• Etiquette question

    From Eli Kesef@21:1/5 to Eli Kesef on Sun Feb 28 06:03:36 2021
    On Thursday, December 17, 2020 at 7:30:24 PM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
    Bs"d

    Speaking about etiquette, there are some people when they are left with only a bare king against a king (of course) queen, and two pawns, then they just don't wanna say die. They go on unto the mate. Just had an 1852 doing that against me. Of course
    there is no rule against that, if that what he wants to do, he can do it. Totally legal, and totally within the rules. Like the saying goes: "Nobody ever won by resigning." But of course, there is no rule against me drawing out the game, and practising
    my endgame technique. So I converted my two pawns to a bishop and a horse, then I gave him my queen, and proceeded to checkmate him with king, bishop, and horse. He wants to be irritating, I can be even more irritating. Normally that checkmate takes
    about 35 moves, sometimes I slip up and can't do it within the 50 moves, sometimes I stalemate the enemy, but that's why I have to practice. In this game just played: https://lichess.org/AbfQZfhysAFP it went a kind of quickly, he took my queen on move 79,
    and I mated him on move 97, only 29 moves.
    I drove him into the corner, until the blade fell down on his neck.

    That'll teach him.

    https://tinyurl.com/GR-Endgame

    Bs"d

    Got another one who when he had a bare king left against me with a castle, bishop and four pawns, he kept on playing on: https://lichess.org/67J7vBfODeDX
    So I was in the mood, so I got myself a horse, fed all other material to his king, and proceeded to checkmate him with horse and bishop. Took me 27 moves. Nice practice.

    That'll teach him. :D

    https://tinyurl.com/res-no-win

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Mar 2 05:42:47 2021
    On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 06:03:36 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Speaking about etiquette, there are some people when they are left with o= >nly a bare king against a king (of course) queen, and two pawns, then they = >just don't wanna say die. They go on unto the mate. Just had an 1852 doing = >that against me. Of course there is no rule against that, if that what he w= >ants to do, he can do it. Totally legal, and totally within the rules. Like=
    the saying goes: "Nobody ever won by resigning." But of course, there is n=
    o rule against me drawing out the game, and practising my endgame technique= >. So I converted my two pawns to a bishop and a horse, then I gave him my q= >ueen, and proceeded to checkmate him with king, bishop, and horse. He wants=
    to be irritating, I can be even more irritating. Normally that checkmate t=
    akes about 35 moves, sometimes I slip up and can't do it within the 50 move= >s, sometimes I stalemate the enemy, but that's why I have to practice. In t= >his game just played: https://lichess.org/AbfQZfhysAFP it went a kind of qu= >ickly, he took my queen on move 79, and I mated him on move 97, only 29 mov= >es.=20

    About the only situation I wouldn't resign in such a situation would
    be if the clock was a huge factor and it wasn't an incremental time
    control. If somebody is down to 10 seconds on a sudden death time
    control I'll be as nasty and rotten as anybody - but if he's got time
    to clobber me I'll be extending my hand.

    If there's any hope at all I'll continue - I well remember one game
    which was the last round of the last event before Christmas where I
    (low A) was facing an Expert who was a personal friend. At move 20 I
    was down an exchange (my own fault) with zero compensation. I figured
    I could resign anytime so played another 5-10 moves and by then had
    some compensation but was still bound to lose as it wasn't enough.
    5-10 moves later I had 2 pawns for the exchange, and starting to look positionally crushing. 10 moves after that my connected 2 pawns were
    on the 5th and 6th ranks. He resigned when I got both to the 7th and
    you know how these go. It was the sort of position Soviet era GMs used
    to call 'dynamic compensation' which may make sense at the GM level
    but definitely not at our level.

    We had an interesting post-mortem where we shared how we felt about
    the position - at one point I said 'at this point any compensation was
    purely imaginary but I had read ____ (well known Russian GM) say 'you
    can resign anytime - but this is getting complex' so I made the
    position as sharp as I can knowing you would probably crush me and
    wonderful things started happening....

    Since it was my last game of that year it was a nice way to end it. On
    the other hand I've faced 1 1/2 hour drives home after a hideously
    butchered last round game where I ought to have won but didn't and
    those are always the toughest since when you're alone you can't deny
    what just happened and why.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eli Kesef@21:1/5 to The Horny Goat on Tue Mar 2 09:07:45 2021
    On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 3:42:54 PM UTC+2, The Horny Goat wrote:
    On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 06:03:36 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Speaking about etiquette, there are some people when they are left with o= >nly a bare king against a king (of course) queen, and two pawns, then they = >just don't wanna say die. They go on unto the mate. Just had an 1852 doing = >that against me. Of course there is no rule against that, if that what he w= >ants to do, he can do it. Totally legal, and totally within the rules. Like=
    the saying goes: "Nobody ever won by resigning." But of course, there is n=
    o rule against me drawing out the game, and practising my endgame technique= >. So I converted my two pawns to a bishop and a horse, then I gave him my q= >ueen, and proceeded to checkmate him with king, bishop, and horse. He wants=
    to be irritating, I can be even more irritating. Normally that checkmate t=
    akes about 35 moves, sometimes I slip up and can't do it within the 50 move= >s, sometimes I stalemate the enemy, but that's why I have to practice. In t= >his game just played: https://lichess.org/AbfQZfhysAFP it went a kind of qu= >ickly, he took my queen on move 79, and I mated him on move 97, only 29 mov= >es.=20

    About the only situation I wouldn't resign in such a situation would
    be if the clock was a huge factor and it wasn't an incremental time
    control. If somebody is down to 10 seconds on a sudden death time
    control I'll be as nasty and rotten as anybody - but if he's got time
    to clobber me I'll be extending my hand.

    If there's any hope at all I'll continue - I well remember one game
    which was the last round of the last event before Christmas where I
    (low A) was facing an Expert who was a personal friend. At move 20 I
    was down an exchange (my own fault) with zero compensation. I figured
    I could resign anytime so played another 5-10 moves and by then had
    some compensation but was still bound to lose as it wasn't enough.
    5-10 moves later I had 2 pawns for the exchange, and starting to look positionally crushing. 10 moves after that my connected 2 pawns were
    on the 5th and 6th ranks. He resigned when I got both to the 7th and
    you know how these go. It was the sort of position Soviet era GMs used
    to call 'dynamic compensation' which may make sense at the GM level
    but definitely not at our level.

    We had an interesting post-mortem where we shared how we felt about
    the position - at one point I said 'at this point any compensation was
    purely imaginary but I had read ____ (well known Russian GM) say 'you
    can resign anytime - but this is getting complex' so I made the
    position as sharp as I can knowing you would probably crush me and
    wonderful things started happening....

    Since it was my last game of that year it was a nice way to end it. On
    the other hand I've faced 1 1/2 hour drives home after a hideously
    butchered last round game where I ought to have won but didn't and
    those are always the toughest since when you're alone you can't deny
    what just happened and why.

    Bs"d

    Chess can be a cruel mistress.....

    But it can also be that you are rolling over the floor with laughter.

    That game in which the enemy just didn't wanna die (who can blame him?) I dragged out to 101 moves with the horse and bishop mate, and I also had a cute little horse fork on move 29. Nothing special, but still nice.

    https://tinyurl.com/bobby-genius

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Hyde@21:1/5 to The Horny Goat on Tue Mar 2 16:51:14 2021
    On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 9:46:54 AM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
    On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 04:57:09 -0700 (PDT), Paul Epstein
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    I remember watching a well-known player who was good enough to be well-known but not good enough to make a living from playing. So he was studying for exams in his intended (not chess-related) profession, and he brought a book to the board and read it
    when it was his opponent's move. Is this behaviour appropriate? This is a genuine question. It's inappropriate because it's not respectful to the opponent (perhaps). But if we object to this, it makes it very hard for students to play competitive chess.
    Since almost no one can make a living at it, perhaps we should encourage students to study between rounds, and this is perhaps a minor extension of that idea.
    Extremely rude and disrespectful - and I'm assuming it's on a
    non-chess subject or it would be instant removal from the tournament.

    Long ago I lived in College Station, TX, and was trying to build up the spring tournament. When I arrived it was a one day affair with eight participants.

    After a couple of years I had it to the point where I could risk a $500 guaranteed prize, the only way to get people from out of town (mostly guaranteed by me, the club treasury held about $100 from a fund-raising local event with no prizes (naturally I
    won that - I never won any events in CS that had actual prize money)).

    As a result we attracted a large field for us (40+) and a 2450 player from Houston. This gentleman was a med student and was well known for studying during the first rounds of an event. Naturally he did the same here, and his first round opponent
    complained, citing the rule against "consulting written materials". I didn't think that the word "consulting" meant memorizing the nerves of the shoulder, so I took no action.

    Mind you, twice when playing in team events in Toronto as an undergrad I took along Werner Greub's "Multilinear algebra" and studied while I wasn't on the move. And won both games against players of my own or higher strength. So perhaps I was biased.
    But I still am.

    I didn't think of it at the time, but as precedent Duz-Khotmirsky was reading Nietzsche when he beat Lasker in the 1909 St Petersburg event. Allegedly in Japanese translation. I can't say what irritated Lasker the most, the disrespect or Nietzsche.
    But then DK also beat Rubenstein in that event, without such "aid".

    I would have forbidden any chess book of any type, of course.

    A TD who used to post here, said he'd have forbidden the medical text as well. I have to think that if he was there, though, he wouldn't.



    (As TD I once ejected from the tournament someone found to be reading
    ECO in the washroom cubicle during their round - it happened to be the volume dealing with his opening which was between turns 10-20 at that
    point)

    I >OFTEN< have been at tournaments with my book-laden equipment bag
    below the table during the game (particularly when there is a
    bookseller at the event) and often read between rounds but at the
    table?

    "It is forbidden to distract the opponent in any way" and no question
    anyone reading at table is clearly doing that.

    The person reading is giving heavy odds. Our 2500 player barely beat the A player.

    One doesn't have to be an International Arbiter to make that ruling
    (though I am).

    I am not, but I'm glad I let him play. He won the event, we got more people next time - and then I left town and next time I was there the event was one day with fourteen players. Ah well.

    William Hyde

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Mar 2 23:46:32 2021
    On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 09:07:45 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Chess can be a cruel mistress.....

    But it can also be that you are rolling over the floor with laughter.

    That game in which the enemy just didn't wanna die (who can blame him?) I dragged out to 101 moves with the horse and bishop mate, and I also had a cute little horse fork on move 29. Nothing special, but still nice.

    https://tinyurl.com/bobby-genius

    Two comments:
    1 yes our game can be a cruel mistress
    2 did you successfully execute the B+N v K mate?

    if not there are videos on that and I have seen (between rounds at
    tournaments) players doing that mate at speed chess times for small
    bets.

    The players concerned considered it training - the defender positioned
    the pieces as he wished and the better had to do the mate in 50 moves
    from there. The point is while it's proven to be doable in 50 moves
    from any position (I read somewhere 37 or 38 was the theoretical
    minimum from any position) that it's unforgiving - meaning that if you
    make one less than optimal move depending on the position doing it in
    50 may then be undoable.

    As a junior I used to do the 2B v K mate for practice but never
    mastered the B+N mate.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Mar 2 23:57:11 2021
    On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 16:51:14 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Mind you, twice when playing in team events in Toronto as an undergrad I to= >ok along Werner Greub's "Multilinear algebra" and studied while I wasn't on=
    the move. And won both games against players of my own or higher strength=
    . So perhaps I was biased. But I still am.

    Well the rule under which I as TD would have insisted you put your
    book away was that it is 'forbidden to annoy your opponent in any way'
    and if he insisted I as TD would have required you to put it away
    somewhere out of sight of the board (which for most people means in
    their equipment bag on the floor or elsewhere.

    As you say chess material is especial verboten and I once threw a guy
    out of a tournament for consulting ECO in the mens' room about 15-20
    minutes into the round (e.g. actually still in the opening). It turned
    out to be the volume that covered the opening in question but I'd have
    tossed him for any chess book mostly for his own stupidity in thinking
    he could get away with it - and the incident came up at the next club
    exec meeting and I was praised for having done so.

    You DON'T have to be an International Arbiter (which at that point was
    20 years in the future for me) to make THAT call!

    Probbly my WORST experience in chess was in a club speed tournament
    where my opponent forked my 2 R's with his B and I immediately
    resigned. The TD who was watching immediately said (and I think 20
    years later it was the wrong call) "what did you resign for? the only
    reason that B was able to fork your rooks was that it made an illegal
    move to get there - but when you resigned rather than calling on me
    (and in fairness he was close by watching more for his own
    entertainment than being a director) you ended the game so I can't do
    anything for you! (this was a club speed tournament where entry was 25
    cents and first price $2.00 so not a big deal in the grand scheme of
    things!)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eli Kesef@21:1/5 to The Horny Goat on Wed Mar 3 05:50:25 2021
    On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 9:46:36 AM UTC+2, The Horny Goat wrote:
    On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 09:07:45 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Chess can be a cruel mistress.....

    But it can also be that you are rolling over the floor with laughter.

    That game in which the enemy just didn't wanna die (who can blame him?) I dragged out to 101 moves with the horse and bishop mate, and I also had a cute little horse fork on move 29. Nothing special, but still nice.

    https://tinyurl.com/bobby-genius
    Two comments:
    1 yes our game can be a cruel mistress
    2 did you successfully execute the B+N v K mate?

    Bs"d

    Yes. Here is my above post: Got another one who when he had a bare king left against me with a castle, bishop and four pawns, he kept on playing on: https://lichess.org/67J7vBfODeDX
    So I was in the mood, so I got myself a horse, fed all other material to his king, and proceeded to checkmate him with horse and bishop. Took me 27 moves. Nice practice.

    if not there are videos on that and I have seen (between rounds at tournaments) players doing that mate at speed chess times for small
    bets.

    The players concerned considered it training - the defender positioned
    the pieces as he wished and the better had to do the mate in 50 moves
    from there. The point is while it's proven to be doable in 50 moves
    from any position (I read somewhere 37 or 38 was the theoretical
    minimum from any position) that it's unforgiving - meaning that if you
    make one less than optimal move depending on the position doing it in
    50 may then be undoable.

    As a junior I used to do the 2B v K mate for practice but never
    mastered the B+N mate.

    It is not so hard the bishop + horse mate, but sometimes it does go wrong. Let the king slip one time and it might not be possible anymore.

    Recently I had a game, I was left with queen and king, opponent with king + horse, and he resigned. Then in analysis board I tried to finish it against the computer, and to my surprise I couldn't get it done within 50 moves. Also queen against
    castle is quite difficult.

    https://tinyurl.com/1bad-40good

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Mar 3 19:44:16 2021
    On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 05:50:25 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Yes. Here is my above post: Got another one who when he had a bare king l= >eft against me with a castle, bishop and four pawns, he kept on playing on:=
    https://lichess.org/67J7vBfODeDX
    So I was in the mood, so I got myself a horse, fed all other material to hi= >s king, and proceeded to checkmate him with horse and bishop. Took me 27 mo= >ves. Nice practice.

    Heh heh heh - what a classy way to show he held on long beyond any
    reasonable point. Of course it's only a good idea if you successfully
    carry it off rather than losing the full point - so kudoes on bringing
    it off. Doing that under regular time controls isn't easy so well
    done.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eli Kesef@21:1/5 to The Horny Goat on Thu Mar 4 06:56:10 2021
    On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 5:44:19 AM UTC+2, The Horny Goat wrote:
    On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 05:50:25 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Yes. Here is my above post: Got another one who when he had a bare king l= >eft against me with a castle, bishop and four pawns, he kept on playing on:=
    https://lichess.org/67J7vBfODeDX
    So I was in the mood, so I got myself a horse, fed all other material to hi=
    s king, and proceeded to checkmate him with horse and bishop. Took me 27 mo=
    ves. Nice practice.

    Heh heh heh - what a classy way to show he held on long beyond any reasonable point. Of course it's only a good idea if you successfully
    carry it off rather than losing the full point - so kudoes on bringing
    it off. Doing that under regular time controls isn't easy so well
    done.

    Bs"d

    I would say that in 80 or 90% of all the mates with bishop & horse I'm successful. Sometimes I stalemate him, or let him slip, but usually it's OK. And the more you practice the better it goes.

    Once you know the basics it's no big deal.

    But I read a story about a GM in a tournament, and he got to an endgame with him having a horse + bishop against a bare king. He didn't know how to do it, so he asked advice from a colleague GM, and he said: "You have to drive him to the corner with the
    color of the squares that the bishop is on." But in the end he couldn't do it. It is something you have to learn and practice.

    https://tinyurl.com/bad-chess-day

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andy Walker@21:1/5 to The Horny Goat on Thu Mar 4 15:39:04 2021
    On 03/03/2021 07:46, The Horny Goat wrote:
    As a junior I used to do the 2B v K mate for practice but never
    mastered the B+N mate.

    I did learn the B&N mate. But in the 50+ years since then,
    I've had it in a "real" game exactly once; in Kriegspiel! Grr!
    The [many] spectators were falling over with laughter; of course,
    my opponent had no idea what they were laughing about until I
    offered him a draw and [after accepting] he could see the position.

    KQ can force mate against K in Kriegspiel, but [AFAIK] you
    have to be lucky to win KRvK, and KBB or KBN v K are essentially
    impossible. KPvK might well be a very probable win from most
    positions, but I haven't studied it.

    --
    Andy Walker, Nottingham.
    Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
    Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Kontski

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Thu Mar 4 19:00:47 2021
    On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 06:56:10 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    But I read a story about a GM in a tournament, and he got to an endgame wit= >h him having a horse + bishop against a bare king. He didn't know how to d= >o it, so he asked advice from a colleague GM, and he said: "You have to dri= >ve him to the corner with the color of the squares that the bishop is on." =
    But in the end he couldn't do it. It is something you have to learn and =
    practice.

    If that story is true and not just legend both of them could have been
    ejected for giving and receiving help "at the board" (which is defined
    as actively giving assistance - nobody's ever getting forfeited for
    saying "good luck!")

    And if both of them were GMs one would think they would both know this
    which is why I think the story is an urban legend.

    No question at all the detailed answer you describe is/was forfeit
    worthy. Just as forfeit worthy as if you handed your friend a copy of
    Basic Chess Endings during his game. (As a TD I wouldn't admonish a
    player who handed a copy of BCE to his friend AFTER he had flubbed the
    ending and called it a draw so long as he didn't do it in a way that
    bothered others)

    And no you DON'T need to be an International Arbiter to know that!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Hyde@21:1/5 to The Horny Goat on Thu Mar 4 20:55:58 2021
    On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 06:56:10 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    But I read a story about a GM in a tournament, and he got to an endgame wit= >h him having a horse + bishop against a bare king. He didn't know how to d= >o it, so he asked advice from a colleague GM, and he said: "You have to dri= >ve him to the corner with the color of the squares that the bishop is on." =
    But in the end he couldn't do it. It is something you have to learn and =
    practice.

    If that story is true and not just legend both of them could have been ejected for giving and receiving help "at the board" (which is defined
    as actively giving assistance - nobody's ever getting forfeited for
    saying "good luck!")

    And if both of them were GMs one would think they would both know this
    which is why I think the story is an urban legend.

    Indeed. A C player I knew had this memorized. In fact, when an opponent failed to resign in an endgame with K+B+N+P vs K, Bob declined to use the pawn and mated him with B+N.

    Of course if he'd erred all he had to do was move the pawn to reset the 50 move counter. But he didn't.

    William Hyde

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Hyde@21:1/5 to The Horny Goat on Thu Mar 4 20:51:34 2021
    On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 2:57:14 AM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
    On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 16:51:14 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Mind you, twice when playing in team events in Toronto as an undergrad I to=
    ok along Werner Greub's "Multilinear algebra" and studied while I wasn't on=
    the move. And won both games against players of my own or higher strength=
    . So perhaps I was biased. But I still am.
    Well the rule under which I as TD would have insisted you put your
    book away was that it is 'forbidden to annoy your opponent in any way'

    This was in the era when smoking was allowed in tournaments and I would have argued that for the that was vastly more annoying than an opponent reading a book. I was, after all, not forcing him to read it.

    Then, of course, there are opponents who haven't showered in a while.

    Opponents who excavate various bodily orifices during the game.

    Opponents who continually slurp their coffee.

    Reading a book comes well down the list.


    and if he insisted I as TD would have required you to put it away
    somewhere out of sight of the board (which for most people means in
    their equipment bag on the floor or elsewhere.

    As you say chess material is especial verboten and I once threw a guy
    out of a tournament for consulting ECO in the mens' room about 15-20
    minutes into the round (e.g. actually still in the opening). It turned
    out to be the volume that covered the opening in question but I'd have tossed him for any chess book mostly for his own stupidity in thinking
    he could get away with it - and the incident came up at the next club
    exec meeting and I was praised for having done so.

    You DON'T have to be an International Arbiter (which at that point was
    20 years in the future for me) to make THAT call!

    Probbly my WORST experience in chess was in a club speed tournament
    where my opponent forked my 2 R's with his B and I immediately
    resigned. The TD who was watching immediately said (and I think 20
    years later it was the wrong call) "what did you resign for? the only
    reason that B was able to fork your rooks was that it made an illegal
    move to get there - but when you resigned rather than calling on me
    (and in fairness he was close by watching more for his own
    entertainment than being a director) you ended the game so I can't do anything for you!

    One: Ouch.

    Two: While I am a definite fan of timely resignation OTB, I've won or drawn a shocking number of speed games a piece or so down against superior or equal opposition. In fact, once I realized that I was resigning a piece down, while my opponents were
    playing on and often drawing or winning when I was a piece up, and acted accordingly, my rating jumped (naturally I am talking about games where we both had significant time, not when flags were hanging).

    (this was a club speed tournament where entry was 25
    cents and first price $2.00 so not a big deal in the grand scheme of things!)

    Winning $3 or so in the friday night g/15 at Toronto's central club was a big deal when I was a grad student. Paid for my transit fare and half of dinner.

    On one occasion when I was an A player I was paired against a friend who jokingly suggested that I throw the game since he would then be guaranteed the C prize while I had no chance at the A prize. I won the game, but as we were leaving someone called
    out "Hey, take your prize money".

    Every A player had lost, so I was in a five way tie and won 40 cents. I gave my friend 20.

    William Hyde

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)