ELECTRONIC T-NOTES


CHESSBASE USA'S WEEKLY ON-LINE NEWSLETTER


FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 19, 1999


OPENING LINES

by Steve Lopez

A couple of quick items to get us started this week:

1) I've received a large number of e-mail and phone requests for a series of articles on shortcuts to using Fritz6 to improve one's game. It's evident that a lot of new users are pretty overwhelmed by the large number of features in the program and are seeking some guidance. Starting in January, I'll have a series of ETN articles with some general tips on using the program (in other words, what to do once you have it installed -- we covered installation last week). Since the program is actually still on the way to some users, plus a lot of players will be receiving Fritz6 as a Christmas gift, I think it's better to wait two or three more weeks before launching the series.

2) Next week, we'll be looking at some excellent books and software that have been published this year. We did the same thing last year over the Christmas holiday. This is done for two reasons. The first is that everybody has Christmas money burning holes in their pockets and are frequently looking to buy a few chess books. The second reason is that I'm a lazy individual, I'm usually busy playing with my kids' toys over the holidays (and Santa has promised them some very cool stuff this year), and book recommendations are extremely easy to write. So I'll essentially be taking a "week off" while still providing a new issue of ETN. In fact, as I write this, next week's ETN is already nearly finished and I'll likely try to finish the January 2nd issue between now and Christmas.


QUICK FRITZ6 TIPS

by Steve Lopez

Fritz6 has been out in the US for a couple of weeks and I'm seeing some common questions pop up in my e-mail box. Let's have a look at some of these common concerns:

1) I'm frequently asked how to enter moves without Fritz6 responding. The old "Play against Fritz" toggle has been removed from the program. Instead, you hit ALT-F2 to start "Infinite analysis". Fritz will then show what it's thinking in the analysis window but will not respond to your moves as you enter them for both sides.

This brought up an interesting question from a player who wants to use the database functions as a postal recorder for his e-mail games. His concern was that he shouldn't be able to see the engine's analysis as he enters moves, since that might influence his decision in his correspondence games. There's a very easy way around this. Let's say you just sent your opponent 1.e4 and you want to set up the ongoing game in your database. Click "New game" and hit ALT-F2 to start the engine (Fritz will then begin analyzing the opening position for a game of chess). Right-click in the analysis window and select "Lock". This will lock Fritz into continuing to analyze that position regardless of what additional moves you enter. Make the move 1.e4, click "Save game", fill out the player and tournament info, then click "OK" to save the game.

When you later receive a move from your opponent, load the game from the database and go to the starting position (with no pieces or pawns having moved yet). Hit ALT-F2, lock the engine, click on your last move to jump to it (the engine won't analyze this position -- it's locked onto the starting position), enter his move (plus any annotation info, such as reflection time, etc.), and use "Replace game" to make the changes permanent in the database. Then you can hit ALT-F2 to stop the analysis. Later, once you've decided on your reply, go to the starting position, hit ALT-F2, lock the engine, click on his last move to jump right to that position, enter your move and any notes, and "Replace game". Then hit ALT-F2 to stop the engine.

2) Another common question: how do you turn off "permanent brain" in human vs. computer games so that the engine won't think on your time? The answer: you can't. It's been removed from the program. "Permanent brain" is now, indeed, permanent.

3) There have been a lot of e-mail questions regarding copying the Fritz6 opening book to the hard drive. Instructions were included in last week's ETN, in the section on CD issues, under "The Opening Book". It's actually easier to copy the opening tree to disk from within the program (rather than manually in Windows Explorer or My Computer) because you don't have to mess around with removing the "read only" attribute from the files (the process within Fritz6 does this automatically). So check out last week's article for the gory details.

4) There's a new feature in Fritz6 that allows you to copy the program's game database from your CD to the hard drive. Just open the CD's database (it's called Fritz6.cbh and is located in the \Database folder), go to the Tools menu in the Database window, and select "Install to Hard Disk". The program copies the database's files to the hard drive and removes the "read only" attribute. This is much easier than manually copying the files and removing the attribute by hand.

5) You can't change the board size by grabbing a corner of the board and dragging. You change the board size by dragging the left-hand border of the combined clock/notation/analysis windows. The chessboard will always resize to the largest size allowable by the space you provide.

You can also increase the size allotted to the board by limiting the number of buttons you have in the menu/tool bar. If you right-click the menu/tool bar, you'll see several button groupings that you can add or remove: game, levels, settings, database, replay. On a 800x600 display, you can get two or three groupings on your menu bar (depending on which ones you select). Any additional ones will appear on a second toolbar immediately below the menu bar and will consequently limit the size of your board slightly.

Another way to get a larger board is to get rid of the "Chatter" box below the board. Go to the Window menu, select "Panes", and unselect "Chatter". Fritz' pithy little comments will still appear in very small type in the bar at the bottom of the screen.

6) To get Fritz6 to play against itself, use the new Shootout feature (section 9.5 in the manual). We'll look in-depth at this feature in a future ETN.


IF THE INTERNET HAD EXISTED IN 1929...

by Steve Lopez

The more things change, the more they stay the same -- Anonymous

Don't ask me where this strange idea came from; I couldn't tell you. Usenet's chess newsgroups just keep getting weirder; I can't resist the urge to indulge in some good-natured mockery. Enjoy the parody! You'll find it all here: trolling, spelling flamewars, harassment, misinformation, spam, off-topic posting, tempers flaring...writing this piece was almost too much fun for one man to stand.


The following is a sampling of posts from the Usenet chess newsgroups posted in late October and early November 1929.

Note: sig lines and quotes from previous posts have been snipped for the sake of brevity.


From: alekfan <sponge@stlouisspirit.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: What is the proper spelling of the champion's name?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 09:10:55

I've been wondering -- what is the proper spelling of the World Champion's name? I usually see it as "Alekhine" but I sometimes see it as Alechin, Alekhin, Alejhin, etc. Can somebody clue me in on this? Thanks in advance.

Ralph


From: F.B. Cates <kickball@assocfoot.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: What is the proper spelling of the champion's name?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 11:05:12

It's impossible to come up with a definitive spelling, since Alexander Alekhine is of Russian descent. His name would be spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet and there are many characters for which there are no direct translation to the English alphabet. "Alekhine" is the generally-accepted spelling, but others aren't necessarily incorrect; they're just not used as often.

Hope this helps!

Franklin Cates


From: rudecreole <bourbon_st@pontchartraine.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: What is the proper spelling of the champion's name?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 11:12:37

The proper spelling of the champion's name is M-O-R-P-H-Y.

Morphy was never defeated by any of the top players of his day. The cowardly Staunton ducked him, Therefore, Paul Morphy was, is, and ever shall be the TRUE world champion. Anyone else is just a pretender.

Rude Creole


From: ayunda <scantus@penning.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: What is the proper spelling of the champion's name?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 11:35:22

Excuse me, but isn't Morphy deceased? How could he *possibly* be considered World Champion, except in the mind of some deranged Yankee?


From: rudecreole <bourbon_st@pontchartraine.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: What is the proper spelling of the champion's name?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 12:27:15

Respiration isn't the issue here. Succession is. There was never a direct successor to Morphy's title -- no one ever defeated him in match play. When he retired, the title went with him.

All hail the true King -- Paul Morphy!

Rude Creole


From: imatroll <imatroll@freebee.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: What is the proper spelling of the champion's name?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 12:45:59

Come on! Morphy was never the world champion to begin with! And even if he was, is he really the kind of champion we'd want? He had a thing for women's shoes!


From: The Voice of Reason <reasonable@voltaire.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: What is the proper spelling of the champion's name?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 01:02:37

Come on guys! Take it to e-mail! You're wasting bandwidth. I have a fast 75 bps modem and this ng is *still* taking forever to load!


From: kappy <Josefan@havananet.cu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 13:24:02

Is "world champion" Alechin deliberately avoiding a rematch with Capablanca? It seems that it would only be sporting for Alechin to offer him a chance to reclaim his crown.


From: Hypermodern <fianchetto@g2.int>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 13:26:30

If anyone should have a crack at Alekhine, it should be Nimzovich due to his excellent third place showing (behind Capablanca and Alekhine) at New York 1927. Capa had his chance and blew it. He should have put Alekhine away easily and kept the championship for himself.


From: Darren <webster@atoz.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 13:29:15

Shouldn't that be spelled "Nimzovitch"?

Darren


From: F.B. Cates <kickball@assocfoot.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 13:40:39

As I explained in another thread, there is no direct translation of Cyrillic characters to English. The same applies to Eastern European names. There are four or five spellings for "Nimzowitsch" -- all are considered proper.

Franklin Cates


From: ayunda <scantus@penning.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 13:47:55

As anyone with the slightest trace of education knows, the proper spellings are "Alejin" and "Nimzowitsch".

I believe this newsgroup is populated completely by idiots.


From: flea <blusmn@decrepit.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 14:15:12

And since ayunda has posted here, we must assume that he includes himself under his blanket charge of idiocy, since *all* posters here are idiots in his assessment.

-- Steve


From: Twenty-three Skiddoo <forgetit@anonymous.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 15:19:23

flea, you're the king idiot around here.

And the Turk 3.2 stinks.

23 Skiddoo


From: rudecreole <bourbon_st@pontchartraine.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 15:25:25

You can forget all about these spelling problems -- "Morphy" is easy to spell. Just recognize him as the TRUE CHAMPION and your spelling troubles are over.

Rude Creole


From: Darren <webster@atoz.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 16:32:18

Will you PLEASE SHUT UP about Morphy? Gee, this is getting old!

Darren


From: ayunda <scantus@penning.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 16:51:03

Yes, I agree. The endless babbling of Americans is becoming quite tiresome in this newsgroup.


From: alekfan <sponge@stlouisspirit.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 17:15:17

When you read something like this, you have to wonder why Lindburg was in such a big hurry to get over to that side of the pond.


From: Darren <webster@atoz.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 18:42:38

It's "Lindbergh", you moron.

Darren


From: ayunda <scantus@penning.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 19:10:31

Another fine product of the American educational system, I see. You can't even properly spell the names of your own national heroes.


From: rudecreole <bourbon_st@pontchartraine.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 19:21:42

"Morphy" is easy to spell. He's still the champion, you know.

Rude Creole


From: Darren <webster@atoz.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Is Alechin ducking Capablanca?
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 19:23:00

SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!!! Gee, what a luser!

Darren


From: The Voice of Reason <reasonable@voltaire.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Trying to get this discussion back on track...
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 19:25:08

IMHO, Alekhine isn't "avoiding" anyone. It has always been the World Champion's perogative to play anyone he chooses under any conditions he chooses at any time he chooses. Dr. Lasker chose his opponents very carefully and one could make the case that he didn't always play the strongest possible opposition. Capablanca held the title for six years and only played one title match -- the one he lost against Alekhine.

Alekhine has only held the title for two years. It's not customary to play a title match so quickly after gaining the crown. For all we know, he may *never* play another WC match; he's never been one to worry about "the court of public opinion", so I doubt this will be a factor (as it was in the 1921 Lasker-Capablanca match).

I don't think this custom will change until some sort of governing world body starts administering the title. I seriously doubt that this will *ever* happen. Chess has its own traditions and customs -- why change them, or worse yet, turn them over to bureaucrats?


From: Babehunter <pornpalace@spammingfool.net>
Newsgroups: alt.*, comp.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*
Subject: FREE PICS
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 19:28:07

FREE NUDE PICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MARY PICKFORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LILLIAN GISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MARY PHILBIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CLARA BOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MARLENE DEITRICH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE GOT 'EM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[web address snipped for the sake of propriety -- ed.]


From: flea <blusmn@decrepit.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: FREE PICS
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 20:15:30

I wonder how those ladies spell "Alekhine" and "Nimzovich"?

-- Steve


From: BHB <bhb@starworld.int>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: FREE PICS
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 20:47:38

Douglas Fairbanks oughta kick that guy's [censored -- ed.].


From: Twenty-three Skiddoo <forgetit@anonymous.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: FREE PICS
Date: Mon 21 Oct 1929 21:08:42

flea, you're still an idiot.

And the Turk 3.2 still stinks.

23 Skiddoo


From: rafael <giuoco@piano.int>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Turk 3.2
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 08:37:54

I keep reading about something called The Turk 3.2. What is it?

Rafael


From: flea <blusmn@decrepit.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 09:15:12

The Turk is a chessplaying machine. It was once a privately-owned item but we've obtained the licensing and distribution rights. We're mass-producing it and can now offer it for sale to any chessplayer.

It consists of a cabinet with a chessboard on top. Seated behind the board is a full-sized figure of a chessplayer in Turkish garb. You make your moves on the board and the Turk will respond by moving a piece. This is a revolutionary concept that allows you to play chess within the comfort of your own home.

System requirements:
Approximately 6' x 8' floor space.
A midget master-level chessplayer to fit inside the cabinet.

It's currently available in Europe and will be out in the United States in a couple of weeks.

-- Steve


From: Sokatis <player@freebie.int>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Problems with Turk 3.2
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 09:27:48

I find the instructions for Turk 3.2 woefully inadequate. The manual for version 3.1 was 150 pages long, while the new version has a tiny 65 page manual. And the shipping charge was horrendous! I'm quite dissatisfied with the product, to say the least.


From: vandervoort <chessfreak@nospam.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Problems with Turk 3.2
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 09:35:15

The reason for the shorter manual is because the last version was sold unassembled. The "missing" 85 pages were the assembly instructions. This also probably accounts for the higher freight charge -- it costs more to ship it assembled.

Hope this helps! -- vandervoort :-P


From: Sokatis <player@freebie.int>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Problems with Turk 3.2
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 09:45:27

Hmmmmph! Some "upgrade".


From: Seymour <anarkus@psmv.ny>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Turk 3.2 improvements
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 10:01:09

Does anyone know what the biggest improvement was between Turk 3.1 and 3.2? I'm trying to decide whether or not to upgrade. Any advice would be appreciated -- thanks!

Seymour


From: flea <blusmn@decrepit.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2 improvements
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 10:31:16

The biggest improvement is in the internal movement system. Some previous users found the old pulley system to be a bit cumbersome at shorter time controls. There's a new rod system that decreases response time significantly, which helps the Turk a great deal in time scrambles.

The magnetic piece system (which lets the Turk "see" your moves) has also been upgraded with stronger magnets.

Omitting the mechanical concerns, some owners of previous versions of the Turk have upgraded their machines by using a stronger midget.

-- Steve


From: Twenty-three Skiddoo <forgetit@anonymous.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2 improvements
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 10:37:29

And the Turk 3.2 still stinks, no matter what you did to it.

And you're still an idiot.

23 Skiddoo


From: Brendan <McGrath@spamfree.ir>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Turk 3.2 installation problems
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 10:48:12

I'm having a wee bit of trouble getting the Turk installed. I've obtained the requisite midget master but I can't get the cover off of the cabinet to get him inside -- my screwdriver won't fit in the slots provided. Any suggestions?

Brendan McGrath


From: flea <blusmn@decrepit.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2 installation problems
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 10:57:39

I covered this problem in this week's Mechanical T-Notes.

To summarize: it's probably due to hardware incompatibility. The screws on the cabinet are Phillips head, rather than pan head.

-- Steve


From: Brendan <McGrath@spamfree.ir>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2 installation problems
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 11:16:27

That was the problem! Thanks!

Brendan McGrath


From: Twenty-three Skiddoo <forgetit@anonymous.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2 improvements
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 11:17:52

Do you mean to tell me that they didn't provide a screwdriver with the Turk?

flea, I think you owe everyone that buys this piece of junk a $20 refund. And I think it should come out of your personal paycheck because you're a total idiot. I don't own any of your products and I would never buy one, because I think you're a jerk.

23 Skiddoo


From: flea <blusmn@decrepit.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2 installation problems
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 11:35:49

I *am* a jerk; that's pretty common knowledge.

Your latest post was as insightful and informative as always. Thank you for sharing it.

-- Steve


From: vandervoort <chessfreak@nospam.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2 installation problems
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 11:44:00

Yes, had Charles Babbage foreseen 23 skiddoo in action, he'd have smashed that difference engine of his.

-- vandervoort :-P


From: Caro <c6_player@spammenot.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2 installation problems
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 11:59:40

Did I understand someone to say that a *midget* master is required to make the Turk work properly?


From: vandervoort <chessfreak@nospam.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2 installation problems
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 12:19:35

Yes, the preferred configuration is a master-level chesplayer under 4'8" in height, according to the documentation.

Hope this helps! -- vandervoort :-P


From: Caro <c6_player@spammenot.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Turk 3.2 installation problems
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 13:47:22

No wonder I couldn't get it to work properly! I was trying to jam Davide Mariotti into the cabinet! LOL! Thanks for the help!


From: BHB <bhb@starworld.int>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Turk losing constantly to Ajeeb! Help!
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 15:47:04

I'm having a major problem with my new Turk 3.2 and I was hoping someone in this newsgroup could help me.

I'm playing a machine vs. machine match with my friend who has Ajeeb 1.2. I don't know what he's installed in the cabinet. I stuffed my four-year-old cousin into the Turk and I'm having a lot of problems with the Turk making illegal moves and losing games. My Turk is newer than his Ajeeb, so what gives?


From: flea <blusmn@decrepit.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Turk losing constantly to Ajeeb! Help!
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 16:22:32

I covered this in last week's Mechanical T-Notes. You don't have your Turk's memory properly configured. While it's possible to put a small child in the Turk's cabinet, this often leads to strange and unpredictable results such as the ones you're experiencing. For best results, use a small adult player of *master* level. This should actually be a simpler task for you to accomplish than it was for your friend, since the latest release of the Turk has a somewhat larger cabinet than Ajeeb's.

-- Steve


From: Ron <deboer@spamfree.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Turk losing constantly to Ajeeb! Help!
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 16:58:05

I can confirm what Steve said in his previous post. I had been using my six year old daughter to operate my Turk 3.2 and was getting very poor play from it. I've recently hired a British master named H.E. Atkins to signal the moves to her while she performs the actual operation of the Turk. The Turk's play has much improved -- in fact, it's currently beating Ajeeb 1.2 in a match between the two. The current score is 15.5-13.5 in the Turk's favor. You can view the games at [URL snipped -- ed.]


From: potmetal <rcj@interlink.nospam>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Mechanical cheating rampant! [Was: Re: Turk losing constantly to Ajeeb! Help!]
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 18:12:52

I am *extremely* outraged by Ron's post in which he admits to *cheating* by using a full-sized British master to aid a small child in the Turk's operation! Such cheating must be eradicated immediately!

I know for a fact that I cannot be defeated by any player under 5' tall -- I have been playing chess all of my life and I know all of the standard anti-dwarf tricks. Yet every time I play one of these mechanical monstrosities, I lose badly. This can only mean that an adult-sized master is somehow relaying moves to the smaller player inside the box.

I am working on a full series of tricks and ideas to take the Royal Game back from these mechanical rattletraps that are destroying it and return it to solely *human* hands. In the meantime, I refuse to play any game at slower than 5 minutes per player per game. This significantly reduces the time the cheater has to relay moves to the player inside the cabinet and consequently reduces his chance of "winning".

potmetal


From: rudecreole <bourbon_st@pontchartraine.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.comp
Subject: Mechanical cheating rampant! [Was: Re: Turk losing constantly to Ajeeb! Help!]
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 18:22:39

Morphy would easily hav fit inside one of those machines, but the TRUE WORLD CHAMPION would never resort to such base trickery.

Rude Creole


From: urgfdy <quick_bucks@fastbuck.us>
Newsgroups: alt.*, comp.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*
Subject: MAKE MONEY FAST!!
Date: Tue 22 Oct 1929 18:22:39

MAKE MONEY FAST!

BUY STOCKS ON MARGIN!

BORROW AT LOW INTEREST TO BUY ADDITIONAL SHARES!

PAY PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR FOR VALUABLE STOCK OPTIONS!

IF YOU THOUGHT THE 1920'S WERE PROSPEROUS, WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE THE 1930'S!!

VISIT MY WEBSITE FOR INFO ON GREAT MONEY-MAKING IDEAS!

[URL snipped -- ed.]


From: Freddie <duncan@zotspam.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Opinions on a chess book?
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 08:10:37

I was thinking of buying a recent chess book: "Blockade" by some guy named Nimzovitch. Any opinions on it? Is this guy any good?


From: flea <blusmn@decrepit.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Opinions on a chess book?
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 09:01:13

Yes, definitely read it. Nimzovich is a fine writer. In fact, he has a new book that's due to be released in English next year; I hear it's quite good -- something about his system of play.

-- Steve


From: Twenty-three Skiddoo <forgetit@anonymous.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Opinions on a chess book?
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 09:05:47

That just shows what an clueless idiot luser you are, flea. Nimzovich stinks, the Turk 3.2 stinks, and you're still an idiot.

23 Skiddoo


From: ayunda <scantus@penning.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Opinions on a chess book?
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 09:27:23

I will attempt to educate the mindless North Americans among us one last time: the proper spelling is "Nimzowitsch".


From: vandervoort <chessfreak@nospam.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Opinions on a chess book?
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 10:06:33

The last time? Do you *promise*?

-- vandervoort :-P


From: rudecreole <bourbon_st@pontchartraine.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Opinions on a chess book?
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 10:29:37

I have a very low opinion of any "player" who would divulge his secrets by writing a chess book. The TRUE WORLD CHAMPION Paul Morphy never did that!

Rude Creole


From: alekfan <sponge@stlouisspirit.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Subject: I don't understand this move...
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 11:11:36

In the first game of the match between Alekhine [sp?] and Capablanca, Capa played 16.QR-B1. I don't understand this move -- why didn't he play 16.P-B6 instead?

Ralph


From: The Voice of Reason <reasonable@voltaire.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Subject: Re: I don't understand this move...
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 11:39:27

That's a pretty big jump for such a little pawn, don't you think? Didn't you mean 16.P-B3?


From: alekfan <sponge@stlouisspirit.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Subject: Re: I don't understand this move...
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 12:03:01

Yes, sorry, P-B3 is what I meant.

Ralph


From: vandervoort <chessfreak@nospam.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Subject: Re: I don't understand this move...
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 12:19:52

Did you mean 18.P-KB3 or 18.P-QB3? I'm assuming you meant the latter (the former makes no sense in the context of the position).

vandervoort :-P


From: F.B. Cates <kickball@assocfoot.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Subject: Re: I don't understand this move...
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 12:35:10

*Neither* move makes sense in this position. 18.P-QB3 just allows 18...N-B2, forking the two Rooks.

Franklin Cates


From: The Voice of Reason <reasonable@voltaire.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Subject: Re: I don't understand this move...
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 13:05:50

Actually, that should have been 18...N-B7 instead of 18...N-B2, right?


From: alekfan <sponge@stlouisspirit.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Subject: Re: I don't understand this move...
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 13:37:37

Boy, this is ridiculous! Why can't someone come up with a better system for recording moves? Maybe a coordinate system, in which each square has a name?

Ralph


From: ayunda <scantus@penning.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Subject: Re: I don't understand this move...
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 14:09:26

Each square does, in fact, have a name under the present (and altogether adequate) system. It's truly a shame that some "chessplayers" of rather pedestrian mentality are unable to fathom this fact.


From: F.B. Cates <kickball@assocfoot.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Subject: Re: I don't understand this move...
Date: Wed 23 Oct 1929 14:19:20

Actually, each square has *two* names (depending on the side of the board from which it's viewed), which seems to be the crux of the problem. A single-name system would be easier, but I don't see something like that ever becoming standard.

Franklin Cates


Nine days later...



From: Darren <webster@atoz.us>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: WHERE IS EVERYONE?
Date: Fri 01 Nov 1929 17:53:02

Where is everybody?? I haven't seen any Usenet posts for over a week! Is it my service provider? Where have you all gone???

Darren


From: flea <blusmn@decrepit.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: WHERE IS EVERYONE?
Date: Fri 01 Nov 1929 23:19:41

No, it's not your service provider. There haven't been any posts since Wednesday the 23rd. The stock market crash seems to have taken the wind out of everyone's sails. They're probably out looking for jobs or else jumping out of windows. In fact, I think 23 Skiddoo just dropped past mine (we should be so lucky)...

So are we *really* missing anything? ;-)

What do you say we have an e-mail game while we're waiting for the others to return? It might take them a while.

1.P-K4

-- Steve


From: Twenty-three Skiddoo <forgetit@anonymous.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: WHERE IS EVERYONE?
Date: Sat 02 Nov 1929 00:35:12

Hey, flea, take it to rec.games.chess.play-by-email, you idiot!

23 Skiddoo


From: flea <blusmn@decrepit.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: WHERE IS EVERYONE?
Date: Sat 02 Nov 1929 10:19:15

I guess that wasn't you falling past my window after all? Dang!

This figures -- three people left on Usenet and one of them's a troll. Oh, well, maybe things will be better in seventy years or so.

-- Steve


All of the characters in this story are fictitious. Any resemblance to any actual persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. All Internet domain names and e-mail addresses are also fictitious; any resemblance to actual domains or e-mail addresses is likewise coincidental.

Until next week, have fun!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

You can e-mail me with your comments, suggestions, and analysis for Electronic T-Notes. If you love gambits and sacrificial play, stop by my Chess Kamikaze Home Page and the Yahoo Chess Kamikazes Club.