HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad)
Subject: Re: Fischer - Polgar/Kasparov update
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:01:45 GMT

In article <9549@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dab1+@pitt.edu (Darrin Bond) writes:
>In article <1du7buINNsdm@news.aero.org> jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) writes:
>>>Kasparov said Fischer needs to adjust to the new developments in 
>>>chess in the last 20 years.
>>
>>What, pray tell, are these 'new developments'?
>>
>>--Larry %)

Great question, Larry. I have been away from pure math for 10 years. During
that time, there have been lots of developments. I have also have not boxed
for 10 years. But there have been no developments. Still the same
headbashing.

Judging from your question, you are of the opinion that chess is not an
intellectual activity, tha tthere is no learning involved in chess. Instead
chess is like headbashing. Nice views!
>
>   Those new developments are the Kasparov Rules: You know. That's where
>garry plays the lesser talented GM's for $3m. The dough talks. Fischer
>commands more dough. If it was'nt for garry demanding the Kasparov Rules
>we would have a great championship. But now all we have is garry v.
>limpness. Let's face it Timman and Short don't measure up. Garry should
>stand up challenge Fischer and settle it. As Al Davis would say it ....
>   Just play baby! 

Maybe, Kasparov should indeed play him for, say, 100Mil. Why refuse easy
money, especially if it will be more than he has ever seen or will ever
see..

Vlad

Employer disagrees


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: Bronstein vs DT II - Third Game.
Organization: Dept. Med.Cybernetics & Artif.Intelligence, Univ.Vienna, Austria, Europe
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:11:53 GMT


Can someone post the first game of this match? I seemed to have missed that.

If I'm not wrong, scratchy won the second and third game, which is quite impressive,
because Bronstein won this year's Human-Computer tournament with a convincing 6 point
perfect score, so he can't be considered a fish in playing computers, although he
obviously tries to outcalculate scratchy.

I would also like to know what the time controls of the current match are?

					Juffi

-- 
Johannes Fuernkranz                                    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5320652(Fax)
Schottengasse 3, A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe     juffi@ai.univie.ac.at 
--------------- "Life is too short for Chess." -- Byron -----------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: THE BEST MOVE
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:59:27 GMT

Here are two analyses from Hort and Jansa's book _The_Best_Move_ that I
don't understand.  They're positions 179 and 219.

. . r . . . k .      The book says that White's best move is 1. h3!  "After
q . . . . p . p      1 ... Rg3 2. Kh2 decides, and 1 ... Qd4 is not
. . . . . Q . B      adequate because of 2. Qa6!"
. p . . . . . .
. p . . . . r .      What I don't understand is, what does White do if
. . . p . . . .      Black plays 1 ... Rg6?  Also, after 1 ... Qd4, what
P P P . . . P P      makes 2. Qa6 superior to 2. Qxf7+ and 3. hxg4?
. . . . . R . K


r . b q r . k .      The book gives 1. Bxe4! as White's best move, with
. . . . . p p p      the variation 1 ... dxe4 2. Nd2 Bf5 3. Ne2! Bd7
. . p . . . n .      4. Nb3 h5 5. Nc5 h4 6. Nxd7 Qxd7 7. h3!
. p . p . . . .
. P . P n . . .      What I don't understand is, what is wrong with the
. . N B P N . .      variation 1. Nxe4 dxe4 2. Bxe4?  Doesn't this win
. . Q . . P P P      two pawns immediately with a superior position?
. R R . . . K .

-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Tournament Report from Berkeley Quads last Saturday, 11/14...
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:14:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.004603.23878@pony.Ingres.COM> jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black) writes:

>I get nervous before a chess tournament; REAL nervous.  Is this common?  Does
>anyone have any advice on how to handle this?  It really does affect my play,
>I'm afraid; especially at these fast time controls.  And worse yet, sometimes
>it causes me to avoid playing rated chess.

Breathe deeply.  Breathe deeply, slowly, regularly.  Breathe deeply as
long as possible.  Breathe from the diaphragm, filling your gut, not
just your upper chest.

--Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: Who the hell is Solomon Hecht?
Summary: that's the way it was back then, all right
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution:     world
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:40:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.040142.13546@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.012259.22508@midway.uchicago.edu>
> david_franklin@law.uchicago.edu (David Franklin) writes:
>> Jeez, talk about being humor-impaired!  Apparently it's unfortunate that
>> Mr. Hecht lived before the advent of smileys :-) :-) :-) with which his
>> piece would otherwise have been generously interlarded.
>>
>> (Though Lasker's inclusion of "don't pin a N with B-KN5 before your
>> opponent has castled" in his Five Commandments is IMHO pretty laughable.)

> Really?  If this is the case, humor has changed much in sixty years.  The
> article is long and dry enough that any joke qualities it might have had
> die and die quickly in the author's belabored attempt at completeness.

I haven't dredged up the particular article originally mentioned, but indeed
this was the style.  Check out Steinitz, or any of Gunsberg's contemporaries
lambasting him.

The word is "ponderous".

--elliott
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: chess and Deep Thought III
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:13:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24219
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <1992Nov17.093452.1423@dct.ac.uk> mcsbc2gw@dct.ac.uk writes:

> If a grandmaster was able to program a computer game which was
> able to beat somebody like Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer, 
> would it be recognised as a measurement of that persons'
> chess I.Q.?

If a long-distance runner was able to build a machine that
could beat the world track records, would that be recognized
as a measurement of that person's running ability?
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: quam@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Quam)
Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death.....
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 04:54:49 GMT

In article <120cwwcp511@tweekco.uucp> 36-5054@wwiv (Tom Crain #36 @5054) writes:
>RE: ****ALEKHINE'S DEATH****
>
>In Harold Schonerg's book, "Grandmasters of Chess," he says this:He died on 
>March 24, 1946. According to a Reuters dispatch, the autopsy showed that he 
>had choked on a piece of meat. 'He was dining alone in his hotel bedroom at 
>the Estoril at the time. The meat was three inchess long and unchewed.' (Years 
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>later there was a story that Alekhine did not choke to deathe doctor in 
>attendance was said to have told chess players that the real cause of death 
>was a cerebral hemorrhage cuased by excessive drinking. But this is hearsay, 
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^
>and nobody has actually disporved the autopsy report)" 
>Hope this helps. If you see odd characters and erratic line feeds it's because 
>I'm on a "dirty" line as I pe this. Regards, Tom


What kind of genius (like Alekhine) swallows a THREE-INCH LONG piece of meat
without CHEWING it?!  Yes, I'm SURE those reports of drinking were HEARSAY !!

                                                             = David Quam =

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: tycchow@banach.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: pawn promotion
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 22:41:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.124517.6299@cs.ruu.nl> xawemmer@cs.ruu.nl (Xander Wemmers) writes:
<A standard example of promotion to a rook is
<
<White: Kf6 pawn f7    
<Black: Kh7
<
<for f8Q is stalemate and f8R is the only way to mate black in two moves.
<
<Promotion to a bishop looks very difficult to me, if the move has to be the 
<only or fastest way to win.

Extending your example:

White: Kf6 pawn f7, h5
Black: Kh7 pawn h6

Then 1. f8Q and 1. f8R are both stalemates but 1.f8B K moves 2.Bxh6 wins
because the bishop controls the queening square of White's h-pawn.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Tournament Report from Berkeley Quads last Saturday, 11/14...
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:11:30 GMT

In article <1ehg31INNq33@agate.berkeley.edu> ding@wheatena.berkeley.edu (Howard Ding) writes:
>
>>Based solely on your description of the facts, I claim that the TD
>>screwed up again.  There is nothing in the rules that says "TD watches
>>play and forms an opinion on the skill of the opponents, or the likely
>>outcome given their skill levels".  The rule talks about *positions*
>>that are clearly drawn - *not* adjudications with arguments offered by
>>the players.
>>
>The rules for sudden death CERTAINLY permit you to ask for an
>adjudication (without score sheet).  I believe that the USCF catch
>phrase is something like "in a position that a C-player could be
>expected to draw easily against a grandmaster."  I agree that the TD should
>_not_ have checked to see if _I_ could force the draw but should 
>have followed the guideline, but this is a relatively minor point,
>as an E player would draw the position (following) against God:
>
>8........
>7...k....
>6...P....
>5...K....
>
>(either to move)
>
>

I know that I'll get into trouble by trying to counter your "belief" by
actually citing the rule - but here goes:

Sudden-Death Rules
...
10. Miscellaneous
    ...
    D. In positions that are clearly drawn, such as positions 
        with no pawns remaining for either side and with
        greatly  simplified material (for example, king and
        knight versus king and knight), the director may
        intervene to declare the game a draw.  In these 
        same positions either player may stop the clock and
        ask the director for a draw.  ...

I can't find a reference to either C players or GM's.  Perhaps I've
missed it.  Similarly, I can't find any reference to asking for an
adjudication -  "adjudications" can go far beyond the scope of the rule
cited above.  My point is (and was) that the TD should not be required to
make such judgements.

Now...in my opinion, an E player has a very good chance of losing if
given the weaker side of the position that you give above.  And, in my
opinion, an E player can certainly lose the KRPKR ending that we started
from (given *either* side!)  But my opinion is irrelevant - by my
reading of the rule, neither position is "clearly drawn", especially in
a time scramble.  In the KPK position, the *stronger* side can claim a draw
under the "insufficient material" clause - but I wouldn't allow a draw
for the weaker side under rule 10.D.

Notice that the rule goes out of its way to specify "no pawns remaining".

Since you are CERTAIN, you must have some rule in mind that I can't find
- can you please cite the paragraph that CERTAINLY permits you to ask
for an adjudication?
-- 
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,gnu.chess
From: cianca@di.unipi.it (Paolo Ciancarini)
Subject: gnuchess against itself
Organization: Dipartimento di Informatica, Universita' di Pisa
Distribution: rec
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:56:27 GMT

Is there anyone that has attmpted an extensive
evaluation of GNUChess against itself?
My very preliminary results show a strong percentage
of white wins, using the opening book.

Please answer by mail.

Paolo Ciancarini

-- 
* Paolo Ciancarini  (cianca@di.unipi.it)            *
* tel:     +39 50 510264 fax: +39 50 510226         *
* address: Dip. di Informatica - University of Pisa *
*          cso. Italia,40        56125 Pisa - Italy *
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: nwbernst@unix.amherst.edu (Neil Bernstein)
Subject: Re: Living Chess
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:56:57 GMT

joseph p kisenwether apmt stnt (jpk2581@hertz.njit.edu) wrote:
: I like the dice idea, you could use say a d4 for your worst
: fighters up to a d20 for your best. We need to find some way
: to simulate fatigue in one fighter thats been doing all the 
: work though. Any ideas?

Sure!  If your d20 queen's won five combats, downgrade her to a d18 or d16.

However, this doesn't seem sophisticated enough to me.  How about allowing
inconclusive combats?  For example, a bishop slugs it out with a knight, they
both get exhausted (are we forgetting movement/distance points?) and the
white general says, "Call it off!"  So the bishop has to retreat back to a safe
square, and black gets an advantage.
To arms, programmers!  Write an implementation with movement/distance points 
(affects speed of combat), right to terminate combat (taking a penalty), and
other neat-o adaptive stuff.
Of course, don't ever get the illusion that any of these randomizing factors
will ever result in a game more aesthetic or complex than chess itself...

							- Neil Bernstein
						Struggling Classics Majo
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Exploding the Myth:  GM Benjamin speaks on F-S II (_Chow_
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:49:55 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov23.175321.21689@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> edd@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ed.knowles) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.031441.5002@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>> In article <33049@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>
>> mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg) writes:
>> 
>> > The other major are of Fischer's dementia is his refusal to
>> > accept the legitimacy of anything that has happened in the chess
>> > world in the last tenety years.
>> 
>> I wouldn't be so quick to accuse Fischer of dementia.  He's still
>> capable of playing chess at a Grandmaster level.  I don't think one
>> could play chess that well with dementia.
>> 
>I don't know if you've read Waitzkin's book "Searching For Bobby Fischer",
>but one of the characters in it is IM Israel Zilber. He's a homeless bum
>who seems pretty out of it (I've actually seen him in Washington Square
>some years ago, -- don't know if he's still alive). Supposedly, he gives
>grandmasters a good game. I don't think insanity hurts one chess skill
>appreciably

Here is a second-hand professional opinion (my mother is a psychiatrist;
while I learned these facts from her, I probably can't discuss any
details in followups):

Schizophrenia gradually destroys the analytic ability (although it is more
likely to affect people whose analytic ability is high before they get sick).

Manic depression and paranoia (when the latter is not schizophrenic in
origin) do not destroy the analytic ability. They may affect other chess
related abilities, though (e.g. concentration).

	Sven
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: Name of: 1.Nf3 d5 2.e3 ?
Organization: Dept. Med.Cybernetics & Artif.Intelligence, Univ.Vienna, Austria, Europe
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:19:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.194305.16036@sophia.smith.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
>Does this opening have a name?
>
>	1. Nf3	d5
>	2. e3
>
>Thanks.

*Is* that an opening? ;^)

					Juffi



-- 
Johannes Fuernkranz                                    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5320652(Fax)
Schottengasse 3, A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe     juffi@ai.univie.ac.at 
--------------- "Life is too short for Chess." -- Byron -----------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jussi@lut.fi (Jussi Salminen)
Subject: Is this sacrifice correct?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:24:04 GMT
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland


	About a year ago, in a match between two chess
clubs here in Finland, a following game was played:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nc6 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nd7 6.Be2 Be7
7.O-O f6 8.Bb5 O-O 9.c4 fxe5 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Bxc6 bxc6
12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Ba6 14.Re1

	Here black moved 14. ...Rxf2, and the game continued
15.Kxf2 Bc5+ 16.Kg3 Qg5+ 17.Qg4? Bf2 18.Kh3 Qh6+ 19.0-1

	17.Qg4 is a blunder, but what if black had put
his king to h3? So, this one is for all you attacking
players: Is the rook sacrifice ok? Does white have any
resources for defence, or is it game over after 14. ...Rxf2?
The position is:

8   r.          k         White: Kg3; Qd1; Ra1,e1; Bc1; Nd2;
7   p  p        p p              pa2,b2,e5,g2,h2 (11)
6   b  p
5      b p      q         Black: Kg8; Qg5; Ra8; Ba6,c5;
4                                pa7,c6,c7,d5,g7,h7
3               K
2   P P   N     P P
1   R   B Q R               
 
    a b c d e f g h

			Black to move - and win? 

	You may post or email your answers.

	Thank you,

			Jussi
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: _Chow_ upload:
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:30:27 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.chess
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <32652@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>
mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg) writes:
>"Chess as Football:   3 Plays"
>[...]
>Any hope left?  Let's tell the tight-end (the QB) to scream and
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Um, I know very little about American football, but can you play
both tight-end and QB at the same time?  :-)

Thanks for the chess morsels!

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Organization: Systems Group 82, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:27:47 -0500 
From: "Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai" <sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: All DT-Bronstein ICS Games, background, general comments

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.chess: 18-Nov-92 All DT-Bronstein ICS
Games,.. Feng-Hsiung Hsu@watson.i (11490)

> English) operated the ICS interface for him.  Bob was using the ASCII
> interface for the first 3 games, and a few operator errors were made.
> XICS interface was used afterwards.  The lack of a running clock display
> in the current XICS interface might have contributed to David's time
> trouble (any programmer listening?).

The xboard interface has a running clock.
I also put out an xicsboard :-) interface which is essentially the same
as xboard except that non-ICS related material has been removed and a
few buttons added for frequently used ICS commands. This has a running
clock too and is the one I currently use.

___
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
Office: UCC 181	Phone: x6406 [(412)268-6406]

 "In the beginning, man created beer, and it was good. God was
  created shortly thereafter." Gospel According to Brew, 1:1

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: css1rs@gondor.mcs.surrey.ac.uk (Russell Smithers)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess Clocks
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:10:20 GMT
Organization: University of Surrey, Guildford, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

A friend of mine is doing a final year project on electronic chess clocks
and is having difficulty getting information on mondern day mechanical
chess clocks, and would like info and pictures (especialy piccys) on 
mechincle chess clocks and and any electronic ones.

Also any comments or features to be put in would be welcome and the addresse
of FIDE.

Send all mail to :

E-mail	: ee01aj@ee.surrey.ac.uk
Post	: Andrew Jesson, dept. elec eng, University of Surrey, surrey, england
		GU2 5XH
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: "New Developments" in chess
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:46:34 GMT

This is an interesting subject.  I haven't played in tournaments for 10
years, although I have followed chess.  What are these supposed "new
developments" of which Kasparov speaks?  I assume he means more than just
opening theory.

I just finished reading "Five Crowns" - Seirawan's book of the last
Kasparov-Karpov match.  The games make an interesting comparison with the
Fischer-Spassky games.  There are missed wins, blunders, new openings, old
openings, and lots of tension.  In short - many good moves, and not a few bad
moves.  Sound familiar?

If Kasparov means dynamic defense as opposed to static defense, he may really
be talking about a difference in style.  But Karpov also played the Samisch
against Kasparov's King's Indian a few times, and Kasparov never played the
"dynamic" ...Nc6, ...a6 formation which Fischer invariably adopted.  In fact,
near the end of the match he chose one of the oldest variations and was
crushed.

It seems to me that Kasparov is either blowing smoke or showing his ego
(neither of which bothers me - and as the best player in the world he
certainly ought to have a big ego - in fact, he couldn't have gotten to where
he is now without one), and that objectively the games of the 1990 match
weren't all that much better than the games from the Fischer-Spassky II match
(especially considering there weren't any adjournments in the latter).

I make this observation taking the matches in their entirety, not looking at
only the best or worst games.

Does anyone think there really are "new developments" in chess since 1982 or
1972?