HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Benjamin vs Soltis??? (was Budapest)
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:40:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.095712.1@pa881a.inland.com> nason@pa881a.inland.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.143602.22765@sequent.com>, edjohn@sequent.com (Ed Johnson) writes:
>> 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!

>Obviously, Benjamin is talking about Soltis.  Is it possible that the two just
>don't agree?????  I have read Soltis and found his books excellent.  I am a

Well, I have four "Winning with..." books, and none by Soltis.  They
are also by different publishers.  Perhaps Benjamin is simply not at
war with anyone but wants to warn readers that such books tend to be
one sided.  Not all such books, surely, but some certainly provide me
with little help in my efforts to learn good lines to play against such
openings.  The troublesome lines seem to be stuck off in short
miscellaneous chapters and ofen involve some sort of transposition.
Also, at least one of these books makes exaggerated claims for the
opening, which might be good for someone who wants to simplify life but
should not be led to believe that he/she has chosen one of the best
openings known.  --Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
From: rgp@mpd.tandem.com (Ramon Pantin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:04:07 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers, Micro-Products Division

In article <1992Oct12.115142.10471@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>well, "Fischer Fever" is NOT an opinion...it's a historical fact. when
>grand masters play long drawn out matches with bobby, they start to
>get sick...this usually happens when bobby starts really kicking their
>butt and they are unable to even eke out a draw with..."The Chess God"
>(that's just to bug eric shciller ;-) ).

I guess more stupid arguments could be constructed following your logic.
Fischer got Karpov fever, a much stronger fever just by seeing his games.
He started watching him as he got his GM norm in 1970 in Caracas and could
never stop wondering when he would challenge him.  He dedicated all his
time between 72 and 75 to study him, but could never figure him out, he
couldn't think because the Karpov fever really cosumed him.  In 1978 after
seeing how Korchnoi was capable of playing against Karpov and at 5-5
being robbed the title, Fischer tought that he was cured from the Karpov
fever, so he invited Korchnoi to a match.  Only then Fischer got the
Korchnoi fever, saw him at his prime and ducked into the shadows again.
I don't think that he has figured Kasparov either.  Lets see how long
it takes him to duck into the shadows again.

Be serious, this Fischer fever is b.s., Fischer peaked at the right time,
just like Tal did, he was better than Spassky, Larsen, Petrosian and
Taimanov and that's all.  Fischer is now showing that he is better than
Spassky (big deal).

Ramon Pantin
From: ovel@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Ove Lundberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:26:17 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
NNTP-Posting-Host: minsk.docs.uu.se

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.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>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?

>(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. ) 

In later books on endgames the point out quite a few errors in Fine's book.
I would recommend them instead:
Practical Chess Endings, Paul Keres.
Rook Endings, Smyslov & Loewenfisch.
Analysing the Endgame, Speelman.
Endgame Preparation, Speelman.

If you only buy one book, then take Keres.



>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Courtenay Footman			I finally got back on the net.

>cpf@alchemy.ithaca.ny.us		Now I will never get anything done

Ove Lundberg, Uppsala, Sweden.  ovel@minsk.docs.uu.se

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:51:24 GMT

In <Bw0pCK.422@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric Eaton) writes:

>Another book that I've heard of is Bradford's Chess Openings.  I may be
>wrong on the first word of the title.  I know it starts with a 'B'.
>It is similar in nature to MCO, but I don't know much about this one.

>-Eric Eaton

It's Batsford Chess Openings, by Kasparov (and I think ) Keene. As a ref-
erence, it's a great work, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone to read.
Despite some arguments about his strength, Bruce Pandolfini's books are
readable and enjoyable. When I was just beginning competitive chess, they
were of great assistance, particularly Russian Chess.

From Beginner To Expert in 40 Lessons by Kostyev is another excellent
alternative. As with Pandolfini's books, it is quite readable and does
a good job of teaching chess.

Something which I think is at times neglected is that for a beginning
player, readability is of paramount importance. I still have a copy of
The Art of Defense which I haven't explored yet. A book may be objectively
excellent, but I wouldn't recommend it to a beginner any more than I'd
recommend a quantum mechanics text to a freshman. I started with easier
titles and have added more difficult books as my understanding increases.

As for opening books, Openings for the Club Player is a book that I picked
up which has served as a handy reference for openings which I don't intend
to study in depth. It's inexpensive and offers the reader several lines for
each opening you're likely to see. I'd pick it up and try a few until you
find which you're most confortable playing. Then, and only then, purchase
a book specializing in a particular opening.

Understanding the Open Games from RHM press is a terrific book discussing
the 1. e4 e5 (and some related) complex of openings. I just recently pur-
chased a copy of it though a friend thought that it was out of print. Either
I was lucky or someone has picked up RHM's library.

Well, there's my $.02 worth.

Paul
From: pope@gold.kpc.com (John Pope)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky II, game 20 (comment - analysis)
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:16:19 GMT
Organization: /nfs/gold/u/home/pope/.organization

(Bruce Harper) writes:

> I was surprised by David's posting that Spassky thought he had a
> better position out of the opening in Game 20.  I prefer Black's
> position, both before and after White captures the Pawn on a5.  Is
> White's spacial advantage really sufficient to launch any kind of real
> kingside attack?  His Knight is on the a file, his Rook is stuck at
> a2, and the Bishop on g1 looks only at the Queenside.

I dunno. Even with your improvement of leaving out ...Ne7, I still
like white here, mainly because of the space advantage and the f5
break-through. Blacks counterplay seems to hinge on the potentially
dangerous central break with ...d5 or ...e5, since I don't see any way
of taking advantage of the C file (Ra2 - I like it!). Black's pieces
seem to be hitting at thin air, whereas white ended up with all the
right squares.

My thought was that instead of 15...cxb4, black might try 15...Nxb4!?
which leaves the b-file half open, supports ...d5 or even ...c4
in some cases.

Anyway, before the a5 pawn dropped there may not be much, if any,
*objective* advantage for white here, but Spassky knows this type of
position probably better than anybody. After the a-pawn went, though,
I think black was busted. As for how Fischer feels, I guess we'll see
what happens next time Spassky has white.

> Instead of 8-3, the score is now 7-4.  Could things get interesting again?

My guess before the match was 10-6, Fischer. I still think so.
--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ml@world.std.com (Mark Limont)
Subject: Game 19 comments
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:17:18 GMT

The commentators in Belgrade have questioned 45 a7 ? suggesting that 45 Bxf5 wins: 

45 Bxf5  gxf5
46 Qf5   Kg7
47 Qg5  wins the c or h pawn with check.

If:

45.......Qh1
46 Kg3   Qg1
47 Kf3   Qh1

and the checks are over, according to the commentators.

(black, of course, has a check with Qf1 but after that it appears white's King slips away.)


If:

46 ......Qe1 and
47 Qf2  wins, say the commentators.

I'm wondering how this all looks to the cognoscenti?






-- 
Mark Limont
ml@world.std.com

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: STOP BASHING ALEKINE
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:06:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct12.200606.23866
Organization: University of Washington

In <1992Oct12.110653.23931@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mapmef@gdr.bath.ac.uk (M E Fletcher) writes:

>Staunton always
>seems to get a terrible press (in the US?! :-) ) and you might try reading
>the Oxford Companion to Chess for a more objective account.

	I can't imagine calling the Oxford Companion to Chess "objective."
Just read what it has to say about Bobby Fischer.  It portrays him in a
very bad light.  Of course, much of what it says is correct, but hardly
objective.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael Cummings   			|  "Stuffing instead of potatoes?
cummings@u.washington.edu		|   Honey, I LOVE YOU!"
cummings@mailhost.hsas.washington.edu	|   - TV's Frank
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Peter Marko <pmarko@bnr.ca>
Subject: Fischer's Odds (was Re: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE)
Organization: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
     <1992Oct8.123217.3463@gwinnett.COM>
     <1992Oct8.200139.15122@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:51:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.194431.13491@midway.uchicago.edu> Eric Schiller,
schiller@whorf writes:

  >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,

You should consider specifying the conditions of the above matches, as
the odds would be greatly dependant on them (i.e., length of match,
whether draws count, whether a tie is possible and the meaning of a tie,
etc.).

I would be interested to see a repost with the above, so I can do my
estimates in reply.

   ...Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marko    .....    (613)763-5344    .....    pmarko@bnr.ca
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.   .....    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: dubach1@husc10.harvard.edu (joev dubach)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: A question about chess copyright law...
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:17:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.DUBACH1.92Oct9181732
Distribution: rec
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA

Observations:
1. It seems obvious to me that there is no restriction on publication
of a chess game, at least from what is commonly seen in the chess
world (i.e. nobody has their opponent sign a release in order to print
a game, people collect interesting games into books they edit, etc.)

2. Informant holds a monopoly on printing thorough lists of important
grandmaster games.

3. They also distribute this list in electronic form, on a CD-ROM
exhorbitantly priced at ~$795.

Question:
Is there any legal reason why someone could not extract the games from
the Informant CD-ROM, save them as text, and make them available for
FTP? 
If annotations are a problem, could someone just use the algebraic
notation without annotations?

Please reply via news.

Thanks,
Joev


--
_____________________________________________________
DDDDDDDDD   JJJJJJ      | Joev Dubach
     D      J     J     | dubach1@husc.harvard.edu
     D      J     J     | 249 North Mail Center
D    D      J     J     | Harvard University
DDDDD    *  JJJJJJ  *   | Cambridge, MA 02138
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: rjm@cs.brown.edu (Ralph Marshall)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:45:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.171411.22938@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> burgin@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Robert Burgin) writes:
	[Question as to whether you should resign a 'lost' game]
>	This is a very good point.  If your purpose in
>	playing chess is to learn something about the
>	game and to then play better, then resigning a
>	lost game and moving on to a new game where you
>	can learn something new is obviously better than
>	carrying on with a game that has little more to
>	teach you.

This is true for skilled players, but there isn't really any better
way to learn how to handle endgames than actually playing them.  At
any skill level there are going to be endings that you think you can
win but aren't 100% positive about.  An opponent who is willing to
play it out to see if you really can do it (and with the 50 move rule,
he has the incentive of salvaging a draw) can be a great way to learn
the nuances of how to finish up.  Obviously as you gain more skill,
more endgames will fall into the "I'd have to be hit by that brick to
mess it up" category, but since chess isn't solved [diabolical
laughter] there's always going to be a situation where you seem to
have a sure win but don't immediately see the solution.

All of this assumes that you opponent is sufficiently good to make the
defense skillful and that he/she has the patience to help you improve
your game.  Otherwise I'd have to agree that playing out a clearly
lost position is just bad manners.

Ralph Marshall
rjm@cs.brown.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I valued the honorable gentleman's opinion, I might get angry."
	Winston Churchill 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Capablanca vs Rubinstein
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<1ba9u0INN4h7@uwm.edu> <1992Oct14.061624.8531@cc.umontreal.ca>
	<1992Oct15.190917.10567@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:11:21

> But when we talk about the greatest of ALL TIMES, a recent and supposed very
> serious study based on life performances ranked:
> 
>                  - First: Kasparov (without any doubt, is that clear?)
>                  - Second: Karpov
>                  - Third: Bobby.
> 
> I remember that I was sad when I read that. But any reasonable chess player
> will have to recognize it. Gary is really strong. What can we do?

I believe you are thinking of the well-known stupid book,
"Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky.  Both its chess
analysis and its statistics methodology are thoroughly flawed.
It got torn apart here on r.g.c. after it came out a couple 
years ago, and deservedly so.
From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Benjamin vs Soltis??? (was Budapest)
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:20:29 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Benjamin was not talking about Soltis!  Why was that mistaken inference
"obvious" is beyond me.  He, in the next _Chow_, will review/annihilate
Tseitlin's "Winning with the Schliemann."  And, BTW, Joel mentions as a
title that DOES inspire confidence Batsford's excellent series
"<Whatever> for the Tournament Player."

--IM Mark Ginsburg

p.s.  I agree that Soltis's books have an objective viewpoint that
is not shared by the "Winning with..." title which, IMHO, implies
some degree of author bias.  [the Tseitlin book is a good example.]
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: SPIKE/GROBB ... HELP!
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:16:09 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services



does anybody out there play "the spike" or "grob's angriff"?
if so here is a question that i have on one of the line...


1. P-KN4  P-Q4
2. P-KR3  P-K4
3. B-B2   N-QB3

i've got bassman's book and wall's and a few other books where
it is mentioned and i don't like any of their lines for white
in this situation.

i've had some success with 

4. P-QB3 

but it's tricky and if you're not watching everything you do, you 
find yourself in trouble.

nomatter what the continuation for white, i think that black's best
continuation is 

4. ....    P-KR4

so anyways, if there are any other players out there who play
the spike...then please let me know your fourth move and how
you continue to 3. ... N-QB3.


thanks,

don wedding


p.s.

i know that 99.9% of the world considers this opening to be unsound,
so this post is directed to the 0.1% true believers out there.

p.p.s.

i'd appreciate it if you'd email me some of your Spike 
games for my database  :-)
From: gewis@rwb.urc.tue.nl (GEWIS)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Interpolis
Date: 15 Oct 92 07:42:34 GMT
Reply-To: gewis@urc.tue.nl

As everybody is waiting to hear the Interpolis results, I'll try to take them
with me in the morning.
As for now I can only give you some details...

Karpov lost in round 2 to (now Hungarian) Chernin.
Short lost his first game (with white) against Ian Rogers, but managed to
reach the tiebreak to get to round 3.

In round three (as far as I can remember) this happened:

Ivanchuk - Lautier     draw  (Ivanchuk was a rook up, but in timetrouble
                              win KRN vs KN)
Korchnoi - Piket       1-0   (In Tal's words: their score is equal now: K won 4
			      times, P drew 4 times)
Winants  - Kamsky      1-0   (According to Short, Kamsky had an easy bye...)
Anand    - Sveshnikov  draw
Timman   - ??          draw

All these results might ofcourse contain some errors. I'll get the exact
tomorrow (I hope)

Greetings
Mark Huizer
gewis@urc.tue.nl
From: gerbaudo@jorasses.inria.fr (Pascal Gerbaudo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: HELP ME, PLEASE
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:50:56 GMT
Organization: INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis (Fr)

I've taken the Tex/LaTex pack for chess by ftp on a public site
and I'm absolutelly not able to use it.

Please help me.

Send me ready-to-use pack, or explain me what I have to do.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: English (was book titles)
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:37:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.164625.27786@sequent.com> edjohn@sequent.com (Ed Johnson) writes:
>
>
>As someone who plays c4 all the time almost. I most hate c5 as a reply.
>
>I read in a book that the symetric engish is drawish.

The phrase I like best is "sternest test".  I, too, am moderately
unhappy to see c5 - but never afraid.  So, I guess "drawish" captures
that.



-- 
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
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: NEWS-NORWAY-NEWS-NORWAY-NEWS-NORWAY
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:20:19 GMT

Norway's own GM, Simen Agdestein, performed a sporty game a few weeks ago live on
TV. He played against the Dutch computer 'chess machine' which was allowed to
think 1 second pr move. Not much of a challenge for a GM. Unless the challenge is
to mate the computer in 4 minutes. This, too, shouldn't be much of a problem for
a GM. BUT in addition Agdestein was playing on a 6x6 meter board with living
pieces! The confusion was inavoidable, but he still managed to mate the computer
with less than one second left!! 

Here is the game. It's worth looking at.


  Agdestein - Chess Machine

  1. e4    c6
  2. c4    d5
  3. cxd5  cxd5
  4. exd5  Nf6
  5. Bb5+  Nbd7
  6. Nc3   g6
  7. d4    Bg7
  8. Qf3   0-0
  9. Nge2  Nb6
 10. Nf4   Bg4
 11. Qg3   Rc8
 12. 0-0   a6
 13. Bd3   g5
 14. Nh3   Bxh3
 15. Qxh3  g4
 16. Qh4   Nbxd5
 17. Bg5   h5
 18. Rae1  Re8
 19. Ne4   Nb4
 20. Bb1   Qxd4
 21. Bxf6  Bxf6
 22. Qxh5  Bg7
 23. Ng5   Qf6
 24. Re4   a5

 At this point it is obvious that the machine has no idea as what is in the
 making.

 25. Rxg4  Red8
 26. Bh7+  Kf8
 27. Bf5!  Ke8
 28. Ne4   Qd4
 29. Qh8+! Bf8
 30. Nf6+! Qxf6
 31. Qxf6  exf6
 32. Re1+  Be7
 33. Rg8   mate






I might also add the results from the quadranational contest for girls(junior)
 between Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany.

1. Germany 12.5 of 18
2. Sweden 9.5 
3. Norway 7
4. Denmark 7
( Norway beat Denmark on internal settlement)


 The Norwegian girls' effort was heroic taken into account that they had the
lowest average age and was originally ranked as number 4. Not to mention that 5
of the 6 girls came from the very same village (and I mean village) with a
population of just a few thousand. The girls are:

Sheila Berntsen   from Fredrikstad,

Nina Hagesaether,

Gro Ferkingstad, 

Else Selsaas,

Linn Hagesaether,

Ellen Hagesaether    all from Karmoey.







Onar.
From: pottier@dmi.ens.fr (Francois Pottier)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Computer Chess Program
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:40:30 GMT
Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure, PARIS, France


Hello!
I just discovered the News - and the Chess newsgroup. I guess the question I am going to ask
has already been answered a thousand times, and I apologize for that.

The question is :
I am looking for a chess program that runs on UNIX stations and allows me to play against a
friend on another machine (through the local network or through the Internet).
I guess that such a program does exist. If you know an ftp from which I could download it,
tell me : I'd be very grateful.

You can answer by posting a message on the News or by sending me an e-mail at the following
address :
   pottier@dmi.ens.fr

Thanks a lot
			from
					Francois Pottier
					E.N.S. Ulm