HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Styles - "Masters' Forum"
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:52:36 GMT

In article <16333@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) wr
ites:
>In Chess Canada Echecs, there used to be a regular feature in which four or
>five annotators were given the score of a game, without being told the
>identity of the players.  They annotated the game and estimated the strengths
>of the players.  The results were very interesting - both the assessments of
>the positions and of the strengths of the players were all over the place.
>
>If someone wanted to try this as an experiment, post a game and give people a
>week to estimate the strengths of the players.  Then try to find a
>correlation between the estimates and the ratings of the people making the
>estimate (too bad a Fischer-Spassky game can't be used...)

Okay, here's one for you.

Wh NN
Bl NN

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.Nge2 e6 
7.0-0 Nge7 8.Be3 Nd4 9.Qd2 0-0 10.Nd1 e5 11.c3 Nxe2+
12.Qxe2 h6 13.f4 Qc7 14.f5 gf 15.ef Bxf5 16.Rxf5 Nxf5
17.Qh5 Nxe3 18.Nxe3 Qe7 19.h4 f5 20.Nxf5 Rxf5 21.Qxf5 Rf8
22.Qg4 Kh8 23.Rf1b5 24.Rxf8+ Bxf8 25.Bd5 Qg7 26.Qf3 Be7
27.Kh2 a5 28.Qh5 b4 29.cb cb 30.Kh3 Qf8 31.Qg6 Qg7 32.Qe6 Qf8
33.Kg4 Kg7 34.b3 Bf6 35.Kh5 Kh8 36.g4 Be7 37.Qxh6+ Qxh6
38.Kxh6 Bxh4 39.g5 Bf3 40.Kg6 e4 41.de Bd4 42.Kf7 Kh7 43.Be6 Bg7
44.Bf5+ Kh8 45.Ke6 Be5 46.Kd5 Bf4 47.g6 Kg7 48.Kc6 Kf6
49.Kb5 Be5 50.Kxa5 Bc3 51.Kb5 Kg7 52.Ka4 Kf6 53.a3 ba
54.Kxa3 Ke7 55.b4 Kd8 56.Kb3 Be5 57.Kc4 Kc7 58.Kd5 Kb6
59.Bd7 Bc3 60.Ke6 (1-0)

Note: This is not intended to confuse.

-Mark
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ml@world.std.com (Mark Limont)
Subject: FS-II Game 19  First Moves
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:42:11 GMT

Fischer Spassky
White   Black
1  e4   c5
2  Nc3  Nc6
3  Nge2 e5
4  Nd5  Nge7
5  Nec3 Nd5
6  Nd5  Be7
7  g3   d6
8  Bg2  h5
9  h4   Be6
10 d3   Bd5
11 ed5  Nb8

Latest rumors from Belgrade have Fischer playing Judit Polgar
-- 
Mark Limont
ml@world.std.com
From: kvcg2847@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kyle V. Camarda)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: >Budapest Gambit
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:08:05 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


           I won't repeat the previous posts, but I'll just quote
	   GM Julian Hodgson on the merits of 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5
	   3. de5 Ne4 from the book Trends in the Budapest.
	   After white plays 4. a3, Hodgson says,"Theory (i.e.
	   ECO) now gives 4...Qh4 5, g3 Qh5 6. Nd2 Nd2 7. Qd2
	   Nc6 = .  However ... White improves on theory with
	   6. Bg2 or 6. Qd5 ."  He also mentions 4...a5  as a
	   possible improvement for Black, and concludes with,
	   "White has a number of ways to get a clear edge 
	   against 3..Ne4 if (and it is a big if!) he does not
	   get carried away by the cheek of Black's opening."
	   Being a hard-core Budapest player, although I don't
	   play 3...Ne4, I have to show the one quick Black win
	   which Hodgson gives in this line.  Hodgson describes
	   this game as "a very good example of how not to play
	   against the Budapest."

	   Nikolaev, S. - Lanzani, M.
	   Budapest 1989
	   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. de5 Ne4 4. a3 a5 5. Qc2 d5 6. ed6
           Bf5 7. dc7 Qc7 8. g4 Bg6 9. f3 Qc6! 10. Qd1 Be7 11 fe4
	   Bh4 12 Kd2 Qd7 0-1

					       Kyle V. Camarda
                                             kyle@turing.scs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: K+Q vs. K+R ending (was: Re: resigning wusses)
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:38:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: craycos.1992Oct14.223855.14191
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Oct14.184005.24618@pony.Ingres.COM> jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black) writes:
>
>Does anyone have a good reference for KQ vs. KR endings?  The best I've found 
>is Keres' "Practical Chess Endings," but I'd prefer a more comprehensive 
>treatment.

Didn't Ken Thompson produce the complete tree for this ending on a CD?
You can't get much more comprehensive than that (although memorizing it
might be a bit impractical for the average human player :-).
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Tilburg news - Karpov knocked out
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:14:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.195547.16395@husc3.harvard.edu> fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
>
>Karpov was knocked out in the second round at Tilburg by 63rd out of
>64 ranked Alexander Chernin.

So it appears that Karpov is available, and qualified, for a match with
Fischer. 

Next....Fischer-Ali.

-- 
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: I0060301@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Klaus Blumberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: 'wusses'
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:16:15 GMT
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany

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?
From: mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer-Alekhin-Rubinstein
Date: 11 Oct 1992 19:34:45 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

There have been many detractors in the Grandmaster ranks when it comes to
Fischer. Almost none of the criticism of his play is valid up to this event
and much of the negative commentary concerning F-SII is also weak.

True, Fischer is playing himself into shape and his play has not reflected
the continuously high level he displayed in the past but this is surely to
be expected. The aggressive play is there and the uncanny ability to 
transform one kind of an advantage into another is also obvious. He plays
delightful chess.

Most criticism of Fischer, now and in the past, has been based on personality.
He's easy to dislike, even without his politics. Especially after he's 
crushed you at the board while complaining about noise, lights and anything
else. Some say this is psychological warfare but I disagree. Most even-handed
commentary about Fischer's demands concerning playing conditions points out
that he brought *much* better playing conditions (and prize money) to the 
game. 

Some people think Fischer's success came from his "psychology" rather than
his play. Botvinnik claimed that Fischer played like a child. I would say
that his so called simple play is what made him a chess genius. It's not
simplicity; it's clarity. 

Some have also claimed that Alekhin was "chicken" because he didn't give
Capablanca a re-match. Get your facts straight. Alekhin pursued a match
with Capablanca for years without success. Capa avoided playing Alekhin
despit (or because of) his dominance in most of his tournaments. The 
negotiations led to a deep rift in the relationship between the two. 
In the end, Alekhin demanded that Capablanca meet the same requirements
that were demanded of him (that the challenger put up some large sum of
money to play the match. Surely, it was up the Alekhin to extend the
hand of generosity for a re-match, but he was no more fearful of
Capablanca than Capa was of him. The chess world lost a great spectacle,
but don't lay it all at Alekhin's feet.

Finally, Rubinstein was mentioned as one of the dominant players of his 
time. I'm not sure you could say that he dominated the game but he sure
was a genius at the game. I don't have the game score handy, and the 
opposition wasn't great, but Rubinstein-Rotlewi (1908?) is one of the
most incredible punishments of passive play that I've ever seen. BTW,
Rubinstein apparently died of starvation during WWI.

mrosen

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: Game 16 Opening
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:02:02 GMT


Yes, I was looking at the first edition of ECO E/IV. The ECO
Opening code is E70 there. Perhaps Boris should not have
updated his books so quickly! This is not the type of
error, however, that should be made at this (purported) level.
Shame on Boris and his seconds.

HWR
From: txt15@po.CWRU.Edu (Tao Tao)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: GNUchess for mac, what's the lastest version?
Date: 7 Oct 1992 12:54:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Could any expert on the net inform me about the latest version for GNUchess
on mac?  The one I have seems to have some bugs when run on 68000 mac.

TIA for any info.  Please post to the net.

Tao
-- 
p
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: linb@ucs.orst.edu (Benjamin Lin)
Subject: Re: (book titles)
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:10:00 GMT

In article <PHR.92Oct7162046@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>> >As Joel Benjamin notes in his Swill articles, beware any book with
>> >"Winning with..." in the title!
>> >

There are so many books on the semi-open defenses, but nowadays, almost
all tournament games are closed games or semi-closed games.  It seems
that there would be a great demand for books with titles such as 
Winning with 1 c4 b5!! or something like that.  Seriously though, I am
looking for a good way to reply to 1 c4.  In a recent tournament, I 
tried both 1...g6 and 1...b6.  How is it possible to prevent White's
setup with c4,d3,e4 ?  Or how is it possible to take advantage of it?
  

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Subject: Re: Anand-Ivanchuk 3-1!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:10:53 GMT

In article <Bvrn0q.6sr@encore.com> dlcox@bilbo.encore.com (David L. Cox) writes:
>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)  :-)

He's not -- he's going to play Spassky!   :-) :-)

John


-- 
JOHN A. SWARTZ - The MITRE Corp. Bedford, MA * John_Swartz@iegate.mitre.org
"Got no manners and I'm not too clean, but I know what I like if ya know
what I mean. What'll people say?  Well, mister can't you see?  
It don't mean spit to me."           G. Simmons
From: U36846@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: USCF
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:33:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: uicvm.92290.173316U36846
 <1992Oct16.164315.16898@kpc.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

On Lee,
  USCF's number is 1-800-388-5464.
From: dsteele@almaden.ibm.com (David Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: F-S II 19 game (analysis)
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:04:15 GMT
Reply-To: dsteele@almaden.ibm.com (David Steele)
Followup-To: dsteele@almaden.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center



  Why did Spassky play 37 ... Kf8 instead of f4 right away? 

            
         Dave Steele  dsteele@almaden.ibm.com 

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: So What If It's Solvable
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:04:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.062455.2336@questrel.com> dmi@questrel.com (Dean Inada) writes:
>...
>But if the estimate of fourty is reasonable,
>and if an Alpha-Beta pruned optimal line would only need the
>square root of that, then we're down to less than Avogodro's number.
>That would be physicaly plausible to store.

There have been a lot of these estimates floating around.  Let me
suggest that some of them (but perhaps not this one...) miss a subtle
point.

The above estimate tries to provide an *upper bound* on the amount of
information necessary to encode a "solution".  That is, it is an
estimate of the amount of memory required to play perfectly, assuming
that we will play by following an explicitly stored game tree which
provides a constructive proof that the result of the game is...whatever
the result turns out to be.  When the upper bound is shown to be
"physical(l)y plausible to store", then we know something interesting.
However, if your estimate of this upper bound is too large to be
plausibly stored, it may still be possible to encode perfect play.  So,
demonstrations that the number of nodes in the constructive proof are
much too large to be plausibly stored merely argue against a particular
implementation strategy - they do not prove that a either a proof, or
perfect play, cannot be generated.

It is possible (let's not argue about whether is is likely, yet) that
perfect play can be generated by a small set of principles, perhaps
augmented by explicit storage of special cases (i.e., exceptions).
And...looking to the idea of branch and bound for inspiration...it is
not necessary to be able to generate the best move in any arbitrary
position (call this the "chess problem" task).  It is only necessary to
generate perfect moves which arise from the initial position.  As others
have noted, there may be a small (compared to Avogodro's number) number
of invariants which guarantee the best possible outcome.  This is
especially likely to be true if it turns out that the value of the chess
is 1/2.  In that case, lots of moves may be "optimal", and we need only
be able to generate the "wrong" moves (so as to avoid playing them).

This is, after all, the point of most chess study, and most computer
chess implementations.  The Holy Grail is a few simple rules which
(combined with a modest amount of on-line computation - search and
database inquiries) generate perfect play.  Nim is a good example of a
game where this is possible.





-- 
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: STOP BASHING ALEKINE
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:41:38 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

hey,

although i'm no big fan of alekine as either a chess player or
as a person, i'm sick of all these people complaining about how
he was ducking capablanca.

first off i think he was. why? because he LIKED being world ches
champion. he didn't want to risk losing it.

the thing i don't like is that capablanca was no saint when it
came to defending the crown. how many defenses did he have in
his years of holding the title???? That's one of the reasons 
that FIDE came into being...becuase capablanca he didn't like
to risk it to ANYBODY!!! at least alekine would play saps who
didn't stand a chance! that's better than nothing!

what about lasker???? again, what did he have, six defenses in 
20 years??? and he usually stacked the deck in his favor so that
he wouldn't lose.

about the only TRUE champion when it came to defenses was william
steinitz. he used to risk his title any time any place to anybody
who was a legitimate contender. he was a real sportsman.

so anyways, don't go bashing alekine unless you do so in the same
breath that you bash capablanca and lasker...and what about the
worst of them all....sir howard staunton.


don wedding
From: empcomm@empserv.Corp.Sun.COM (Chet Anderson - Emp. Services)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Novice Question--Time Rules
Date: 14 Oct 1992 17:50:22 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: empserv.corp.sun.com

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
From: macah@lut.ac.uk (C A Hoenselaers)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Dying during a game
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:58:03 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.

In article <1992Oct7.105729.25859@gdr.bath.ac.uk>, mapmef@gdr.bath.ac.uk (M
E Fletcher) wrote:
> 
> In the referenced article, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
> >"In the long run, we are all dead".
> >
> >What do the rules say about players dying in the middle of a game? Is
> >it declared a draw? :-)
> >
> >Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
> 
> I've never seen anyone die during a game but a few months ago I saw
> someone slide onto the floor having an epileptic fit during a tournament.
> The controllers were running around desperately hoping there was someone
> who had some idea what to do - fortunately there was. An ambulance was
> summoned (probably un-necessarily) and as the guy was being stretchered
> out, still having the fit, his opponent could be seen thoughtfully
> stopping the clocks and filling in his result slip as a win!
> 
> matt
> 
> [It was a quickplay tournament: 30 mins each for whole game, so there wasn't
> any chance of the victim coming back.]

Something along that vein happened to me a few years ago when playing in
the championship of our local chess club. There were two kibitzes who
evidently had no clue what was going on on the board. When they noticed the
name of my opponent from the score card they identified themselves as
plaincloth policemen and arrested him on the spot. They were not impressed
by my pointing out that interrupting a game of chess, particularly in an
unclear situation, is a sign of uncivilized behaviour. The game was
credited to me as a win.

CAH   
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ERIK000 <ERIK@UNB.CA>
Subject: RE: Capablanca vs Rubinstein
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:34:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.061624.8531@cc.umontreal.ca> abel@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Abel Yvon) writes:
>If we begin to talk about who has been the greatest chess player of all times,
>we will start a so long discussion that I fear it will never end (a little like
>the solvability of chess). The same about who has been the greatest chicken.
>But for the latter I have an idea: it was without any doubt Howard Staunton,
>who refused many times a match to Paul Morphy.
>But when we talk about the greatest of ALL TIMES, a recent and supposed very
>serious study based on life performances ranked:
>
>                 - First: Kasparov (without any doubt, is that clear?)
>                 - Second: Karpov
>                 - Third: Bobby.
>
>I remember that I was sad when I read that. But any reasonable chess player
>will have to recognize it. Gary is really strong. What can we do?
>But without any solid criteria, anybody can say anything about it. There had
>been so much talented chess player that we can cover many pages of text just
>by writing their names. Morphy? Steinitz? Lasker? Capablanca? Alekhin? Euwe?
>Botvinnik? Tal? Fischer? Deep Thought?
>
>I read in previous articles the names of Capablanca and Rubinstein. Here's
>an interesting game played between the two, in Berlin 1928 (maybe Hitler was
>there, we donno):
>
>J.R. Capablanca - A. Rubinstein
>
>1.d4,d5 2.Nf3,c5 3.dc5,e6 4.e4,Bc5 5.ed5,ed5 (Oops! An isolated pawn already!)
>6.Bb5+,Nc6 7.o-o,Nge7 8.Nbd2,o-o 9.Nb3,Bb6 10.Re1,Bg4 11.Bd3,Ng6 12.h3,Bf3
>13.Qf3,Nce5 14.Qf5 (It looks like the knight on g6 is pinned so, JRC is simply
>threatening Re5, crushing everything),Nd3 15.Qd3,d4? (What is this, ah la la)
>16.Bd2,Qf6 17.Re4,Rad8 18.Rae1,Qc6 19.g3,Rfe8 20.Ba5 (A Bobby-like move!),Re4
>21.Qe4,Nf8 (Still trying to defend that stupid pawn) 22.Qc6,bc6 23.Re7,Rd5
>24.Bb6,ab6 25.Rb7,Nd7 26.Rc7,Rd6 27.Rc8+,Nf8 28.Nd2,c5 29.Nc4,Re6 30.Rb8 (This
>game is a beauty. See how it seems to be so easy for JRC),Re1+ 31.Kg2,g5
>(Now it looks like Ruby is very angry. He does not like it ok?) 32.a4!,Ra1
>33.Nb6,Kg7 34.Rc8 (Not again please!),Ne6 35.Nd7,Ra4 36.Nc5,Rb4 37.Nd3,Rb5
>38.Kf3,h6 39.b4,h5 40.g4,hg4+ 41.hg4,f6 42.Rc4 (Ah no! Not again that stupid
>pawn!),Kf7 43.Nc5,Nd8 44.Nb3  1-0
>
>You see how it's easy? But JRC encountered a wall, and its name was ALEKHIN.
>So.
>
>P.S.: And what about Philidor?
>
>.1.capablanca  2.  fischer 3.kasparov 4. karpov eric.
>.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Teri A Meyers <tasst2+@pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Ginsburg's query on Lenigrad Dutch
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:12:21 GMT


Re: Mark Ginsburg's query, DeVault's new book on the Lenigrad Dutch does cover
the line after 7...Qe8 8.Nd5, N:d5 9.cd, Qb5 10.e4, but only to the extent of
citing your game against Bareev up till move 17, and citing the result 0-1,
35 moves.  It does mention that 9...Qb5 is not necessarily better than 9...c6
--in fact, it says it is unclear which is the better move.  After 9...c6
it gives 10.Qb3, cd (10...Kh8 is considered the main line, but 10...cd is
mentioned as getting an ! from Hjartarson) 11.Qd5+, Kh8 12.Bd2, Na6 13.Bc3
and now suggests 13...Nd8 14.Qb3, e5 15.de, de 16. e3 = according to Hjartar-
son.  What improvement do you have from your game with Bareev?  Could you
give us the whole game score?
Jerry Meyers
From: tennis@ziff.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's back! (alas)
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:30:33 EDT
Organization: Ziff-Davis, Medford MA

In article <1b7k4gINNgs2@agate.berkeley.edu>, oliveira@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Jorge-Nuno Oliveira Silva) writes:
> in Article 17867 of rec.games.chess, 
> 
>  rgp@mpd.tandem.com (Ramon Pantin) writes about Fischer:
> 
> 
>>The only chess champion that didn't even attempt to defend his title!
>>that is really his place in chess history, he won't be much more than
>>a psychological curiosity.  
> 
>>...
> 
>>There have been LOTS of chess players with more interesting
>>chess production than Fischer's, quite a few of them never became
>>world champions.
> 
>>...
> 
>>it seems as if he was "throwing" the
>>game to Fischer, am I the only one that thinks that Spaski is just
>>being paid to show up AND loose?  Their last game looked like "profesional
>>wrestling" act, [...]
> 
>>...
> 
> why are some people so hard on Bobby Fischer? 
> 
> 
> 
> jn

'cause he's a jerk.

(Pretty good chess player, still... ;)  But Kasparov would just MOP the floor
with him.  Wait 'till mid '93, though, when the rust has been knocked off...
Assuming, of course, F is still playing...)
From: paul@panix.com (Paul Gatker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Dying during a game
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:54:44 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Oct7.212037.26514@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>>
>>I've never seen anyone die during a game but a few months ago I saw
>>someone slide onto the floor having an epileptic fit during a tournament.

 I never died during a game (physically) but I almost died before a game.

Last year I was riding my bike when a part broke and I crashed, severely
bruising several ribs and my tailbone.

But that evening I still managed to drag myself to a bank league in nyc as my
presence was needed due to a lack of alternates. 

Suprisingly, the two hours the game lasted were the only two hours out of the
next 3 weeks that I wasn't in fairly substantial pain. I sort of overcompen-
sated for my predicament (and so/so chess abilities) by super-concentrating
on the game and transcending my awareness of my battered body.

Yes, of course, I won the game.

-- 
*******************************************************************
paul@panix.com                                    COMPULITE GRAPHICS
Brooklyn NY usa                                Design & Consultation
********************************************************************