K Rogoff 
Photograph courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.  
Kenneth 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
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
      1 exhibition game, odds game, etc. is excluded from this statistic.

With the White pieces:
 English (10) 
    A15 A13 A18 A16 A19
 Sicilian (8) 
    B21 B23 B38 B30 B85
 Ruy Lopez (7) 
    C68 C95 C65 C88 C97
 English, 1 c4 e5 (5) 
    A20 A29 A22
 King's Indian (5) 
    E62 E74 E63 E60
 English, 1 c4 c5 (5) 
    A30 A34 A36
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (12) 
    B93 B30 B60 B52 B85
 Caro-Kann (11) 
    B17 B10 B12 B13
 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
   Huebner vs K Rogoff, 1972 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs Bisguier, 1974 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs Smejkal, 1976 1-0
   Huebner vs K Rogoff, 1976 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs Timman, 1971 1-0
   K Rogoff vs Ulf Andersson, 1976 1/2-1/2
   Reshevsky vs K Rogoff, 1978 0-1
   Geller vs K Rogoff, 1976 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs Gulko, 1976 1/2-1/2

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

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

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

(born Mar-22-1953) United States of America

[what is this?]
Kenneth Saul Rogoff learned chess from his father at age 6, but took up the game in earnest when he got 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. However, at 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. K Rogoff vs A H Williams ½-½106 1969 World Junior Championship, B FinalA56 Benoni Defense
4. E M Green vs K Rogoff ½-½37 1969 World Junior ChB12 Caro-Kann Defense
5. J Durao vs K Rogoff 0-130 1970 MalagaB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
6. H Pfleger vs K Rogoff  1-059 1970 WchT U26 17thA58 Benko Gambit
7. K Rogoff vs Z Vranesic  0-148 1970 Ontario opB83 Sicilian
8. Karpov vs K Rogoff 1-026 1971 06, Mayaguez tt-studA22 English
9. K Rogoff vs L Day ½-½21 1971 World Student OlympiadA15 English
10. Ljubojevic vs K Rogoff 1-029 1971 MalagaB50 Sicilian
11. K Rogoff vs Timman 1-048 1971 Malaga 11/138B08 Pirc, Classical
12. Ulf Andersson vs K Rogoff 1-036 1971 OlotB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
13. E Paoli vs K Rogoff 1-026 1971 Liberation tournB06 Robatsch
14. V Tukmakov vs K Rogoff  1-042 1971 Liberation tournD93 Grunfeld, with Bf4 & e3
15. J Durao vs K Rogoff  0-165 1971 MalagaB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
16. K Rogoff vs V Tukmakov 1-041 1972 WchT U26 19th fin-AB21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4
17. K Rogoff vs Adorjan 1-030 1972 Graz Stu ttB30 Sicilian
18. Huebner vs K Rogoff ½-½12 1972 WchT U26 19th fin-AA15 English
19. L Day vs K Rogoff  ½-½23 1973 CAN-opA07 King's Indian Attack
20. K Rogoff vs Suttles 0-147 1973 Ottawa op-CANB06 Robatsch
21. E Paoli vs K Rogoff 0-139 1973 NorristownB06 Robatsch
22. Pilnik vs K Rogoff  0-156 1973 NorristownB81 Sicilian, Scheveningen, Keres Attack
23. N Weinstein vs K Rogoff  ½-½11 1974 US ChampionshipC42 Petrov Defense
24. K Rogoff vs Reshevsky 0-128 1974 US ChampionshipC68 Ruy Lopez, Exchange
25. K Rogoff vs K Commons  1-042 1974 US ChampionshipD47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
 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 5702 OF 5702 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: The Cameron Todd Willingham case already looked thin. Now it's stinking to high heaven.

I'll resist an easy crack about "Texas Justice"-- this same crap happens in every state. Prosecutors know jailhouse snitches lie all the time, but they don't care. And the judicial system lets them cut deals with these rats and then lie to the jury about it.

Premium Chessgames Member
  PinnedPiece: <shams: I'll resist an easy crack about "Texas Justice"->

I'll resist an easy crack about the Innocence Project, whose paid "investigators" found that the original arson investigation "was flawed" because it found burn pattern evidence of accelerants on the floor, yet the arson investigators <FAILED TO FIND ACCELERANTS in the house!> That was the level of their "debunking" the arson investigation.

Yes, and it was the Innocence Project "lawyers" who "found" an unsigned, undated note on some random folder that proves Texas officers of the law were not honest: < he saw a note scrawled on the inside of the district attorney’s file folder stating that Mr. Webb’s charges were to be listed as robbery in the second degree, not the heavier first-degree robbery charge he had originally been convicted on, “based on coop in Willingham.”> Webb supposedly got a lesser charge for ratting on Willingham. But up til this "discovery" everyone involved denied it.*

Yet, the Innocence Project has as it sole mission, to find proof that an innocent individual has been executed, and they are--by the looks of it--far more committed to finding such evidence, than any Texas Prosecutor would be to send an innocent man to the death chamber.

So if you have to suspect that <someone> is playing with the evidence, why wouldn't the fanatical, paid Innocence Project "experts" and lawyers be as potentially culpable as anyone involved? (How difficult is it to write out in broken Texan handwriting, a word or two misspelled, perhpas; just the note you always suspected was hidden in the files?)

The stink just may be emanating from the Innocence Project people. It seems a stretch to put all your confidence in them, anyway.

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

* Nowhere does the NY Times writer indicate that he tried to ascertain from Webb himself whether or not a deal was struck.


Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <PinnedPiece> Jailhouse snitching in return for prosecutorial deals is a total disgrace and it happens all the time. Why don't you learn something about it instead of shooting your mouth off once again? Haven't you demonstrated your ignorance enough for one week?

The notion that the Innocence Project staff are in it for the money is absurd. You really can be surpassingly stupid sometimes.

Premium Chessgames Member
  cormier: nite nite gs ... thx G
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <PinnedPiece> <I'll resist an easy crack about the Innocence Project.>

Oh will you? So I just hallucinated the other paragraphs of your post?

My point, lost on no-one but yourself, was that what allegedly happened in Texas is in no way unique to Texas. But the mere mention of your state was apparently enough to drive you to throw a lone star-sized tantrum.

Premium Chessgames Member
  devere: "Mann vs. Steyn: The Trial of the Century"
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Glad to see <goldenbear> has returned to post on occasion, though not yet to this page.
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: has Abdullah aruda ever admitted being wrong? Even once?
Premium Chessgames Member
  PinnedPiece: <shams: The notion that the Innocence Project staff are in it for the money is absurd. >

I didn't mean to imply that the core figures of Innocence Project are in it for the money. However the experts they ask to testify certainly could be.

In most other cases, you yourself would be skeptical of the conclusions drawn up by fanatics, which the Innocence Project certainly is composed of. Have you ever had any contact with them? They are more clearly fanatics, than the Fire Marshalls who investigated the murders of the kids are clearly incompetent.

The Innocence Project have targeted this one case as providing their best chance to prove Antonin Scalia wrong when he said no provable case exists of an innocent person going to his death.

They may be right, but as I say, there is reason to suspect them as well. Since their motives line up with AmLibs view of the civilized world, I would expect any AmLib to trust them implicitly.

I'm just saying that could be a mistake. You are putting your faith in the people who found a scrawled, unsigned, undated note in a wierd place, as PROOF THAT THE GUILTY was not guilty. Those people who have an awful lot riding on proving their point, however they can.

-- -- ---- -- --- - - --- ----

As a side note, one wonders how AmLibs would think they could ever get information from a terrorist who might know something critical to the safety of the target populace. The thinking is that they don't tell the truth when under duress, and now, according to the Innocence Project, prisoners don't tell the truth when they are simply asked for it.


Premium Chessgames Member
  PinnedPiece: <shams: Haven't you demonstrated your ignorance enough for one week?>

????? As in, any argument with you is an indication of my ignorance?

You seem to have just dissed the entire nation's prosecutorial staff as being gullible idiots, accepting any old thing any old jailhouse snitch wants to say to get a lighter term. This is not ignorance of an even brasher type?

Tsk tsk.

If you want to prove your point rather than just claim you are educating me and I won't have it cause I'm ignorant, why don't you post a link like this one instead?


Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: <Abdel Irada: <PiPi: If there is someone who's contributions on this forum are 85% fact-free, and 90% logic-free, it's <perfidious>.>

This might be more convincing coming from another source: say one that isn't known for being nearly 100% free of both facts and logic.>

Maybe he meant it as a compliment - <PiPi> was saying that his own comments couldn't meet so rigorous a standard?

Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: <Shams: <PinnedPiece> Jailhouse snitching in return for prosecutorial deals is a total disgrace and it happens all the time.>

Agreed. There have been prisoners in Illinois who've requested to be put in solitary confinement because they were sure that otherwise they'd be put in with jailhouse snitches (who are <amazingly> successful at receiving confessions from their cellmates) otherwise.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: I repeat my question: Is there anyone here save his ideological allies (chiefly <diceman> and <OCF>) who feels that it is any longer necessary to *prove* that <PiPi> often posts links to articles that, at best, fail to support his arguments or, in many instances, actually undermine them?

If so, I will undertake the work of sifting through <PiPi> posts past and present to show that my assertion to this effect is firmly supported by much evidence.

If not, however, I would honestly prefer not to re-read heaps of hype that I winced to read the first time.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <If so, I will undertake the work of sifting through <PiPi> posts past and present to show that my assertion to this effect is firmly supported by much evidence.>

Please do. A harmless occupation that might keep you busy for a while. Since you are afflicted by whateveryoucallit.

Premium Chessgames Member
  devere: Insured by Obamacare, but no doctor will see them.

Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: Some doctors are now coming over from other parts of the world to attend medical school or start at the intern level, and granted citizenship if they agree to work in an underserved area for several years. Medicine will treat the ill. Have faith.

The MDs who are only in it for the money can get certified in plastic surgery, make bigger tits for girls, along with smaller noses. When they run out of rich women who want bigger tits and a smaller nose they can find some other line of work.

Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: roflmao
Premium Chessgames Member
  kellmano: <Shams: <kellmano> I don't disagree, but can you name a better alternative?>

Simply recognise that all authority is merely power and live co-operatively with fellow humans. No need for any government at all. Ok, this is not going to happen overnight, or at all in fact, but perhaps it would be possible to find an island and live in this way. Of course, you'd have to hope it didn't turn in to the Wicker Man. Anyone who suggested a festival involving a giant figure being burned would have to be expelled.

In the time being, I'd like support for democracy to be less dogmatic. No-one who thinks about it can seriously believe that just because most people feel a certain way that is total justification for its actualisation, and yet that is exactly the way lots of people talk (all politicians in fact). They all go around saying vox populous vox dei, acting as if they are the conduit for a rational decision making body. That's why it's quite so funny when the mask slips, like when Gordon Brown called that woman a bigot (seriously worth a youtube if you've never seen it, including the moment he realises he is busted).

Does my head in. Q. But why do I have to wear this star? A. The government has been democratically elected. It is the will of the people.

Premium Chessgames Member
  pawn to QB4: <Is there anyone here save his ideological allies (chiefly <diceman> and <OCF>) who feels that it is any longer necessary to *prove* that <PiPi> often posts links to articles that, at best, fail to support his arguments or, in many instances, actually undermine them?>

OK, I'll go down with that ship. I thought this was an informative and shocking article ( and thanks to PiPi for the link. Some of the same sort of horror has happened over here, but it makes me see why some law abiding Brits cite the US legal system as something that scares them off visiting the place. In the context of his argument, I take it PiPi is telling Shams he could have made a more effective move against PiPi's position? which would be the link used to support his point.

Premium Chessgames Member
  kellmano: Morning <pawn to QB4>. I see we have both followed up a late evening on Rogoff with a morning here :-)

In response to your point about whether the media could demonise a group such as chess players, I think that could indeed happen:

Premium Chessgames Member
  pawn to QB4: Hi kellmano - I suppose so. There was also poor old Wallace, nearly hanged for a murder he didn't commit, because of his cunning chess player's mind. Even though others thought him a patzer.
Premium Chessgames Member
  cormier: <<<<<<<<<<col 3:1-4> Brothers and sisters: If then you were raised with Christ, seek what is above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.> Think of what is above, not of what is on earth.> For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.> When Christ your life appears, then you too will appear with him in glory.> 1 cor 5:6b-8>
Brothers and sisters:
Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough?>
Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough,
inasmuch as you are unleavened.>

For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.>
Therefore, let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.>
Premium Chessgames Member
  kellmano: Speaking of Scottish Independence ......

I think it will be very close. As I've said before, I hope they do it. Quite interesting that a 50.1 - 49.9 decision could result in leaving the UK though. I do have a slight feeling that such a significant change really ought to have resounding support from the population. Will native Scots have the option to remain British citizens and keep the British passport? If not I do feel a little sorry for them if they want to be part of the Union and get edged in a referendum.

Premium Chessgames Member
  kellmano: Doesn't seem to sit too well with the outrage at Crimea leaving Ukraine with a 96% yes vote. I know that opponents boycotted the ballot, but only because they knew they were vastly outnumbered.
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <pipi: If there is someone who's contributions on this forum are 85% fact-free, and 90% logic-free, it's <perfidious>.>

Kenneth Rogoff

<unagi: Another of your insulting rants, zero facts, and you wonder why I think you come off as stupid. I sometimes wonder if there's some idiot savant issues going on here, where chess is the only place you have a modicum of intelligence.>

Such posters are comical in their vain attempts at stigmatising me as stupid and might be worth more than a moment's notice if they originated from people whom I actually respect.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 5702)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5702 OF 5702 ·  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 users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
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 | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies