HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DCBCS@canal.crc.uno.edu (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re whether Korchnoi is deaf
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:54:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: canal.01GILIHRPZC08X31VJ

Peter Rice has been having trouble posting to rec.games.chess from his site
(in Germany) and asked that I post this for him.

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Peter Tjornsted 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.
>
>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.

I could not find this in my original English copy. Page 8 is part of the
introduction, where there are various comments about ill health but none about
deafness. I did find, however, a comment in *game* 8 of the *1981* book about
the deafness of the arbiter for the match, Paul Klein. Maybe there is an
error in the translation - either getting a name wrong (maybe a reference to
Petrosian in the Candidates matches) or mistranslating "defection" which occurs
many times in the introductions. I checked in Keene's books on the 1978 and
1981 matches, and in Korchnoi's autobiography where it is clear he has no
hearing problem. If you can provide a little more of the context, I can track
down what the original text was.

Petrosian, on the other hand, was most certainly deaf. He gave a simultaneous
exhibition at London University after playing in the Hastings tournament in
the late 1970s, and was the only opponent we had who was not troubled by the
traffic noise outside. He simply went over to the window, looked out, smiled,
turned off the hearing aid, and thumped us all.

We always treasured the words of wisdom we got from him in conversation while
he was still listening to us, including "Short no good, maybe Godgson", "You
no play Benko gambit, White good game", and after the match, as we told the
taxi driver where his hotel was, "No no, tonight I go Trafalgar Square".

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Peter Rice, EMBL                             | Post: Computer Group
                                              |       European Molecular
 Internet:    Peter.Rice@EMBL-Heidelberg.DE   |            Biology Laboratory
                                              |       Postfach 10-2209
 Phone:   +49-6221-387247                     |       W-6900 Heidelberg
 Fax:     +49-6221-387306                     |       Germany

 EARN/Bitnet: EMBL has withdrawn from Bitnet/EARN.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: vfsj3@fel.tno.nl (Schenkelaars.V.F)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: TeX Chess diagram macro`s needed
Summary: I Need some TeX macro for printing chess Diagram's
Keywords: TeX, Macro, Diagram
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:00:07 GMT
Organization: TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory

I need a TeX, or better LaTeX,  macro for printing chess diagrams. I've seen
one but that does use normal alphabetic characters as pieces. I wan't one
that actualy draws chess pieces simmilar to the one's you see in chess 
magazines.

Thank's

     ____________________
 \  / . _   _  _   _  |
  \/ ( ( \ (_ (-' ( \ |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent F. Schenkelaars				|
Company: FEL-TNO                                | Private:
Email  : V.F.Schenkelaars@tnofel.fel.tno.nl	|
address: Oude Waalsdorperweg 63			| Groenhovenstraat 12
         Postbus 96864				|
         2509 JG  Den Haag			| 2311 BT  Leiden
         The Netherlands			| The Netherlands
Phone  : Holland 070-3264221			| Holland 071-125576
Fax    : Holland 070-3280961			|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We apologize for the inconvenience.
-- 
     ____________________
 \  / . _   _  _   _  |
  \/ ( ( \ (_ (-' ( \ |
From: throoph@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Henry Throop)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: ICS 1st blitz tournament
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:40:48 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

The first ICS blitz tournament was held April 16.
It was an elimination format with a time control of 10 minutes each.
the pairings were:
Round 1
Matador-but
RAJ-Gambiteer
Bromster-chessnut
surap-Frank - drawn
prabhu-ern
Linda-Hippie

Since surap-Frank was lost when the server went down, it was declared a draw.
To deal with the odd # of players in the next round, I asked Bromster to
return, since I beat him on time in a completely lost position.
       
Round 2
but-Bromster
RAJ-chessnut
Frank-Hippie drawn 2 and finally finished in game 5
surap-prabhu

Round 3
chessnut-but
Frank-surap

Round 4
but-Frank

The championship game betwen but and Frank was almost over when
the server crashed.  Frank had a queen and about 30 seconds versus
but's 2 rooks, a knight, and only 14 seconds. (approximate times)
I guess we will have to wait another day to find out who the  
ICS' first blitz champion will be.  Hopefully, the highest rated players
such as aries, russky, and Woodpusher will be able to participate next time.

Another blitz tournament is tentatively scheduled for April 17 at 3pmPDT
or 6pmEDT on whichever (if any) of the servers are up.  Bring back EVE!
Hope to see a larger turn out tomorrow.

PS the pairings were the player on the left played White.
Since it often took a while to get the right colors (by adjourning, etc.)
some games were played with the opposite colors.

chessnut




-- 
--
Henry Throop
throoph@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair)
Subject: Re: Draw offers (was Re: More Reshevsky)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:27:27 GMT

I wrote:

>>   There are two separate things (1) danger of honest misunderstanding,
>>and I certainly agree that this is a risk with AYPFAW, although less so
>>among highly experienced players (2) a dispute about whether a draw offer
>>was made in any form, which means one of the two players is deliberately
>>lying.  

>>..I get the impression that the incident that started this thread
>>was a case of (2), and restricting the phrase used to offer a draw would
>>not have helped.

   Ken Sloane replied:

>Ah - here we differ.  

   Can anyone tell us whether, in the original incident, the player who
denied making the draw offer (if you don't know who that is already, I'm
not telling!) denied saying anything, or claimed he had been misunderstood?
From: juffi@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Book about Fischer wanted.
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:29:27 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

I've recently read "Profile of a Prodigy" by Frank Brady, which seems to be
his official biography. I was rather disappointed though, because although
Brady seems to have known Bobby quite well during the active days of the 
latter, this book is only an annotation of Bobby's tournament successes
and excesses.

Brady mentions another book though: It was

James W. Ellison, "Master Prim".

This is supposed to be a book about a fictional person with a character closely
related to Bobby Fischer. It even cites some of Bobby's eccentric interviews.
It was published somewhen in the late 60's and is (not surprisingly) out of
print.

Questions:
1) Has anyone seen, heard of or read this book? Opinions?
2) Does anyone own this book and is willing to sell it to me or to xerox it
   for me?
3) Are there any other books about the Life (not only the Chess Life) of 
   Bobby Fischer?

				Thanks in advance

					--- juffi


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| DI Johannes FUERNKRANZ                          Dep. of Computer Science |
| juffi@cs.uchicago.edu                           University of Chicago    |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: helios!intercal.com!hwr@tssi.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: This Week In Chess History
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:09:49 GMT


                          THIS WEEK IN CHESS HISTORY
                               April 9-15, 1992

April 9
1919 - Emil Schallop died
1940 - John Barry died

Apirl 10
1900 - Alex. Herbstmann born
1911 - Sam Loyd died
1921 - Robert Wade born
1921 - Capablanca defeats Lasker to become World Champion

April 11
1908 - Henry Bird died

April 12
1973 - Joel Lautier born

April 13
1893 - Jean Dufresne died
1963 - Gary Kasparov born

April 14
1889 - Yefim Bogolyubov born
1891 - George Mackenzie died

April 15
1828 - Martin From born
1905 - Herman Steiner born
1910 - Miguel Najdorf born
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Goldman analysis
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:06:25 GMT


I just don't see that after Qf3 (making certain that his Knight is
misplaced) Black has any significant problems.  In fact I would say
that in these variations Black's game is *significantly* easier than
in main lines.  After 0-0 Ne2 Black might simply be able to play b6,
... c5 or perhaps ... e5.  In all these lines the absence of minor
pieces and the misplaced Knight means that Black is much closer to 
equality than in main lines.  Probably I would favor ... c5 myself.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Oops Department
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:25:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr7.152542.10802
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Apr6.131628.22895@news.larc.nasa.gov> azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips) writes:
: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. c5; 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.)

Not so fast: you're still down a piece and a pawn, so counterplay
based on attacking one weak pawn is very far from sufficient compensation.
1.c4 does seem correct, since after N:c4 the Nd5 hangs.  Nevertheless
[1.c4] N:c4 2.R:d5 Rd7 is much better for Black than Reinfeld's line: he's
a healthy two pawns ahead (3.Rd1? Ne3 4.B:d6 N:d5) and should win smoothly,
whereas after [1.c4] Ne7 2.c5 White's only a pawn behind and has some play.
Still, in neither line does White come close to proving the stipulated
win --- presumably there's a White bishop or knight missing?

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Department of Mathematics, Harvard University
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Outrated (Was: Re: Looking for improvement suggestions)
Summary: Think how *I* feel
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: the world
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:59:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.172229.15889@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:

> A 1500 can enter a Class C
> section with the reasonable expectation of finding suitable opponents.
> The people who get burned are the Experts in small tournaments with
> U2000 and Open sections, where the Open section is full of 2400+.  That
> can happen around here when big guns from Boston are in range of the
> tournament.  A month ago, there were something like 3 Experts, 0
> Masters, and 5 Senior Masters (one 2600) in a section.  I heard a
> couple of Experts lamenting the situation.  I suspect that no Masters
> showed up because they knew the section would be dominated by SMs.  For
> the rest of us, the common 200 range in a section is pretty
> comfortable.  --Jim

My USCF rating is 2452.  I don't know if I'm really stronger than that
or weaker (haven't played in a while, since the WCC), but I feel like
*I* am out of contention.  Goichberg's prizes go to under-2449.  I
actually misread that at one point, and thought I still had an outside
chance to win a prize, then "saw the fine print."  I then playd this
game:

Formanek,E 2397 - Winslow,E 2453
National Chess Congress 1989 (6)
King's Indian E98
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Be2 O-O 6 Nf3 e5 7 O-O Nc6 8 d5 Ne7
9 Ne1 Nd7 10 f3 f5 11 g4 Kh8 12 Be3 Ng8 13 Qd2 f4 14 Bf2 g5 15 Nd3 h5 16
h3 Ndf6 17 c5 Rf7 18 Rfc1 Nh6 19 a4 hxg4 20 hxg4 Bf8 21 cxd6 Bxd6 22 Qd1
Qf8 23 Kg2 Rh7 24 Bg1 a6 25 Kf1 Bd7 26 Ke1 c6 27 dxc6 Bxc6 28 Kd2 Rc8 29
Rc2 Rd7 30 Bb6 Kg7 31 Qh1 Qf7 32 a5 Qb3 33 Rac1 Rh8 34 Qg2 Nhxg4 35 fxg4
Nxe4+ 36 Nxe4 Qb4+ 37 Rc3 Bxe4 38 Qf2 Be7 39 Kc2 Rh3 40 Rd1 Qa4+ 41 Kc1
Qa1+ 42 Kc2 Qa4+ 43 Kc1 Bb4 44 Qe1 Rhxd3 45 Bxd3 Bxc3 46 bxc3 Rxd3 0-1
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Draw offers (was Re: More Reshevsky)
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:34:57 GMT

In article <4214@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas) writes:
>
>May I point out that the answer "No" to the query "Are you playing for
>a win?" is the (sic) considered to be the acceptance of the offer of a draw
>in international chess.  I believe the same is true of the USCF; at
>least George K. interpreted it as such the only time I heard a 
>dispute concerning it in 1969.
>

Two points:

1) I believe the previous discussion was concerned with whether or not
the utterance "Are you playing for a win?" constitutes the *offer* of a
draw.  The question of the meaning of the answer "no" is interesting,
but not on point.

2) The rules were perhaps different in 1969.  I have just read through
both the FIDE and USCF rules, and can find nothing to support the above
claim, nor Koltanowski's interpretation.  Perhaps I missed something.
Would you be so kind as to point to the particular section of the rules,
or a published approved interpretation to support your claim?

There is one situation where the above conversation constitutes
acceptance of a draw - at adjournment in a USCF Swiss tournament, the TD
may choose to use the Kashdan system.  The *TD* may ask (privately) each
player: "Are you playing for a win?".  If the player responds: "No",
then the TD can pair him in the next round with a 1/2 "pairing point",
instead of temporary adjudication.  If *both* players answer: "No", then
the game is immediately drawn.

[another point arises here...I recently had a game adjourned, and while
I didn't check specifically, it was my impression that future pairings
were based on giving both me and my opponent a full "pairing point".
This seems to contradict the USCF rule book.  Did the TD make a
mistake?  For the record, in my opinion any competent adjudication would
have declared the game to be a win for me (and indeed that's how the
game ended).  ]

Back to the point:

In my opinion, anything more ambiguous than "I offer a draw" should be
clarified before you respond to it.

-- 
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
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: junk mail
Summary: please stop
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:24:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Someone has been collecting US mail addresses from rec.games.chess
postings, and sending unsolicited sales literature. 

Please stop.  We are not amused.








-- 
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
From: chris@parsifal.umkc.edu (Christopher Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess Server
Keywords: server,ics
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:04:27 GMT
Reply-To: chris@parsifal.umkc.edu (Christopher Mitchell)
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City


The chess server is no longer at parsifal.umkc.edu 5000.

It can now be reached at either

elot.iit.edu 5000

or

eve.assumption.edu 5000

Chris


--

|                         |
| Chris Mitchell          | Academic Computing Services
| chris@parsifal.umkc.edu | University of Missouri - Kansas City
|                         |
From: science@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Zimmermann)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Cochrane gambit in Petroff
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:08:44 GMT


I've had excellent results against my computer playing the Cochrane
gambit (1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 Nf6, 3. Nxe5 d6, 4. Nxf7) in the Petroff ---
but the only reference material I have found on it has been in the new
Petroff's Defense book (by two Hungarians, sorry, don't have their
names) ... nothing in MCO-13, for instance.

So, before I try it against human opposition, could anybody advise me
on whether it's worth messing with?  Any pointers to other discussions
of it in print?  Tnx!  ^z  (science@oasys.dt.navy.mil)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Mapping ply-depth with ratings
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:17:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.200117.19677@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> gilles@Damrod.McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Gilles Fayad) writes:

>I was wondering whether there was a known mapping from a ply-depth
>(let's say 6) to a USCF or ELO rating (let's say 1750 USCF). It would
>be nice to be able to determine your rating while playing against computers.

I have read about 8 issues of CCRQ and have never seen any discussion
of such a rating system.  It seems that most issues have a short
article on rating computers, so I doubt that anyone accepts a simple
ply->rating approach.

Briefly, a few problems.

1. A search algorithm could get a computer to a ply of 8 while missing
better moves at ply 4.

2. Players/programmers evaluate the same move in different ways.
Reaching the same depth does not guarantee the same decisions and the
same result in the end.

3. One program can play better chess than another on less powerful
machinery.  Some Fidelity and Mephisto machines roughly match each
other in strength, yet the Fidelity equipment is much more powerful.  I
have not seen the two machines (say Milano and Mach III), but I
*suspect* that Fidelity is getting deeper in the search.

4. The same machine reaches different ply in different positions (at
least when put on time vs. ply control).  At level 7, I see my Fidelity
2000 in ply 3 during a complicated middle game and 8+ during endgames.
You could use ply control, but then you will lose the pseudo-randomness
that comes from having the computer work on your time, etc.

Hope this helps some.  The best way to learn about the strength of your
machine is to subscribe to CCRQ (call I.C.D., which is in FAQ).

--Jim
From: glyx@diku.dk (Allan Gliese Pedersen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Test sets for chess programs?
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:45:43 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

I've made a chess program, and now I am in the process of evaluating
its performance / tuning parameters. 
I am trying to get hold of some evaluation sets. I have the Bratko-Kopec-set, 
but since it is a very small set (only 24 positions), I'd like to get some 
bigger ones. I've read about a large set used to tune Deep Thought in 
"Computers, Chess and Cognition"; is it (or anything like it) available by 
ftp? Any pointers appreciated.

Allan Gliese Pedersen 
glyx@diku.dk          
University of Copenhagen
----------------------
One of life's great truths is this: when one is about to be struck by a 
speeding six-hundred-pound Coke machine, one need worry about nothing else.
                                  from "The Tommyknockers" by Stephen King. 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gls@windmill.att.COM (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
Subject: Re: The bishop's opening; why aren't you?
Organization: Kentucky Fried Fox
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:48:30 GMT

In <1992Apr8.232559.30746@iitmax.iit.edu>, etcmng@iitmax.iit.edu writes:
> 
> I would like to know if anybody has any information on the opening line:
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. Bc4 Nf6
> 3. Nf3 Nxe4
> 4. Nc3 Nxc3
> 5. ?

This is the Boden-Kiezeritzky Gambit, named after the English master
S. S. Boden and the Russian master L. Kiezeritzky.  It can also arise
from the Petroff or Russian Defense.

Black can safely accept the gambit, but not like this:

5. dc d6; 6. N:e5! Qe7; 7. B:f7+ Kd8; 8. O-O Q:e5; 9. Re1 Qf6; 10. Re8+
Kd7; 11. Qg4+ Kc6; 12. Bd5+! K:d5; 13. Qe4+ Kc5; 14. Be3+ Kb5; 15. a4+
Ka5; 16. Qb4+ Ka6; 17. Qb5#.

The right way is 5. dc f6 and watch your step.  Black can also equalize
by declining the gambit:  4.... Nc6! 5. N:e4 d5.  Or 3.... Nc6 with a
Two Knights' Defense.  Or ...

SICHERMAN--COZZI.  Match 1974.  1. e4 e5; 2. Bc4 Nf6; 3. Nf3 N:e4; 4. Nc3
Nf6; 5. N:e5 d5; 6. Bb3 c6; 7. O-O Be7! 8. d4 O-O; 9. Bg5 Nbd7; 10. f4!?
h6; 11. Bh4 Ne4; 12. B:e7 N:c3; 13. bc Q:e7 (Black is at least equal);
14. c4 dc; 15. B:c4 N:e5; 16. fe Be6; 17. Bd3 Qg5?! 18. Qe2 Rfd8; 19. c3
Rd7; 20. Rf2 Rad8; 21. Raf1 a6?! (but the Hare slept too long by the road)
22. Qe4 g6? 23. h4 (and the Tortoise plodded on towards the finish line)
Qe7; 24. h5 Bf5; 25. R:f5 gf; 26. Q:f5 Qg5; 27. Qh7+ Kf8; 28. Bg6 f6;
29. Qh8+ Ke7; 30. Qg7+ Ke6; 31. R:f6+ Kd5; 32. Bf7+ Ke4; 33. Qh7+ Ke3;
34. Rf3+ Kd2; 35. Qd3+ Kc1; 36. Rf1+ Kb2; 37. Rb1+ Ka3; 38. Rb3+ Ka4;
39. Qc4+ resigns.  (That was fun! but I still lost the match.)

-:-
	How careless of me!  I must remember to watch out for my
	Queen in future games.  I should be able to win the rest if
	I only watch out for my Queen.  Before every move I'll ask
	myself:  "Will this move lose my Queen?" . . .

					--The Education of a Chess Player
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
gls@windmill.att.COM