HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Sticking to your principles
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:46:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: canal.01GITY33PMF48X1ZBP

On13 Apr 92 15:32:24 GMT, Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM writes:

>> I admire Reshevsky for his great chess career, although I hear his
>> personality left a lot to be desired -- now THIS I'd like to hear about.
>> Anybody know anything of this "nasty personality" side of Reshevsky?
>> Forgive me if I've been misinformed.
>
>Yeah, netnews.rec.games.chess.supermarket-tabloid.  And Fischer stories and
>Browne stories and Steinitz stories and ...

Gee, is there something wrong in wanting Fischer stories, Browne stories, 
Steinitz stories...?  You are human, n'est-ce pas?  Do you skip the interviews
sections in magazines?  Or are you only interested in the moves and whether
move X is better than move Y and for what reasons?  Or maybe you do read the
interviews, but only to find the parts that will help you in finding the
move X's?

Of course, you can pretend to take the high ground, pretending to be above
such concerns.  For example, you may not be interested in Browne stories
because you KNOW the Browne stories?  I don't know, you tell me.  Or maybe
you could care less about the Browne's, Reshevsky's, and Kasparov's of the
world, and you only care about the move X's, Y's, and Z's that you can 
generate from studying the X's, Y's, and Z's of, we'll call them B, R, and K.

In fact, maybe you don't even need a name attached to the game score -- just
a, say, star designation, to indicate how worthy the game is of study.  Maybe
just say this game was played between White and Black and is rated, say,
10 stars, say the highest desination in our "worthy of study" category.  There
could be game collections of, say, 10-star-games between White and Black.
All annotations would be in unemotional symbolic form, with no such annoyances
as subjective feelings entering into the equation.  Only those things relevant
to improving your finding of moves X and Y, or the better X's and Y's would
be given.

Naturally, tournament coverage would be irrelevant except to just give the
facts -- tournament #203534 produced 3 10-star games, 3 8-star games, 8 7-star
games...

It's easy to be hoity-toity about someone's request for something of another's
personality.  My request of the "nasty side" of Reshevsky was because I
have heard some particularly nasty things about Reshevsky.  I wanted to know
if these were true OR only tabloid stuff.  In fact, I've gotten stories both
good and bad, very interesting stories, in my opinion, which only makes
Reshevsky more human.  He had his faults (and it seems he WAS a big cheater),
but he also had his good side, as one person related in his experience in
meeting Reshevsky while a high school student.

Yes, it is easy to be above this.

So, anyone have any more good Reshevsky stories! :)

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Looking for improvement suggestions
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:23:00 GMT

In article <ku6bfvINN5nj@news.bbn.com> giannone@BBN.COM (Tony Giannone) writes:

>I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve my chess game. My current USCF
>rating is 1180, based on one 4-game tournament.
>I'd appreciate any advice (books, methods, etc) that you could provide.

Tactics books will probably have the biggest impact on your playing
ability.  Consider:

	1 Neishtadt, Your Move (start here if you don't know the common themes)
	2 Reinfeld, 1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate (about $7, easier than 3)
	3 Reinfeld, 1001 Winning Sacrifices and Combinations (about $7)

As for openings.  I have been studing the Caro-Kann (as well as
tactics).  This weekend, I won 2/4, and both games that I lost were
Caro-Kanns, including one against an opponent who had never played the
CK.  On the other side, I won against a Benko Gambit, which I had never
seen before.

If that is not enough, consider that my opponent misplayed the CK, and
because of my superior knowledge of the opening, I failed to take
advantage of his mistake; in the early middle game, my overconfidence
led me into converting my minior positional advantage into a lost piece
(the same knight I lost the weekend before, although slightly
differently).  As for the Benko, I misplayed the opening, and my
opponent did take advantage of my error.  Ultimately, he let me off
easy and entered the endgame up a (backward) pawn.  I attacked the
pawn, and he quickly passed into a coma, moved his defending rook, and
let me grab the pawn.  I played the endgame reasonably well and won
without much trouble.

So, let that be the second recommendation: endgame study.  In both
games I won, I used principles from Capablanca's Fundamentals, an
*excellent* book.  (Specifically, I created passed pawns on one side
and ran over to the other while my opponent was forced to eliminate the
passers; and, I tell you, I heard another beginner snort when I
abandoned a passed pawn to my opponent---"obviously" the wrong move.) I
nearly won a third game when I created a passed pawn from a 3:3
opposition, which my opponent did not even know was possible---but he
was up a bishop and I was short one tempo.  So, basic endgame knowledge
should come before openings.

--Jim
From: g0m0078@tamsun.tamu.edu (Giri)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Shortest/Longest Games
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:15:07 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

Thanks a lot for the responses I got to post the games I  mentioned
in my previous article. Sorry that  Icould not reply to all of u

So here goes :

Gibaud vs lazard

d4 nf6
nd2 e5
pe5 ng4
h3 ne3

Borochow vs fine

e4 nf6
e5 nd5
c4 nb6
d4 nc6
d5 ne5
c5 nbc4
f4 resigns.

I am aware that there is some controversy that the game ended here
but the excellent feature is that the moves involved are the pawns
by white and knight by black.
The game is said to have continued like this
.... fe
qd4 qh4+
g3 qh6
nc3 ed
fe resigns.

Some netters have written to me that neither of the above players are
GM's but I think fine was a GM and then there is a very likely chance
that the game was one of the shortest involving a GM. Of course, games
like 1,2 moves where GM's have resigned has not been accounted.


Have Fun,


giri
From: 00rggraham@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: c'mon, try me.
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:10:46 GMT

found this somewhere...

   |---------------------------------------|   !=check mate #=check
  8| *R | *N | *B | *K | *Q | *B | *N | *K |    *YOU  vs. ME
   |---------------------------------------|   ---------------------
  7| *P | *P | *P | *P | *P | *P | *P | *P |  1|         |2 |
   |---------------------------------------|  3|         |4 |
  6|    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |  5|         |6 |
   |---------------------------------------|  7|         |8 |
  5|    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |  9|         |10|
   |---------------------------------------| 11|         |12|
  4|    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    | 13|         |14|
   |---------------------------------------| 15|         |16|
  3|    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    | 17|         |18|
   |---------------------------------------| 19|         |20|
  2|  P |  P |  P |  P |  P |  P |  P |  P | 21|         |22|
   |---------------------------------------| 23|         |24|
  1|  R |  N |  B |  K |  Q |  B |  N |  R | 25|         |26|
   |---------------------------------------|
      a    b    c    d    e    f    g    h   (eg) a2-a6 normal move;
                                                  a2xa6 take a piece.
--found this on alt.personals...
anyone up for a visual game by email?
i really don't understand all the funny codes and shit...
this is easier...

**bonus...you even get the first move!!!

Ross Graham
00rggraham@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu

my humble apologies and thanks to the person i stole this from...
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Subject: Re: Oops Department
Reply-To: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Organization: NASA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:16:28 GMT

In article <Apr.5.16.16.12.1992.17392@remus.rutgers.edu>, 
clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
> In _1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations_ (#3), Reinfeld
> gives White to play and win in this position:
> 
>          8 r - - k - - - -
>          7 - p p - - r p p
>          6 p n - b - p - -
>          5 - - - n - - - -
>          4 - - - - - - - -
>          3 P - - - - N B -
>          2 - P P - - - P P
>          1 - - K R R - - -
>            a b c d e f g h
> 
> His key is 1. c4! Ne7 2. b5; did he overlook something?
> 
  Looks to me that Reinfeld overlooked 1. ---  Nb6xc4, which would
turn 1. c4! into 1. c4?   Most embarrassing blunder, I would say.

I would probably have played 1. BxBd6, causing an isolated pawn, though
it would give Black the c file for his queen rook. Black would have to use
his other rook or move up his king to protect that isolated pawn and free
his knights. (I doubt if my analysis would stand to scrutiny... I'm unranked,
which makes Reinfeld's error all the more embarrassing.)


------------------------
       John Paul Phillips   
             "Azjohn"         
         NASA/Langley        
azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:15:05 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
	<92104.104229U55342@uicvm.uic.edu>

I wrote:
>How should black play after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 de 4 Nxe4 Nd7
>5 Bc4 Ngf6 6 Qf3 ?
>
>My reason for being worried about this position
>
>r - b q k b - r
>p p - n p p p p
>- - p - - n - -
>- - - - - - - -
>- - B P N - - -
>- - - - - Q - -
>P P P - - P P P
>R - B - K - N R
>
>is that Warren Goldman wrote a book that devoted 4 1/2
>pages to a discussion of this position, coming to the conclusion
>that it was good for white.

Bertrand L. Wilson writes:
>I'm wondering, is 6. ... Nb6 followed by ...Q:d4 too dangerous?

Goldman's suggested response to 6 ... Nb6 is 7 Bd3.  After 7 ... Qxd4,
he suggests 8 Ne2.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: leyfre@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Frederic Leymarie)
Subject: Re: Shortest GM game (was Re: Goldman analysis)
Originator: leyfre@Ra.McRCIM.McGill.EDU
Keywords: Playing faster than "his shadow"...
Organization: McGill Research Centre for (not too) Intelligent Machines
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 21:37:54 GMT


The shortest game between two GM's I know occured during (Tadam!):

	Spassky -- Fisher  1972 World title match



Spassky won a game after playing his first move ... ;-)


--
PS: What about the longest ever game (between GM's of course :)
-- 
Frederic Leymarie -- leyfre@mcrcim.mcgill.edu
McGill University, Electrical Eng. Dept., McRCIM,    |	Tel.: (514) 398-8204
3480 University St., Montreal, QC, CANADA, H3A 2A7.  |	FAX:  (514) 398-7348
From: thorn@diku.dk (Peter Tjornsted)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Deafness (was: Re: Women and chess)
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:02:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

I wrote:
>>I was just reading Keene's book, on the WC match 1978 Karpov - Korchnoi, today.
>>It states that Korchnoi is or was indeed deaf. There wasn't anything about how
>>or when he became deaf in the chapters I read.

>hau4@quads.uchicago.edu (Sven  Hauptfeld) writes:
>I watched Korchnoi on TV in 1987 or 88 and he held a normal conversation, even
>in a foreign language (Serbian/Croatian). I don't know if he maybe uses a 
>hearing aid, but he can not be any more deaf than a person wearing glasses is
>blind.

He may read lips or have a hearing aid. In my danish version of the book it is
stated at the bottom of page 8 that Korchnoi was/is deaf. That is what I read.
He may be cured, but I have no further sources of information on the subject.
Perhaps someone with better sources than mine, would be so kind as to inform
the reader of "rec.games.chess" about how he got to be deaf and whether he got
cured or is reading lips.

Peter alias thorn@freja.diku.dk
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: helios!munnari.oz.au!thiele@tssi.com (David Thiele)
Subject: chessnews
Reply-To: helios!ironbark.bcae.oz.au!thiele
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:27:38 GMT


Could you send me the chessnews?
Thanks, Dave

thiele@ironbark.bcae.oz.au
-- 
        _
|) avid / hiele
e-mail: thiele@ironbark.bcae.oz.au
s-mail: 5 Stanley Ave. Bendigo, Victoria, Australia, 3550.
"I'm sure my cat regards me as a versitile home appliance!"

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (perlman eric)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Playing with the deaf (was Re: Re whether Korchnoi is deaf)
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:49:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr9.174913.4215
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Apr9.170207.1317@news.larc.nasa.gov> azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips) writes:
>In article <nolan.702762742@helios>, nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan) 
>writes:
>> 
>> nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash) writes:
>> 
>> >How do you offer a draw to a deaf opponent?
>> 
>> Lipreading or in writing both work quite well.  ASL would also work if you
>> knew it, or finger spelling.  
>> 
>
>I'm deaf, and I agree with Michael Nolan.

It should be added that the USCF Official Rules make provision for this
occurrence pretty explicitly, as well as others (for example, one friend
of mine in Arizona, who happens to be a quadriplegic, has been using a
machine to record his games, since he has lots of difficulty holding
pens and pencils.  Those interested in the details of this arrangement
might ask Myron Lieberman, in whose tournaments Ruben has often played)

>> >How does a dumb/deaf opponent offer a draw or call a dropped flag?
>> 
>> See above for draw offers, pointing at the flag would work pretty good, too.
>> 
>Amen. However, I feel it necessary to point out something. "dumb" is archaic
>and ambigious. "mute" is better. "Deaf/dumb" or "deaf/mute" is considered 
>offensive to the deaf. Most deaf persons do have vocal ability, though it
>isn't cohensive in mose cases, due to difficulties in training. (Like me) 
>"mute" is for persons without the ability to vocalize, while "deaf" is
>for those with severe to profound hearing loss. (I'm profoundly deaf, and
>thus have no problem with heavy thoughts :^).)  The Deaf tend to use "silent"
>because it implies the ability to vocalize and doesn't use it. There is a
>book titled "Silent Knights of the Board" about deaf chessplayers. (It's out
>of print... Gallaudet University has a copy of it, where I saw it.)

I'd be interested in seeing it someday, but I hadn't heard aout it
before (oh well).
 
>> A deaf player doesn't need much assistance, except perhaps in communicating
>> draw offers and such.  (We usually try to make sure that any announcements
>> are also done in writing and give the deaf player(s) a copy or show them
>> where it is posted.)  
>> 
> Good to know that some chessplayers has no qualms about playing disabled 
>players.

Being non-disabled, it would disturb me greatly to see any chessplayer,
disabled or not, refuse to or have qualms about playing a disabled
player.  Indeed, my numerous tournament and match games with Ruben, who
I mentioned above, were thoroughly challenging and enjoyable.


-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman  <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> or <eric@lyra.Colorado.EDU> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: e-mail game anyone?
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:59:10 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <810.685.uupcb@matrix.sbs.com>, clinton.wall@matrix.sbs.com (Clinton Wall) writes:
> To: p0001@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
> 
> P >I am interested in playing chess e-mail against anyone (any class).
>   >I have been playing for about fifteen years, but have not played in a
>   >tournament in the last three years.  Class C or B would be ideal.
>   >If interested, please write to:
> 
> P >p0001@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
> 
>   Paul:> 
>   I'm always ready. Take your pick of one or both. At present,
>   I am awaiting a reply to my USCF membership application.
>   Rating doesn't mean a lot to me at the moment.
> 
>   Game 1: 1. d4  ???


Surely  1. d4 isn't that bad? At most one question mark, I'd have said.


>   Clinton.     Clinton.Wall@Matrix.sbs.com
> 
>      
-- 
James, who's going to get a witty signature as soon as he can think of one.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 21:02:32 CDT
From: <U55342@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
 <4077@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu><YdtY=U600VoiE43UZ3@andrew.cmu.edu>
 <92104.104229U55342@uicvm.uic.edu> <4dupZdW00VB7E3XVc1@andrew.cmu.edu>

In article <4dupZdW00VB7E3XVc1@andrew.cmu.edu>, Louis Blair
<lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu> says:
>
>I wrote:
>>How should black play after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 de 4 Nxe4 Nd7
>>5 Bc4 Ngf6 6 Qf3 ?
>>
>>
>>is that Warren Goldman wrote a book that devoted 4 1/2
>>pages to a discussion of this position, coming to the conclusion
>>that it was good for white.
>
>Bertrand L. Wilson writes:
>>I'm wondering, is 6. ... Nb6 followed by ...Q:d4 too dangerous?
>
>Goldman's suggested response to 6 ... Nb6 is 7 Bd3.  After 7 ... Qxd4,
>he suggests 8 Ne2.

Well, yes, but does white have enough for the pawn after black retreats
the queen to d8, or perhaps more enterprisingly, to d7 with the idea of
hassling white with ... Qg4 ? Remember, that d-pawn that white gave up
is a nice piece of change! I don't mind sac-ing wing pawns speculatively
(I play the Benko Gambit), but you should be more carefull about giving
up center pawns!
                                                   See Ya!
                                                    Bert

........................................................................
: 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: aa214@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edward Noe)
Subject: FNCF RESULTS for Internet Play Apr. 16th 1992
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 00:44:08 GMT


 
      FREE-NET CHESS FEDERATION USERRNET RESULTS
                  for the SKT-3 Event.
 
                      April 16,1992
             Directed and maintained by the
                   Cleveland Chess Sig
               xx011@cleveland.freenet.edu
 
PLAYER                            WON LOST DRAWS POINTS  Games
==============================================================
Bob Thornburg                      1    0    0      2      2
Johanes Suhardjo                   1    0    0      2      1
Mathew Bangerter                   0    0    0      0      1
Clay Breshears                     0    0    0      0      1
William Davis                      0    0    0      0      1
Steve Hamburg                      0    0    0      0      2
Huw Oliver                         0    0    0      0      2
George Klemic                      0    0    0      0      1
Jose De Leon                       0    0    0      0      1
Lui Sieh                           0    0    0      0      1
Sean Jameson                       0    0    0      0      1
Joe Feagin                         0    0    0      0      1
Erik E. Wachtenhein                0    0    0      0      1
Wally Dixon                        0    0    0      0      1
Michael Cox                        0    0    0      0      1
Tim Anderson                       0    0    0      0      1
Harmel Singh                       0    0    0      0      2
Mick Kappler                       0    0    0      0      1
Malcolm Mead                       0    0    0      0      1
Jason Jarzembowski                 0    0    0      0      1
Aaron Cary Dalton                  0    0    0      0      1
Gregory S. LaFoncant               0    0    0      0      1
Myron Seto                         0    0    0      0      1
Mark Spaeth                        0    1    0      0      3
Roy Stuart Levin                   0    1    0      0      1
=============================================================
     For assignments or additional games in this
   event contact xx011@cleveland.freenet.edu and
   request games for this event key: SKT-3.
      Please include your name, e-mail address and
   the city,state or country your calling from.
 
 
                  COPYRIGHT (c) 1992 by the Cleveland Chess Sig
       and the Free-Net Chess Federation. All rights resevered.
       No part of this article may be copied or  reproduced
       electronically or otherwise, without the express written
       permission from the authors unless for your own personel
       use.
                 FREE-NET CHESS FEDERATION 1986-1992
-- 
    The Freenet Chess Federation   xx011@cleveland.freenet.edu
     The Cleveland Chess Sig  aa214@cleveland.freenet.edu
       The Youngstown Chess Sig  aa359@yfn.ysu.edu
           E-MAIL CHESS -RATINGS-GAMES-NEWS-TOURNAMENTS
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess