HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Subject: Re: Who Plays Chess and Why??y
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:59:28 GMT

> Doug Manley writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <3140014@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM>
> Posted: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:11:0
>
> Org.  : Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
>
> Mr. Luis Del/rodin, who commented on the psychological and sexual
> connection
> to chess, spurred some thinking on my part.  Perhaps here's
> another way of expressing an idea similar to his:
>
> Is there any ethical or moral notion as to why people like ourselves
> should spend as much time as we do playing chess?  Or Why do we even
> do this?  What is the benefit?  Should we be doing something else?
> Would you rather be doing something else?  What kind of people would
> find this a good use of their time vs. other activities?  Does
> anyone besides chessplayers themselves benefit from the playing of this
> game.  Certainly someone will question the importance of the question
> itself.  Are the chessplayers we know and meet at clubs and tournaments
> more or less deranged, mature, humane, than people we might meet
> elsewhere?  Are we decent sort of folk?
>
> Anyway you get the drift.  Who is attracted to this game and why?
>
> Mr. Del thought sexual frustration could result in chessic behavior.
> He suffered greatly as some clearly sexually frustrated individuals
> attacked him.  Insert smiley face here.  I am not, or not yet,
> questioning your sexual motivations.
>
> Would anyone care to comment?  Is this subject to dry?
>
> Doug Manley
>
>

Here are some thoughts, but they may not help. I have not heard of a
scientific study examining why people play chess vs tending gardens,
collecting coins, or tinkering with motorbike or any other hobby and
or profession.

Nor have I really seen anything relating to studying these groups to
find common traits. Do people who tend gardens make more money
than people who play chess? If so, how much more?  Are there more vegetarians
amongst chess players or coin collectors? Do people who love motorbikes spent
more money on housing than photographers??

We can speculate endlessly. Some of these facts relating to income and
spending habits are no doubt available to companies marketing and selling
goodies to them. ( Wilson does know who buys tennis equipment) Other facts
are simply not known. (like the degree of decency)

Maybe there are some people on the net who are professionally involved in
psychology. Maybe they can undertake a definite study of the chess
aficionado.
Peter

--

----------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:25:20 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <18654@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
> Mr. Cosgrove writes (inter alia):
> 
> "Sure, he violated a statute which is unjust in itself. That is as insane as
> Khomeni saying Reshdee violated islamic law by writing his book while in
> England and placing a bounty on Rishdee's head. When Iran does it, the world
> laughs because the arabs are too uncivilized to see that their laws do nto
> extend beyond their borders. When the US does it, you back them 100 percent."
> 
> 
> Apart from the misspellings, Iranians are not Arabs.  But I'm sure we'll have
> an argument that they are.
> 
> But, hey, I'm willing to concede that Mr. Cosgrove's legal expertise is as
> convincing as his chess expertise and wind up this whole thread.  Then
> everyone can have a Merry Christmas and wait for the Short-Timman match.
> 
> Well, have a Merry Christmas anyway!

Hey Bruce, this is the lamest attempt I have seen in this group to
weasel out of the issues raised in a post. As you appear unable to
see the obvious, I'll have to make it plain enough so that Ray Charles
could see it:

How is the US claim, that it can enact laws which attempt to exercise control
over people outside of its territories, any different than the Iranian claim
that it can pass judgment on Salman Rushdie for writing a book while he was in
Great Britain?

I eagerly await a mature response which addresses these questions...

DMC
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:47:54 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <7173@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>, wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas) writes:
> 
> Let me make a couple of suggestions and an observation:
> 
> READ Joel Benjamin's article.  Unless you can point out areas where
> you essentially disagree with the analysis which leads him to his
> conclusions, people will ignore you, with good reason.  You have asked
> the GMs to address the issues: to my mind it is you who are ignoring 
> them by avoiding the analytical issues.

Hmm... lots of posts aimed our way, not much ignoring...

Further, what do I have to do? Argue Fischer played well before asking the GMs
to say why they believe he played poorly?

YOU get serious.


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ()
Subject: Re: Tie breaks for 5 Swiss Systems
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:22:34 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

> Well, my first preference for a tiebreak, in general, is one not shown
> above (or generally ever used in chess tournaments), but is used, for
> example, in the NFL to determine playoff spots:  Head-to-head record.

YES!!!

> Or, in the case of this situation, "division record".  Unfortunately
> there wasn't much interaction between the tied players.  Schaetzle
> defeated Amouie to give them 1-0 and 0-1 division records respectively.
> So S. is in and A. is out.

NO!!!  The NFL's "division record" only works because divisions play a
double-round-robin schedule.  Here is my version of how head-to-head should
work:

If two players are tied, and one beat the other, that is decisive.

In a multi-way tie, there are two ways head-to-head can be used:
(1) If every player in the tie met all the others, treat the group as a
round-robin tournament.
(2) If one player beat all the others, he gets the top spot; similarly, if one
loses to all the rest, he goes below them.

Where these fail, go to another system.

Personally, I like the "half-Harkness" system:  drop only the low opponent,
keeping the high.


Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@(ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu,vuctrvax.bitnet)
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:29:17 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <18655@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
> Being a Canadian, not an American, lawyer, can a lawyer out there tell us
> whether the executive even has the power to "pardon" someone who has not been
> tried or convicted?  I would think not, so really the discussion must have
> been about whether Fischer should have been charged.

I am still six months away from the BAR, but Ford pardoned Nixon, and he was
never charged.


> 
> Should further discussion be transferred to usenet.rec.games.chess.Balkans?
> 
> [I suspect also that if a Grand Jury hands down an indictment, there are
> limits on what can be done about it, but since we are not blessed with Grand
> Juries here, I've never had to worry about that...]

Good thing. They are a formality at best. My crim procedure prof. says that a
decent prosecutor could get an inditment against a ham sandwich...and based
upon the stats, I think he is right...

DMC



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:59:54 GMT

In article <1gtseiINNfn2@tamsun.tamu.edu> sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.210943.10605@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1gpafnINN8bb@tamsun.tamu.edu> sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
>>>
>>>                   Couldn't we better use that "slot" in prison for housing
>>>someone that is an actual threat to society?
>>
>>By your logic, we should pardon WWII war criminals who are now 80+ years old
>>and definitely do not pose any actual threat to society.
>>
>>	Sven
>>
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but WWII war criminals were guilty of comitting
>_crimes_ (important word here).

So is Fischer (unless he successfully pleads insanity). 

True, the crimes of the Nazi bunch were more severe, but they also received
more severe punishment than Fischer could get. But if we don't limit ourselves
to the famous Nueremberg cases, there were many small Nazi collaborators who
were executed for crimes LESS severe than Fischer's (and Spassky's - it is too
easily forgotten that Fischer is not the only culprit).

It should be added, paradoxically, that, UNLIKE Fischer, the Nazi war criminals
formally broke no laws.

>                             Oh, that's right - it was a crime
>to play chess in Yugoslavia.

Nonsense. Fischer wasn't indicted for playing chess, but for doing business.

> [random noise deleted]

>Okay, enuff parody. Suffice it to say that I'd prefer that
>Sven NOT be the one responsible for telling me what my logic
>"means". Thanks, Sven, but I'll speak for myself.

If you think that I was speaking for you, you really should check your
circuits. I was speaking for myself, too. 

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: oyvind@hal.nta.no (Oyvind Eilertsen)
Subject: Re: Womans Candidates
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 08:26:04 GMT

Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen) writes:
|> I have heard that Z. Polgar won the womans candidates tournament with a three
|> point lead.Can somebody confirm this??

WOMEN'S CANDIDATE TOURNAMENT
      SHANGHAI 1992

1 Zsuzsa Polgar        HUN 2540   12.5/16
2 Nana Ioseliani       GEO 2445    9.5
3 Maya Chiburdanidze   GEO 2505    9.5
4 Alisica Maric        BHZ 2390    8.0
5 Qin Kanying          CHN         8.0
6 Wang Pin             CHN         8.0
7 Irina Levitina       USA 2415    6.5
8 Peng Zhaoqin         CHN         6.0
9 Nona Gaprindashvili  GEO 2435    5.5

(Sorry, no crosstable)

Polgar scored 7.5/8 (!) in the first half of the tournament, then
slowed down a little, but had no problems winning with soild 3 points.

Polgar and Ioseliani will play a semi-final match, and the winner
will challenge World Champion Xie Jun.

-- 
{\O}yvind.    (oyvind@nta.no)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Subject: Re: 3... I in the King's Gambit
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:55:44 GMT

In <1992Dec16.040403.5925@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> gls@windmill.ATT.COM (the Mysterious Stranger) writes:

>In <1992Dec15.064430.27205@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, mkukkone@klaava writes:
>> >> 
>> >> 1.  e4 e5  2. f4 ef 3. Bc4.  
>> >> 
>> 4.Qe2 fxe4 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qe5+ Qe7 7.Qxh8 Nf6 and now 8.b3! and 9.Ba3 gets the
>> queen out of corner. The trouble with 4.Qf3 is that after 4.-Qh4+ 5.g3 (The
>> point, right?) 5.-fxg3 6.hxg3 Qxe4+ 7.Qxe4 fxe4 8.Bxg8 Rxg8 9.Rxh7 d5 black
>> is a solid pawn up.

>If 5. g3 were the point, this line would be pointless!  No, I had in mind
>4... Qh4+; 5. Kd1 and normal development with a possible struggle over f4.
>I think that Black will have a hard time holding the pawn, and his Queen
>may be harassed.  What do the books say about this line?

Ah, I got fooled by your Breyer (3.Qf3) comparison, where the point is
3.-Qh4+ 4.g3 ...

If the King is going to d1 anyway, I think I'll still prefer to have my
queen on e2 and leave f3 for a knight. The books think same, as none of
them even mention 4.Qf3, only 4.exf5, 4.Nc3, 4.e5, 4.Bxg8?, 4.Qh5+ (all
more or less good for black) and 4.Qe2 are considered.

Mika
-- 
Mika Kukkonen = Mika.Kukkonen@Helsinki.FI
Trying to learn to live in Helsinki University of Computer Science.
"I am studying, so I am, or am I (studying)?"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: Womans Candidates
Summary: CROSSTABLE
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:07:17 GMT

Women's Interzonal
Shanghai, China
November 1992
                                1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Total
1   Polgar,Zsu      HUN 2540    xx  1=  1=  ==  1=  11  1=  11  1=  12.5
2   Ioseliani,N     GEO 2445    0=  xx  ==  =1  1=  01  11  00  11  9.5
3   Chiburdanidze,M GEO 2505    0=  ==  xx  0=  1=  =1  11  1=  01  9.5
4   Maric,A         YUG 2390    ==  =0  1=  xx  =1  00  ==  1=  10  8
5   Qin Kanying     PRC 2315    0=  0=  0=  =0  xx  11  =0  11  =1  8
6   Wang Pin        PRC 2345    00  10  =0  11  00  xx  01  0=  1=  6.5
7   Levitina,I      USA 2415    0=  00  00  ==  =1  10  xx  ==  1=  6.5
8   Peng Zhaoqin    PRC 2370    00  11  0=  0=  00  1=  ==  xx  0=  6
9   Gaprindashvili  GEO 2435    0=  00  10  01  =0  0=  0=  1=  xx  5.5

Zsuzsa Polgar and Nana Ioseliani will play a match to determine the
challenger to Xie Jun for the Women's World Championship next year.
I don't know what happens to Chiburdanidze.

  --elliott
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Subject: Re: A little curiosity
Organization: University of Limburg, Maastricht
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:48:39 GMT

gls@windmill.ATT.COM (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes:

>In <1992Dec15.144017.2025@maths.nott.ac.uk>, anw@maths.nott.ac.uk writes:
>> 
>> 	I'm playing a correspondence game, and my opponent has just played
>> 14. d2-d4.  What's strange about that, you ask?  Well, we started off with
>> 1. e2-e4, e7-e5, and there have been no other pawn moves between.  I wonder
>> if there have been many other serious games in which after Black's 13th move
>> there were still 14 unmoved pawns?

>On a similar note, a tournament game I played against Dr. Mengarini began
>with ten pawn moves.  Can anybody beat that?

You mean 10 moves by white AND black (20 ply) or 5 moves by white and
5 moves by black (10 ply). If the latter then I can beat that:

J. van Kan (1860 ELO) - D. Breuker (1840 ELO)
1.c3!? d5 2.d4 c5!? 3.dxc5 e6 4.b4 a5 5.a3 b6 6.cxb6 axb4 7.cxb4 Bxb4+ ...
(and it's still theory!)

>-:-
>		Most people hate egotists.
>		They remind them of themselves.
>		I love egotists.
>		They remind me of me.

>					--R. Smullyan
>-- 
>G. L. Sicherman
>gls@windmill.att.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Subject: Re: Mchess Pro
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:23:09 GMT

I suspect MChess pro would be the strongest pgm you can get for
an 80286 with limited mem, but it will not play very good chess
but then again no pgm on a 286 will.  Save your money,
once you get a 386 (about $125 for MB, $125 for 4M of RAM)
you can get more out of MChess Pro.

I played against MChess pro, it was running on a 486/33
with 16M of RAM, on ICS.  I can pretty much beat Maxwell
75-80% of the time, and gnufour and I go 50-50 these
days, MChess pro DESTROYED me in very few moves.  I played
it 3 times I think, and was really never in any of the games.
I would like a rematch against it, but it seems to
play FAR stronger, more varied chess than ANY other pgm I 
have played against. 

-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: haha@vipunen.hut.fi (Harri Haanp{{)
Subject: A blunder by a Polgar
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:36:48 GMT

Today I was reading 'Schoenheit der Kombination' by Golz/Keres; it's a
collection of the best columns of Kurt Richter. This is what I found..
I was wondering if it would be daddy Polgar?

Polgar - Bjerre
Student Team Chess World Championships
Dresden 1969

. . . . . . . .
. p . . k n Q .
. q . p p . p .
p . . . . . . .
. . r . . . P .
. B P . . P . .
P . P . . . . .
. K . . . . . R 

White has been attacking. Now 1. Rh7 would be met by 1. -Rf4, so

1. Rh8   a4!
2.  g5?? to take the square f6 from the black king, intending Qf8+.

What followed is left as an exercise to the reader :)

Richter recommends 1. Ka1 Rf4 2. Qxg6 with advantage to white.

Could this Polgar be daddy Polgar?

Harri H.
From: mytelka@codon1 (Daniel Mytelka;612 Barker;x2-5110)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Short-Timman
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:30:56 GMT
Organization: University of California
NNTP-Posting-Host: codon1.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec14.184441.28978@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> edd@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ed.knowles) writes:
>
>By the way doesn't anybody remember when Joel Benjamin (that Joel guy)
>completely demolished Short in a match (Joel was U.S. Champ, Short was
>British champ). I don't remember the exact score, but it was a blowout.
>

That would be in 1983. I was visiting Boston, and played a game against a
master who played blitz against all comers in Harvard Square for $1 a game,
giving twice as much time to his opponent. I lost, but the next guy beat
him. Turned out to be Short, pretty much an unknown at the time who had
just won the British championship, and was in this country to play the
US champion.

DSM
From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:18:40 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

DMC asks what basis are the GMs using for saying that Fischer is not
as good as he was.

I wonder if DMC read Joel Benjamin's article.  If he did (I am guessing
he didn't based on rather strong circumstantial evidence) then I don't
think this question is so hard to answer.  Look at the games!  Look
at the notes to the games!  Compare with Fischer's fluid handling of
similar positions in his prime!

Come now, we're not going to dispute that Fischer is somewhat past his
prime, are we?

-mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: exunmk@exu.ericsson.se (Noel Kerns)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess computer game... which one?
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:04:15 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <b2cbb62e@Kralizec.fido.zeta.org.au> patrick.mcdonald@f605.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Patrick McDonald) writes:
>From: patrick.mcdonald@f605.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Patrick McDonald)
>Subject: Chess computer game... which one?
>Date: 13 Dec 92 12:47:17 GMT

>Original to: Nllopis@Ecs.Umass.Edu
>Hi there, Nllopis@Ecs.Umass.Edu. On Dec 09, you wrote:

> -}I currently use Chessmaster 3000 and I think is great (with
> -}all the Mentor options and all that). 
> -}Are there any other ones as good or better?

>Many. Best are MCHESS and MCHESS PRO. Next would be ZARKOV and
>KNIGHTSTALKER. After this, REXCHESS. GRANDMASTER is a slightly weaker
>version of ZARKOV. All these are, however, much stronger than CM3000.

>                             Patrick
> 

Understood. But how mant of us really NEED a chess program stronger than 
CM3000?  (I like the Windows version myself, and unlike many folks on the 
NET, I've had little to no problems with it.)  For most of us a 2100-2200 
program (486/33) is more than adequate for both playing and analysing.  
Obviously, there's nothing wrong with owning a stronger program, but there 
rapidly comes a point of dimishing return where the extra dollars would be 
better spent (for most of us) on improved features instead of eaking out 50 
more rating points. Just my thoughts........


						NMK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Noel Kerns
                                                Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
                                                              P.O. Box 833875
                                                    Richardson, TX 75083-3875
                                                       Voice - (214) 907-5954
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: USCF Rating
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:17:50 GMT

In article <1go81mINNoep@chnews.intel.com> sstrazdu@vulcan.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus) writes:
>From the FAQ:
>
>>> How Ratings are Calculated: USCF Rating, Simplified
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> **For first 20 games, (provisional rating) use the following system:**
>>> 
>>> Take the rating of the opponent +400 if the player wins.
>>> Take the rating of the opponent -400 if the player loses.
>>> Take the rating of the opponent if the game is a draw.
>
>I see that Kenneth Sloan has already answered the original questions, so I'll ask
>one more.  I played in my first tournament last weekend, and it was a 4-round
>1/4K tournament.  How is my provisional rating calculated?  Is it the same as
>above, or is the difference between winner and loser taken to be 100 instead of
>400?  Or is it something else?


O o o o h!  That's a *good* question.

First - are you sure it was 1/4K?  and not 1/2K?  the rules, they are
a'changin', but I forget the detailed timetable.

Second - I don't think this has been explicitly stated, but my guess is
that provisional rating calculations should *not* be affected by
differing K.  If K were to matter at all, I would think that the games
would count as only 1/2 a game, instead of a full game (that is, if you
beat a 1200 player, you add (1200+400)/2 to your total, but increment
the number of games by 1/2).  Thus, you would need 40 games at 1/2K to
reach an established rating.

But that would be silly.  Well...so is 1/4 (1/2)K.

Not to worry.  When you have 100 games under your belt, you won't care
(alternatively, you will care with a passion) how provisional ratings
are calculated.


[proposed new rule: all games emplying the Grob Opening count as 2K for
the winner and 0.00001K for the loser - unless one of them is rated over
2487, in which case they both get a lifetime title of pi]

-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess