HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Keywords: judges, personality, alienate
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:24:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando

In article <nolan.714931245@helios> nolan@helios.unl.edu writes:
>
>On a slightly less serious note, I'm searching for the 'ultimate' panel
>of judges, designed to alienate EVERYBODY.  How about Larry Parr, Don
>Schultz, Max Dlugy, and Yasser Seirawan as judges?  <grin>
>
>Mike Nolan

If you really want to alienate everybody I don't see how you can
possibly leave Rustam Kamsky out of it :^P

Joe
-- 
--->  Joe is jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas):  "Cats are snooty and wouldn't
fetch a stick on a bet.  They also scratch.  I dislike cats....  I like dogs
because they forgive easily...and will settle for thirty seconds of care and
attention if that is all you have to spare."  --Lewis Grizzard
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6482 rec.games.go:1711 rec.games.board:8240 rec.games.programmer:3644 news.groups:17163
From: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer,news.groups
Subject: rec.games.abstract (was Re: rec.games.strategic)
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:47:31 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies

In article <1992Aug25.005555.28359@sco.com> ixanian@sco.COM (Ixanian Nichols) writes:
>	I think you need to define the term 'strategic' a little better.
>You say that rec.games.board is too diluted for those of us interested
>in 'purely strategic' games, yet nowhere in your list of examples did I 
>see mention made of strategic-level wargames and economic/socio-political
>games.

The word strategic obviously meant different things to different categories
of game players, so it was dropped from the proposal.

I have posted an RFD for rec.games.abstract to news.announce.newgroups.
It should be appearing here RSN.

Further discussion directed to news.groups

-neilb
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: sneaky Nimzo-Indian?
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:39:46 GMT

In article <JJj-m1#@engin.umich.edu> takriti@engin.umich.edu (samer Takriti) writes:
>>1.d4	d5
>>2.c4	e6
>>3.Nc3	Bb4

>You can always play 3. Nf3 instead of Nc3 to avoid the Nimzo-Indian
>but this may lead to an "inferior" Queen's Gambit.

3.Nf3 is not good for the Exchange variation.  In the Exchange
variation, White prevents an early Bf5 with the threat Qf3, but Nf3
permits the development of the Bishop and thereby eliminates one of
Black's major problems.  Basically, if you play Nf3 before controlling
the diagonal, then you should not play the Exchange.

I like the Exchange variation for its flexibility.  If Black weakens
the K-side, then I castle O-O-O and storm.  The placement Bd3 and Qc2
provides strong supporting pressure.  If Black does not weaken, then I
play the Q-side Minority Attack, in which a+b pawns attack a+b+c with
the potential of creating a backward c pawn, a break through with heavy
pieces, etc.

>It would be interesting to see what will happen if white plays an
>early Qa4+ forcing 4. ...  Nc6 and taking away c5 and c6 from the
>black player.

Strategically, this looks very attractive at first.  Perhaps I should
investigate further, but I find in ECO a note: 4.Qa4+ Nc6 5.Nf3 Nf6,
transposing to D38, which offers 10 lines, most of them equalizing or
in Black's favor.  I can't name this variation, but it looks to me as
though we are still on NZI ground.

In a quick check of Fine on the NZI, I find Qb3 considered, but not
Qa4+.  Qb3 places the queen awkwardly but makes Black's d5 difficult.
In the line we are considering, Black has already played d5.

A more favorable transposition appears to be into 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3
Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4 5.cd5 ed5 6.Bg5.  Again, I have not worked through this.

To sum up on Qa4+, I am not in love with the placement of the Queen,
and I feel that I have gained little more than helping Black develop
the Q Knight, although, as you say, that Knight temporarily blocks
c7-c5.  In class C play, I doubt that I am going to accomplish much
other than forcing the exchange of the B for K.

Also, from a quick look at least, it seems that Qb3 would have the
same effect as Qa4+, with the advantage of pressuring d5.

Oh, yes, in the note, to D31/2, ECO also gives 4.a3 and 4.e3, whose
evaluation seems to me nontrivial.

So far, I prefer 4.Nf3, which is a good developing move and does not
commit me positionally.  Otherwise, I lean toward 4.Qc2, putting Q on
both the C file and the long diagonal and preparing to keep the Q-side
pawns intact by responding to Bxc3 with Qxc3 instead of bxc3.  Still, I
feel that I am playing a Nimzo-Indian.

--Jim
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Stalemate (was Re: handicap in chess)
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:13:14 GMT
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <64789@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

> Is there any good reason for the game ending on checkmate rather than the
> actual capture of the King?

Is there any good reason for playing chess rather than some other game?

Changing the rules would change the game, sometimes considerably.
For example, stalemate is an important element in analyzing many
endgames, particularly simple ones.  Why should pepople who play chess
be willing to play this different game instead?
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ()
Subject: Re: Fischer clock...
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:42:30 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <9209031729.AA02217@smithkline.com> rothaus%phvax.dnet@smithkline.com writes:

> 
> Is it possible to lose on time with the Fischer clock?  There hasn't been
> a concrete answer to this question.  If your flag falls, do you have to
> make a move immediately, and then your next move you will get the two
> minutes allotment?  Or do you lose on time?
> 
> Also, some posts seem to say that the two minutes you get for each move
> is not cumulative -- that is, you get two minutes for a move, and you don't
> get to add the remainder of the two minutes to your clock if you take
> less than two minutes.  Other posts seem to say that any extra time from
> the two minutes is added onto the "secondary" clock which kicks in after you
> have used two minutes.
> 

All I can add here is that Japanese chess has been using a system like this 
roughly forever [Fischer is simply the first to automate it--they did it by
hand :/]. There, you don't add in the time.
From: fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II, game 2 update (3:41 EDT)
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:17:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep3.171702.15342
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1992Sep3.170653.15341@husc3.harvard.edu> I write:
>This is the slight-advantage-for-Fischer-but-probably-drawn
>position mentioned in my last update.

This is just speculation, because the game is still in progress, but I
can imagine Fischer using his clock and his no-adjournment rule to
outsit players in positions like this.  Certainly he was willing to
play longer than most players 20 years ago.  I remember that Geller 
game where they played until Geller hallucinated about his rook's 
position and lost a drawn endgame.

Maybe this strategy won't work as well now that he's 49, but I'd wager
he'll try.  

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: rothaus%phvax.dnet@smithkline.com (Miker -- Four Falls, x3607)
Subject: Fischer clock...
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:29:26 GMT


Is it possible to lose on time with the Fischer clock?  There hasn't been
a concrete answer to this question.  If your flag falls, do you have to
make a move immediately, and then your next move you will get the two
minutes allotment?  Or do you lose on time?

Also, some posts seem to say that the two minutes you get for each move
is not cumulative -- that is, you get two minutes for a move, and you don't
get to add the remainder of the two minutes to your clock if you take
less than two minutes.  Other posts seem to say that any extra time from
the two minutes is added onto the "secondary" clock which kicks in after you
have used two minutes.

- mike rothaus
From: pope@walnut.kpc.com (John Pope)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Rook vs Pawns ending (Alburt-Dlugy)
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:52:28 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.

Yes, 1.Kc7 draws. There seem to be quite a few analytical errors per
month in that column...
--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
From: tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton)
Subject: Re: Strategic games, computational cost & implications (was Re: rec.games.strategic)
Keywords: checkers, shogi, othello, hex, alquerque, ashtapada, hnefatafl, etc.
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:48:53 GMT

Antti:

> 1) What is the most complex (human invented) game 'computationally'?
> Go???

A book I've read (_Board games of The World_? I think) rates only Kriegspiel
in its' "most complex" category.

Kriegspiel is "invisible chess" played on 3 parallel boards and is indeed
difficult.

In their next-most-difficult category are both Chess and Go. I believe Chess
is considered slightly more complex, no doubt because of its' significantly
more complex rules.

Of course, this is only well-accepted games. In theory, there is no upper
limit to the complexity a game can have.

Imagine something along the lines of 3000 simultaneous games of Chess on a
41267 x 37636 board (Last surviving king wins) Bishops sailing across several
hundred spaces to capture accidentally exposed queens... Discovered check
from pieces that haven't been moved for years, half a mile away...


> 2) What will happen when computers finally beat all human beings in
> Chess? Will there be less interest in Chess after that, or more?
> Or will there be a migration to Shogi or Go?

"When"?  }:)   As it stands, all the human beings unbeatable by computers
could fit into a small room. (And their names usually seem to be of the form
Ka*ov ) There are already programs that beat 99.999999% of us, and *common*
programs that beat anyone who doesn't play chess religiously.

If computers beat every human being, Chess will become a hobby -- a
difficult-to-detect change, to be sure! };)

It has already happened quite a few years ago with checkers, and there was no
perceiveable change in the game.

        Tom

-- 
Having decimated the hapless peasants, the Tom spreads its huge, scaly wings
and soars into the wild sky...      up...       up...     out of sight...
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6369 rec.games.go:1663 rec.games.board:8119 news.groups:17084
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Date: 23 Aug 92 18:56:06 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Aug21.190846.18094@ists.ists.ca>, by os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group):
> Perhaps the group is not too large if you like war games.  But for 
> those of us who have no interest in them...

No, the group is not large in absolute terms.

> You can't be so naive as to imagine that the majority of games discussed
> in rec.games.board would be at all interesting to most people who play
> games like checkers or shogi.

That's not the question, the question is whether the traffic on
rec.games.board is so large as to make it impossible for them to
discuss these games, which I do not believe.  Rather, the situation is
that traffic on these games is currently low, which speaks against a
new newsgroup.  Face it, most newsgroups cover some larger area.  I
see people here discussing railroad and family games without flames or
problems.  The fact that the majority of posts in the newsgroups I
read is of no interest of me is not surprising, this holds in comp.ai,
comp.databases.theory, rec.arts.movies, rec.arts.sf.written,
alt.folklore.computers.  But that fact does not warrant creation of
new subgroups.

> shogi,
> checkers, othello, go-moku, pente, draughts, etc., players are not
> interested in reading rec.games.board.

Exactly, because there are almost no posts on rec.games.board
concerning these games, but it's up to them to change that.

As for the name of the proposed new group (if it comes to pass), this
is NOT a minor point; a group that is supposed to separate specific
topics also needs a specific title.  A badly chosen name leads to
confusion, hurting not only the readers of the original group (who
lose postings) but also those of the new one, who again have to deal
with (to them) uninteresting topics.  Choosing a confusing name is
self-defeating.
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: reynolds@physics.ucla.edu (Reynolds)
Subject: Fishcer's last official game
Organization: UCLA Department of Physics
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:07:24 GMT

People were asking about Fischer's last official game, and
while everyone probably has access to it, I thought I'd post it
since I haven't seen anyone else post it.


Spassky - Fischer
Game 21, Match 1972

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 Nc6
 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bd3 d5! 8. exd5 exd5! 9. 0-0 Bd6 10. Nxc6 bxc6
11. Bd4 0-0 12. Qf3 Be6 13. Rfe1 c5 14. Bxf6 Qxf6 15. Qxf6 gxf6
16. Rad1 Rfd8 17. Be2 Rab8 18. b3 c4 19. Nxd5 Bxd5 20. Rxd5 Bxh2+
21. Kxh2 Rxd5 22. Bxc4 Rd2 23. Bxa6 Rxc2 24. Re2 Rxe2 25. Bxe2 Rd8
26. a4 Rd2 27. Bc4 Ra2 28. Kg3 Kf8 29. Kf3 Ke7 30. g4? f5
31. gxf5 f6 32. Bg8 h6 33. Kg3 Kd6 34. Kf3 Ra1 35. Kg2 Ke5
36. Be6 Kf4 37. Bd7 Rb1 38. Be6 Rb2 39. Bc4 Ra2 40. Be6 h5
41. Bd7? (The sealed move) Spassky resigned without further play.

Gligorich gives the following line:
41. ... Kg4 42. Bc6 h4 43. Bf3+ Kxf5 44. Bc6 Kg4 45. Bf3+ Kf5
46. Bc6 Rc2 and 47. ... Rc3 controlling the White squares.

Fischer's strength was to play the opening in a novel way that
Spassky didn't like, and to have an incredible will to win.

Anthony Reynolds
reynolds@physics.ucla.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: trix@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (t.roger.kiang)
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky news conference
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:11:06 GMT

Ron Birnbaum writes:
>I don't think you can use logic to explain Fischer. I think he's just
>mentally ill. I feel sorry for him - and I feel sorry for chess. It can't
>be good for the game to have a pathetic bigot like Fischer as the most
>recognized chess player in the United States. Anything he does gets a lot
>of publicity - but it seems that the publicity the game gets from Fischer
>is very negative. Chess is much better off without Fischer in his current
>offending state, and I'll ignore any of his matches wherever and whenever 
>they are played - and urge all other to do so as well. I'm not forcing

I think I was asking for rational vs. logical interpretation
of people's behavior.  However, if I consider everyone who
disagree with me as mentally ill or bad publicity for my group,
profession, or whatever, then there isn't whole lot of point
for the whole human race.

The main point is that Fischer was a great chess player and
I admire him for his skills as a chess player.  If anyone
wants him to be saint, they should consult the church of
their choice.

Roger Kiang
trix@garage.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: bwatkins@nyx.cs.du.edu (The God of all machines)
Subject: Re: Fisher, Kasparov, Tal
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 16:23:57 GMT


Korchnoi was the last player with a style.  Karpov, Kasparov have none,
much less Tal's!  (unless you think "dull" any "kewpie" are styles)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington)
Subject: Re: Fischer match on ICS
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 02:35:43 GMT

Luke writes: [deletia about "immorality" of watching fischer match]
---------------------------

I don't mean to be rude, but do you realize that this has
already been argued in the past month. The arguments are not 
convincing; see what I believe are the varied and sundry refutations
in previous posts by myself and others.

Certainly, I respect that others may disagree with me...
Consequently, I shall not expect anyone to force you or others
who oppose the match to watch it. Please allow those of us
who are interested in it to pursue attempts to view the
games. Furthermore, please don't be so naive or quixotic as to
believe that watching the match and condoning any of the attrocities
being perpetrated there (or anywhere else in the world) are 
synonymous. 

Thanks, Steve  .
From: lumme@sara.cc.utu.fi (Mikael Lumme)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Users vs MChess
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:36:17 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland

In the game Users vs MChess the move of the
readers of rec.games.chess is  36 Qg4+.

 Game #2 so far:       1  e4    e5     13  O-O-O Na6   25  Rxf8+  Kxf8
                       2  f4    ef     14  Nd4   Ng3   26  Qc2    Kg8
 8 - - - - - b k -     3  Nf3   d6     15  Bb5   Qe5   27  Qf5    g3
 7 - - p - r - - p     4  d4    g5     16  Rhe1  Nc5   28  Qd7    b5
 6 p - - p - - - -     5  h4    g4     17  Nb3   Nxb3  29  a3     b4
 5 - - - P - - - -     6  Ng1   f5     18  cb    a6    30  axb4   Qe7
 4 - P - - - - Q P     7  Bxf4  fe     19  Bd3   Bf5   31  Qg4    Qe3
 3 - P N - - - p -     8  Nc3   Nf6    20  Bb1   Rae8  32  Qd7    Re7
 2 - P K R - - P -     9  d5    Bg7    21  Bf4   e3    33  Qc8+   Bf8
 1 - - - - - q - -    10  Nge2  O-O    22  Bxe3  Bxb1  34  Kc2    Qf2+
   a b c d e f g h    11  Qd2   Nh5    23  Kxb1  Nf1   35  Rd2    Qf1
                      12  Bg5   Qe8    24  Rxf1  Qxe3  36  Qg4+
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: Strategic games, computational cost & implications
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: go
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:30:00 GMT

doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes...
>Note that these numbers are not the same as the mistakenly calculated 300^70
>posted earlier. That number should perhaps be 300! / 70!, something like 10^640.

300^70 is correct. I can't imagine what 300!/70! might refer to. Perhaps you
mean 300!/230! which is within the accuracy of the calculation anyway.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: benwood@milton.u.washington.edu (Ben Henwood)
Subject: Re: Fishcer's last official game
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:30:40 GMT

reynolds@physics.ucla.edu (Reynolds) writes:

>People were asking about Fischer's last official game, and
>while everyone probably has access to it, I thought I'd post it
>since I haven't seen anyone else post it.


[game deleted]

I recall reading that Fischer made an appearance at the Marshall Chess
Club on his way back from winning the title, on his way to 20-years
of oblivion, and that he played some speed games in a relaxed
atmosphere.  If so, they must have been his last public games,
although certainly not official.  If my stretched memory serves, he
also discussed how he did not intend to wait the full 3 years to
defend his title, or that at least he'd play often and also play
matches, too (I don't remember if for the title or not).  

Ben Henwood

benwood@u.washington.edu

Newsgroups: newsgroup,rec.games.chess
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: sneaky Nimzo-Indian?
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:11:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.223946.2930@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes:
>In article <JJj-m1#@engin.umich.edu> takriti@engin.umich.edu (samer Takriti) writes:

>>>1.d4	d5
>>>2.c4	e6
>>>3.Nc3 Bb4

>>It would be interesting to see what will happen if white plays an
>>early Qa4+ forcing 4. ...  Nc6 and taking away c5 and c6 from the
>>black player.

>Also, from a quick look at least, it seems that Qb3 would have the
>same effect as Qa4+, with the advantage of pressuring d5.

I worked on Qb3 for a bit.  Black faces real problems.  Zarkov playing
at about 2300, however, discovered that a5,a4 drives Qb3 back to Qc2,
costing White a tempo while Black expands Q-side.  I then discovered
that Fine raises this issue in his discussion of NZI.

Qa4 has the disadvantage of removing support from d4.  e3 would provide
the necessary support, but then one loses some of the chances to play
an early Nf3.

>Otherwise, I lean toward 4.Qc2, putting Q on both the C file and the
>long diagonal and preparing to keep the Q-side pawns intact by
>responding to Bxc3 with Qxc3 instead of bxc3.  Still, I feel that I am
>playing a Nimzo-Indian.

Well, according to Dlugy, I shouldn't feel too bad about this.  After
4.Qc2 Nf6, one is in the classical NZI with a d5.  Dlugy sums up [131]:

	The 4...d5 lines are running out of steam.  Everything is in
	White's favor!  White can toy around with the tricky 6.Nf3, can
	play for a slight but durable advantage with 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bf6,
	but most importantly there is no answer to the venomous new
	development 7.Bh4! which convincingly cans the whole
	variation.

Of course, Black can meet 4.Qc2 with Ne7 instead of Nf6, eliminating
chances for the pin (5.Bg5 f6).

Perhaps the best approach here is just to accept that Black has chosen
an inferior variation of the NZI and to take advantage of that fact.

One email respondent suggested that I attend to the fact that Black has
played d5 and not Nf6.  I don't see anything better than what Dlugy has
to offer.  As I said, Qb3 looked good until I played Zarkov at the
master level, perhaps that is why the move does not show up in ECO
(although Qc2 does not either in D31/2).

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: bwatkins@nyx.cs.du.edu (The God of all machines)
Subject: Re: Time controls
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 16:28:39 GMT


Fischer's clock is a wonderfull innovation.  Perhaps he really wants to
leave something wonderfull to the world beyond the games themselves.
He's patented an invention which gives a set time, and then more time \
for each move made.  This could eliminate TD interference and Adjournments.
Woithout adjournments, chess would not need to be a game which favored
those who can hire expensive seconds to analyse for them between
games.  The clock is a truly wonderfull think, and TPTB will eventually
adopt it.  It's just a matter of time.
From: larwick2476@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Computers vs. Humans: The struggle begins
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:05:38 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Hello chess fans,
        I thought that you should know that one of the major things that was
discussed at the meetings during the U.S. Open this year was the topic of
mandating that players play computers... I am happy to report that they are
going to revise the book so that it is mandatory.  This will provide a whole
new aspect into the great tournaments of today.  C ya at the next U.S. Open!

P.S. - I won 4 out of 6 this year!
            (Busy Person Schedule)

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess