HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: KnightStalker Demo
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:23:37 GMT

linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin) writes:

>I ftp'd the KnightStalker Demo from valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu
>and it works well.  In the chess base demo, you cannot change
>databases, but apparently you can in knightstalker.  Does that
>mean that I can get .cbf files from Chess Base and use KSdemo to
>play over the games w/o having to actually buy KS?  Perhaps the
>demo is only able to load the demo databases and will not be
>compatible with actual databases used for Chess Base???  Also,
>is there a way to convert ascii games into .cbf format w/o
>using Chess Base?

>-benoni
>    
>  


Is this the demo for the old KnightStalker or the new Fritz II, which
replaces it?
From: ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (R.Stephan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: MChess Pro vs. ChessMachine
Date: 26 Dec 92 12:14:00 GMT
Organization: Not Very Ltd.

My friend has some intermediate results about MChess on a 486/50:

- MChessPro vs. ChessMachine Gideon 2.1 (Blitz mode - 60/5'):  8.5 - 1.5
- MChessPro vs. ChessMachine King 1.0   (Blitz mode - 60/5'):  8.0 - 2.0
- MChessPro vs. ChessMachine Gideon 2.1 (Tournament - 60/2h):  6.5 - 3.5

He says that since the ChessMachine is rated at about USCF 2420, he would
estimate MChessPro on 486/50 at about USCF 2500-2550, given not only the
numbers but also from the general impression (opening library, endgame).

ralf
--
***************
Sbetrg Pburerag
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Don't blame lawyers!
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:38:03 GMT

While there presently exists on the net a rare degree of consensus concerning
dmc's postings, I must take exception to the earlier comment about
"lawyering".  A good advocate is often able to convince other's that his
views have merit, and will generally avoid pointless arguments.  By this
standard, dmc is not a good advocate.  Whether this is because of his
abrasive style of argument or the fact that his basic premises are senseless
(or a combination of both) is a moot point.

But don't hold it against me that I'm a lawyer because of what a law student
is posting.  And with age comes wisdom, so don't give up hope either.

And my final comment is that dmc's use of terms such as a "plays" instead of
"moves", and "tournament" instead of "match", together with his refusal to
indicate his rating or chess experience, much less any readiness to discuss
any of the games in the match, lead me to the conclusion that he in fact
doesn't know how to play chess at all.  So I think we've all been the object
of a good practical joke, and if worthless non-GM Ginsburg gets a good
article out of it, it was time well spent.

And, as I think it is known, I actually think Fischer played quite well in
the match and had many deep ideas which were sounder than some of the critics
think.  But after all the postings by dmc over the past few weeks, even I'm
starting to think Fischer played badly...

Merry Christmas everyone!
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 29 Dec 92 09:23:53 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec29.053404.22836@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.105407.685@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.050754.13986@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>>
>>[boring nonsense deleted]
>>> 
>>> Perhaps you should turn your brain on and reread the whole dialogue (as 
>>> reposted hereby).
>>
>>Brain is on. And, I have been reading. Maybe YOU should be more careful about
>>what you post. (Unless, of course, you deny you have been comparing the
>>legitimacy of punishing Fischer with the legitimacy of punishing people
>>who butchered six millon helpless victims.)
>>
>>
> Well, it is obvious that your logic is rudimentary, so what I'll say will be
> futile, but anyway. The initial argument (yours or someone else's, but 
> certainly not very smart) was that Fischer shouldn't go to jail because he is
> not a threat to anybody, physically. By simple reductio ad absurdum I showed 
> that the argument was stupid. 

Uh Sven, I have very bad news. That tactic is NOT considered a valid tactic in
serious debate. Yes, it used to influnece the masses who are not refined enough
to recognize it, and by ignorant fools who have no valid ammunition, but it is
NOT valid, as ANYTHING can be reduced to absurdity if the speaker is willing to
lower himself far enough.

i.e. Kiddie porn is the same as playing chess.

				It could have stayed that way, but then you had
> to show that you are stupid, too. Oh well...

Well, I have shown someone is stupid. But, its not me that got that title...

Let's see, Sven has stated that playing chess=kiddieporn=prostitution=shooting
the president=playing chess

Nope, wasn't me.

> 
> 	Sven
>
From: seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: pardon Fischer?
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:15:58 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

So Bobby played chess in Yugoslavia and Willie
smoked pot in Great Britain.


Big forkin' deal.



Steve Hoell			seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Marty.Moore@launchpad.unc.edu (Marty Moore)
Subject: USCF Lifetime Titles Question
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:15:35 GMT

A question for all the USCF rating experts out there.  I'm confused about
the title shown on my label.

Background: Before the US G/60 Championship, my label showed 1889/B4, meaning
I held the B (1700) lifetime title, with 4 of the 10 norm points needed to
earn the a (1800) title.

I did pretty well in the G/60, gaining about 30 rating points and making a
1900 norm.  This should give me 2 norm points toward A (1900) and 5 toward
a (1800), giving me a total of 9 toward a.  So far so good--my new label
shows 1920/B9.

HOWEVER...it was my understanding that achieving an established rating in
any 100-point level automatically gave one the title one level below that.
In short, since I have now achieved an established rating above 1900, I thought
I would receive the a (1800) title automatically, and would expect my
label to show 1920/a2.

Am I wrong, or is the labelling software wrong?

Marty Moore
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: Jeff Boyd <BOYDJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 2267 Performance Rating for 10-year old in Montreal
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:24:00 GMT
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.unl.edu



CCHB@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (Hugh Brodie) wrote:
>  Does anyone know if a ten-year old has ever had an expert (or a
>  master) rating before? (Fischer became a master at 13).

Jeff Sarwer was rated in the 1900's when he was 10, but his father
prevented him from playing in tournaments.  I played him when he was
12 in a simul;  he toyed with me, was easily winning, and overlooked
a one-mover.  I think he would certainly have made expert if he'd been
given the chance.


jeff
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Don't blame lawyers!
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:24:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: life.1hn68aINNjag
Distribution: world
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <1992Dec26.182617.643@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
|> While that may have been a tactic you used to while away the hours in your
|> otherwise pointless existance, my posts have been designed to question the
|> positions stated by 'experts' and if said positions are the result of informed,
|> impartial decision-making.

You seem to make a point of trying to pass yourself off as a well-educated
scholar by using eloquent wording.  This sentence fragment, although humorously
insulting, is not that easy to decipher.  If you are so concerned about your
image, you should take the time to proofread your posts.

|> Just because YOU waste your life does not mean that everyone else is as
|> pointless as you.

Again, if you want to sound intelligent and respectable (and you obviously
aspire to do so), it's usually not very convincing to lower yourself to simply
insulting people whose viewpoints you don't agree with.  If you can't think of
an intelligent response, it's best to just say nothing at all.  Otherwise you'll
just make yourself sound more ignorant than you are.

|> Make no mistake, my attacks are entirely serious.

They seem to be seriously lacking in substance due to an overabundance of
fluff you put into them.  You're so concerned with smearing your 'opponent' and
trying to make people think that you're the most intelligent person around (I
guess you assume that if you can make people think that you're the smartest, then
people will give more weight to your opinions or something) that you have little
space left over for the issue at hand.

|> > Oh well.  I think I'll start reading this thread for a while in case it
|> > proves interesting.
|> 
|> Not with such un-educable people as yourself jumping in...except, of course, to
|> those who have similar degrees of repsect for legitimate questions.

The only reason I jumped in was to point out a little irony about a certain
poster, regardless of my repsect for legitimate questions.

================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: reynolds@physics.ucla.edu (Reynolds)
Subject: Who are the Interzonal qualifiers?
Organization: UCLA Department of Physics
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 02:02:08 GMT

Now that we know who that qualifiers from the US are, does
anyone know what other zonal results are?  And who, so far,
has qualified for it? An finally, when and where will it be played?
(I assume it will be another large, 64-player Swiss like the
last cycle.)

Thanks.

Anthony Reynolds
reynolds@physics.ucla.edu  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: cuban@athena.mit.edu (Federico A Garcia)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<1992Dec23.122411.620@uoft02.utoledo.edu> <C00C13.FqF@world.std.com>
	<1992Dec29.100929.710@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:47:41 GMT


I don't really want to get into this flame war (though, for the
record, I think Fischer should be prosecuted and jailed if he ever
returns to the U.S.), but I can't help pointing one thing out in the
middle of this constitutional debate.  I assumed Fischer used a U.S.
passport issued by the State Department when he travelled.  If he did,
then he agreed to abide by the regulations imposed by the State
Department on U.S. passports.  How many of the participants in this
debate actually have a U.S. passport?  I do.  If you have one, read it
carefully.  It clearly states that it is a crime to conduct business
or make purchases in various countries (my passport, issued in 1989,
specifically mentions Cuba, Libya and North Korea), that similar rules
may apply to other countries, and that you should check with the State
Department about this before travelling abroad.  

Now, Fischer received a letter from the Commerce Department
specifically telling him that his actions were considered business
(and don't bring up the comparisons to corporations, remember,
corporations are essentially considered the same as individuals for
purposes of commerce, and this is a centuries old legal tradition, not
the whims of President Bush).  Also, I have not heard anyone suggest
yet that there is anything illegal about a presidential decree.  It
has been used thousands of times by all of our 40 presidents for 200
years, and are not the whims of just any one person, but of the duly
elected representative of the people exercising a power which, whether
you like it or not, he legally has (I also happen to believe that it
was the proper decision and one which was carefully thought out, but
this is a matter of opinion and there's no point in debating this to
death).  Thus, Fischer did break a law and deserves the just
punishment if he ever returns to a place where the U.S. has
jurisdiction to arrest him or extradite him.

Just out of curiosity, how many of those who are calling for Fischer
to be pardoned think Bush did the right thing in pardoning the
Iran-Contra defenders last week?  After all, you can argue that they
broke a law which was the political whim (remember, the Boland
amendment only passed and was signed by Reagan since it was one of
those clauses added to, of all things, a budget bill, which would
paralyze the government if the President vetoed it)  of one left-wing
Congressman trying to interfere with Reagan's foreign policy, that
they were acting out of love of country, and that the transactions all
actually occured in a foreign country.  Personally, I think that they
deserved whatever punishment was appropriate for breaking the law, and
so does Fischer.

-Fred Garcia
M.I.T.
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Subject: Re: A question for DMCy
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:33:03 GMT

> Jeff Lesser writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <BzonsD.H3t@world.std.com>
> Posted: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:57:4
>
> Org.  : The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
>
> pmbarlow@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Pete Barlow... 'The Candy Guru') writes:
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
> >Just to be on the safe side, I know nothing about the 1st K-K match,
> except
> >that Kasparov won it, and I know very little about Fischer's tournament
> >history, except that he won 90% of his games.
>
> >> DMC
>
> >Hey, I'm just being calm about all this.  Don't take any of this personal.
>
> >TCG, pb.
>
>
> Actually, the first match was discontinued with Karpov (not Kasparov)
> leading 5-3, with many draws.  Earlier in the match, Karpov had led 5-0.
>
>

Your ignorance is astounding. Fischer's winning percentage is under 77% based
on some 750 games.
Peter
--

----------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Chess, hockey and fighting
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:55:23 GMT

Although fighting in hockey disgraces the sport and adds nothing to the game,
I don't think many of us turn off the game when a fight breaks out (they sure
don't turn off the camera...)

I think the current fight on usenet.rec.games.chess is comparable.  Few chess
players want to get involved, but it's hard not to tune in to see what's
going to happen next!

Mark - are you getting all this down?

[As a courtesy, though, it would be easier for the spectators not to include
the postings to which a response is being made, and just post the latest
flame.  I only want to see the new stuff.]
From: wayne.mendryk@freddy.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Wayne Mendryk) 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Gruenfeld Exchange Va
Date: 25 Dec 92 21:44:00 GMT
Reply-To: wayne.mendryk@freddy.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Wayne Mendryk) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Freddy's Place BBS - Edmonton, AB - 403-456-4241

KC>FROM:  (Kenneth Colby)
KC>Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
KC>Subject: Re: Gruenfeld Exchange Variation (Browne - I. Gurevich, US Ch. 1992
KC>Message-ID: <1992Dec24.212243.16067@cs.ucla.edu>
KC>Date: 24 Dec 92 21:22:43 GMT

KC>mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg) writes:


KC>>After 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cd Nd5 5. e4 Nc3 6. bc Bg7
KC>>      7. Bc4 c5 8. Ne2 Nc6 9. Be3 O-O 10. Rc1 cd 11. cd Qa5+
KC>>     12. Kf1,

KC>>I. Gurevich played 12...Rd8?? and was crushed after the obvious
KC>>13. Qb3 e6 14. d5 Ne5 15. de Nc4 16. ef Kh8 17. Qc4, being two pawns down
KC>>without compensation.

KC>>After the main line 12...Bd7 13. h4 Rfc8 14. h5,

KC>>what's the current status of 14...e5!? - Byrne mentions a game
KC>>Ionescu-Rogozenko, Romania 1992 without further moves.  14...Nd8, as
KC>>in Shirov-I. Gurevich, Chile 1990 or Shirov-Ernst, Lloyds Bank 1991,
KC>>looks too passive.

KC>>-mark

KC>What happened to 13...h5 as suggested by Botvinnik and Ginsberg  in
KC>Chess Chow?

KC>                ken colby


Kenneth I have a 1543 game Grunfeld Defense Chessbase file, so I thought
I might try and answer a part of your question.

It seems that the only alternative to 14...e5 which GM's/IM's consider
is 14...Nd8.

Only two games in my database contain 14...e5. These are:
(a) Tisdall-Ostenstad 1991 Oslo Cup, 29 moves 0-1 and (b) Kishnev-Levin
1992 Dortmund op-A 54 moves draw..

And 14...Nd8 was played in:
(a)Nogueiras-Ljubojevic  1989 World Cup 45 moves 0-1
(b)Shirov-Kozul          1991 Biel      34 moves 1-0

In regards to 13...h5, it appears this line is no longer considered
viable for Black. My database shows that Black usually plays ...Rfc8 or
...Rac8.  Other infrequently played responses are 13...e5, 13...b5 ,
and 13...h6. If you want any of the above mentioned games leave me a
message.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . "Chess is work" -Walter Browne US GM
From: kgowen@cie.uoregon.edu (Kevin Gowen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: A new "...like a Grandmaster" book?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 07:21:38 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
NNTP-Posting-Host: cie.uoregon.edu


I'd like to know if there's any truth to the rumor that the next book in
this series was going to be authored by Mikhail Tal and entitled "Drink Like
A Grandmaster."

Thank you.

-kevin
kgowen@cie.uoregon.edu


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: Softwares & Ratings !
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:01:38 GMT

douillar@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Douillard Pierre-Jean) writes:

>Hi ! I was reading a lot of comments about chess programs that are strongs.
>I'm actually playing CM3000 on a 486/33 and wonder what could be is 'true'
>rating.  It would be great if someone could post it.

>Also, I never saw anything on Mchess and the ChessMachine in any computer
>stores.  Are they softwares?  And where can I get them? (There rating would
>also be greatly appreciated!)

>Thank to All
>-- 
>  #--------------------------                   --------------------------#
>  # ----------------        -T E R M I N A T O R-        ---------------- #
>  # E-mail: douillar@jsp.umontreal.ca |' Anybody out there got the cheat  #
>  #         douillar@ere.umontreal.ca | for Windows! Or a good trainer!! '#


MChess is software, and is not distributed via the usual mass merchants. 
It is available from chess-type sources, such as ICD (800-645-4710, I
think) or directly from the author.  It is ultra-copy-protected and
relatively expensive ($150).
 
The Chess Machine is a RISC-based add-in card for the PC, along with
software.  It actually comes with two different chess programs.  It has a
superb user interface.  It's incredibly easy and enjoyable to peruse and
modify the opening book, for example.  Unfortunately, it is quite
expensive (like $600-$750 depending on amount of static RAM).
 
Also, Fritz II and Zarkov 2.6 are strong chess programs that you're
unlikely to find in computer stores.  (There's a Zarkov offshoot called
Grandmaster Chess or something that you may find there.)


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: PowerBook Chess?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:59:16 GMT

sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:

>I'm about to order a PowerBook 180 (I think).  Does anyone have a first
>hand recommendation for a chess program which will run on it?  Any
>suggestions for configuring the PB 180 for best performance of the
>recommended chess program?




>-- 
>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


The PowerBook 180 is a great machine.  Unfortunately, there are no
killer-strong chess programs on the Mac.  Personally, I favor Sargon IV,
although it hasn't been upgraded in many years and may fail to run on
PowerBooks.  Also, if you can scrounge up a copy of Psion Chess, it's
pretty good.  (It's an early version of the Richard Lang program.)  Other
choices include CheckMate, which is OK buy flaky, Chessmaster 2100, which
is even flakier, and GnuChess 3.x.  As far as I know, Chessmaster 3000 is
not yet available on the Mac.
From: rodin@acs.bu.edu (luis del)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Chess psychology
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:55:45 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: rodin@acs.bu.edu




Hello, 


	First of all I would like to thank all the positive responses that I have gotten from my Psychology piece. But I still have one nagging question why did those that uterly disagreed with me, were computer science majors? And second why did they fell so compelled to tell me, a complete stranger who presumably had just attacked with stereotypes, if the had a good sex life or not?
	Let me make it clear to those who saw the acrticled but did not read that I never attacked Computer Science majors, and Chess players. My only intent was to attack the proponents of idiotic humor. I am a chess player, and I am not into self hate. As for Computer Science major, not would I be unable to write these words for all of you to see, but I would also be unable to enjoy the company of them.

	Lighten up out people. And learn to read between the lines. Have open minds, and not be knee-jerk intellectuals.


Luis A. del Valle
From: sol.steinberg@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Sol Steinberg) 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: MAJOR BUMMER
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:10:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, (313)663-4173, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Reply-To: sol.steinberg@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Sol Steinberg) 

RF>Major big time bummer.

RF>The data files got corupted somehow in the chess games. I had to start
RF>all over again. I know, I know... But what can I say... Sorry.

   I guess that answers my message to you, about the door not
recognizing me. I assume that I should start my games with you and
Tom all over, which I will do without waiting for an answer.
   If it wipes out Tom's 9-0 record, I suggest you get out of town,
quick <G>.
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . MONEY: Dads maketh... kids taketh!
 . Cam-Mail . The Chess Board BBS 803-236-7711 : Myrtle Beach, SC
                                                                                    
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess