HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:39:40 -0400 
From: "John O. Kim" <jk5x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Fischer/Spassky Early 70's?
	<1992Oct12.011413.1203@athena.mit.edu>
Distribution: rec

Hi all,

	Could someone post or send me the moves of the F-S's early 70's matches.....


Thanx
John
From: jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Lasker-Pelikan
Date: 16 Oct 1992 18:06:33 GMT
Organization: Econometrics Laboratory, U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily4.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Sicilian

In article <1992Oct16.163456.4082@ncsu.edu>, jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1b4rgsINN4l3@agate.berkeley.edu>, jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:
|> |> Path: taco!gatech!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!think.com!ames!agate!econ!jeff
|> |> From: jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
|> |> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
|> |> Subject: Re: Lasker-Pelikan
|> |> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:53:48 GMT+5:00
|> |> Organization: Econometrics Laboratory, U. C. Berkeley
|> |> Lines: 30
|> |> Sender: jeff@econ (Jeffrey C. Ely)
|> |> Distribution: world
|> |> Message-ID: <1b4rgsINN4l3@agate.berkeley.edu>
|> |> References: <1992Oct9.194243.18692@ncsu.edu>
|> |> NNTP-Posting-Host: emily4.berkeley.edu
|> |> Keywords: Sicilian
|> |> 
|> |> In article <1992Oct9.194243.18692@ncsu.edu>, jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON CHARLES BOKAR) writes:
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> Does anyone know if the Lasker-Pelikan has been refuted, and or what is the best line of play against this opening?
|> |> |> Thanks,    jcbokar@eos.ncsu.edu
|> |> 
|> |> I really like the lines following
|> |>  
|> |> 	1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.Nd5! Nxd5 7.exd5
|> |> 
|> |> Black players usually don't know this line as well as others, but they should
|> |> because IMHO it gives white an excellent positional advantage and requires
|> |> black to take risks on the K-side in order to try to counter white's
|> |> simple and risk-free plan on the Q-side.  I think black's best is:
|> |> 
|> |> 	7. ...Nb8 8.c4 Be7 9.Bd3 a6 10.Nc3 o-o 11.o-o
|> |> 
|> |> But unless they know this line, they rarely make the retreat to b8, instead
|> |> they'll play something like:
|> |> 
|> |> 	7. ...Ne7 8. c4 Nf5 9.Bd3 Be7 (...a6? 10.Qa5) 10.o-o a6 11.Nc3 o-o
|> |> 	12. f4! 
|> |> 
|> |> when white gets the kind of attack one usually must sacrifice a pawn for.
|> |> 
|> |> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|> |> Jeff Ely                         |    "He said the Sun's not yellow...  
|> |> Department of Economics          |     It's Chicken!" 
|> |> UC Berkeley        
|> |>  
|> |> 	
|> |> 
|> 
|> Isn't this opening called the Neo-Schvesnikov?  I was refering to:
|> 
|> 1. e4    c5
|> 2. Nf3   Nc6
|> 3. d4    cxd
|> 4. Nxd4  Nf6
|> 5. Nc3   e5 .....
|> 
|> But thanks for the help on this similar opening.
|> Also, note that 10.Qa5 should be 10.Qa4
|> jcb


I meant to be discussing the Pelikan.  I forgot to include the moves ...Nf6 and
Nc3.  The rest of the moves make no sense without these.  sorry for the confusion.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Ely                         |    "He said the Sun's not yellow...  
Department of Economics          |     It's Chicken!" 
UC Berkeley        
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Budapest gambit(book titles)
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:20:46

> >As Joel Benjamin notes in his Swill articles, beware any book with
> >"Winning with..." in the title!
> >
> >-mark
> 
> But who is going to by a book titled "How to draw with ..." or even "How  
to have
> slightly better chances with ..."
> 
My favorite is "How to Defeat a Superior Opponent", by Mednis I think.
I haven't read it yet, but if it really works, I won't have to study
any more!
From: shauck@adobe.com (Bill Shauck)
Subject: rec.games.chess FAQ: Table of Contents
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: chess FAQ semimonthly table-of-contents
Supersedes: <chess-faq-toc_717930903@adobe.com>
Reply-To: shauck@adobe.com
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:18:12 GMT
Expires: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 09:15:06 GMT

Archive-name: chess-faq/part0

[0] Prologue
------------
[1] Last Revision
-----------------
[2] The United States Chess Federation (USCF)
---------------------------------------------
[3] Chess Federation of Canada (CFC)
------------------------------------
[4] American Chess Foundation (ACF)
-----------------------------------
[5] Federation Internationale des Echecs (FIDE)
-----------------------------------------------
[6] Ratings
-----------
[7] How Ratings are Calculated: USCF Rating, Simplified
-------------------------------------------------------
[8] Tournaments
---------------
[9] The Swiss Tournament Pairing System
---------------------------------------
[10] Recommended Books for Novices/Intermediates
------------------------------------------------
[11] I'm a Novice (or Intermediate).  How Do I Improve?
-------------------------------------------------------
[12] Recommended Openings and Opening Books for Novices and Early Intermediates
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[13] Publications
-----------------
[14] Where to Get Books and Equipment
-------------------------------------
[15] State and Local Organizations (USA)
----------------------------------------
[16] Correspondence Organizations
---------------------------------
[17] Bulletin Board Systems (BBS's)
-----------------------------------
[18] E-Mail Games, ICS, Mailing Lists, Usenet reader
----------------------------------------------------
[19] Material Available via Anonymous FTP
-----------------------------------------
[20] Chess-Playing Computers and Software
-----------------------------------------
[21] Database Software
----------------------
[22] Utility Software
---------------------
[23] Trivia
-----------
[24] Common Acronyms
--------------------
[25] Variants
-------------
[26] Disclaimer
---------------
[27] Copyright
--------------

-- 
William R. Shauck                   Internet: shauck@mv.us.adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated       uucp: ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!shauck
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: This Month In Chess History
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:22:50 GMT


           THIS MONTH IN CHESS HISTORY
                   October, 1992

100 Years Ago
October, 1892
Hermann von Gottschall wins at Halle 2-1 (+2 -1 =0) ahead of 
Lipke and Schallop. The October, 1892 issue of the "British 
Chess magazine has an interesting feature about Edgar Allan Poe 
and chess. Quoting Poe: "To calculate is not to analyse. A chess 
player for example does the one without effort at the other; it 
follows that the game of chess in its effects upon character is 
greatly misunderstood." The games section presented the games of 
the Lasker-Bird match annotated by James Mason.

75 Years Ago
October, 1917
In a "rapid transit" tournament (ten seconds per move) held at 
the Rice Progressive Chess Club in New York City, Marshall, 
Chajes and Jaffe tie for first ahead of J. Bernstein and 
Janowski. Two features capture the interest of readers in the 
October, 1917 issue of the "British Chess Magazine" - A look at 
the Knight's Tour and the occurrence of stalemate in master 
play.

50 Years Ago
October, 1942
Thirty-five players in five preliminary sections begin play in 
the First United States Amateur Championship. In London, the 
prestigious West London Club celebrates its fiftieth 
anniversary. The cover story of the October, 1942 issue of 
"Chess Review" heralds the start of the Reshevsky-Kashdan 
playoff match for the U.S. title. Yanofsky and Steiner's tie for 
first at the US Open in Dallas is featured along with Weaver 
Adams win of the NE Open title in Boston.

25 Years Ago
October, 1967
East German Grandmaster Klaus Darga and Danish Grandmaster Bent 
Larsen tie for first at Winnipeg ahead of Keres and Spassky. 
Liberzon and Uhlmann tie for first at Zinnowitz ahead of Bukic. 
Alla Kushnir wins at Subotica to earn the right to play Women's 
World Champion Nona Gaprindashvili for the women's title. The 
cover story of the October, 1967 issue of "Chess Life" is the 
attaining of the International Master's title by San Francisco 
master William Addison, who won it at the Maribor, Yugoslavia 
tournament won by Unzicker ahead of Reshevksy. Addison's chess 
light would only shine for three more years, as he would not 
play international competitive chess after the 1970 Palma 
Interzonal.

Stadler-Kushnir
Subotica, 1967
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 c5 3.c3 e6 4.e3 b6 5.Nf3 Bb7 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.Bd3 cd4 
8.ed4 O-O 9.h3 d6 10.Qe2 Nbd7 11.O-O Re8 12.Ne4 Be4 13.Be4 Ne4 
14.Qe4 Nf6 15.Qc2 Qd7 16.Rfe1 Rf8 17.Qd3 b5 18.Bg5 Rab8 19.Bf6 
Bf6 20.Nd2 a5 21.Rac1 a4 22.a3 g6 23.Re2 Rfd8 24.f4 Bg7 25.Nf3 
Qc7 26.Rce1 Bh6 27.g3 Bg7 28.Kg2 Qc4 29.Qc2 Rdc8 30.Qd1 Qd5 
31.Qd3 e5 32.fe5 de5 33.Qe4 Qe4 34.Re4 f5 35.R4e2 e4 36.Nd2 Kf7 
37.g4 Ke6 38.Rf1 Rf8 39.g5 h6 40.h4 hg5 41.hg5 Rh8 42.Ne4 fe4 
43.Re4 Kd5 44.Re7 Bf8 45.Rd7 Kc4 46.Rf6 Kb3 0-1 in 52

Copyright 1992 Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: F-S II Ratings (20)
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:11:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.173314.1653@math.utexas.edu> epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein) writes:
>I simply can't understand why Peter Marko and some others who give these
>estimates consistently give Spassky's estimated prior rating as 2600 which
>is much higher than his actual F.I.D.E rating of about  2560.

I simply can't understand why Psul Epstein and some others who complain
about clearly stated assumptions consistently fail to look up the
"correct" answer themselves instead of guessing.

It is reliably reported that Spassky's latest published rating is 2550
(not 2560).

It is reliably reported that Fischer's latest published rating is 2760.

[of course, I might be wrong.  If someone has the relevant FIDE rating
reports in hand, please confirm or contradict]

Those are the numbers that *I* started with.  
I also (after some private e-mail instigation) have been doing parallel
computations based on Spassky's 2550 and treating Fischer as UNR for the
first half of the match.

Peter Marko begain his exercise with a cogent explanation of his
assumptions.  While I don't completely agree with them, I see no harm
(and much benefit) in doing the calculations from several different
starting points so that we can evaluate the sensitivity of the final
results to our initial choices.

Similarly, Peter has been rating the entire match as one event, while I
have rated the first half as one event, and am rating the second half as
a separate event.

Anyone who has a different set of assumptions, and a hand calculator, is
welcome to join the fun.

>I get the impression that there is some vague notion that perhaps he 
>plays better in important games.
>I haven't seen any actual data to support this notion and this revision
>of the actual rating of an active professional chess player seems 
>completely absurd.

No one is changing the "actual rating of an active professional chess
player".  Only FIDE can change your FIDE rating.  Peter (and I) are
merely toying with the numbers to see if they reveal anything about the
match (or perhaps, about the mechanics of the Elo system).

In my opinion, the differences in results that we have reported (starting
from 3 different, defensible boundary conditions) have been minimal.
And, as one might expect, the longer the match goes on, the more the
final results converge - up to a small constant that cannot be removed
from our differing assumptions until and unless one or both of these
players plays subsequent matches against other players.

Bitch, bitch, bitch...


-- 
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: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:28:26 EST
Distribution: rec
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Oct14.193240.26123@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, gzogbi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi) writes:
> 
>  Ken Smith claims that Fischer made this remark when he (Smith) asked Fischer
>  why he occasionally played 1.b3 and 1.c4.  No mention is made of 1.d4.

ken smith asked bobby, "what??????"

give me details!!!!

don wedding

p.s. please forgive me if you have already posted, our news server
has a shelf life of about 10 minutes!
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Playing Black with a move in hand
Date: 7 Oct 1992 13:53:47 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: bovina.cs.utexas.edu

In article <92281.102542BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> writes:

[A proof that some games cannot be a win for second player is that
 first player can use alleged winning strategy with a move in hand.
 Proof not quite applicable to chess since first move can do harm.]

I used to open a3 on occasion.  My assumption was that I knew the
openings from both sides better than my opponent, but opponent might
have prepared something special for one of my favorite lines.  I
looked for transpositions to defenses where a3 would be useful.

After 1.a3 e5, clearly c4 is playable but I preferred e4.  Black 
can't play the White side of the Ruy and I would usually angle for 
a two knights' defense with a3 in hand.  MCO at the time gave 1.a3 e5
2. e4 d6, playing a Philidor where a3 is wasted.  There are probably
other ways to brand a3 a waste of time.

I believe the Reti is based on the same idea, and Larson used to
get positions from Alekhin's Defense a move up after 1. g3 e5
2. Bg2 d5 3. Nf3.

In general Black has ways to get relatively easy equality against
these ideas, but can get in trouble looking for an advantage.  I
am not suggesting this proves chess is not a win for Black, but it
contributes to my opinion on the subject.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: nedwall@panix.com (Ned Wall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:24:32 GMT
Organization: Panix, NYC

In <16285@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:

>[Very long preamble omitted.]

>> Do you still place Fischer in the same league as Capablanca, Alehkine,
>Karpov or Kasparov?

>Yes.
As would I. Also, Reshevsky and Stein (were they alive) would probably
be surprised to learn they wren't "elite" players.
From: wp01jst1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (John Tomas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Bobby's openings
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:31:14 GMT


May I suggest an alternate explanation for Bobby's openings?  He's
afraid of preparation.
From: wrt@acsu.buffalo.edu (William R. Tallmadge)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Kaidanov newsletter
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:31:57 GMT
Organization: UB

Grandmaster Gregory Kaidanov writes a monthly newsletter called:  
*The Kaidanov Report*  

$25.00 Subscriptions to the editor:  
Billy Woodward  
1947 Natchez Trail  
Lexington, KY 40504  

Here's an example copied without permission:  

1992 US Open - Round 7 - BI 45  
White: Basin, Leonid - 2472  
Black: Kaidanov, Gregory - 2694  

Leonid usually plays one line in the Meran that I don't like.  So I decided  
to play another opening.  I spent two days of hesitations and just ten minutes before the game made the decision:  Benko-Gambit!  
1.  d4 Nf6  
2.  c4  c5  
3.  d5  b5  
4. cb5 a6  
5.  b6  a5!  
The fate of this move is very strange.  The first time that I saw this move was when Larry Christiansen played it against me in a five minute game in Las Vegas in 1990.  I lost the game and I liked this move very much.  But surprisingly nobody played such in strong tournaments.  After the US Open, Robert Zeltser said to me that he played so against Vadim Tsemekhman and lost.  I don't know what happened in their game, but I won!  
6.   Nc3  Ba6  
7.   Qb3    d6  
8.     e4  Bf1  
9.   Kf1  Nbd7  
10.   b7  Rb8  
11. Nf3  Qc7  
12.   a4  Qb7  
13. Qb7  
Now Leonid offered a draw, but I declined.  
13....      Rb7  
14.  Nd2 Rb4  
15.    b3   g6  
16.  Ba3 Bg7!  

I didn't like Rb8 because of Rb1 and 18.Nc4.  Now if white will play Rb1 black has 18...Rd4:  after 19.Nf3 Nxe4! wins because of 20. Nxd4 Nxc3 and the Rook on b1 hangs.  If white accepts the exchange sacrifice, after 17. Bxb4 cxB 18.Nb5 Nxe4 19.Rd1 Nxd2 20.Rxd2 Nc5 black threatens to win a second pawn plus the d5 pawn is weak, too.  Maybe the best way for white in this situation is to give the exchange back and to sack a pawn: 19. Nxe4! Bxa1 20.Ke2 Be5 21.Rc1 with chances for a draw.  
17.  Ke2   Rb8  
18.  Rhc1 Bh6  
19.  Rab1 O-O 
20.  Nb5??  
Bad blunder.  But white's position is much worse anyway.  If 20.g3 Bd2-+  
20....       Bd2  
21.  Kd2  N34  
22.  Ke2  Nb6  
      0-1
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:14:49 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> 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?

Yes - and they'd be right.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gzogbi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George C Zogbi)
Subject: Re: Has Fischer ever played 1 d4?
Organization: The Ohio State University
 (Paul Epstein) writes:
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:18:19 GMT


Ken Smith claims that Fischer made this remark when he (Smith) asked Fischer
why he occasionally played 1.b3 and 1.c4.  No mention is made of 1.d4.
From: paul@panix.com (Paul Gatker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Resigning
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:15:08 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Oct13.165628.13610@pbhya.PacBell.COM> gdridle@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Guy D. Ridley) writes:


> 
>When the outcome of the game becomes certain, I lose interest entirely.
>What's left to prove?  (Of course, one player might blunder, but I hate
>winning by blunders as much as I hate losing by them.)
> 
>For those who like to play to the bitter end, think of this:  Why isn't
>the king actually captured?  Answer: because when the outcome is certain,
>the *game* (as opposed to the moving-around of pieces) is OVER.
> 
>(BTW, was there ever a time in the development of chess when the king was
>actually captured?)
> 
>Guy Ridley
>6-kyu

 Isn't the king grabbed of the board in speed chess? I've had this done to me
far too many times and I must admit I find it unpleasent. Still, I have no one
to blame but myself. :-)

-- 
*******************************************************************
paul@panix.com                                    COMPULITE GRAPHICS
Brooklyn NY usa                                Design & Consultation
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: epstein@rene.ma.utexas.edu (Paul Epstein)
Subject: F-S II game 19 opinion
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:53:24 GMT

After 35 moves, my opinion is that Fischer has a 75% chance of winning
a 25% chance of drawing and maybe a 0.00000000001 % chance of losing.

Are any stronger players willing to offer their opinions?



Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: dlcox@bilbo.encore.com (David L. Cox)
Subject: Re: Anand-Ivanchuk 3-1!
Organization: Encore Computer Corp.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:19:36 GMT

In article <92280.101623IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, <IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
|> Anand, next world champion?

Wow, I didn't know he was going to play Bobby!!

David Cox
dlcox@encore.com

ps)  :-)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 16 comments
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:21:30 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


Game 16 started out as a Benoni, but transposed into another King's
Indian.  I'm not up on the delicacies of either opening, but I guess
the absence of an eventual ...e6 is what made this game a KID.

Experts at the scene felt that Fischer's ...Nxe4 sacrifice was a TN,
but Fischer said it was "an old opening trap, 20 or 25 years or more
old."  Spassky then questioned the strength of the move, and Bobby
responded, "all I know is that I remember seeing a game or two where
black was winning or should have been winning."

David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA  02138            

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:56:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.205247.27303@ichips.intel.com>, sstrazdu@vulcan.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus) writes:
|> 
|> Oh yeah, and who is the Edward Lasker guy anyway?  Any relation to Emmanuel?

  An IM, who passed away 10 or so years ago around 90 years old. Despite many
rumors, Emmanuel nad Edward where not related. Sometimes Edward would 'claim' to
be related to the big E, but actually - the two knew of no relation at all. Of
course, if you go back far enough...

-Ron

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: Inflation in ELO's system
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:50:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.014623.22533@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>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.

Are negative ratings allowed?  If not then a steady state will be
reached at some low rating.

Ed
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Analysis of Game XVII
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:59:11 GMT

Game XVIII is already played and drawn, and I have yet to see any
analysis of 17. Where are the pundits? Is a weekend a bad time?
I am getting an anxiety attack.

							Fido
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: (book titles)
Reply-To: jhc@iris.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:24:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.182724.29982@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.082932.5046@jyu.fi> ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen) writes:

>>1.c4 c6

>The 1. ...c6 response is popular in some crowds.  A interesting
>response is 2. Qa4 which puts a crimp in Black's plan of 2. ... d5.
>What's the best response?

2...e5 seems good.  Or 2...Nf6 prepares for 3...d5.  I don't see that
White has gained anything by that early flank attack.  --Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jph@stein.u.washington.edu (Jeff Hanson)
Subject: Re: 'wusses'
Organization: Hardly any
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:41:33 GMT

In article <16881100EF.I0060301@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I0060301@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Klaus Blumberg) writes:
>can someone explain the term 'wusses' in plain english terms?
>probalbly even add where it is derived from?
>i must also have missed the explanation of 'fish'. volonteers?

	Wuss is slang for wimp or coward.  In chess, fish means a weak
player.  I have no idea where these terms come from.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess