HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Strongest Chess Players
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:17:52 GMT


Don Wedding writes:

>if ANYBODY such as kasparav, karpov, etc. sat down and
>faced bobby in the late 60's and early 70's...do you REALLY think that
>they would have stood a chance in hell???

Yes, I REALLY think that Kasparov in his prime vs. Fischer in his prime
would be a toss-up.  It also would be an exciting match between two of
the handful of highest rank players in modern times willing to play for
a win with the black pieces in a match.

But Fischer is no longer in his prime, so we'll never see it.  Unless
Fischer were to defeat Kasparov, we'll never know the answer to that
question.

We can, however look at the contributions a given chess player has made
to theory over the years.  Of course, this would favor the early players,
since less was known then (and thus there wsa more to discover).
I mean, the concept of piece development in the opening due mostly to Morphy,
and the origins of positional chess developed by Steinitz are certainly
significant.

By the 1960's, there was less to discover, but Fischer certainly added
his mark, even if some of his opening discoveries haven't stood the test
of time.

By the generation of Kasparov, there was even less to discover. Yet Kasparov
has been a very creative and inventive player who has tranfused many new
and original ideas into the game.  Give Gary a break, and keep in mind
that even Bobby is human.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:46:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.202413.15165@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
>Sven Hauptfeld writes:
>>Nobody has so far posted a viable model of how a deflationary mechanism could
>>sustain itself in a large pool for a long time.
>
>OK, I'll try to explain this one more time:
>
>1. Chess is a game of skill, so the average beginner is weaker
>   than the average experienced player.  This will be true from
>   now to eternity no matter how big the rating pool is.
>
>2. Strong players at any time T will have higher ratings than weak
>   players at time T.  This will also be true forever and no matter
>   how big the rating pool is.
>
>Thus, the beginners entering the rating pool today will be weaker
>and lower rated than the experienced players who are leaving
>the rating pool today through death or retirement.  Tomorrow's
>beginners will be weaker and lower rated than the experienced
>players leaving tomorrow, and the beginners entering the rating
>pool 500 years from today will be weaker and lower rated than
>the experienced players who'll be quitting 500 years from today.
>
>Since the retiring players leaving the pool have higher average
>ratings than the beginners entering the pool, we have more points
>going out of the pool than going in.  No matter how large the
>rating pool is, if you remove more than you put in, you're going
>to have deflation 


I still think that deflation caused by this effect will in the long run simply
even out the ratings of entering and leaving players, so that the steady state
is neither inflationary nor deflationary.

As it seems that we are not making progress in this discussion, I will (when
I have time) make a monte carlo simulation of a substantially large rating
pool and post the result when I have it. Okay?

	Sven
From: sigmund@nsc.nsc.com (Sigmund Malek)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Spassky-Fisher
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:46:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

After a 9 hour draw, I was surprised to see Spassky win quickly
the next game, does anyone have details. How come there aren't
any news on the net regarding the games?
From: mjn@ukc.ac.uk (M.J.Neish)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer - Polgar
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:24:55 GMT
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

I read in today's Daily Telegraph that an agreement seems to have been
made for a match between Fischer and Judit Polgar, with the first games
to be played sometime in December. The article seemed pretty "certain",
so I guess it could well be official.

Is that so? Anyone?

Mike.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<1992Oct12.011413.1203@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Oct12.122350.29740@ai.univie.ac.at>
Distribution: rec
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:12:25

I seem to remember Fischer also opened with c4 and maybe even d4
in the Herceg Novi blitz tournament.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Organization: Dept.Medical Cybernetics&Artificial Intelligence,Univ.Vienna,Austria,Europe
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:18:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.202413.15165@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>Since the retiring players leaving the pool have higher average
>ratings than the beginners entering the pool, we have more points
>going out of the pool than going in.  No matter how large the
>rating pool is, if you remove more than you put in, you're going
>to have deflation (unless you put in something like bonus points/
>rating floors, etc. to pump in new points and counteract this natural
>deflation.)

Your argument sounds quite convincing and actually I can't say anything against
it. But I always thought that the problem is that the average rating is INcreasing
and not DEcreasing (I may be wrong on that). I'd also like to know why the 
USCF ratings are about 150 points higher than European ratings.

					--- Juffi

-- 
					--- Juffi

Johannes Fuernkranz                                    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5320652(Fax)
From: gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:02:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: yuma.Oct14.030225.97199
Organization: Colorado State University

carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo)
>At what level of tournament play does it become the "norm" for the losing
>person to resign in a K+B+N vs. K endgame?  (one which is won for the
>opponent, of course)
>
>David Caraballo

I have some personal experience with this one.  First, if I remember
right, Craig Mar (approx 2500 USCF) once had to execute this mate over
the board at one of the Paul Masson U.S. Class Championships, perhaps
in the late 1970s.  I seem to remember that it took him nearly 50 moves
to do it (but he did do it!).

At the same tournament, I was playing a 1900 opponent (I was 1600 at the
time) and was losing miserably.  BUT, I saw a slick way of sacrificing a
piece and then sliding into this endgame... thus forcing my opponent to
show me that he could do it.  Well, he fell right into it.  BUT, he knew
the endgame cold and beat me in about 20 moves.  His comment after the
game was priceless:  "I've been waiting all my life for a chance to
play this endgame... as soon as I saw the chance I took it!!".

Now you might say that I was unlucky to meet this particular player, but
actually it was quite a nice experience to see such beautiful and
efficient play.  It was impressive and I'll never forget it.  That was
one of my favorite games I ever lost!

But to answer your question, I would NEVER resign in the B+N endgame.
By the time it got close to the mate, I'd let them play it out just for
the joy of saying "checkmate" !!

Scott
From: empcomm@empserv.Corp.Sun.COM (Chet Anderson - Emp. Services)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Novice Question-Openings
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:21:30 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: empserv.corp.sun.com

I've seen much discussion here, and references to
many books, about the relative merits of various
openings.  What I don't understand is, how do you
know what opening you'll play?  Doesn't the response
of your opponent change your plan?

The reason for my question is that the introductory
material I've seen says to learn one or two openings,
just to get started.  But it seems that you can't learn
just one opening--there are too many variations to
expect to play exactly those moves.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated....

Chet  

chet.anderson@corp.sun.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Blitz rules
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:06:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.203345.2695@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gzogbi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi) writes:
>I've got a question on blitz rules that's probably been asked before.
>
>If, in a five minute games, you mate your opponent and then he(she) notices
>that your flag is down, can you claim a win?  I've had some masters tell me
>that in order to claim a win after mating someone, you have to stop the clock
>with your flag up.  Others have said that a mate on the board takes precedence
>over the clock.
>
>Does anyone out there know for sure?  Thanks.

Yes - but it's complicated.  My copy of the USCF
Sudden Death Rules says:

7. The Won Game.
    A. A game is won by the player:
        1. who has mated his opponent's king.
        2. whose opponent resigns; or
        3. whose oppontne's flag falls first, at tny time before the
           game is otherwise ended.

This seems to settle things.  I read this as saying that the mate on the
board has precedence over the flag claim.  

But...there's a wrinkle.  When are you actually "mated"?  This appears
to me to revolve around when the mating players mating move is
"complete".

The corrected USCF rules for ordinary play now read:

I.8. The completion of the Move
  A move is completed ---
    ...
    E. Only after the player has punched or stopped his clock.  This
       applies to all situations except those governed by I.12.A, 
       I.12.B, I.12.C, and I.12.D.

So...perhaps the mating move isn't complete, which would mean that you
aren't mated, just yet, which means that the flag claim is valid.

But...what about those exceptions?

I.12 The Completed Game
    A. The game is won by the player who has mated his opponent's king,
       provided that the mating move was legal.  This immediately ends
       the game.

Finally!  A clear statement.  A legal move, executed on the board, which
produces checkmate *immediately* terminates the game.

All the TD has to do now is handle the claim that the flag was called
*before* the mating move was executed on the board.

"but...but...I called his flag while he was still thinking.  He didn't
see the mate-in-one until *after* I called for the TD".  

Now what, Bullwinkle?







-- 
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: bill@myope.cvs.rochester.edu (Bill Vaughn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Novice Question--Time Rules
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:41:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Oct15.184143.28064
Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY

In article <ldoneuINNnvn@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> empcomm@empserv.Corp.Sun.COM (Chet Anderson - Emp. Services) writes:
>My novice friend and I decided to start playing timed games, but we're
>a little confused.  We played 25 minutes for all moves. The game came
>down to the last  30 seconds for each of us, and he was  a knight ahead,
>but his clock ran out before mine (by about 12 seconds).
>
>Did I win?  Is it a draw?  We decided I won since his clock ran out,
>but it didn't feel very satisfying.  Should I have resigned? (yes, I've seen
>the other thread...)
>Is there a better timing method for casual games?
>
>Thanks,
>Chet
>chet.anderson@corp.sun.com

Yes.  Use a "fischer clock".  That way you'll always have a fixed (and reasonable)
amount of time for each move.  A good "speed" chess setting would be about 1/2
minute/move with a 5 minute reservoir.  Casual games could be 2 minutes/move with
a 30 minute reservoir.

That's the nice thing about this clock:  With two degrees of freedom one can duplicate
just about any time control in use today plus many others not possible with
today's clocks. 

--
Bill Vaughn               /  This space   \   Email: bill@cvs.rochester.edu
Center for Visual Science \   has been    /   Phone: 716-275-8674
Univ. of Rochester        / intentionally \   Fax:   716-271-3043
Rochester, NY 14627       \   occupied.   /   Voice: Hey, you
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:07:19 GMT

varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:


>Games should be resigned out of disgust at the prospect of playing on,
>not respect for opponent, IMHO.

Which may be why chess can seem like such an antisocial game. Players who
lose and cannot muster any admiration for their opponents' play are
missing half the beauty of chess -- and missing it twice.

RB
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: English (was book titles)
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:32:05 GMT

In article <5956@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas) writes:
>
>The problem with the move order 1 c4 c6 2 e4 d5 is that White has not
>yet put a pawn on d4.  This gives him more chances to try to hold the
>pawn on d5 (should Black prefer lines with ... g6).  Jon Speelman's
>new book on the Caro-Kann covers this with quite a few illustrative
>games.  If you take on d5 immediately you may find yourself playing 
>the Black side of an IQP position.  Personally I like to play the 

Could you give us more moves?  I don't quite understand what you are
saying.  Does "you" refer to Black?  Or who takes on d5 immediately?
--Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: xawemmer@cs.ruu.nl (Xander Wemmers)
Subject: max Fischer rating
Summary: Fischer had 2785
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:25:10 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science
Keywords: Fischer rating


Fischer's highest rating he had was 2785 before the (first) match against
Spasski. After he won the match he lost 5 points, so he had 2780.

Would anybody know what happens when Spassky wins this match?

Would Fischer recognise him as the (new) World Champion?


Xander Wemmers 


if
From: connors@drutx.ATT.COM (ConnorsPA)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Smythescript
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:46:17 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO

I think the net deserves an assurance from Col. Sicherman
that Smythescript is dolphin safe.
Date: Monday, 12 Oct 1992 20:19:54 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: resigning wusses

i don't like to resign, even when i am pitifully far behind.  sure, my
opponent would have to get suddenly hit in the head with a brick for him
to mess up, but who knows, maybe he'll suddenly get hit in the head with
a brick.

but when i look at all these chess games posted, i almost never see
"checkmate."  everybody resigns.

now i know that this is because not everyone wants to play to the bitter
end, when the outcome is guaranteed (barring random brick attacks).  so
i don't want an explanation of why this is so.

what i want to know is this: if i join some chess club, and get my
buttocks whupped, will people be mad if i don't resign?
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:19:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct14.200540.700@erg.sri.com> vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad) writes:
>I bet that if Fischer ever plays a long (more than 8 games) match against
>Kasparov, Karpov, or any ohter one of the top 5 players in th eWorld in the
>next, say, 10 years, he will lose.
>
>I suggest the bet size be $5000. Any takers?

Are you serious?  What odds would you offer?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Subject: Lasker-Dunn Sicilian?
Originator: jcbokar@c00576-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:27:23 GMT


Has anyone played the Lasker-Dunn var. of the Sicilian lately (in
particular the line: 1.e4 c5 2.g3 d5 3.exd4 Qxd4 4.Qf3)?  I'm interested
in any games from anyone.  The opening doesn't show up very often in
the Informants and Dunn's little monograph has only two examples.  I'm
also interested in any other rare Sicilian lines.

jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu

------------------------------------------
A rare Sicilian is better than a mad one!!
------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mittman1@athena.mit.edu (Christopher T Chiu)
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: rec
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:14:13 GMT

Yes and no.  He actually played 1 c4, then transposed into a Queen's Gambit
Declined.  To my knowledge he has never opened with 1 d4 directly, but has used 1
c4 as a way to transpose into various Queen's pawn openings--game six from
Fischer-Spassky 1972 is an excellent example of this.

Chris "Genghis" Chiu
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:02:35 GMT
Distribution: rec


He certainly didn't play it in the 1972 match.  He had played 1 c4 in 
1970: twice during the Interzonal -- against Polugayevsky (1/2) and also
against Panno (that was the last move of the game)

He also played 1 b3 against Mecking (transposing to a Bird) and against
Tukmakov at Buenas Aires.
From: Robert_Ryan@brown.edu (Rob Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Another chess variant proposal -- Nuclear Ches
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:59:07 GMT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <12OCT199213084435@utkvx2.utk.edu>, dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu
(Chatham, Doug) said:

> ...
>
>The strategy changes I can see are
>1. Center control becomes much more difficult.
>2. Exchanges become easier and potentially more profitable.
>3. Stopping the normal progress of a pawn with a higher ranking piece is
>probably not a good idea anymore. (on the other hand, it could become a
>neccessary sacrifice)
>
>Comments?  Ideas on suitable notation for the explosions would be especially
>appreciated.

It seems like there's already a "variant" which shares these characteristics.
Shogi, Japanese chess, does this by allowing a player, having captured an
opponent's piece, to employ it as his or her own piece on a subsequent move.
Thus, if you capture your opponent's lance (a Shogi equivalent to a rook),
you can then use it as one of your own lance's, and drop it anywhere on the
board.

I'm not big on variants and my knowledge of Shogi is limited, but maybe it
would have some of the characteristics that you're looking for.

-- Rob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rob Ryan, internet:   Robert_Ryan@brown.edu or robr@brownvm.brown.edu
           bitnet:     ROBR@BROWNVM
           Compu$erve: 70324,227
 Brown University, Providence, RI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:32:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.205429.20241@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>Well, if there's a TN to be had in 3.d3 cxe4

Earth to Jim, Earth to Jim...3 ... cxe4 is an illegal move.  That's as
"novel" as you can get.

When you are allowed to play such moves, I'll abandon the English.
First, of course, I have to learn how to play it properly...




-- 
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: mad4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Maddex)
Subject: That was Stengel, actuallly (Was Re: Game 16 Opening...)
Reply-To: mad4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Pranksters for Peace
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:50:39 GMT

In article <9210072155.0.UUL1.3#20523@intercal.com> hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W.
 Russell) writes:

>>So it is all rather old hat. As Yogi Berra (?) said, you can
>look it up.

It was Berra's boss, Casey Stengel who made this line immortal.  I think the 
most famous instance was when a reporter, asking whether he was too old to 
manage (the '62 Mets, for whom a manager was irrelevant anyway) got the 
answer:  "most people my age are dead.  You could look it up."

>HWR

MADNESS
From: marino@dxcern.cern.ch (Massimo Marino)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:44:05 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

One nice book about openings is _The Ideas Behind Openings_ , Bratford Ed.
that goes through the most popular tournament openings (the most used) and
focuses on the aims of them, for White and for Black. It is NOT however a complete handbook on openings, only main variations are treated so it will
suit intermediate player (novices can profit too IMO).

Cheers
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massimo Marino     |internet: marino@hplaa01.cern.ch| marino@dxcern.cern.ch     
CERN - PPE Division|bitnet:   marino@cernvm.bitnet  |  
1211 Geneve 23     |decnet:   vxcern::marino        |   
Switzerland        |FAX:      (41) (22) 785 - 0207  |  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Good news for David Fry!
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:56:39 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Since Tilburg has a knockout format, your job will get easier each round!
From: ace3@quads.uchicago.edu (AA Acero (Tony))
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: GIICS v. 1.50 uploaded to valkyries
Keywords: ICS, GIICS
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:42:02 GMT
Reply-To: ace3@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

The latest version of giics is at valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu;
presently it is in the directory /pub/chess/uploads (giics150.zip) --
eventually it will be moved to /pub/chess/ics-clients.

Bugs fixed: 
	the cursor keys now work if no mouse driver is present.
Thanks Ove!

New stuff: 
	lots of alt-key combinations for the mouse-o-phobic. (See
	the file giics.alt for what they actually are)

	XTRACT -- takes your giics.log and spits out the games in a
	format suitable for feeding to Zarkov.  I'll add support for
	other programs as others feed me the specs.

Enjoy!

tony




-- 
Anibal Antonio Acero (tony) | University of Chicago | `To baldly go where
ace3@quads.uchicago.edu     | 5640 S. Ellis Ave.    | no one has gone before',
(312)702-8214 (lab)         | James Franck Inst 340 |  what Patrick Stewart
(312)702-8387 (office)      | Chicago, IL 60637     |   _should_ be saying