HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: Three Games of Misha Tal
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:35:05 GMT



The three-part series will be presented approximately 4-5 weeks
apart. Only the first part has been posted here. Others have written
to inquire about these and other postings. To them, I apologize for
not replying personally, but I sometimes get overwhelmed with private
e-mail, and I cannot respond to each.

The postings which you see here are first posted on the USA Today
Sports Center, Chess Perspectives section (which I run). Each week
I post a book review and an archival historical item. Sometimes
these latter items are run in serial form. The series on New York 1924
is now in its 17th instalment, for example. After posting on the USATSC,
within 48 hours, the book reviews are posted on Internet and CompuServe.
The historical articles are rarely posted in either place.

You also see reviews of Inside Chess, New In Chess, Chess Life, British
Chess Magazine, Chess Chow (when they remember to send me a review copy!)
and Chess within 48 hours of receipt of the issue in question. 

I hope this answers most questions. Sorry for the impersonal approach.

HWR
From: tcmaint@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (-Broadband Network Maintenance)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: FS ll
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:31:00 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


Netters,

I missed the final results of the Fischer-Spassky rematch, could some kind sole
either post the results, or email them to me.

Thanks,

-Bruce
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: All DT-Bronstein ICS Games, background, general comments
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:00:04 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Could somebody possibly repost the DT I-Bronstein games in regular
algebraic notation?  I found the notation they're printed in here to be
extremely confusing for me.

Thanks for the DT II games, though!!

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have realized it would be bad vodka when all the label said
was 'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: edd@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ed.knowles)
Subject: Re: Exploding the Myth:  GM Benjamin speaks on F-S II (_Chow_ upload)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:42:37 GMT
Summary: Right on Joel!



Thanks to Mark for posting this. I can't resist saying that Grandmaster
Benjamin has said what I've been saying all along about Fischer and FS II,
but has said it much better (also, he has the knowledge and reputation to
back up what he's saying). 

As a constant Fischer-basher, it's probably no surprise to anyone that
I am very pleased with Chess Chow. However, I think there is one point
that Grandmaster Benjamin makes that I feel bears repeating: that "those
who are still loyal Fischer fans don't demand enough of their heroes...".

I for one cannot separate the man from his chess. I've also lost a little
respect for Spassky, even though his behavior is quite understandable con-
sidering the payoff. Fischer , however, could have had just as big a payoff
without being so despicable. Here is a man who blames all the world's ills
on Jews and attempts to give legitimacy to a regime that is currently
purposefully commiting genocide against Muslims. No. No. He doesn't get
my vote. 

There are many great chessplayers. There will be many more. We don't need
to admire this little Hitler.

I'm probably going to get flamed for politics in the chess forum, so be it.
I find it hard to contain my emotions on this subject. It sickens me to
hear people make excuses for Fischer and elevate him. 

                                        -Ed Knowles
                                     
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: pawn promotion
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:01:28 GMT

In <19413@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> lim@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim) writes:

>There are situations where you might want to promote to a knight.
>Are there any reasons why you'd promote to a bishop or rook?
>The obvious answer is no, but I wanted to check to make sure.

In a position where promoting to a Queen causes stalemate. I've seen one
such chess problem in an endgame book.

Paul
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fischer's Strength
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:37:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.204435.29696@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.222450.21928@midway.uchicago.edu>
>hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>
>> >  I wonder if pressure
>> >may have caused some mistakes??
>> 
>> What f* pressure? Would YOU feel pressure if you were guaranteed $1,333,333.33
>> for just playing until the end?
>
>Actually, Spassky got $1.65 million for losing, while Fischer picked up
>$3.35 million for winning.

Sorry, I suffered from acute mental retardation. Of course your figures are
right. (Or, to split hairs, it should be 1,666,666.67 and 3,333,333.33)

>  I'd feel pressure if I knew I could win 1.7
>million dollars more than I was guaranteed.

But, as Fischer plans to evade taxes, he would still win almost the same
amount as if he were honest. And he doesn't care for money, really. He just
cares for offers (if you understand the difference).

But then again, I don't know what his religious reaction to winning an
amount with two tripple sixes would be... ;-)

>  Then again, I'm nowhere
>near Fischer's strength, so I wouldn't deserve to play for that much.

"Deserve" means nothing on the market. Certainly, F and S do not "deserve"
to play the most expensive match in history. You "deserve" what you can get.

	Sven
From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Living Chess
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:22:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Nov19.032210.10309
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network


 joseph p kisenwether apmt stnt (jpk2581@hertz.njit.edu) wrote:
 : I like the dice idea, you could use say a d4 for your worst
 : fighters up to a d20 for your best. We need to find some way
 : to simulate fatigue in one fighter thats been doing all the 
 : work though. Any ideas?

Hmm...  Six pieces, six dice (d20,d12,d10,d8,d6,d4)...  Coincidence?? I think not.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: xawemmer@cs.ruu.nl (Xander Wemmers)
Subject: pawn promotion (opponent's colour)
Summary: Interesting problem
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:20:53 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science
Keywords: pawn promotion

*Of course* pawn promotion to a piece of your opponent is not allowed, but I 
once read an article in which it was possible by exception. I found the
showed examples very interesting and I wondered if anyone else had seen
of these kind of compositions. Obviously noone has ever seen such positions.

It was just an attempt to start an interesting discussion about these kind 
of problems.

By the way: when a pawn on e7 promotes to a (white) rook, and white's king
has not moved from e1 it is *NOT* allowed to castle very long by playing 
Ke1-e3/Re8-e2, although both pieces haven't moved an inch.

There are also (alternative) mate-in-3 positions where it *is* allowed to
castle with Ke1/promoted Re8.

(I know: Fide-rules say, that castling is only possible with king and rook
on the same row, so nobody has to quote these lines.)


Xander Wemmers
From: cracraft@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Stuart Cracraft)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer-Polgar NOT (yet)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 14:27:59 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu

In article <1992Nov16.182703.13886@u.washington.edu> benwood@carson.u.washington.edu (Ben Henwood) writes:
>hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>
>>Could it be that the negotiations broke down because Fischer required that
>>Judith play nude?   :-)
>
>>	Sven
>
>I find this sexist and degrading to women in general and Judit in particular.
>Putting the smiley at the end does not negate the negativism and the sexism 
>to me; I find it is merely a '90s attempt to make a sexist remark.  
>

You know, Ben, I thought Sven's comment was highly humorous. Fischer
and Polgar would have probably laughed outrageously at it.
It is easy in the age of radical feminism and unsureness of how to even
speak due to recommended pronoun usage to forget that sense of humor is
far more important than either. 

Apparently, Sven knows this, and you don't.

Chill out.

--Stuart
From: JCW10@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: ICF
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:35:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92323.173509JCW10
Organization: Penn State University

Logging onto ICS: You are asked for "Login:" and then "Password:"
What passowrd is legitimate?  Using "any old name" gets the uninformative
message "Invalid passowrd" and the caller is unceremoniously disconnected.
From: drchip@cup.portal.com (MYRON A LIEBERMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Re: pawn promotion
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 11:05:52 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Nov20.031807.12035@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
  <1992Nov20.124517.6299@cs.ruu.nl>

>By the way, there are chess problems in which white has to promote to
>a *black* piece (even to a black king) in order to win.
>
>White: Kh1 Ra1 pawn a7
>Black: Ka8 Rb8 pawn b7
>
>Mate in 1 move: 1. a7xb8(Black rook)
>
>Does anyone have more examples of this?
>
>
>                                                Xander Wemmers
Promotion to a piece of the opposing color is not an option allowed under the
rules of chess. Any problem that would use such a solution may be an 
interesting thought or logic problem but it is not a chess problem.
>
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:11:12 -0500 
From: Geoffrey Spear <gs32+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.chess: 23-Nov-92 Re: Illegal moves
during To.. "James F. Tims"@psilink. (2591)


> There is a simple solution to all of this.  The contrived idea of
> checkmate should be replaced.  Extend the game one move.  The game ends
> when the opponent is on move with no king. If you
> take the king off the board but fail stop the clock in time, you lose.
> Otherwise, you win.  This also eliminates the idiocy of stalemate.  If
> you get your opponent into such a bind that all he can do is move into
> check, you should win.  Lot of endgame positions would bite the dust,
> but so what?  I think it would make for a more consistent rule system.

> Likewise, moving into check (or through it), or even touching a pinned
> piece should lose to an opponent alert enough to take the king off the
> board on the next move.  These changes are already frequently-met rules
> in speed chess, with the exception that there is no touch/move rule.

> -- 
> jim tims 
> "And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
> to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
> with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe

Yes, this is a simple solution.  However, if you solution were
implemented, you would no longer be playing chess.  Why not just forget
about the King altogether and make the object of the game to capture all
of your opponents pieces? 
-----------------------------------
Geoff Spear
Carnegie Mellon University
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Class of '96 (I hope...)
-----------------------------------
"You're redlining my bogometer!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: psychology
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:31:20 GMT

I believe chess ability is linked to spacial perception - it is the ability
to recognize patterns, not the ability to calculate, which is important.  But
I'm sure that's just one school of thought.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: wessir@shelley.u.washington.edu (bill the cat)
Subject: BATTLECHESS
Summary: want info regarding this game
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:56:24 GMT




I want to communicate with another user of the game "battlchess"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: pawn promotion
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:09:51 EST
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <92325.115439RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
>what? you're not actually allowed to promote your pawn to a piece of
>your opponent's color, are you?

No, at least not according to present-day official rules.  However
promoting to a piece of the opposite color (but not a King...) was
allowed at certain times and places in the past, and if I remember
right was explicitly forbidden only rather recently.  Such promotions
were used occasionally in chess puzzles (and are still seen nowadays,
though only in humorous contexts), but I don't know of a single
instance of this intentionally happening in competitive play
even when and where it was legal.  At any rate Krabbe's _Chess
Curiosities_ didn't give an example of such, and if there was
an example one would expect Tim Krabbe to know and tell about it!

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: USCF Rules
Keywords: uscf rules changes updates
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:07:17 GMT
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham

In article <1992Nov21.213205.22793@panix.com> rryan@panix.com (Rob Ryan) writes:
>I recently got the USCF's "Official Rules of Chess" and it came with a list
>of changes and corrections.  The first correction says
>
>  Page 9.  In rule I.8.E omit "When determining ... until" and replace with
>  "only".
>
>Rule I.8.E is:
>
>  When determining whether the prescribed number of moves has been made in
>  the allotted time, the last move is not considered complete until after the 
>  player has punched or stopped his clock.  ...
>
>I'm confused.  If I replace the entire phrase "When determining ...
>until" with "only", I get a sentence fragment.  Does anyone know what
>this rule is supposed to be?  All the other changes were pretty clear,
>but this first one was a little confusing.  Am I missing something
>obvious?

Welcome to the club.  As far as grammar is concerned, I think the
solution is that Rule I.8 consists of several complete sentences - all
of which begin "A move is completed ...", viz.

I.8 The Completion of the Move
    A move is completed ---

    A. in the case of the trasfer of a piece...

    B. in the case of a capture, ...

    C. in tne case of castling, ...

    D. in the case of the promotion of a pawn, ...

    E. only after the player has punched or stopped his clock. ...

As for the semantics...you're on your own.  As I recently demonstrated
in this forum, I'm still confused, myself.





-- 
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: jbarth@ep.ieee.org (Jeremy Barth)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: psychology
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:01:30 GMT
Organization: IEEE, New York, NY

Following up on two previous articles:

>In article <1992Nov18.044039.9355@cs.ucla.edu>, 
>quam@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Quam) writes:
|> In article <achut.721894308@nairobi> achut@nairobi.Eng.Sun.COM (Achut Reddy) writes:
|> >
|> >The Soviets had a test they used on kindergarten-aged children to
|> >determine GM potential.  The teacher explained to the children
|> >(who presumably don't know anything about chess yet) how a knight
|> >moves.  Then they were given a chessboard with a knight on a1 and
|> >told to move it to b1 (this takes 3 moves), then c1, ..., h1, then
|> >h2, g2, f2, etc, touching all 64 squares in this sequence, using
|> >only legal knight moves.
|> >
|> >A child that could do this in under a minute was considered to be
|> >GM material.  Apparently they found this to be a strong correlator
|> >of eventual high-level chess performance!
|> >
|> >-achut
|> 
|> 
|> To cover all 64 squares would require 63*3 = 189 moves.  One
|> minute is 60 seconds.  This would be 189/60 = 3.15 (> pi!)
|> moves per second, without any mistakes, for a whole minute.
|> Any kindergarten child that can do that is an ET, not a GM.


The details are somewhat different.

First, this test was of Czech origin and was first used back 
in the 1950s.  The reason it acquired such prominence is that the 
three top scorers among schoolchildren in the early tests were
Jansa, Hort and Kavalek, three future GMs.  

Second, the test itself was set up like this:

Setup:	White Knight on a1
	Black Pawns on c3, f3, c6 and f6

Task:   Do a Knight's Tour, going along the first rank
	from a1 to h1, back along the 2nd rank from 
	h2 to a2, and so on over to a8.  The
	squares are ticked off in succession, i.e.
	occupying c1 doesn't count unless you've
	first occupied b1.	

	The Knight may not go to a square attacked
	by a Black Pawn, nor capture any of the
	Black Pawns.  Thus you can't use the b2 or
	d2 squares for maneuvering because of Black's
	c3 pawn.  Each "illegal" move is punished by
	adding 5 seconds to the total time taken.

I don't remember the exact meaning of the results, but
under two minutes your first try was probably considered
evidence of innate GM ability.  What skills the test actually
measures are not clear:  probably sight of the board, tactical
reflexes, etc.  It doesn't say much about positional ability.
Still, its success in alerting the Czech chess authorities
to the potential of three young players, and their subsequent
support and training of the identified players, suggests that
the test isn't wholly useless.  

These details are from an old Chess Life (c. 1971) and some
British Chess Magazine of more recent vintage, but I don't
remember when.

Jeremy Barth
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fischer's Strength
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:35:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.191008.19476@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.222450.21928@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.ed
>u writes:
>>
>>Mistakes happen in every WC match. But K-K '78 gave us several important TNs,
>>most notably Karpov's (actually Zaitsev's) positional piece sac in the Open
>>Ruy Lopez, and I think also some novelties in the French (I don't know how
>>important they were, I don't know much about the French). There were several
>>very interesting games and the overall quality was way above F-S II (although
>>probably somewhat below F-S I).
>>
>
>Ahem!  The main beef about F-SII was the mistakes (blunders).  If
>they "happen in every WC match", was F-SII normal in that
>respect?

No. The mistakes occured too often.

>  Incidentally, I agree that the opening play wasn't
>the best (as if I know!), but this seems to be more Spassky's
>fault than Fischer's.
>

You are right here. But it is also true that Fischer wouldn't get away
that easily with playing certain variations against better prepared
players like Kasparov or, say, Kamsky.

>>>  I wonder if pressure
>>>may have caused some mistakes??
>>
>>What f* pressure? Would YOU feel pressure if you were guaranteed $1,333,333.33
>>for just playing until the end?
>
>Yes, if winning (and it WAS reasonable that Spassky expected
>to win)

I wonder why we should believe that. 

> would give me nearly three times that amount.

Could you explain how 2/3 is "nearly three times" 1/3?

>-mark

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: hwr@intercal.com (Hanon W. Russell)
Subject: Book Review: The Games of Alekhine
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:16:34 GMT


THE GAMES OF ALEKHINE by Rogelio Caparros & Peter Lahde, 1992 Chess 
Scribe, Flexicover, English Figurine Algebraic Notation, 385pp., 
$24.95

The centenary of the birth of Alexander Alekhine seems to have 
resulted in the increase of interest in his games and career. We 
are aware of at least four projects, including this effort by 
Lahde and Caparros, focusing on the Russian genius. They include 
a work in progress by British historian and author Ken Whyld, a 
four-volume series by Czech historian and author Jan Kalendovsky 
and another instalment series by the Inside Chess Enterprises 
staff.

Caparros produced a similar volume on the games of Capablanca. 
That book was published about a year and a half ago by Caissa 
Editions, the chess publisher operated by American chess 
historian and book dealer Dale Brandreth. That book was nothing 
more than a compendium which unfortunately did not add much to 
our appreciation of the Cuban World Champion; the one area which 
could have been so helpful, the index, was shot through with 
errors. We know from our first hand discussions with Brandreth 
that he was less than pleased with the final production.

Nothing much seems to have changed with this collection of 
Alekhine games. Errors in the crosstables leave us wondering 
about their reliability, and the index, much like the one in the 
Capablanca book, is so unwieldy and disorganized as to leave its 
ultimate usefulness questionable. We are told that the games are 
presented in chronological order, but we have to take the 
authors' presentation on faith - Despite many exact dates being 
known, the games are presented only by year.

The very brief narrative introductions to each section 
(tournament, match and informal games) are sorely in need of 
editing. We therefore come across awkward phrases such as "The 
task of collecting all the games presented in this book, took 
the authors to do research in several parts of the world," or 
"Some of the games have been dormant for near a century."

We have seen the first volume of the Kalendovsky series. (It 
shall be reviewed when it becomes available to the public). 
Despite shortcomings, it is head and shoulders above this work. 
If you are looking for the definitive collection of Alekhine 
games, this work by Caparros and Lahde will only act as a 
temporary and unfulfilling stopgap.

***************************************************************
The books which are reviewed by Mr. Russell are furnished 
courtesy of the United States Chess Federation. The views 
expressed are those of Mr. Russell and do not necessarily 
reflect the views of the United States Chess Federation. You may 
order this book and/or obtain the latest catalog of chess books 
and equipment from the U.S.C.F., 186 Rt. 9W, New Windsor, NY 
12553 or call toll-free 1-800-388-5464.

Copyright 1992 Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved
***************************************************************


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess