HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:13:33 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec20.101509.578@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>
>
>[...] Simply stated, Fischer played well because he won.
>NOTHING else matters.

Oh, I see (?!?).

> Whther it 'looked' sloppy to someone as revered as
>Benjamin or not siply does not matter, as neither you, nor I, nor Benjamin, nor
>any of the others out there, Mr. Wedding included, can ever, ever know what
>went on inside of Fischer's mind and what his strategy was.

When chess games are analyzed, a very strong computer can point out better
moves.  We don't need a [potentially biased] human to do so.  These
corrections do not take away from the match participants, yet they do
provide instructional value.  It's funny to see the analysis reduced to
what is perceived as personal attacks.  Chess moves are just that, chess
moves.  They are not an attempt to get "inside of Fischer's mind" or know
"what his strategy was."

> Isn't ot a widely
>held belief that in the match decades ago Mr. Fischer took the initial rounds
>lightly as a way of creating a protracted environment to physically wear down
>his opponent? Isn't there a belief out there Fischer was inentionally playing
>for draws?
>

Huh??  I can only surmise DMC is not familiar with chess.  He must mean
Kasparov, playing for draws against Karpov.  Fischer never did this.
Wait, DMC somehow unqualified to spew forth?  Say it ain't so!  


>Gee, his not going for the 'well-structured-and-planned-plays' back then did
>make people claim his winning was a fluke. That he was second-rate. No, the
>press loved him as he was an American winning the crown at the time when the
>Cold War was blazing. He deified.
>

He deified??  Yeah, the Cold War was blazing and I'm sure DMC will next
tell us the USSR and the USA were pushed to the very brink of
Agammemnon.  Then, somebody put out the Cold War and Fischer came back
and how dare any GM (including Roman Dzindzihashvili in _Chess Life_)
criticize Fischer.  He won, didn't he?  Good point.  So how can the winner
make any bad moves?  The bad moves are in a greater context of
a deep winning match strategy.  Excellent point, except that it makes no
sense.

Looks like Mr. DMC is (in Mr. Wedding's words) a "worthless non-Grandmaster"
and we can safely file this stuff away.

I hear that Dennis Baker is also readying a rebuttal...and we can leave
them to it.

-mark
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: FISCHER-SPASSKY II BOOKS - "No Regrets"
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:12:00 GMT

While I can't compare it to the other books (which I haven't read), I would
recommend it highly.  While Seirawan's enthusiasm for Fischer has attracted
some legitimate criticism, I think his detailed annotations are objective and
more or less right.  There are probably some thirty or forty interviews,
which are very interesting.  These balance Yasser's view of Fischer to some
extent - if the author presents other views, I think he's entitled to his
own.

I would give it a B or a B+, and would only withhold the "A" because I think
the most interesting approach would have involved discussion of what other
commentators had to say about the games, as Timman did in "Art of Chess
Analysis".  However, bearing in mind that Timman's book was a compilation of
"New in Chess" columns which were written over years, while "No Regrets" was
put together quickly (using many of the notes published in "Inside Chess", I
can understand that there wasn't enough time to put together a definitive
treatment of the match.  Maybe Fischer will have to do that.

But, as I say, I can't say "No Regrets" is better than the other books you've
listed (although I would think it would be).
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mkukkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Kukkonen)
Subject: Re: 3... I in the King's Gambit
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:44:30 GMT

In <1992Dec14.011753.28641@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> gls@windmill.ATT.COM (not the wind, not the mill) writes:

>In <33836@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU writes:
>> 
>> 1.  e4 e5  2. f4 ef 3. Bc4.  
>> 
>> Now, I am claiming that 3...f5 is playable (the Greco counter-gambit) -
>> what do people think?  (I've found holes in published ECO analysis
>> on this line).
>
[...]
>
>I can't help seeing 5. Qe2 as premature.  Here are some other ideas:
>

I think you meant 4.Qe2, and the alternatives below are also at move 4.

>5. Qf3, with something like a Breyer Gambit.  If 5... fe, 6. Qh5+ g6;
>7. Qe5+ and White should win.
>

4.Qe2 fxe4 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qe5+ Qe7 7.Qxh8 Nf6 and now 8.b3! and 9.Ba3 gets the
queen out of corner. The trouble with 4.Qf3 is that after 4.-Qh4+ 5.g3 (The
point, right?) 5.-fxg3 6.hxg3 Qxe4+ 7.Qxe4 fxe4 8.Bxg8 Rxg8 9.Rxh7 d5 black
is a solid pawn up.

>5. d3, to maintain the center, attack the Pf4, and stop the threat of
>... Qh4+ and ... f3.  Black can still drive White's king to f1, but
>one expects that in a Bishop's Gambit.  White has Qf3 in reserve.
>

4.d3 Qh4+ 5.Kf1 (Note that one point in 4.Qe2 is to give King a place to
hide in d1.) 5.-fxe4 6.dxe4 (6.Qe2 e3) Bc5 7.Qe2 d6 8.Nf3 Qf6 looks good
for black.

>The Muzio-like 5. Nf3 fe; 6. O-O ef; 7. Q:f3 with very irritating threats
>in return for the piece.  But Black can play 6... d5 instead!  How about
>6. Ne5 with other very irritating threats?
>

4.Nf3 fxe4 5.O-O d5 is very enjoyable for black, and 5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.Kf1 Nf6
is more of the same.

Now, after that lets return to best move, namely 4.Qe2!:

4.-fxe4 has been destroyed above, and 4.-Nf6 5.e5 Ne4 6.Nf3 Be7 (Rozenthal
- From, Paris 1867) 7.d3! Bh4+ 8.Kf1 looks +=

So 4.-Qh4+ 5.Kd1 fxe4 6.Qxe4+ Be7 7.Nf3 Qh5 and instead of 8.Re1 in ECO
Glazkov and Estrin suggest 8.Bxg8! Rxg8 9.Nc3 Nc6 10.Nd5! (10.Re1 would
transpose to 8.Re1 line below) Kd8 11.Nxf4 Qf7 12.Qxh7 d5 13.d3 Bf5 
14.Qh5 g6 15.Ng5 Qf6 16.Qf3 and they claim that black has inadequate
compensation, although position is nothing but clear.

The ECO line looks a little wierd in the end position: 10.Re1 d6 11.Nd5! Bf5
12.Qc4 Bxc2+ (Keres suggests 12.-Bg4 but I don't see anything special
there.) 13.Ke2 (13.Kxc2 Qxd5) Ne5 (13.-Qg6 14.Kf2 Kd7? 15.Rxe7+! +-)
14.Qxc7 Qf7 15.Qxb7 Rd8 16.Kf1 Bd3+ 17.Kg1 Kf8 18.Nd4 and Glazkov claims 
that white has clear advantage. I myself would not like to play this on 
either color ...

So where is the beef, Mark? :)

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: ck832@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen Leary)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Fischer Boom II
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:36:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I read a quote from Danny Edelman, USCF Asst. Director, that
the FSII match was creating a surge of interest in chess, and
he was getting phone calls "around the clock." Has anyone seen
any numbers on how much USCF membership has risen?  Elliot?

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: mox@vpnet.chi.il.us (William Moxley)
Subject: Re: Fischer to play Ljubojevic
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:59:17 GMT

palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
>
>I can forsee a problem. The U.S. has no doubt revoked Fischer's U.S.
>passport and I'm assuming one cannot travel on a Serboyugo passport.
>How can he get to Madrid?

The chess underground will take of that!

		William Moxley
		mox@vpnet.chi.il.us


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Subject: Re: Womans Candidates
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:41:05 PST

Who is Xie Jun, and from what part of China is she?
My wife is Chinese, and I wonder if she is famous in China,
actually my wife is from Taiwan.  Is she more highly
rated than J. Polgar?

-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: This has gone far enough! Stop avoiding the issues!
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:26:26 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

Don writes:
>
>STOP BASHING SHORT! 
>
>YOU ROTTEN JERK!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE NO BASIS! YOU ARE EVIL!!!! 
>I HATE YOU, I HATE YOU, I HATE YOU!!!!!!   ;-)
>
>just kidding everybody....just *PRETENDING* to flame  :-)
>
>
>actually, i think Mr. Short will trounce Timman, and will go on to,
>you heard it here first.....beat gary kasparov for the FIDE championship. 
>
Uh-huh yep :-).  Then he will challenge and trounce Fischer at pawn and move
for 20 million and then take all comers at knight odds, going undefeated,
and then retire for 20 years :-).

William
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: ronnow@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Roennow)
Subject: US champ. Rd. 1 - 2 ???
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
Distribution: rec
Date: 13 Dec 92 16:35:30


I'm missing rounds 1 and 2 from the US championships 92. I'll
appreciate if someone could repost or mail them to me. Thanks!

/ronnow



From: doug@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Doug Manley)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:11:02 GMT
Subject: Who Plays Chess and Why??
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess

Mr. Luis Del/rodin, who commented on the psychological and sexual connection 
to chess, spurred some thinking on my part.  Perhaps here's 
another way of expressing an idea similar to his:

Is there any ethical or moral notion as to why people like ourselves 
should spend as much time as we do playing chess?  Or Why do we even 
do this?  What is the benefit?  Should we be doing something else?
Would you rather be doing something else?  What kind of people would
find this a good use of their time vs. other activities?  Does
anyone besides chessplayers themselves benefit from the playing of this 
game.  Certainly someone will question the importance of the question
itself.  Are the chessplayers we know and meet at clubs and tournaments
more or less deranged, mature, humane, than people we might meet
elsewhere?  Are we decent sort of folk?

Anyway you get the drift.  Who is attracted to this game and why?

Mr. Del thought sexual frustration could result in chessic behavior.  
He suffered greatly as some clearly sexually frustrated individuals
attacked him.  Insert smiley face here.  I am not, or not yet, 
questioning your sexual motivations.  

Would anyone care to comment?  Is this subject to dry?

Doug Manley


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: FISCHER-SPASSKY II BOOKS
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:12:14 GMT

In <183dwwcp511@tweekco.uucp> 824-5054%wwiv@tweekco.uucp (Jay Whitley #824 @5054) writes:

> Others?

We shouldn't forget the efforts of one of our very own posters:
Eric Schiller. I don't know the title of it (I'm not sure if it's
the one advertised on the first page of the recent Chess Life),
but his efforts were certainly appreciated during the match.

Me, I'll probably stick with the analysis I saved from here along
with the games. Given the consensus on the quality of the play
(NOT whether or not Fischer can ever be great again, that little
tune has been played out), there are other books, including his
60 memorable games which I would find more valuable.

Paul
From: lumme@sara.cc.utu.fi (Mikael Lumme)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Users vs MChess
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:43:21 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland

In the game Users vs MChess the move of the
users group is 39. Qg4+

 Game #2 so far:      1 e4   e5   13 OOO  Na6   25 Rxf8+ Kxf8  37 Qc4  Qf6
                      2 f4   ef   14 Nd4  Ng3   26 Qc2   Kg8   38 Re2  Rf7
 8 - - - - - b k -    3 Nf3  d6   15 Bb5  Qe5   27 Qf5   g3    39 Qg4+
 7 - - p - - r - p    4 d4   g5   16 Rhe1 Nc5   28 Qd7   b5
 6 p - - p - q - -    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 - - - - - - - -   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+  Rg7
From: cfc@isr.harvard.edu (Christopher F. Chabris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Interzonal
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:08:23 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

A 13-round Swiss is a pretty good format for the interzonal, I believe.
After all, you only have to be in the top 14 to make it to the candidates
matches, and there are about 64 players in the event. It is only one event,
which makes it easier to find a good site and sponsor, in theory. (The format
was strongly advocated by the USA, I believe, and among the reasons may have
been the crummy conditions at the separate round-robin interzonals in 1987.
[See Chess Chow for the story.]) I'd keep it the way it is until something
is clearly shown to be wrong with it.

-Chris
From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Tie breaks for 5 Swiss Systems
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:16:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Dec12.011642.16115
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage] writes
> Kenneth Sloan writes
> > In article <1992Dec10.152354.4516@admin1.memst.edu> gpylant@admin1.memst.edu  
> writes:
> > 
> > Some of these tie-breaks favor the low-rated player in a Swiss - see the
> > ones marked(!).  So...time to take a poll: which of these tiebreaks is
> > your favorite, and why?  Let's limit the situation to: 5 round Swiss
> > with a very wide range of pre-event ratings.  In particular - given the
> > information below, and using *any* tiebreak criteria you can think of -
> > which two out of the five players in the 3.0 score group would you
> > select to play in the championship quad?
> > 
> > ================================================================
> > 
> >                       Birmingham City Championship
> >                               29 June 1992
> >                                Qualifier
> >         Name         Score   Hark  Solk   Cum  Skof  Aver  OPer   OCum  Son-B
> >            Jack Gwin   4.0    5.0   9.0  10.0   5.0  1586  1633   26.0   9.00
> >        Kenneth Sloan   3.0    4.0   9.5   9.0   4.0  1533  1711   26.0   5.00
> >          R. W. Ellis   3.0    4.0   8.5   7.0   4.0  1610  1543   24.0   5.00
> >        Keyvan Amouie   3.0    4.0   7.5   8.0   4.0  1595  1548   17.0   5.00
> >     Walter Schaetzle   3.0    4.0   7.5   6.0   4.0  1534  1622   21.0   6.00
> >    Michael J. DeVivo   3.0    4.0   6.5   7.0   4.0  1382  1476   20.0   5.00
> [Other data deleted]
> 
> I prefer the Opponents' cumulative and Cumulative tie-break systems.  The OCum is  
> easy to calculate, and it picks those players who had the most difficult  
> opposition, a bit more accurately than the Harkness or Solkoff methods would.   
But  
> remember, for a bye the point or half point doesn't count until the following  
> round.  
> 
> I would actually prefer to combine the Cumulative and OCum methods by multiplying  
> the Cumulative by the number of rounds and adding the OCum, so the ordering by
> this system would be Sloan(62)-Ellis(52)-Amouie(49)-Devivo(48)-Schaetzle(45).
Actually, I have found that it is better to multiply Cum by (Rounds/2) before  
adding, rather than by number of Rounds.  So the ordering would be  
Sloan(44)-Ellis(38)-DeVivo(34)-Amouie&Schaetzle(33)....
> 
> You can't necessarily conclude that these tiebreaks favor the lower-rated player.   
> In reality, the lower-rated player did have to play better, because he is paired  
> up more often.  And this one case may even be a quirk.
> 
> The most accurate way, in my mind, but more difficult, would be to calculate all  
> ratings as if everybody were unrated, except one.  Put these into a spreadsheet  
and  
> recalculate until the ratings converge to some set of ratings.
> --
> CONFIG.DAT not found.  Reboot universe?

--
CONFIG.DAT not found.  Reboot universe?
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:55:39 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1992Dec15.202841.514@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.181705.13021@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>> <sigh> I thought I had gotten out of this thread, but no, no, I guess
>> 
>> Kasparov is the World Champion.  Kasparov is not the "best chessplayer
>> in the world" because there is no best chessplayer in the world.
>
>Oh, I get it now, you are confusing the word 'best' with the word 'perfect'.
>Best implies better than every other on a scale that is used. Perfect implies
>infallible. The two are NOT the same.
>
>
>DMC

No, no, you're getting closer, but I guess I haven't quite made it
clear yet.  I would agree with your definition of "best" except
for the words "on a scale that is used" (I assume you mean the
USCF scale, which is surprising, coming from a Fischerite).
"Best" to me, means better than every other.  And, (sigh, one
more time) unless someone plays every other, they can't be
said to be better than every other.

But I think, in general, we've reached a consensus.  Can I go now?

	Jason
	Worst Chessplayer In Southern Arizona
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,news.answers
From: shauck@netcom.com (William R. Shauck)
Subject: rec.games.chess FAQ: Table of Contents
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: chess FAQ semimonthly table-of-contents
Reply-To: shauck@netcom.com
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:11:59 GMT
Expires: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:11:51 GMT

Archive-name: chess-faq/part0

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

-- 
William R. Shauck                   Internet: shauck@netcom.com
From: kap1@cse.unl.edu (dietrich kappe)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Smith Morra Gambit -- Larry Evans vs. Ken Smith, San Antonio 1972
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:26:52
Organization: Univ. of Nebraska at Lincoln, Comp. Sci & Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu
In-reply-to: 1-5054%wwiv@tweekco.uucp's message of Fri, 11 Dec 92 02:47:11 GMT

In article <180cwwcp511@tweekco.uucp> 1-5054%wwiv@tweekco.uucp (Walter Wood #1 @5054) writes:

   Does anyone out there know the
   Smith-Morra Gambit game in which Larry Evans defeated Ken Smith in San
   Antonio, 1972 ?  Have any improvements been found for white in that
   line?

I could get a hold of a game in which Ken Smith lost to an unrated
*fish* (read, beginner), in the Smith-Morra. I guess everyone has
their blunders, but that one was a biggy. :-)

--
Dietrich Kappe			|	Computer Science and Engineering
kap1@cse.unl.edu		|	University of Nebraska at Lincoln
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: pardon Fischer?
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:34:29 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <BzF1FF.4yr@wrs.com>, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
> In article 63374@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU, gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.011130.26210@penet.fi> an1595@anon.penet.fi writes:
>>>
>>>Should U.S. chessplayers
>>>lobby outgoing President Bush
>>>for an executive pardon???
>>
>>YES.  But judging by the tone of most of the postings I see on this
>>      newsgroup, I'd guess that I'm decidedly in the minority.
> 
> Add one more to that minority.

And yet another to the minority.  Just as Russian chess is getting a
breath of fresh air after so many years of being a pawn of the state
our government decides to play a similar game.  Freedom of expression
is an inalienable human right and the freedom to play chess with
whomever wherever should not be subject to government control.  I
personally hope Fischer chooses to fight it and delivers the biggest
checkmate of his career against such blind bureaucracy.  Not to say
much of anything of the hypocrisy of the matter in that sanctions were
delayed several months while Lawrence Eagleburger and others with
strong ties to Kissinger and Associates were cleaning up their business
and banking interests with the Serbs.

-Joe Gaut
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: Russell L. Bryan <rbryan@Mail.trincoll.edu>
Subject: How to make the USCF get things right.
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A75215887C0131A3@downes1-163.dynamic.trincoll.edu>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 14 Dec 92 15:42:16 GMT
Organization: Starving Writers of America (sole member)
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:38:12 GMT

Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to get the USCF to realize that 
they've got my first and last names reversed in their records?  I hadn't
noticed until I checked out the rating list in this month's issue.  My
assumption is that there is probably some heavy-duty paperwork involved
(but I make that assumption about any large organization).

Also, just because I'm on the subject, I am aware that my rating is
still provisional -- in fact, the last column had a mark which looked
like /06 or something.  Does this mean that I am six matches AWAY from
an official rating, or six matches TOWARD an official rating?  And how
many matches must I play for my rating to become official?

Thanks.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: an1595@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Pardon Fischer?
X-Anonymously-To: rec.games.chess
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:18:04 GMT

GM Fischer indicted!
Arrest warrant issued!!

Should U.S. chessplayers
lobby outgoing President Bush
for an executive pardon???

Please post responses (or flames) to this newsgroup
so that public reaction can be properly guaged.  THANX.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Please note you _don't_ have to have an anon id to receive anonymous mail!
To see how your anonymized message would appear, mail it to test@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess