HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jonathan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jonathan Schaeffer)
Subject: Re: checkers (was: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!)
Keywords: checkers
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:58:04 GMT

fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:

>For those who are interested, there's an article on Tinsley and the
>Tinsley-Chinook match in the Jan 4th Sports Illustrated.   To answer
>an earlier question, Chinook sees 24 moves ahead, whereas Tinsley can
>reach 30 (so says the article).  Tinsley has lost 7 games since 1948,
>including the two he lost to Chinook.

The information in the article is misleading.  Chinook averaged 20-ply
searches in the Tinsley match.  20-ply represents a minimum search depth,
since we extend interesting lines deeper.

How far can Tinsley see?  This is a hard question to answer, since it
is difficult to draw a line between search and knowledge.  We have a
middlegame position from a Tinsley game where Chinook would require a
80-ply search to see the answer.  Tinsley knew it immediately.  Did he
search 80-ply deep?  I doubt it.  A little knowledge goes a long way.
Now if only he could divulge this knowledge in machine readable form...

As an interesting historical aside...
When Tinsley graduated with his PhD, he received job offers from two
Universities.  Eventually he decided to accept the Florida offer because
he felt it would be better for his health (he had some serious health
problems in the 1950s).  Ironically, the other University he had an
offer from was the University of Alberta, where the Chinook project is
going on.  How different things might have been had he accepted that
offer.
From: 11-5054%wwiv@tweekco.uucp (John Dwyer #11 @5054)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Latvian Gambit
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 04:55:45 GMT

I know this might be considered somewhat off-topic, since I'm not flaming
anyone :-), but for those that are interested, the following game appeared
in "Correspondance Chess Yearbook no. 5":

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 H. Repp (ICCF 2360) - Paschitta, corr. Germany 1991
 Latvian Gambit         (ECO C40)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 1. e4     e5           11. Be3 (c)   Qa1          21. Qb5    cb5
 2. Nf3    f5           12. Qg5       Kc7          22. Be4    1-0
 3. Bc4    fe4          13. Nf7       Be7 (d) 
 4. Ne5    Qg5          14. Bf4 (e)   Kb6
 5. d4     Qg2          15. Na4       Ka6
 6. Qh5    g6           16. Bd3 (f)   b5
 7. Bf7    Kd8          17. Nc5       Kb6
 8. Bg6    Qh1          18. Nd6       Na6
 9. Ke2    c6   (a)     19. Nc4       bc4
10. Nc3    e3   (b)     20. Na4       Kb7


(a) ... apparently forced. If 9...Qc1 10. Nf7 +-

(b) 10...Kc7 11. Bf4 hg6 12. Qg5 Be7 13. Nc6 d6 14. Bd6 Bd6? 15. Qd8 Kc6
    16. Qc8 +-,  Downey-Jackson, corr, 1989

(c) 11.Nf7 Kc7 12. Be3 Qa1 13. Bf4? (Qg5) d6 14. Qg5 Bg4 15. Qg4 hg6
    16. Nh8 Nd7 17. Qg6 Ngf6 18. Kd2 Re8 0-1 Benner-Dreibergs, corr 1965

(d) 13...b5 14. Nb5 cb5 15. Bf4 Kb6 16. Qd8 Kb7 17. Qc7 Ka6 18. Qc8 Ka5
    19. Bc7 Ka6 20. b3 Ka3 21. Qf8 Ka2 22. Be4 Nf6 23. Qh8 Ne4 24. Bb8 Qb2
    25. Qe5 Qc2 26. Kf3 d5 27. b4 28. Kg4 Qf7 29. h4 Qg8 30. Kh3 Rb8 
    31. Qh2 Kb3 0-1, Lundis-Pupols, corr. 1966

(e) 14. d5 d6 15. Qg3 hg6 16. Bc5 Bf5 17. Nd6 Kd7 18. Qe5 Na6 19. Nce4 Bg4
    20. Kd2 Qd1 21. Ke3 Qe2 22. Kf4 Rf8 23. Kg3 Qf3 0-1, Whitemore-Dreibergs,
    Detroit 1961

(f) Apparently winning by force. Other tries: 16. Bc7? b6 17. Bd3 Kb7
    18. Qg3 Nf6 -+   16. Nc5 Bc5 17. Bd3 b5 18. Qc5 Qb2 19. Nd6 (a4!?) Nf6
    20. Bc1 (a4!?) Ne4!? 21. Be4 Qb1, analysis by Elwert, 1989

I've don't play the Latvian Gambit, and I don't have any literature about it;
but I thought the ending was very pretty! I have a few questions for those 
that might be interested:

In (a) 9...Qc1? supposedly loses to 10. Nf7 I'm assuming that the lines
are something like 10...Ke8 11. Nh8 hg6 12. Qg6 Kd8 13. Nf7 Ke7 14. Nc3 or
11...Kd8 12. Nf7 Ke8 13. Ne5 Kd8 14. Nc3 Qc2 15. Ke1 hg6 16. Nf7 Ke7 17. Qg6
Is there a forced win for White somewhere? Seems like there should be...

Can anyone find a better continuation for White in variation (d)?

Finally, is the Yearbook no. 6 out yet and available from Chess Digest?

Thanks,
John Dwyer
jtd1@esb.pge.com
From: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (Steven Rix)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: ChessBase - European supplier sought
Date: 8 Jan 93 10:49:58 GMT
Reply-To: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk
Organization: Edinburgh University Chemical Engineering Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gour.chemeng.ed.ac.uk

mwebb@maths.tcd.ie (Mark Webb) writes:

>I am looking at purchasing ChessBase / KnightStalker 
>but am unable to get any response from Chessbase USA 
>-- their fax receives, but no replies are sent or no
>correspondance.

>Is there a European distributor someone could point me towards?

To answer the question (I presume Mark's e-mail address refers to Trinity College
Dublin, Ireland), the ChessBase address is:

CB Software, 37 Marsh Lane, London, NW7 4QJ, England.

Voice-phoned: 081-959-0670 
fax:          081-906-8771. 
(To call from outside mainland Britain, replace the first zero by the dialling 
 code for mainland Britain.)

I hope this helps (address from a magazine one year old!). 

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: arimakel@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Ari Kalevi Makela)
Subject: Re: Request Book Recommendations
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:39:09 GMT

In <1993Jan10.074848.26844@klaava.Helsinki.FI> mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen) writes:


>player, who has played in competitions and wants to improve.

>First few good ones that give annotations after (almost) every move:

>	Learn from the Grandmasters, ed. by Raymond Keene

>One of my first books, this give some good analysis and thoughts, but is
>a little showy on some parts (W.Browne's part being most useless egotrip).
>Basically the idea was each GM to annotate one game that had a big
>impact to them in youth, and then give the one they thought as their
>best. Luckily most of them escaped that "best" and gave some interesting
>ones (like Tal gave his endgame (!) win over Smyslow in 1964).

One cannot but agree. A fine book. I guess it's my first chess book

A few other books:

Leonid Shamkovich: Modern Chess Sacrifice

Analyses games with true sacrifices. Classifies sacrifices. It certainly
influenced my play which became much more violent and agressive. Good
analysis.

Ludek Pachman: Complete Chess Strategy 1-3

Pachman is a very good annotator and in these three books he writes
about piece play, pawn play, central formations, play on the wings and
dynamic aspects. Some psychology too.

Aleksander Alekhine & Aleksander

Alekhine's Greatest Games

Alekhine's own annotation on 220 games and Aleksander's on 42 more.
Alekhine's annotation skill is very well known. And those games, well
they are not bad at all.

>        Chess Endings for the Practical Player, by Ludek Pachman
>
>Hands up, who has studied endings at age below 20 ? IMHO youths never
>have enough patience to study them (I didn't have!), but certain basic
>knowledge in endgame is a must for becoming a good player. This book
>gives an excellent compilation on basic endgames and practical examples
>how to handle them. Learning endgames is not easy, but this book helps a
>lot.

An endgame book I like is John Nunn's Practical Chess Endings. When will
I have the patience to study endgames :-(

>Dedicated opening books are needed only, if you are at expert level,
>when it is necessary know something to simply avoid losing straight from
>opening. But pick a book where ther are full games, as the positional
>ideas behind openings are the ones that count, not some trappy lines.

Quite right but dedicated opening books are quite usefull in postal
chess. Certainly not for tournament chess.

-- 
Ari K. M{kel{		    Department of Radiochemistry
ari.makela@helsinki.fi      University of Helsinki

"Night must fall now - darker, darker"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: regan@netcom.com (NEIL REGAN)
Subject: PC CHESS SUPPORT
Summary: Chessbase soon to be availble for MACS
Keywords: chessbase,PC
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 09:50:08 GMT

I BELIEVE IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH CHESSBASE THEY WERE WORKING ON A MAC
VERSION THAT WAS DUE TO BE COMPLETED BY ABOUT NOW,  HOWEVER THIS CONVERSATION
WITH CHESSBASE TOOK PLACE WELL OVER 10 MONTHS AGO. You know how software
development goes!
                           neil

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: Has anyone seen this line before?
Organization: Dept. Med.Cybernetics & Artif.Intelligence, Univ.Vienna, Austria, Europe
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:38:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.072110.10222@Princeton.EDU> carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo) writes:
>Has anyone seen this line of the King's Gambit Accepted:  
>1. e4 e5  2. f4 exf4  3. Nf3 d5  4. exd5 Qxd5  5. Nc3 Qf5  ?
>
[stuff deleted]
>  6. d4             ...     I think this move is strongest.  White
>                            is preparing to play Bd3.
>     ...            Nf6     A reasonable move.  6...Bd6 seems good,
>                            too.  Black will try to keep the pawn
>                            for a while.
>
>  7. Bd3            Qe6+    The queen attacks even as it retreats. 
>                            White is kept from castling, and Black
>                            does not lose any more momentum
>                            (although White has a lead in development
>                            already).
>
>  8. Qe2            ...     There are alternatives, but this is a
>                            safe line.  Neither player wishes to
>                            capture, since doing so would help the 
>                            opponent's development.

After admitting that the lines with 5. Qe6+ Be2 are advantegous for White, you
should at least discuss the line 8. Be2 which simply transposes to that line.

						Juffi

-- 
Johannes Fuernkranz                                 juffi@ai.univie.ac.at
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Schottengasse 3, A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe        +43-1-5320652(Fax) 
--------------- "Life is too short for Chess." -- Byron -----------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: pope@walnut.kpc.com (John Pope)
Subject: Re: Keep it up and I will come back!
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:20:04 GMT

(Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:
>   Somebody ought to send that article to whatever USENET authority exists.
>   It seems like pretty good evidence of what all of us have suspected all along.
>   (Uh oh... I hope DMC doesn't start disputing my understanding of the
>   theory of evidence).  I'll bet there are quite anumber of newsgroups that
>   DMC holds hostage at any one time.  Is there some way to find out?

Well, this is an unmoderated group, so he and others are allowed to
say what they wish as often as they wish. Situations like this have
come up before but I don't believe any censorship has ever actually
taken place (in this group at least).

Also, as far as I know, the entire DMC ouevre on RGC consisted of
responses to others, rather than posts out of thin air. I'll plead
guilty to responding a couple times myself, not having seen much of
his previous traffic. Newsgroups can only be held hostage if some
subgroup of their members are in some sense playing along. For the
rest of us, the kill file works just fine.

People like DMC seem to happen along every year or so (though he does
take the prize, at least for the 5 or so years I've been reading RGC).
They have their fill, and then leave. It always takes longer than one
hopes, but the only way to speed things up seems to be to ignore them.

--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mem@world.std.com (Jeff Lesser)
Subject: Re: Help! Chess game in Blade Runner
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:20:17 GMT

muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au (Murray Chapman) writes:

>Hi there

>I'm writing the FAQ file for the movie "Blade Runner".  In this movie, there
>is a chess game, which probably mirrors the actions of the characters in the
>story.

>I'm turning to this newsgroup for assistance in trying to interpret the game.

>(The plot of Blade Runner is very complex, and I won't go into it here.
>Basically, the game is played between the CEO of a future corporation (Tyrell)
>which manufactures "replicant humans", and one of his genetic designers
>(Sebastian).  Sebastian had only beaten Tyrell once.  Roy Batty (a replicant)
>saw the chess board, and helped Sebastian defeat Tyrell through an avenue
>which Sebastian thought was suicide).

>From the FAQ:

>Sebastian's chess pieces are animals (he makes animals), Tyrell's are people
>(he makes "people").

>It is possible that the chess match between Tyrell and Sebastian is similar
>to a game played in the 1800s between two masters.  One of the masters
>sacrificed virtually all his pieces to get a checkmate.  This game has been
>used in a few other literary pieces.  [Interpretation relevant to BR, anyone?]

>This theory does have one flaw, in that Sebastian would have planned this
>attack long before Batty saw the game.  How could Roy just come in at the end
>and recognize how to checkmate without Sebastian already having planned to do
>so?

>        The moves are:

>                Sebastian:      Queen to Bishop 6 check

>                Tyrell:         Knight takes Queen

>                Sebastian (with Roy's help):
>				Bishop to King 7 checkmate

>[Proper chess notation, anyone?]


>Thanks,
>Murray
>--
>~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
>  Murray Chapman                           muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au
>  University of Queensland                 How many lightbulb jokes does it
>  Brisbane, Australia                      take to change the subject?


You are correct.  This sounds like the famous game the Anderssen won over
Kieseritzky in 1851 (in London).  It has been called "The Immortal Game".

What specifically do you want to know about the game?

Roy Eassa

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Subject: Re: volga/benko gambit help
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:39:04 GMT

In <1993Jan8.4184.14723@dosgate> "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com> writes:

>mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen) writes:

>MK>Recap: An interesting attempt to blow Benko players of the board is line
>MK>1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.Nc3!? axb5 (here is one place to
>MK>look for improvements for black) 6.e4 b4 7.Nb5 d6 8.Bf4! (IMHO
>MK>definetely the best move here.)
>
>Better take a good look at 8 ....  g5. That is Benko's own idea.

Ah, naturally. But looking at recent games and articles it is not valued
so much in practical as in theory. Why? Lets look into it:

8.-g5!? 9.Bxg5 Nxe4 10.Bf4! (So black gave his g-pawn to grab whites
e-pawn. Now the position is like after 8.-Nxe4, except that white is not
pawn down and blacks K-side is weak. So if black can't use the tempo he
won, he is in for a bad time, for example: 10.-Bg7? 11.Qe2! and black is
already suffering) Ba6 (10.-Ra5 and 10.-Qa5 are other tries) 11.Bc4 Qb6
12.Qe2 Nd7 13.a4 Bxb5 14.Bxb5 Nf6 15.Bc6 O-O-O 16.a5! and I prefer
white, although BCO gives unclear after O-O-O.

Mika
-- 
Mika Kukkonen = Mika.Kukkonen@Helsinki.FI
Trying to learn to live in Helsinki University of Computer Science.
"I am studying, so I am, or am I (studying)?"
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Keep it up and I will come back!
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:12:57 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

Well, due to the fan mail I have received on checkers and my
mistake in listening to a prof here, it is apparent that you people
take great glee in finally having one area I was wrong in.

I admit that humans can still beat the chekers machine.

You experts of rehtoric now have a table scrap to feast upon.

Not that I can blame you. After so many of you tried for so long, and, I might
add, so hard, you came up empty time and again. The entire bulk of
rec.games.chess was held under by one person. 

Musta made you feel real insignificant.

And stupid.

So, let me state this with exacting clarity:

I was wrong about the checkers program.

So?

What does that have to do with anything else that has been said here?

Like so many of the mindless masses out there, it appears the bulk of you
confuse being wrong once with always being wrong. (whereas, when you apply the
rule to yourselves, being correct once means always being correct.)

I soppose since Einstein was wrong for not believing in the randomness of
nature, all of his other material is worthless.

Make no mistake, the table scrap you now feast upon is just that--an
insignificant piece of trash which mongrels believe is a greta find.

I don't even CARE who can play checkers better--man or machine. I don't care
about who is better--Fischer's Skill or Benjamin's article. I don't even really
give much respect to chess. When you play it for more than that single game,
you might as well be playing Dungeons and Dragons.

Both are a way of passing time and relaxing.

Neither are the fountain of truth.

At least, not to people with lives.

DMC

PS. More e-mail, and I'll come back yet again and rub your noses in your
lives... (You can say what you like here, because, frankly, your opinions
really don't count for much except to yourselves.)

PPS As to Harper's trying to use his acceptance of the match as a tool to
discredit me, I do look at it another way--he at least was smart enough not to
post his 'expert opinion' that I had probably declined the offer because I 
couldn't play.

I am glad I got to teach him something about the error of his ways...
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Help!  Chess game in Blade Runner
Date: 6 Jan 1993 14:30:35 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <11592@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>, muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au (Murray Chapman) writes:
|>                 Sebastian:      Queen to Bishop 6 check
|> 
|>                 Tyrell:         Knight takes Queen
|> 
|>                 Sebastian (with Roy's help):
|> 				Bishop to King 7 checkmate
|> 
|> [Proper chess notation, anyone?]
|> 
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> Murray

I thought Roy gave him the first move as well (Q-B6 check).  I do
remember that Tyrell was quite surprised by such an uncharacteristic
move by Sebastian (which would lead one to believe that Sebastian's
previous few moves were not surprising -- not very indicative of
Anderssen's previous few moves).

-- 
================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
From: wayne.mendryk@freddy.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Wayne Mendryk) 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: ChessBase - European supp
Date: 7 Jan 93 11:16:00 GMT
Reply-To: wayne.mendryk@freddy.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Wayne Mendryk) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Freddy's Place BBS - Edmonton, AB - 403-456-4241

MW>From: mwebb@maths.tcd.ie (Mark Webb)
MW>Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
MW>Subject: ChessBase - European supplier sought
MW>Message-ID: <1993Jan7.131201.14303@maths.tcd.ie>
MW>Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:12:01 GMT


MW>I am looking at purchasing ChessBase / KnightStalker
MW>but am unable to get any response from Chessbase USA
MW>-- their fax receives, but no replies are sent or no
MW>correspondance.

MW>Is there a European distributor someone could point me towards.

MW>I have the demos from the 'valkryies' archives.

MW>Many thanks.
MW>--

Mark, according to my sources (ironically "New In Chess" magazine)
Chessbase Ltd. is in fact a "European Company". Chessbase USA is a
distributor". You can contact ChessBase Ltd at the following addr
ss:
  ChessBase Ltd,
  Uberseering 25,
  2000 Hamburg 60, Germany
  Tel:(+49) 40-630 10 63
  Fax:(+49) 40-630 12 82

By the way, Chessbase USA has a toll-free order number: 1-800-524-3527
which you can probably use to order a free "demo" disk of CB4.0, or
other products they sell.

Hope this helps.

Wayne Mendryk
Edmonton,Alberta, Canada
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Chess is a beautiful Mistress-Bent Larsen
From: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (Steven Rix)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: 2267 Performance Rating for 10-year old
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:07:00 GMT
Reply-To: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk
Organization: Edinburgh University Chemical Engineering Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gour.chemeng.ed.ac.uk

Does anyone have any info on the rating progression of the latest rising star, seventeen-year-old Vladimir Kramnik? 

One year ago he was an FM rated 2580 or so; now he is a GM rated 2685! He is
the one young player that Kasparov actually seems afraid of.

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Subject: Re: Volga/Benko Gambit help
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:49:52 GMT

Recap: An interesting attempt to blow Benko players of the board is line
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.Nc3!? axb5 (here is one place to
look for improvements for black) 6.e4 b4 7.Nb5 d6 8.Bf4! (IMHO
definetely the best move here.)

Now 8.-Ba6 9.Bc4 (transposing into 8.Bc4 Ba6 9.Bf4) g6 10.e5 dxe5
11.Bxe5 Bxb5 12.Bxb5+ Nbd7 13.Bxf6 exf6 14.d6 Bh6 15.Qe2+ Kf8 16.Qc4 is
advantageous for white, and definetely not something Benko players would
like to play as black, which is the point in 5.Nc3!?.

Mika
-- 
Mika Kukkonen = Mika.Kukkonen@Helsinki.FI
Trying to learn to live in Helsinki University of Computer Science.
"I am studying, so I am, or am I (studying)?"
From: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (Steven Rix)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Scoresheets
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:23:20 GMT
Reply-To: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk
Organization: Edinburgh University Chemical Engineering Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gour.chemeng.ed.ac.uk

In article 1iq7jnINNmb1@uwm.edu, mrosen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael David Rosen) writes:
>In article <19452@mindlink.bc.ca> Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen) writes:
>>Recently I was questioned regarding the OWNERSHIP of scoresheets. I really
>>had no satisfactory answer. The subject has come up numerous times i.e.
>
>A few years ago, I wrote a column for a chess club. I asked about obtaining
>scoresheets from the director of the club.  I believe she said that technically,
>the scoresheets were the property of the chess club. This would make sense 
>since the scoresheets are used to settle disputes over positions and numbers
>of moves in a time control. BTW, the director of the club was Pearl Mann, who
>was an international arbiter and quite active in the USCF.
>
>mrosen

Correct. If my memory serves me well, the FIDE Rules of Chess say that the 
scoresheets are the property of the tournament. If anyone has access to the 
FIDE or USCF Rules, the relevant section is the one dealing with filling in 
omitted moves after a time scramble, and goes something like this:

If I have not written down five moves due to time trouble, the arbiter will ask 
me to bring my scoresheet up to date as soon as possible, in my own time if 
necessary. If I declare that I cannot do so without my opponent's scoresheet, I 
ask the arbiter and he asks my opponent; my opponent cannot refuse, because the scoresheet isn't his but the tournament's.

Of course, if I am playing in a FIDE rated tournament, I will use carbon-copy
scoresheets. At the end of the game, each player submits a signed top copy
and is allowed to keep the duplicate......

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess