HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bedwards@nextear4.psych.umn.edu (Brent Edwards)
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:45:07 GMT

In article <Bvx4pC.68y@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu  
(Eric Eaton) writes:
> (Chet Anderson - Emp. Services) writes:
> >I've seen much discussion here, and references to
> >many books, about the relative merits of various
> >openings.  What I don't understand is, how do you
> >know what opening you'll play?  Doesn't the response
> >of your opponent change your plan?
> >
> >The reason for my question is that the introductory
> >material I've seen says to learn one or two openings,
> >just to get started.  But it seems that you can't learn
> >just one opening--there are too many variations to
> >expect to play exactly those moves.
> >
> >Any advice would be greatly appreciated....
> >
> >Chet  
> >
> >chet.anderson@corp.sun.com
> 
> Chet,
> 
> When you go to learn an opening some good advice is to try to learn what
> the opening is trying to do rather than JUST memorizing moves.
> 
> For example, know that the idea of the Roy Lopez Exchange variation  
attempts
> to get the game into an Endgame quickly by trading all of the pieces.
> 
> Look for key moves in the openings, but if you have the general idea of  
what
> you're doing, you don't have to die the moment that your opponent  
deviates
> from your chosen opening.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> -Eric Eaton
> gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu

I'm a novice myself and have been reading a wide variety of books,  
including ones on openings, and I've never seen an author plainly say what  
the strategy and objectives of various opening lines are. Are there any  
good books that discuss standard openings and don't just list hundreds of  
variations?
--Brent Edwards
bedwards@nextear.psych.emn.edu
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer's Back! (alas)
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:38:55 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <1992Oct8.093307.1@gallua.gallaudet.edu>
> Posted: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:33:07
>
> Org.  : Gallaudet University
>
> In article <1530@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM>, chuck@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM
> (Charles Rissmeyer) writes:
> > Having dropped my membership to the American Chess Federation about 6
> years ago,
> > I haven't really been following chess developments since then.  When I
> recently
> > heard that Fischer had finally surfaced and is involved in a rematch with
> > Spasky, I almost fell off my stool.  Of all the confounded things, this
> is just
> > great.  The hero of many of my age back in the early 70s, and he's back.
> > I remember Shelby talking about how so many have tried to talk to Bobby,
> but he
> > would never listen.  I gave him up as a lost cause.
> >
> > Does anyone else share my elation at having Bobby back on the scene?
> ----------------
> following Fischer these days must be the operational definition of mixed
> emotions. I was a big Fan of his back in the old days... I ignored his
> boorish behavior, his rudeness, his antics and apparent greed.  This was
> the time of Ali when it was all part of the game, the contest of wills and
> the use of distraction.  The difference was that you could see the twinkle
> in Ali's eyes that told you it was all a sham. He let you in on the joke.
> With Fischer, it's no joke.
>
> So when he finally goads Kasparov into a match (can there be any doubt that
> Kasparov will have to come to play him?)  I'll be watching not with the
> enthusiasm of watching Ali climb one more hill but with the morbid
> curiosity of watching an impending train wreck.
>
> skip

This does sound a bit pessimistic. If Fischer beats Spassky with a
comfortable margin, than neither Karpov, nor Kasparov could avoid
a match, provided Fischer wants to play them. I think it is still
to early to assess Fischers current strenght . Not enough games
quite yet. But I think that he will only get stronger.
Therefore I think that a match between Fischer and either K
would be one heck of a spectacle to watch. I just hope that
Fischer continues playing.
Peter
--

----------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: jph@hardy.u.washington.edu (Jeff Hanson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Novice Question-Openings/Books
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:59:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct12.165920.11422
Organization: Hardly any


	Reti's book "Masters of the Chessboard" provides a good survey of
the ideas behing the main openings.


		Jeff Hanson
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Subject: Re: Fischer - Polgar
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:03:07 GMT

In article <1849@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> mjn@ukc.ac.uk (M.J.Neish) writes:
>I read in today's Daily Telegraph that an agreement seems to have been
>made for a match between Fischer and Judit Polgar, with the first games
>to be played sometime in December. The article seemed pretty "certain",
>so I guess it could well be official.
>
>Is that so? Anyone?
>
I don't know if it's "official", but when I consider the doubts we all 
had the first time the papers mentioned Fischer-Spassky II, I'm kind of
expecting it to happen now.

John 


-- 
--JOHN A. SWARTZ---The MITRE Corporation---Bedford, Massachusetts-- 
-- "Every time I look in the mirror, all these lines on my face  --
--  getting clearer . . . The past is gone."- S. Tyler, J. Perry --
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: boris@math30.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Boris Hemkemeier)
Subject: Re: Dying during a game
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Bielefeld, Germany
	<NICKH.92Oct5165059@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Oct7.105729.25859@gdr.bath.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:20:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.105729.25859@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mapmef@gdr.bath.ac.uk (M E Fletcher) 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.

Two times I saw someone beginning to die during a chess game. That's
not funny. We called an ambulance, but it was only an matter of days.
Okay, two old men, but it was really shocking for us.

PS: They lost their last game.

Boris
--
			  "Say no to bugs!"
Boris Hemkemeier	boris@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: juffi@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
Subject: Re: Results of the First French Computer Chess Championship.
Organization: Dept.Medical Cybernetics&Artificial Intelligence,Univ.Vienna,Austria,Europe
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:01:10 GMT

>Results of the First French Computer Chess Championship.

By the way, wasn't the 7th Computer World Chess Championship supposed to take place
this year? I haven't heard a thing about it, so could somebody inform me about the
results, point me to articles or even give his $.02?

					--- Juffi

-- 
					--- Juffi

Johannes Fuernkranz                                    +43-1-5336112(Tel)
Austrian Research Inst. for Artificial Intelligence    +43-1-5320652(Fax)
From: rgp@mpd.tandem.com (Ramon Pantin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:18:19 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers, Micro-Products Division

In article <1992Oct13.031256.9496@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:
>
>And if Fischer ever allows Kasparov a match, then Fischer is being
>generous to Kasparov.  Fischer can make more money than Kasparov
>playing matches.  It would be generous, in three ways, for Fischer to
>agree to match:
>	1)  Kasparov makes a bundle.
>	2)  Kasparov gets a shot at Fischer's title.
>	3)  Kasparov gets to prove he is the best.

Not everybody in the world is as motivated by money as you think.
Kasparov already has a bundle.  I would enjoy seeing Kasparov
taking care of Fischer, it would be like a cat playing with an old
mouse.  It would certainly not have anything to do with the potential
chess player that Fischer could have been if he had not retired in 1972.

Ramon Pantin
From: Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Stockhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: When Deep Thought Beats Kasparov...
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:00:07 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Peter Marko writes:
> Msg-ID: <1992Oct8.170109.16988@bnr.ca>
> Posted: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:01:09
> Org.  : Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.
>
> I've just read the much-cited Scientific American article about chess
> computers ("A Grandmaster Chess Machine", by Feng-hsiung Hsu, Thomas
> Anantharaman, Murray Campbell and Andreas Nowatzyk, published in the
> October 1990 issue).  A very interesting reading.
>
> There are two things in the article that I wanted to reflect on.
> Firstly, regarding the timeframe when chess computers will outperform all
> humans, and secondly, regarding the prediction of the strength of the
> next-generation Deep Thought.
>
> To answer the first question, please consider the following data
> regarding the development of chess computers (derived from the article):
>
>                        Rating
>   Year   Computer      (USCF)
>
>   1966   MacHack-6      1500
>   1979   Chess 4        2000
>   1983   Belle          2200
>   1986   Hitech         2400
>   1989   Deep Thought   2600
>


There are a few problems with this article and following assumptions.

  1,  Deep Thought never achieved anything resembling a 2600 rating
performance against Grand Masters in tournament play. As a matter of fact, as
stated earlier, it played in only one (1) Grand Master Tournament in 1990 or
1991 in Hanover Germany. The score was +1 =2 -4 with a performance rating
below 2400 and missing an IM norm.

  2,  To the best of my knowledge Deep Thought has not played any other Grand
Master Tournaments since.

  3,  We should not be misled by promotional "off hand" games and the
occasional IM and GM "scalp".  Those kind of performances do not make a World
Champion.

  4,  I think we will have to wait until Deep Thought or Deep Thought II will
play a string of GM tournaments, say five or six with some sixty or seventy
games before a conclusion can be reached.

Everything else is idle speculation.

Let's watch Bobby!

Peter


--

----------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter_Stockhausen@mindlink.bc.ca         Vancouver, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: STOP BASHING ALEKINE
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:58:21 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Oct12.080034.25848@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.214138.10452@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> 
>>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.
>>
> How about Euwe?  He offered Alekhine a rematch after only a year, and then
> said he lost to a superior oppenent.  That's a chess first, especial when
> you consider how most champions act (Staunton, et al).  He may have been
> the weakest of the World Champs, but in manners, he is in a class by himself.
> 
>>
>>don wedding
>>
> -T
>

excellent point, i had forgotten about Euwe. also, another one, how about
spassky in 1972. he put up with a lot, he could have picked up and left
and declared himself champ. FIDE (soviet puppet that it was) would 
certainly have backed him up. but he stayed in iceland and played
bobby to completion even though it was a foregone conclusion that he
would lose.

i've always kinda liked borris.

and while we're at it...what about adolf anderson. in his match with
paul morphy he made no excuses about his loss...even though he had
an obvious "i haven't played in six years". instead he said morphy was
a better player and left it at that. 

don wedding.
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: IN SEARCH OF A BOOK...
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:45:22 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

i used to have a book that i LOVED, but have lost in one of
my many moves across country.

It was called

"200 modern chess traps for the fianchetto openings"

it was great!!!! does anybody have a copy???? 

here's the rub...i don't know the author or the publisher.
all i know is that it was my second favorite book of all
times next to "my 60 memorable games"

mail me directly.

thanks,

don wedding
From: fry@zariski.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: F-S II game 20 Spassky wins - moves
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:58:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct15.175832.16424
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard Math Department


   Sicilian Defense, Closed Variation
   Spassky Fischer
   (White) (Black)
   1. e4 c5
   2. Ne2 Nf6
   3. Nbc3 e6
   4. g3 Nc6
   5. Bg2 Be7
   6. 0-0 d6
   7. d3 a6
   8. a3 Qc7
   9. f4 b5
   10. Kh1 0-0
   11. Be3 Bb7
   12. Bg1 Rab8
   13. h3 Ba8
   14. g4 b4
   15. axb4 cxb4
   16. Na4 Nd7
   17. Qd2 Rfc8
   18. b3 a5
   19. g5 Bf8
   20. Ra2 Ne7
   21. Nd4 g6
   22. Nb2 Bg7
   23. Nc4 d5
   24. Nxa5 dxe4
   25. dxe4 e5
   26. Ne2 exf4
   27. Nxf4 Ne5
   28. Nd3 Rb5
   29. Nxe5 Qxe5
   30. Nc4 Qxg5
   31. Be3 Qh4
   32. Nd6 Bc3
   33. Qf2 Qxf2
   34. Rxf2 Rbb8
   35. Nxc8 Rxc8
   36. Ra7 Kf8
   37. Bh6+ Ke8
   38. Bg5 f6
   39. Bxf6 Bxf6
   40. Rxf6 Bc6
   41. Kg1 Bd7
   42. Rd6 Bc6
   43. Bf1 resigns
From: schiller@whorf (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Kasparov the dictator (was Re: who is world champion)
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:37:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct13.193737.22738
Reply-To: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct13.002645.4266@research.nj.nec.com>  
tim@research.nj.nec.com (Tim Van Der Avoird) writes:

> What do you mean by "the board"? The board of the Grand Masters
> Association??  Yes, Kasparov made some significant contributions to
> the board of the GMA by his dictatorial, selfish and childish
> behaviour. Is that what you mean by an active world champion...?
> 
> I think it is not a compliment for Kasparov that almost all players do
> like Karpov if they compare him to Kasparov. Taken into account that
> in the seventies and the beginning of the eighties some players called
> Karpov a son-of-a-bitch.

Absolute rubbish, of course. By no means do "most" players prefer Karpov,  
who never did anything to help chess, to Kasparov, who founded and  
developed the GMA, and wrested the crown from the total control of FIDE.  
The standard of pay for chessplayers has risen far more under Kasparov  
than it ever did under Karpov, or Fischer for that matter. The media  
interest has also risen greatly.

Sure, Kasparov can be stubborn, and has his own political views (which I  
find rather obnoxious). But his contributions to the game are undeniable.  
There is a clique of players aligned with Bessel Kok who take every  
opportunity to bad-mouth Kasparov, but these ravings do not represent any  
sort of consensus.

it is also clear that without Kasparov, the GMA is not effective. All of  
Kouatly's plans have vanished in the air, and only SWIFT props up the  
group from time to time. Fact is, kasparov is the only one who has  
achieved anything for the community of professional chessplayers in the  
last few years. True, his efforts benefit only the top professionals, but  
that is how it is in all sports.

--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Opinions on Fischer - ratings?
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:40:54 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Much as I hate the idea of judging people and their opinions by rating, some
of the comments about Fischer have been so silly there's some merit to this
idea.

So:

Fischer w(one of) the best player(s) in the world in 1972, and is still a
very, very strong player.

Sign me 2350.

So there.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: gdridle@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Guy D. Ridley)
Subject: Resigning
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:56:28 GMT

 
When the outcome of the game becomes certain, I lose interest entirely.
What's left to prove?  (Of course, one player might blunder, but I hate
winning by blunders as much as I hate losing by them.)
 
For those who like to play to the bitter end, think of this:  Why isn't
the king actually captured?  Answer: because when the outcome is certain,
the *game* (as opposed to the moving-around of pieces) is OVER.
 
(BTW, was there ever a time in the development of chess when the king was
actually captured?)
 
Guy Ridley
6-kyu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: English (was book titles)
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:50:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.012337.25451@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.UUCP (James H.
Coombs, 1271) writes:
>...
>
>How about: 1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5.  On 3.d3, I would consider 3...cxe4 4.dxe4,
>exchanging a flank pawn for a center pawn.  

3 ... cxe4 certainly looks like a TN to me.  In the face of such
brilliance, we must seriously consider abandoning the English.
Perhaps we should try the Caro-Kann with colors reversed, instead.

But seriously, folks...the original question was; how can Black prevent
White from establishing c4,d3, e4?  The answer is: Black should not be
particularly afraid of this.  This has been one of my favorite set-ups
with White.  It works well against 1600-2000 competition, in the sense
that White can get familiar positions, and not get blown off the board.
But that's not precisely Whit'e goal.  And, all too often Black will
simply attack either in the center or on the King side (the side to
first push the f pawn often wins).  The other problem is that the
positions are very drawish against competent play.  Lots of interesting
and educational draws, but eventually I started to feel that i was
drawing against players I ought to beat, and losing to sound middlegame
play when I felt I had even chances.

So...in my case, you prevent White from using this setup by waiiting for
him to become bored with it, and actually learn something about the
proper way to play the English...
-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Chess Solvability
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:55:43 GMT

In <1534@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM> chuck@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Charles Rissmeyer) writes:


>I haven't read the complete thread on this solvability thing, so someone
>may have already said this.  But, even if, someday, the solution to chess
>is found so that one first move will eventually lead to a win no matter
>what black may do, just make that move illegal.

I couldn't resist...  This isn't any kind of argument or prolongment of
the discussion on solvability, but I wanted to point something out about
erradicating this first move.

Why make it illegal?  Rest assured that no human player is going to be able to
play every move perfectly to force the win in all situations, so why bother?
Merely because this theoretical computer could beat you?  So what?  In the
game of Go, with a standard 5.5 komi, ONE of the two players can ALWAYS
force a win (and there aren't any infinite loops in go at ALL --- they are
illegal by the fundamental rules of the game).  So, since black can win
on his first move (in go), we should make that move illegal, but then white
can force a win, so we make that illegal, and so on...

Your statement implies that a game where one or the other player can always
force a win is not worth playing --- but it very much is.  These games are
far too complicated for a human being to 'solve' ... There are far more
legal positions in chess than the number of neurons in your brain cubed.
And even at fastest attainable speeds, it can be shown that you would be long
dead (not to mention the rest of the universe) before you finished 'playing out
the variations' in your head.  So you cannot either memorize 'all the right
moves' nor 'figure out all the right moves' without this theoretical chess
solving machine.

And if we imagine that someone COULD play 'move-perfect' chess, then
if we got rid of this 'force win' first move in chess, there would
still be no sense in playing since either side could then force a draw EVERY
game...  Pretty boring matches, wouldn't you say?

---Xeno

>Charles (Chuck) Rissmeyer    KE0VG
>(612) 638-7669  (VP 652-7669) -  charles.rissmeyer@StPaul.NCR.COM
>NCR - An AT&T Company             NCR  CCS-PM&S NPD St. Paul
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
From: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:32:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.143447.17929@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
>
>The main difference between Fischer's claim to a WC match and
>everyone else's is that Fischer won the title and never lost it.
>It was taken away from him.  This is where the controversy is
>being generated on this thread of legitimate claims to a match.
>Spassky and Botvinnik lost their titles fair and square, but
>Fischer's title was taken away over disagreements he had regarding
>the politics and rules (or lack thereof) for rematches.  Until
>Bobby loses a match with ANYONE, there will always be a fairly
>legitimate claim by some that he is the best chess player in the
>world (which is not necessarily the same thing as "World Champion",
>although the terms are sometimes used interchangably).
>
>

I'm sorry, but Fischer RESIGNED the title -- he did not have it "taken away
from him".  In a letter or telegram by Fischer, he states (don't quote me
exactly on this, I'm doing this from memory) that by not accepting all of
his match terms, FIDE has voted against him, and therefore he resigns his
title.

If Kasparov was playing the final game of a title match where he needed a 
win to keep the title (such as in '87 against Karpov), and he resigned the
last game, does anyone think that he could later claim that the championship
was still his?

Fischer resigned.  End of title.  Hey, I'm as excited as anybody about his
return to chess, but let's call a spade a spade.

Maybe we should recognize Alehkine as World Champion -- after all, he died
before anyone beat him for the title.

John

-- 
--JOHN A. SWARTZ---The MITRE Corporation---Bedford, Massachusetts-- 
-- "Every time I look in the mirror, all these lines on my face  --
--  getting clearer . . . The past is gone."- S. Tyler, J. Perry --
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess