
of course, queen.   After the game, he said, "Well, I thought
I was lost, but I figured with our rating difference there
was a good chance I could pull out at least a draw."  The post
mortem, with my opponent and a bunch of other pretty good 
players, came to the conclusion that I did have a win, but it
would have been difficult to pull off, so my opponent made a
very reasonable decision to continue playing.  (I agree.)

Much later, I got into a lost QR vs. R endgame.  I offered a draw;
he refused, and I said you're right it's probably lost, but I don't
see how, so mind if I ask you to prove it to me by playing it out?
Well, he did. :-(

Finally, at certain levels, I can imagine someone playing out a KBN
vs. K, since that is very rarely practiced by low- to mid-level players
(say, class B and under).


--frank
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 18 drawn - moves
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:55:19 GMT
Organization: Harvard Math Department


   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. d4 d5
   2. c4 dxc4
   3. Nf3 a6
   4. e3 Nf6
   5. Bxc4 e6
   6. 0-0 c5
   7. dxc5 Qxd1
   8. Rxd1 Bxc5
   9. Nbd2 0-0
   10. a3 b5
   11. Be2 Bb7
   12. b4 Be7
   13. Bb2 Nbd7
   14. Rac1 Rfc8
   15. Nb3 Rxc1
   16. Rxc1 Rc8
   17. Rxc8+ Bxc8
   18. Nfd4 Nb8
   19. Bf3 Kf8
   20. Na5 Bd6
   21. Ndb3 e5
   22. Nc5 Ke7
   23. h3 Nfd7
   24. Nd3 f6
   25. Be4 g6
   26. f4 exf4
   27. exf4 Nb6
   28. Nb7 Bc7
   29. Nbc5 Nc4
   30. Bc1 Nd7
   31. Kf1 Nxc5
   32. Nxc5 Bb6
   33. Bd3 Bxc5
   34. bxc5 Be6
   35. Kf2 Kd7
   36. Bxc4 Bxc4
   37. drawn
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: English (was book titles)
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:05:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsbcsl.5956


The problem with the move order 1 c4 c6 2 e4 d5 is that White has not
yet put a pawn on d4.  This gives him more chances to try to hold the
pawn on d5 (should Black prefer lines with ... g6).  Jon Speelman's
new book on the Caro-Kann covers this with quite a few illustrative
games.  If you take on d5 immediately you may find yourself playing 
the Black side of an IQP position.  Personally I like to play the 
White side of that thing because few players have studied those
positions.  I recall a long and quite good article in the old *Modern
Chess Theory* about ten years ago in which John Nunn explored that
position in great depth.  But today these lines don't occur all that
often and even masters won't know them very well.  At any rate I have
a perfect score against masters 4-0-0 playing the White side of this
stuff, though I don't think it should give White anything concrete.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Fidelity Travel Master
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:17:30 GMT

     I was wondering if anyone out there could give me a
little advice on purchasing a hand-held chess computer.
In particular, I would like to know more about the Fidelity
Travel Master.  Jim, are you out there?

-Mark
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:37:38 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

[Long posting omitted]

I thought this posting was a pretty good satire of this whole discussion.  On
the other hand, if it was meant to be serious....surely no one can actually
believe that Fischer is clearly better than Kasparov.  It would be an
interesting match, but I think even Fischer would be happy winning by a
narrow margin.

I also admired David Fry's long reply to the strange posting that Fischer
didn't dominate world chess - but why did he bother?  If people want to
rewrite history either pro-Bobby or anti-Bobby that's up to them.  One thing
has become clear - logic plays no part in any of this.  Fischer certainly
triggers strong emotions in chess players.

(Spassky played quite well in the 1972 match, by the way, despite the abuse
that has been piled upon him).
From: jean-pierre.roy@synapse.org (Jean-Pierre Roy) 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S GAME 12
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:33:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: jean-pierre.roy@synapse.org (Jean-Pierre Roy) 

Help,

I miss the moves of game 12 of Fischer-Spassky. Please, do someone can
repeat the moves in this conference to my attention.

Thanks.

JP
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . On a clear disk you can seek forever
                                                         
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess