Members · Prefs · 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: 132
Years covered: 1968 to 2012
Last FIDE rating: 2505
Overall record: +38 -29 =64 (53.4%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 1 exhibition game, blitz/rapid, odds game, etc. is excluded from this statistic.

With the White pieces:
 English (10) 
    A15 A13 A19 A16 A18
 Sicilian (8) 
    B23 B21 B83 B85 B38
 Ruy Lopez (7) 
    C60 C65 C88 C91 C95
 English, 1 c4 e5 (5) 
    A29 A20 A22
 English, 1 c4 c5 (5) 
    A30 A34 A36
 King's Indian (5) 
    E62 E60 E74 E63
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (12) 
    B93 B30 B81 B50 B85
 Caro-Kann (11) 
    B17 B10 B13 B12
 English, 1 c4 c5 (9) 
    A30 A34 A33
 Sicilian Najdorf (5) 
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   K Rogoff vs R Blumenfeld, 1976 1-0
   K Rogoff vs A H Williams, 1969 1/2-1/2
   Huebner vs K Rogoff, 1972 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs S Spencer, 1969 1-0
   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 Timman, 1971 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 1975 by suenteus po 147
   US Championship 1974 by Phony Benoni

   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

(born Mar-22-1953, 63 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:; Rogoff's game against Magnus Carlsen in August 2012 in New York:; Article by Rogoff in Chessbase titled <Rogoff on innovation, unemployment, inequality and dislocation> with particular reference to professional chess:

Wikipedia article: Kenneth Rogoff

 page 1 of 6; games 1-25 of 132  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Larsen vs K Rogoff ½-½35 1968 Canadian OpenA02 Bird's Opening
2. K Rogoff vs S Spencer 1-020 1969 US Jnr ChpB15 Caro-Kann
3. E M Green vs K Rogoff ½-½37 1969 World Junior ChB12 Caro-Kann Defense
4. K Rogoff vs A H Williams ½-½106 1969 World Junior Championship, B FinalA56 Benoni Defense
5. J Durao vs K Rogoff 0-130 1970 MalagaB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
6. K Rogoff vs Z Vranesic  0-148 1970 Ontario opB83 Sicilian
7. H Pfleger vs K Rogoff  1-059 1970 WchT U26 17thA58 Benko Gambit
8. Ulf Andersson vs K Rogoff 1-036 1971 OlotB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
9. J Durao vs K Rogoff  0-165 1971 MalagaB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
10. K Rogoff vs Timman 1-048 1971 Malaga 11/138B08 Pirc, Classical
11. Ljubojevic vs K Rogoff 1-029 1971 MalagaB50 Sicilian
12. E Paoli vs K Rogoff 1-026 1971 Liberation tournB06 Robatsch
13. V Tukmakov vs K Rogoff  1-042 1971 Liberation tournD93 Grunfeld, with Bf4 & e3
14. K Rogoff vs L Day ½-½21 1971 World Student OlympiadA15 English
15. Karpov vs K Rogoff 1-026 1971 06, Mayaguez tt-studA22 English
16. K Rogoff vs Adorjan 1-030 1972 Graz Stu ttB30 Sicilian
17. Huebner vs K Rogoff ½-½12 1972 WchT U26 19th fin-AA15 English
18. K Rogoff vs V Tukmakov 1-041 1972 WchT U26 19th fin-AB21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4
19. K Rogoff vs Suttles 0-147 1973 Ottawa op-CANB06 Robatsch
20. L Day vs K Rogoff  ½-½23 1973 CAN-opA07 King's Indian Attack
21. Pilnik vs K Rogoff  0-156 1973 NorristownB81 Sicilian, Scheveningen, Keres Attack
22. E Paoli vs K Rogoff 0-139 1973 NorristownB06 Robatsch
23. K Rogoff vs Soltis  ½-½14 1974 US ChampionshipE62 King's Indian, Fianchetto
24. Browne vs K Rogoff 1-041 1974 US ChampionshipB60 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer
25. K Rogoff vs Bisguier  ½-½77 1974 US ChampionshipE08 Catalan, Closed
 page 1 of 6; games 1-25 of 132  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 9802 OF 9802 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: A day in the life of Joe Liberal from

"Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He makes it with a machine he could not possibly have made himself. He does not know where it was made, or how it works, and may not care. He does not know the people that planted, cultivated, harvested, dried, roasted, packaged, freighted, warehoused, distributed, marketed, or retailed his coffee, and may not care. The company that insures the manufacturer of the coffee machine required that it meet certain safety guidelines, as established by the private insurance-company-funded Underwriters Laboratory. Joe has seen the UL mark, but is not really sure what it's for or how it protects him. He doesn't clearly understand why greedy businessmen might be interested in a safe product. All of this was made possible by libertarians who fought for and won the legal right to free trade.

He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water which he bought from Ozarka, because the local government monopoly of water supply bears the comforting designation of "accepted" and also tastes funny.

He thinks back to going to church on Sunday. He is happy to have a community where he can participate with other like-minded people in ceremony. This was made possible by the long struggle to disentangle church and state, and his church enjoys the absence of taxation. He wishes other aspects of his life could be so free.

He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee, and then he takes a long drag on a cigarette. He bought his medication while on a trip to Mexico, where, thanks to less regulation and looser enforcement of IP laws, they were much cheaper. His medications are safe to take because he bought them from a reputable dealer. He can still afford cigarettes and can still legally purchase them, because of those who continue to fight for his rights, even if his exercise of those rights might harm him or his family.

Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; it is fragranced with some sort of exotic flower and there are strange chemicals in it - god knows what - and he bought it, well, because he liked the picture of the kangaroo on the bottle. He luxuriates in his bourgeois moment in the shower, a luxury unavailable to even the most wealthy of only 200 years ago. He is able to have many of such seemingly simple luxuries because some greedy businessmen sought enormous profits in the only way they could: satisfying consumer demand.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because the accumulation of capital over centuries has now brought the discounted marginal value product of a schmuck like Joe to unimaginable heights. Joe doesn't know anything about economics because he doesn't have to. He is no smarter than his forbears, and he works less. Nonetheless, because he participates in a world-embracing division of labor where his specialized work on a growing capital base is greatly valued, he is richer.

Joe's employer pays these standards because if they don't, his employer's competitors will.

It's noon time, Joe doesn't need to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills - he uses online banking and direct deposit. He has no idea how these systems work, or what a banking clearinghouse is, but he is able to use these services at the lowest cost practicable because banks compete for his business. Notwithstanding the massive interventions to the business of banking, such as the creation of central banking and the Federal Reserve system and the repudiation of the gold standard, he is able to weather the government-induced business cycles and inflation by investing in mutual funds, annuities, stocks, bonds, REITs, real estate, and other investment vehicles. He is able to do this because of greedy entrepreneurs and libertarians who fought against usury laws.

The online banking leaves him free to take a moment to browse for his favorite books, movies, and music.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is not among the safest in the world because he chose not to buy a Volvo. His brother has a Volvo, but he has a gas-guzzling muscle car. He has this choice because nationalization of the auto industry was prevented.

He arrives at his rural boyhood home. The house didn't have any good programming choices until DirecTV offered an array of programming and high-speed internet, too. His dad uses a VCR, which only became affordable to him after lots of rich people bought the early, expensive versions and the manufacturers improved the designs and cut costs. In fact, his dad has a cell phone, TiVo, refrigerator, microwave oven, and a CD player - all of which became affordable to him because they were first the toys of the super-rich, and the crackpot schemes financed by the wealthy entrepreneurs willing and able to risk their money in such endeavors.

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on a reverse mortgage - a recent market innovation. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that libertarians are kooks and anarchists and thank God for continual market intervention and government protection. Government intervention and taxation improves and will continue to improve the standards of living of Americans. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Democrats/Republicans have fought to destroy every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.)

Joe agrees, and puts his support behind protectionism, taxation, monopolies, interventionism, and war: these are obviously the things upon which civilization is built."

Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: So I asked <zanzibar> if he is a liberal and this is his response:

<<BP> is a liberal too, liberally spreading his own version of hatred that many here have come to recognize.>

I rest my case.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Colonel Mortimer: Seems like Joe suffers from a common ailment that is prevalent in this forum - binary thinking. He can't decide who is telling the truth and who is lying, the private sector or the public sector.

If he took the unusual decision to think for himself, instead of allowing elephants and donkeys to dictate to him, he would conclude that there are no absolutes.

Unfortunately for Joe, he lives in America - the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilisation in between.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <nissy: Who is <me, myself>>

A brilliant question.

<nissy>, you are going to fast for a regular guy like me.

Too fast!

Slow down and have pity for the regular people. Don't you realize that you need to define how you understand "who" because you used that word in your question. Then tell me now you know for sure that your understanding of the word "who" is correct.

Thank you please.

Then you need to define "is" because you used that word. Once you do this, I will be confident that I understand what it is you are asking.

You might think that no one really needs to ask the other person what "who" and "is" means, because we are speaking English and these are basic words, but when I'm talking to you, <nisjesram>, I realize that I am on another level!

Sure the <tuna> or <abdel> might ask questions like these sometimes and I can blow it off, but when <nisjesram> asks, I sit up and take notice!

The semantic level that <nisjesram> operates at is above and beyond even the extraordinary. He finds himself simultaneously the manifestation, the personification of art and science, genius and brute fact, all swirling together high, high above on a plane of soaring spiritual enlightenment coupled with rare intellectual achievement.

How should an average person like me know what <nisjesram> means when he says "who" and "is"?

I know my place!

I humbly ask him to define those words in simple English so that I can have a full understanding of his question, a question which gives us a glimpse, a rare glimpse into the mind of someone far greater than mere genius! <Nisjesram> is a living expression of a combination of platonic forms previously thought to exist as separate abstract entities but now recognized as a sublime synthesis of artistic, intellectual, scientific and philosophical perfection embodied in a seemingly simple man from India!

Thank you please.

I'm glad I took the time to ask you to clarify your question. After all, I can't begin to guess what you really mean when you ask, "who is...". I thought I knew, I am now embarrassed to admit, but then I remembered who I am talking to! You are <nisjesram>! A man that has *mastered* fully three religions, all while on short breaks at work and in between the autodidactic endeavors that have contributed to his mastery of what is now recognized as the universe of his scholarly wisdom!

When he says "who" he means <WHO!>

When he says "is" he means <IS>!

<nisjesram> beckons to the *Meta*-metaphysical and expects me to understand just like that?

You have too high an opinion of me! I am not <johnlspouge> who is the only person in history who understands that there are logical faults in the moral argument even though it appears to the ordinary man to be a valid construct in the absolutely simplest form!

I await your instruction about the words "who" and "is" that you used in asking me what I mean when I say "me" and "myself".

Thank you please.

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <patzer2: Introducing the element of probability into logical arguments, involving entering the the realm of inductive logic where there are no absolutely certain premises or conclusions.> Formal deductive logic, like Euclidean geometry, is an abstract axiomatized discipline that has very little to do with real-world issues. Reaching absolute certainty in any practical question is like cooling a sample in a cryogenic device: you can get close to absolute zero, but you can never actually reach it.

A good example of the weakness of formal deductive reasoning is the fecklessness of Sherlock Holmes's favorite maxim: <"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." (A Study in Scarlet)> Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #33914).

Practically speaking, it's useless in detection, because there are hardly any situations where all but one possibility can be "eliminated" with 100% certainty.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: < Colonel Mortimer: Seems like Joe suffers from a common ailment that is prevalent in this forum - binary thinking.>

Hey look who's here. Mr. <foot in mouth>!

I see you are talking about binary thinking again!

Are you saying binary thinking is bad or good?

Maybe you find the words bad and good unhelpful, so, let's ask again.

Are you saying you find binary thinking preferable or non-preferable?

Or, are you saying that binary thinking is good, bad, preferable and non-preferable?

Yeah, what exactly are you saying?

Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <patzer2> a brilliant take on <joe>!

Well done sir. You stood the initial article on its head.


Premium Chessgames Member
  Colonel Mortimer: <Big Pawn: <Colonel Mortimer: Seems like Joe suffers from a common ailment that is prevalent in this forum - binary thinking.>

I see you are talking about binary thinking again!>

I see that the patient who suffers from the most virulent strand of this mental ailment is the first to remonstrate with my post.

That's not all bad news. After all, self-diagnosis, even of the most buried subconscious variety, is an important first step to recovery.

Feb-22-17  Nisjesram: <big pawn> very good post.

Of <diceman>/Popeye level.

Does everyone see the level of <big pawn>?

He says he is not a materialist .

For a materialist , you are a body/mind and when the body/mind dies , nothing remains. Gone.

So , that is what spirituality is all about . to know who you are if not body/mind.

And <big pawn> the genius can not even wrap his mind around this question.

And the man talks about bible. He knows everything about bible.

Yeah, right!

Go play with <diceman> , <big pawn>

When you grow up , we will talk spirituality.

Spirituality is not child's play , you kindergarten kid.

Let me know when you ready to learn spirituality and teachings of Jesus.


Feb-22-17  Nisjesram: Hey <big pawn> , you said you don't identify with any group - white, christian , american..

Who/what you identify with - body/mind ? Soul? Spirit?

Who are you ? Body/mind? Soul? Spirit? What happens after body mind dies?

And the kid can not even wrap his mind around this question.

Hahaha lol

Yeah, <big pawn> , you know everything about bible , spirituality, teaching of Jesus.

Both you and <diceman>.


Kindergarten kids !

Feb-22-17  Nisjesram: Go bring your shoeshine kit, <big pawn> .

Hahaha lol

<shams> is right ....

Anyone who wastes time with this kindergarten kid is immature.

Both I and <abdel irada> are immature.

<abdel irada>'s immaturity is huge. He thinks he is doing a great service if he succeeds in defeating <big pawn> in some debate.

Anyone who can take himself and this forum so seriously is very immature.

You not shaping the mind of people by posting here. There are just a few people who are exchanging ideas and gaining clarity for themselves.

You not having impact at the level of Chomsky, zakaria, bill o Reilly.

Ridiculous! Unimaginable immaturity.

Only those people who are posting here benefitting. There are not any invisible readers.

What craziness !

You break my heart , <abdel irada>. You are so smart , intelligent and ethical too and you waste time on kids like <big pawn> and take this forum so seriously.

Sheer waste.

<shams> is right about this issue - absolutely right

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: We hear a lot about the "autism spectrum." By now the consensus seems to be that everyone is on it, somewhere between 0% and 100%.

I am particularly interested in the irascibility spectrum, which ranges from complete placidity to maniacal. On that scale I am somewhat to the right of the midpoint. (Don't try to tell me that I'm really just a sweetheart. I won't believe it.) My state of anger tends to vary between irritation and rage.

But there are lots of other personality variables, so there are lots of other spectra: ambitiousness, generosity, seriousness, etc.

One that is currently getting prominent, if implicit attention, is the narcissism or egoism spectrum. On this spectrum personalities range from total self-effacement to Donald Trump.

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Bobsterman3000: Reminds one of a movie, yes.> _Holes_?
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <OhioChessFan: Yes, people of color have proven over and over they'll vote for someone based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character. Sounds rather racist to me.>

And white people have proven over and over they'll vote *against* someone based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character. *Some* white people. Not you of course.

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <patzer2: Here's how that proposal infringed on the rights of law abiding gun owners:

1. Called for requiring criminal back ground checks on the sale of all firearms, including private sales which are exempt under federal law. This would have eliminated private party sale of weapons from one law abiding citizens to another.> How would you know that they're law-abiding without a background check? By skin color?

Feb-22-17  Nisjesram: Anyone who wastes time discussing OMV theory with <big pawn> is stupid because he would be playing <big pawn>'s game - a kindergarten game.

This kindergarten kid know nothing about spirituality beyond stupid, kindergarten level OMV theory.

Ask him who he is if not body/mind - soul?spirit? Consciousness? And kid can't even wrap his mind around the question

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <patzer2>: The Second Amendment doesn't just guarantee the right to own guns. It's about the right to bear *arms*. "Arms" are weapons. In 1787 the framers probably had flintlock muskets in mind. But surely they didn't mean to bar ownership of other weapons that existed then, such as knives, swords, and lances. (I'm not sure about naval cannons, howitzers, and field artillery.)

In 1787 "arms" didn't include automatic rifles. That apparently doesn't bother you. But the term also didn't include hand grenades, ground-to-air and air-to-air missiles, anti-personnel mines, or nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological weapons.

Is there *any* weapon that you think should be kept out of the hands of private citizens by law?

Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Colonel Mortimer: <Big Pawn: <Colonel Mortimer: Seems like Joe suffers from a common ailment that is prevalent in this forum - binary thinking.> I see you are talking about binary thinking again!>

I see that the patient who suffers from the most virulent strand of this mental ailment is the first to remonstrate with my post.

That's not all bad news. After all, self-diagnosis, even of the most buried subconscious variety, is an important first step to recovery.>

Did I confuse you with my question? Because, this answer does not address my question.

When liberals talk among each other about things liberals understand, like homosexuality, pedophilia, global warming causing global cooling, making a man woman of the year - things like that, I wonder if they have any clarity of thought.

When you <mort>, talk about *binary thinking*, is a a good thing or a bad thing?

Express yourself.

If this question confuses you, I will understand. It must be hard to put a clear line of thinking together with all that static in your mind.

Why don't you sleep on it, boy, and get back to me when you feel confident in your answer.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <nissy: For a materialist , you are a body/mind and when the body/mind dies , nothing remains. Gone.>

Well done!

You lost me though when you said "a materialist". What do you mean by "a"?

I understood everything (I think) until the word "a" and then, I admit, I was lost. I was swept away with the magnitude of intellectual force and philosophical insight that came washing over me all at once.

Please understand that I am being 99.99% genuine and sincere.

I know that you studied personally (!) with Deepak Chopra! Indeed, your time was not wasted, and now you are here, giving away your precious insights for free!

I sit up and take notice!

Perhaps it was Deepak Chopra who enlightened you to these truths that I've never heard before. You are a teacher who teaches unlike one since Jesus!

<nissy: For a materialist , you are a body/mind and when the body/mind dies , nothing remains. Gone>

When I read such rare and valuable insights, I feel ashamed that I didn't agree with you in my forum when you said that the whole point of the bible is <I Am that I am>! I had no idea that you had these precious gems of enlightenment on the tip of your tongue. I understand now that your time with Deepak Chopra has made you like a sparkling diamond of wisdom, while I worth no more than a dirty, flat Canadian penny!

I have to say, I'm humbled. This is the first time in my life I have ever been humbled and <nissy> humbled me with his rare enlightenment <For a materialist , you are a body/mind and when the body/mind dies , nothing remains. Gone>


I tell you the truth. I am 99.99% genuine in all that I say.

You are 99.99% anti-kindergarten! From now on when you speak, I will sit up and take notice!

Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <nisjesram: if you recall i had said at that point that i was a bit 'annoyed' to hear <abdel > say that deepak chopra and his thoughts were similar because i used to consider deepak chopra very smart and <abdel irada> absolute idiot :)


More philosophical musings from the kindergarten *Teacher*

<x pack abs.

i on the other hand want six pack abs. and i want to have it bible way - "ask and it will be given to you". in a completely effortless way that is.>

And now a bit of spiritual truth:

<deepak chopra has a lot of money and he says he got the money bible way.>

He got the money bible way.


Popeye the sailor man!

I live in a garbage can!

I likes to go swimmin' with bowlegged women

I'm Popeye the sailor MAAAAAAAAN!"



Life is fair.
Life is good.

Like a dog that chases his own tail, <nisjesram> is entertaining and funny for only a short while. I will let this be the last post on this subject.

In other news, Trump is the president of the United States, boys are boys and men are men again, Milo resigned from Breitbart and all is well.

Life is fair.
Life is good.

One thing that we need to keep in mind, is that there are no problems in life.

Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: That Facebook post is lovely stuff.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Colonel Mortimer: <Big Pawn> <When you <mort>, talk about *binary thinking*, is it a good thing?>

Only if wilful ignorance is a good thing.

Rather than have you spoon-fed, I'm sure you would agree it to be a more fulfilling arrangement to figure things out on your own.

Get back to me once you've managed to reflect peacefully, away from keyboard bashing temper tantrums.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: This country was built by conservatives, not liberals. Liberals do not know how to build; they only know how to destroy.

Liberals have destroyed,

the family
the unborn child
the white man
the black man
the military
DC New Orleans
Common sense
higher education
black families
the Catholic church
Christianity in America
traditional values
the legacy of our founding fathers
Christian bakeries
Cities (space to destroy)
respect for the police
the Democratic party
freedom of speech with PC
the truth

Liberals do not build, the destroy.

That's why even though libs can disagree, they come together and fight hard when it's time for destruction.

Liberalism is the justification and rationalization of sin, and sin destroys.

Liberalism is bad breath of the mind. Liberals don't realize that they have "bad breath".

Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Colonel Mortimer: <Big Pawn> <When you <mort>, talk about *binary thinking*, is it a good thing?> Only if wilful ignorance is a good thing.

Rather than have you spoon-fed, I'm sure you would agree it to be a more fulfilling arrangement to figure things out on your own.>

Okay, so you don't know if binary thinking is:

1. Good
2. Bad
3. Preferable
4. Not preferable

Okay. At least this much is clear.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 9802)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 9802 OF 9802 ·  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, 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 | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC