chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Kenneth S Rogoff
K Rogoff 
 
Number of games in database: 133
Years covered: 1968 to 2012
Last FIDE rating: 2505

Overall record: +39 -29 =64 (53.8%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 1 exhibition game, blitz/rapid, odds game, etc. is excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 English (10) 
    A15 A13 A16 A19 A18
 Sicilian (8) 
    B23 B21 B83 B38 B85
 Ruy Lopez (7) 
    C97 C88 C65 C95 C60
 English, 1 c4 c5 (5) 
    A30 A34 A36
 King's Indian (5) 
    E62 E74 E60 E63
 English, 1 c4 e5 (5) 
    A20 A29 A22
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (12) 
    B93 B30 B52 B60 B50
 Caro-Kann (11) 
    B17 B10 B12 B13
 English, 1 c4 c5 (9) 
    A30 A34 A33
 Sicilian Najdorf (5) 
    B93
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   K Rogoff vs R Blumenfeld, 1976 1-0
   K Rogoff vs Timman, 1971 1-0
   K Rogoff vs A H Williams, 1969 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs S Spencer, 1969 1-0
   Huebner vs K Rogoff, 1972 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs Larsen, 1976 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs Smejkal, 1976 1-0
   K Rogoff vs O Castro, 1976 1-0
   K Rogoff vs Bisguier, 1974 1/2-1/2
   Tal vs K Rogoff, 1976 1/2-1/2

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Lone Pine (1978)
   US Championship (1974)
   Lone Pine (1976)
   Biel Interzonal (1976)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Ken Rogoff Chess Highlights by GumboGambit
   US Championship 1978 by suenteus po 147
   US Championship 1974 by Phony Benoni
   US Championship 1975 by suenteus po 147

RECENT GAMES:
   🏆 Exhibition blitz game
   K Rogoff vs Carlsen (Aug-28-12) 1/2-1/2, blitz

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Kenneth S Rogoff
Search Google for Kenneth S Rogoff
FIDE player card for Kenneth S Rogoff


KENNETH S ROGOFF
(born Mar-22-1953, 64 years old) United States of America

[what is this?]
Kenneth Saul Rogoff learned chess from his father at age six, but only took up the game in earnest when he received a chess set for his 13th birthday. He was soon recognised as a chess prodigy. By age 14, he was a USCF master and New York State Open Champion, and shortly thereafter became a senior master, the highest US national title. At sixteen, Rogoff dropped out of high school to concentrate on chess, and spent the next several years living primarily in Europe and playing in tournaments there. When eighteen, he made the decision to go to college and pursue a career in economics rather than to become a professional player, although he continued to play and improve for several years afterward.

Rogoff was awarded the IM title in 1974 and the GM title in 1978. He came third in the World Junior Championship of 1971 and finished second in the US Championship of 1975, which doubled as a Zonal competition, one-half point behind Walter Shawn Browne; this result qualified him for the 1976 Interzonal at Biel, where he finished 13-15th. In other tournaments he finished equal first at Norristown 1973 and Orense 1976.

Early in his economics career, Rogoff served as chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and also at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. He is currently the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics at Harvard University.

Rogoff's biography in his own words: http://scholar.harvard.edu/rogoff/p...; Rogoff's game against Magnus Carlsen in August 2012 in New York: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...; Article by Rogoff in Chessbase titled <Rogoff on innovation, unemployment, inequality and dislocation> with particular reference to professional chess: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...

Wikipedia article: Kenneth Rogoff


 page 1 of 6; games 1-25 of 133  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Larsen vs K Rogoff ½-½351968Canadian OpenA02 Bird's Opening
2. K Rogoff vs Steve Spencer 1-0201969US Jnr ChpB15 Caro-Kann
3. E M Green vs K Rogoff ½-½371969World Junior ChB12 Caro-Kann Defense
4. K Rogoff vs A H Williams ½-½1061969World Junior Championship, B FinalA56 Benoni Defense
5. J Durao vs K Rogoff 0-1301970MalagaB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
6. K Rogoff vs Z Vranesic  0-1481970Ontario opB83 Sicilian
7. H Pfleger vs K Rogoff  1-0591970WchT U26 17thA58 Benko Gambit
8. J Durao vs K Rogoff  0-1651971MalagaB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
9. K Rogoff vs Timman 1-0481971MalagaB08 Pirc, Classical
10. Ljubojevic vs K Rogoff 1-0291971MalagaB50 Sicilian
11. Benko vs K Rogoff  0-1411971OlotA04 Reti Opening
12. Ulf Andersson vs K Rogoff 1-0361971OlotB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
13. E Paoli vs K Rogoff 1-0261971Liberation tournB06 Robatsch
14. V Tukmakov vs K Rogoff  1-0421971Liberation tournD93 Grunfeld, with Bf4 & e3
15. Karpov vs K Rogoff 1-026197106, Mayaguez tt-studA22 English
16. K Rogoff vs L Day ½-½211971World Student OlympiadA15 English
17. Huebner vs K Rogoff ½-½121972WchT U26 19th fin-AA15 English
18. K Rogoff vs Adorjan 1-0301972W-ch Student Team Final-AB30 Sicilian
19. K Rogoff vs V Tukmakov 1-0411972W-ch Student Team Final-AB21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4
20. K Rogoff vs Suttles 0-1471973Ottawa op-CANB06 Robatsch
21. L Day vs K Rogoff  ½-½231973CAN-opA07 King's Indian Attack
22. Pilnik vs K Rogoff  0-1561973NorristownB81 Sicilian, Scheveningen, Keres Attack
23. E Paoli vs K Rogoff 0-1391973NorristownB06 Robatsch
24. K Rogoff vs Soltis  ½-½141974US ChampionshipE62 King's Indian, Fianchetto
25. Browne vs K Rogoff 1-0411974US ChampionshipB60 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer
 page 1 of 6; games 1-25 of 133  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Rogoff wins | Rogoff loses  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 1027 OF 1027 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Bobsterman3000>: I once asked you what it would take to dissolve your allegiance to Mr. T. Your answer, as I recall, was that you would sever your Trump ties if he started another war in the MidEast. I applauded that.

But what if he doesn't start another war? Isn't there *anything* else that would make you wash your hands of him?

Here are some possibilities.

1. The US economy goes sour.

2. The rumors that the Russians have something on him and are blackmailing him turn out to be true.

3. He breaks pledges he made while campaigning (to maintain funding of Social Security and Medicaid, expand mental health programs and invest in infrastructure, etc.): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m....

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: when Newt Gingrich was kicked out of his job as speaker of the House the Republicans gave the job to Dennis Hastert. It was thought a quiet, unassuming guy was the right choice for the GOP to regroup, as Gingrich was out boinking women other than his wife as was a bit too much in the public eye.

That didn't work out so well, as Hastert was later charged with a felony, paying off someone to not report a crime. Hastert had been having sex with a teenage boy on the high school wrestling team (Denny taught him the 'high crotch single' take down maneuver). Hastert paid off the kid/kid's family to keep the story out of the news.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <thegoodanarchist: I guess you really don't want it to be examined?>

And I guess that you really don't want to know what I think.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: trump promised he would not touch Social Security or Medicare. He'll have to make cuts to pay for the disastrous loss of tax revenues from 1) the personal rate tax cut and 2) lowering the corporate tax rate.
Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bobsterman3000: <Al Wazir>

Sure, if Trump's tax cut gambit doesn't work and completely tanks he can expect to be voted out. I'd still vote for the Republican though.

The Russia thing is a big, big nothing burger. Always was. There's simply no way he participated.

Yes, he MUST keep social security solvent but I think he will do that, considering that high age of his average voter profile. If he did something crazy to social security he'd lose my vote, but that's not gonna happen.

The mental health stuff I have paid as much as attention to at all.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: < al wazir: <thegoodanarchist: I guess you really don't want it to be examined?>

And I guess that you really don't want to know what I think.>

If that were the case, I wouldn't have asked.

Look, the logical reply would be to provide a link to the first post in your debate with <BP>, the one where you refuted the moral argument.

I think I can manage to follow the conversation from there, even if you don't think I can.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <thegoodanarchist: < al wazir: <thegoodanarchist: I was going to ask this even before <BP> suggested it - can you provide a link to your refutation? I would like to read it.>

Search Kibitzing>

A link to 14 pages? Wow, thanks.

I guess you really don't want it to be examined?>

Bingo!

What did I tell ya?

No one has bothered to ever tell <al-ways boring> that his questions, that puzzle him and are meant to raise doubts about the moral argument somehow, are not arguments, and they don't raise doubts. A question is not an argument. A question is not a reason.

<Al-ways boring's> idea, (it's okay to laugh) was not to debate or give an alternate explanation for the ontological status of moral values (what is their foundation in reality?), thus negating the need for God to provide that transcendental foundation, which is what he needs to do in order to refute the first premise, but to instead show that moral values cannot exist objective because (get this) people have different ideas about them!

He's missed out on the debates here where at one time many people tried this sally, but eventually gave it up. <Al-wazir> confidently strode out and threw down his plastic gauntlet and challenged everyone, "For any objective moral value you can name, I can give a counter example of how it can be contrived to be the opposite", and so he thought that he busted the argument.

Stupid with BALLS!

He thinks an objective moral value is only objective if everyone agrees that it's good or bad! Of course he is conflating absolute with objective and worse, he's conflating moral semantics (what is good, what is evil) with moral ontology (how do moral values exist and what is their foundation in reality).

No one has bothered to break the bad news to him.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <BP: <Al-ways boring's> idea, (it's okay to laugh) was not to debate or give an alternate explanation for the ontological status of moral values (what is their foundation in reality?), thus negating the need for God to provide that transcendental foundation, which is what he needs to do in order to refute the first premise, but to instead show that moral values cannot exist objective because (get this) people have different ideas about them!>

Thanks <BP>.

If every person has to agree on something, in order for it to exist objectively, then nothing would exist objectively because nothing can meet that criteria.

<He thinks an objective moral value is only objective if everyone agrees that it's good or bad! Of course he is conflating absolute with objective and worse, he's conflating moral semantics (what is good, what is evil) with moral ontology (how do moral values exist and what is their foundation in reality)>

You are obviously well-read on philosophy. Is that just a hobby, or did you take classes in school for it?

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: < al wazir: <Bobsterman3000>: ... what if he doesn't start another war? Isn't there *anything* else that would make you wash your hands of him?

Here are some possibilities.

1. The US economy goes sour.

2. The rumors that the Russians have something on him and are blackmailing him turn out to be true....>

rumors turn out to be true, huh? What kind of rumors are you talking about? Do they mention anything specific?

Maybe they have a tape recording of Trump saying that he grabs women by the (slang for vagina)? You know, when he is talking to a believable informant, like a nephew of a former president?

Or maybe they have evidence that he had an affair with a porn star?

Just exactly what would this material be, to make Trump submit to blackmail?

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <You are obviously well-read on philosophy. Is that just a hobby, or did you take classes in school for it?>

At the university but I've also been active since that time, for many years now.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <big catamite: You are wise not to challenge me, <Jim>. I'm kind of a big deal around here and I'll run you over like a Mack Truck....>

If you truly were important, there would be no need to proclaim your putative primacy at every turn.

#fakehumanbeing
#fake1900player
#namblalover

Still glorying in your 'role' as prefect manqué of this page, <boy>?

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <tga: If every person has to agree on something, in order for it to exist objectively, then nothing would exist objectively because nothing can meet that criteria.>

Yes, that is exactly what he's saying. The only problem is, if the metaphysical status of moral values depends on human thought, then that is the very definition of <not> existing objectively!

If morality really were just a poll, a popularity contest, an expression of herd mentality, then their existence cannot be classified as objective, precisely because they are the product of humankind. They could change when the consensus changed. Eating your children alive could, in some possible world, be a good thing, as long as everyone agrees.

His very idea is itself an example of relative morality. In this sense, morality is just a byproduct of evolution and there is no real right or wrong. That is, there are no moral facts, only opinions about morality. If that were true, then <GSM> would be correct when he says that the school shooting in Florida isn't objectively evil or bad, it's only distasteful.

For moral values to exist objectively means they have to be binding and valid independent of human opinion. Just as the Sun exists independent of human opinion, so do objective moral values. And just as we can all have different ideas about the Sun, it still exists objectively, independent of our ideas! Same with moral values.

We would never say, "The Sun only exists objectively if we all agree it does". No. The Sun exists apart from mankind!

Moral values exist apart from mankind too, and regardless of what we think about this or that moral issue, there is, objectively speaking, a right or wrong thing to do in each given situation.

The foundation of morality given theism is God. God's nature itself is the Good. God's nature provides the theist with the necessary transcendental foundation for moral values to exist apart from mankind, making their existence objective.

If atheism were true, there would be no naturalistic explanations for how moral values could exist apart from human thoughts. It's incoherent. No one has ever given an explanation on naturalism on how moral values can exist objectively.

It is for this reason that many atheist philosophers think that nihilism is true, and their challenge then becomes a task in escaping the absurdity of life sans God. Nietzsche tried to do this with his Will to Power.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bobsterman3000: <TGA - Al-Wazir - Just exactly what would this material be, to make Trump submit to blackmail?>

And exactly what do people think that Trump is providing to stave off the blackmail?

Do they think he's sending the Russians military or technology secrets? Is he funneling billions of dollars to Putin? (who is already richer than God)

That can't be done secretly. When Bill Clinton allowed missile technologies to pass to the Chinese in the 90's in return for campaign $$ contributions it was pretty much reported everywhere once the major newspapers started researching it, there was no secretive conspiracy.

Liberals have been watching way too many Tom Clancy movies or something. Or they've just never understood how our Presidency works, they think it has virtually unlimited power in the USA.

Even if Trump was COMPLETELY on Putin's payroll what exactly could he do for Russia, besides ease the Magnitsky act or minor sanctions that Obama passed in December 2016. Important stuff but just doesn't pass the smell test and doesn't make sense for these things to be at the core of a "blackmail conspiracy."

Also, AFAIK all of the Trump loans from Russian sources are pretty much unsecured. I don't believe he has extensive property holdings in Russia. He could literally walk away from them unless the Russians sent an FSB team to kidnap him, so he's not really that likely of a viable blackmail target.

And fail to understand that we are not at war with Russia. Yes, Russia has large spying apparatus and secrets to gain any advantage they can to their minor interests anywhere on the planet, but we're not at war with them- hence, there's only SO MUCH the American President could do for them anyway.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: Concerning previous post:

Fact: Trump refused to impose the sanctions on Russia approved by Congress something like 515-12, and SIGNED INTO LAW by Trump.

He has given no reason why he refused to impose them, refuses to execute the law he signed.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: Fact: Obama allowed the infamous Russian Interference Operation to continue in 2014, 2015 and 2016 when he could have stopped it.

Fact: Hillary colluded with the Russians through GPS and Steele to create a salacious and unsubstantiated dossier that the FBI signed in order to obtain a FISC warrant, even though Hillary's cronies in the FBI knew it was salacious and unverified, so that they could illegally mislead the FISC and spy on Trump to obtain opposition research and undermine the integrity of the election process.

Thems the facts <old tuna>.

FACT: Trump said he was spied on by the Obama admin and he was.

FACT: Libs laughed and mocked the idea that Trump was spied on - wire tapped.

You need to accept the election results and get out of your fetal position, you cupcake snowflake safe space crybaby.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bobsterman3000: All of the salacious accusations in the dossier were entered into the actual Congressional Record quite gleefully by Adam Schiff.
Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Bobsterman3000: All of the salacious accusations in the dossier were entered into the actual Congressional Record quite gleefully by Adam Schiff.>

Imagine being the <tuna>, where you are burdened with the thankless task of defending and double talking all around a bunch of lies every single day? It would be like taking the job of press secretary for Obama, up there every day, lying, defending lies, double talking around them, and it never ends.

It makes my stomach jump just thinking about it. I'm glad my yoke is easy and my burden is light, speaking the truth and defending the truth. Not only is it easier, but there is the added benefit of knowing I'm doing the right thing.

That matters.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <FACT: Trump said he was spied on by the Obama admin and he was.>

Totally false.

<FACT: Libs laughed and mocked the idea that Trump was spied on - wire tapped.>

With good reason.

The previous post was an example of something Russia may have wanted from the Trump administration.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: <"Christian values president" here with an adult film whore>

Is there one man on this forum who does not think she is totally hot? Even the gay men would agree.

No excuse for cheating on your wife, however.

<Hastert had been having sex with a teenage boy on the high school wrestling team>

And to think there are liberals here who support pedophilia.

<You need to accept the election results and get out of your fetal position, you cupcake snowflake safe space crybaby.>

By this point, I hope the Mueller investigation lasts until the 2018 midterms in November. For any wrongdoing, the truth will come out, and if there is no relevance to the 2016 Presidential election, Trump bashers must defend the monumental waste of time and energy and money.

Moreover, if they spend all this time on 13 Russian trolls, and nothing on Fusion GPS, then the electorate will taste the double standard.

I'm sorry but this is great theater.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <All of the salacious accusations in the dossier were entered into the actual Congressional Record quite gleefully by Adam Schiff.>

"Quite gleefully..."

Is there video?

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <By this point, I hope the Mueller investigation lasts until the 2018 midterms in November. For any wrongdoing, the truth will come out, and if there is no relevance to the 2016 Presidential election, Trump bashers must defend the monumental waste of time and energy and money.>

Was I dreaming? Or didn't the Mueller investigation just indict 13 people and three companies for interference in the 2016 election? Two days ago?

That certainly appears to be true. And not a monumental waste of money.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <thegoodanarchist: Look, the logical reply would be to provide a link to the first post in your debate with <BP>, the one where you refuted the moral argument.> There is no single post that meets your requirements.

Neither the major nor the minor premise of the syllogism is true. There are no objective moral values, and if they existed they wouldn't need a God to promulgate them.

The syllogism misuses the term "objective." (The truth of an empirical proposition is objectively established by adducing evidence for it, but no empirical proposition can be established with absolute certainty. On the other hand, if an analytic proposition is true it is 100% true, but analytic propositions are tautologies.) No satisfactory definition of an OMV has been given and no acceptable example of an OMV has been presented. No values are held universally. They vary from one society to another. They are *contingent* on the society in which they are found.

Like the beliefs that Heaven is up in the sky and Hell is located underground, or that night air causes lung diseases and the four humors determine personalities, the idea that there is an all-powerful God (which likewise dates from the Bronze Age) is a childish anachronism. It is no more plausible than imagining that there is a pantheon of deities, with a committee in charge of framing OMVs. The syllogism works just as well applied to such a pantheon: "If the OMV Committee does not exist, there are no objective moral values," etc.

Even the connection between OMVs and this fictive deity is risible. There is nothing "objective" about God's pronouncements. If such a God existed he could change his mind from one moment to the next. He could say that eating pork is a sin and then allow us to have bacon cheeseburgers. He could ordain the sanctity of all human life one day and then demand human sacrifices the next.

You could have found all that in the posts that search lists, as well as the posts of other kibitzers that I was rebutting. But as I said, you didn't care to look.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: We're Number 5! We're Number 5! https://www.theguardian.com/sport/n...

I expect the TV ratings of the Winter Olympics to plummet in the US.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: Nowhere in the above screed by mr boring does he give his arguments justifying his claim that the premises are false.

He needs to do that.

He starts with bald assertions. Then he says the word objective is misused, because he’s an honest to goodness fool. Then he talks about how we all disagree on what is good (moral semantics) as if that has anything to do with moral ontology.

He reasons like a 16 year old boy.

Then he expresses his doubts about “the syllogism” and goes on to demonstrate embarrassingly that he fails to grasp basic logic,

<The syllogism works just as well applied to such a pantheon: "If the OMV Committee does not exist, there are no objective moral values," etc.>

Then he claims that absolute certain is the criterion for knowledge to obtain, unaware that science itself is based on certain fundamental assumptions that cannot be falsified.

He should be ashamed of himself and feel like the worlds biggest ass, but he is blissfully unaware. Worse yet, he obviously thinks the rest of the forum is on his level and thinks like he does, which is an insult to anyone who sees how utterly devoid of logic and how breathtakingly ignorant he is.

By now I would expect that anyone in this forum should be able to correct him.

Now you all can see just why he hides from me.

You all should shame him into debating me so I can show, demonstrably, how empty his head really is.

Feb-19-18  Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna> <Was I dreaming? Or didn't the Mueller investigation just indict 13 people and three companies for interference in the 2016 election? Two days ago?>

Have you read the indictment? It's pretty pathetic, they could have drummed up those accusations against pretty much any foreign nationals.

One of the allegations was that some of the defendants may have purchased a megaphone. Oh my God!

I could easily have been indicted according to one of the rubriques.

As for interference in the election? The indictment doesn't claim this, for obvious reasons.

It's not a dream and you're not in juicy burger heaven. Those nothing burgers are real, not even a slice of cheese between the baps.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 1027)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 1027 OF 1027 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC