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

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.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
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) 
    B93
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 A H Williams, 1969 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs Timman, 1971 1-0
   K Rogoff vs Bisguier, 1974 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs Smejkal, 1976 1-0
   K Rogoff vs Larsen, 1976 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs O Castro, 1976 1-0
   Huebner vs K Rogoff, 1976 1/2-1/2
   A Matanovic vs K Rogoff, 1976 1/2-1/2

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

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

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


KENNETH ROGOFF
(born Mar-22-1953, 62 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 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 A H Williams ½-½106 1969 World Junior Championship, B FinalA56 Benoni Defense
3. E M Green vs K Rogoff ½-½37 1969 World Junior ChB12 Caro-Kann Defense
4. K Rogoff vs S Spencer 1-020 1969 US Jnr ChpB15 Caro-Kann
5. H Pfleger vs K Rogoff  1-059 1970 WchT U26 17thA58 Benko Gambit
6. K Rogoff vs Z Vranesic  0-148 1970 Ontario opB83 Sicilian
7. J Durao vs K Rogoff 0-130 1970 MalagaB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
8. K Rogoff vs L Day ½-½21 1971 World Student OlympiadA15 English
9. Ljubojevic vs K Rogoff 1-029 1971 MalagaB50 Sicilian
10. K Rogoff vs Timman 1-048 1971 Malaga 11/138B08 Pirc, Classical
11. Ulf Andersson vs K Rogoff 1-036 1971 OlotB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
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. J Durao vs K Rogoff  0-165 1971 MalagaB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
15. Karpov vs K Rogoff 1-026 1971 06, Mayaguez tt-studA22 English
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. K Rogoff vs Suttles 0-147 1973 Ottawa op-CANB06 Robatsch
20. E Paoli vs K Rogoff 0-139 1973 NorristownB06 Robatsch
21. Pilnik vs K Rogoff  0-156 1973 NorristownB81 Sicilian, Scheveningen, Keres Attack
22. L Day vs K Rogoff  ½-½23 1973 CAN-opA07 King's Indian Attack
23. K Rogoff vs K Commons  1-042 1974 US ChampionshipD47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
24. Benko vs K Rogoff ½-½30 1974 US ChampionshipB30 Sicilian
25. J A Grefe vs K Rogoff  ½-½30 1974 US ChampionshipC73 Ruy Lopez, Modern Steinitz Defense
 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 7786 OF 7786 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Shams: Ok, I'll try another tack. What do you think your chances of success are?>

...about as good as me convincing Bartle a dead inner-city black is a problem.

(once you get past Obama's 15 or so politically useful ones)

Feb-07-16  devere: <Big Pawn: Cruz lines up with me ideologically but I think Trump is more electable and has what it takes. Cruz is unelectable.>

According to the latest Gallup survey Ted Cruz is viewed unfavorably by 37% of the American people and Donald Trump by 60%. 33% view Trump favorably, and 7% are undecided. It is Trump who is truly unelectable, not Cruz, unless it is a 3-way election with a strong independent candidate, in which case any of the three candidates might win.

Feb-07-16  Jim Bartle: <Ok, I'll try another tack. What do you think your chances of success are?>

With him? None. Though he's had to introduce a new facet: charity.

But other readers can see the fallacy of his claims.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Jim Bartle: I think <big pawn> takes himself extremely seriously, wih an exalted self-image, which stops him from admitting even obvious mistakes.>

Look who's talking.
The "White King" of the black man.

Who deems the inner-city okey-dokey.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <JB> So you admit that you have no chance but continue anyway. Can you see how frustrating that is?

<But other readers can see the fallacy of his claims.>

Give the other readers a little more credit maybe? They can solve monday-level puzzles just as you and I can.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Shams: Ok, I'll try another tack.>

Even Shams knows it useless to "disagree" with Bartle.

Feb-07-16  Jim Bartle: <The "White King" of the black man.

Who deems the inner-city okey-dokey.>

What are you talking about? That's completely divorced from reality.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Big Pawn: Your questions do not answer my question. You said my two points were not true. Which one is not true and why?

1. People can go to the er right now, from "the streets."

2. People deserve what they earn.

Which point is untrue <Jim>?

So which point is <Jim> saying is untrue? Let's see his answer.

<You simply cannot answer "yes" to both. It's simple logic.>

You already said that. That's why I'm asking you to tell me which point is untrue.

You've failed to respond since the beginning of this discussion.

That leaves me with the point.

You're just going to let me keep that point by not refuting my two claims?

Okay.

Next?

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Jim Bartle:

But other readers can see the fallacy of his claims.>

Which readers Jim, which claims?

Jim is Mister Truth & integrity.
He doesn't just make statements, he backs it up with facts/evidence.

Feb-07-16  Jim Bartle: <You already said that. That's why I'm asking you to tell me which point is untrue.>

The question is a matter of simple logic, which you appear to love so much.

The point is not what I believe, but how in the world you can possibly believe both are true.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Jim: You don't want to engage the subject, fine.

But YOU are the person who insists they be born, then abandons them the moment they leave the hospital.>

Years ago, I had more than one conversation with a good friend who was a strict Catholic in which we discussed this very topic--it was plainly far from easy for him to reconcile the concept of being pro-life, yet relinquishing all interest once the child enters the world.

Feb-07-16  devere: <Big Pawn: <Jim Bartle: Uh-oh. Trump says <big pawn> and <ocf> are wrong: “What I do say is, there will be a certain number of people that will be on the street dying and as a Republican, I don't want that to happen. And I think everybody on this stage would have to agree, you're not going to let people die, sitting in the middle of a street in any city in this country.” Trump doesn't believe you are entitled to only as much health care as you can afford.>

They can already go to the emergency room and receive vital medical as we speak.

How is this new?>

It was new in the 1980s when the Reagan administration settled that issue. Perhaps Trump wasn't following the news back then.

Feb-07-16  Jim Bartle: CNN has responded strongly and proved that Cruz was lying in his debate about his campaign forwarding information that Carson was suspending his campaign.

CNN reported the truth, that Carson was going to rest for a couple of days, and Cruz people told caucus goers, and made robocalls, that Carson was suspending his campaign.

What a slimeball.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: I don't believe medical treatment in the ER is done "for free".

Maybe what was intended was the phrase "for a fee", since patients will assuredly be billed for services provided upon receiving treatment.

Of course, whether or not they can actually pay for such treatment is another matter.

For the record, what is stipulated by law, can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerg...

An ER must provide care to individuals in need regardless of ability to pay (and other conditions) - but not for free. This law only applies to hospitals that receive Medicare payments, which no hospital is forced to accept. For those that do receive Medicare, wiki says this:

<Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.>

I just want to be clarify this point - that the "treatment at the ER for free" is a premise without universal application, strictly for purposes of debate.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <diceman: <Big Pawn: Which point is untrue <Jim>?> You can just feel their cowardice
oozing from every pore.

Unable to make direct definitive statements because they need room to hide.>

Glad you noticed <dice>. Watch him squirm and avoid answering which point is false.

All I have to do is SLAP my hand down on the table and these beta males scatter!

Feb-07-16  Jim Bartle: Not scattering.

How can a person hold both opinions?

"People should be able to go to the ER for free."

"You should get only the medical care you can pay for."

Just a little dissonance there.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Jim: But other readers can see the fallacy of his claims.>

You haven't even tried to show that either point is false:

1. People can already receive care in the er, coming in right off "the streets".

2. One deserves only what one earns.

which point is false as you claim?

<new facet: charity>.

Charity is not new and I didn't introduce it. When people receive others what they didn't earn, it's called charity.

So when I give a bum a can of beans, he didn't earn it from me and therefore doesn't deserve it. But, I give him the beans anyway and that's charity.

Not a new concept at all.

Now, you claimed that my two points were untrue. Which one?

1. People receive care in er right off the street already.

(Is that true?)

2. One deserves what one earns.

(Is that true?)

Waiting...

Feb-07-16  Jim Bartle: I did NOT claim your two points were untrue. Can't you read.

I claim you cannot hold these two <opinions > simultaneously:

1. People should get free care in the ER if they can't pay.

2. People should only get the medical care they can pay for.

<new facet: charity>.

Rather obviously, for any honest or intelligent person, that refers to a new facet <in this argument>. Dooooohhhh.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Give the other readers a little more credit maybe? They can solve monday-level puzzles just as you and I can.>

There you go.

<shames> and <Jim> say this:

1. People cannot go in off the street to the er and receive treatment.

They actually claim that this is true.

<shames> and <Jim> say this:

2. One does not deserve what one earns.

And they think "their trades" agree!

All together now:

LOL!!!

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Jim Bartle: <You already said that. That's why I'm asking you to tell me which point is untrue.>

The question is a matter of simple logic, which you appear to love so much.>

You didn't say which point is untrue. Let me ask again so we can move this discussion forward.

Is it untrue that:

1. You can go in right now, off "the streets", and get immediate medical treatment in er?

Is it untrue that:

2. One deserves only what one earns?

Dig in <Jim>, which point is untrue?

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Jim Bartle: <The "White King" of the black man.

Who deems the inner-city okey-dokey.>

What are you talking about? That's completely divorced from reality.>

I'm talking about this liar:

<Nobody on this page can do it. Not <big pawn>, not <diceman>, not <OCF>. Just the same unsupported claim, over and over.>

Who the hell are you?
Every fact/evidence known to man supports it.

But...
Liar Bartle must decide.
Liar Bartle gives the black mans death, or incarceration, thumbs up or thumbs down. ...because liar Bartle has only ever had one argument: "I disagree"

Liar Bartle is the Almighty.
Liar Bartle like most atheists loves to play god.

...and what does "Mr. Truth and Integrity" tell us after 5 decades of coffin filling, 5 decades of prison filling.

...oh he's very concerned over Freddie Grey. Oh its so believable I could cry. Rrrrrrrrrrright!

This is exactly why you don't hand your freedom and liberty over to liberal liars. You get an Almighty like Jim
who is willing to let the black man take one for the team.

...or as Jim says:
<takes himself extremely seriously, wih an exalted self-image, which stops him from admitting even obvious mistakes.>

Of course, the only difference is Jim's white elitism, snobbery, hubris, fills coffins/prisons and destroys lives.(and of course allows him to play god when the results come in)

Trump vs. BP is empty yap, yap, yap.

<empty yap, yap, yap> ...a Bartle specialty area.

The sad thing is Jim pretending he can even discern facts/evidence with his blindness, hate and bias.
I guess the first rule of being a liberal liar is you have to lie to yourself.

...how else could they even sleep at night?

...at least liar Mrs. Bill, and liar Obama get paid well for stepping on throats.

Jim does it for nothing.
Hey Chicago, email your death stats here God Bartle will decide if there's a problem. His word is final. He is the almighty.

At least we solved BP's statement.
God does exist, he's the almighty Jim Bartle.

Feb-07-16  Jim Bartle: <2. One deserves only what one earns? >

That is an opinion, not a fact.

<1. You can go in right now, off "the streets", and get immediate medical treatment in er?>

That is true, but you agreed with the statement that "A person deserves only the medical attention he can afford." So you must disagree with ER attention being free.

Or there is an inconsistency in your two opinions.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Jim Bartle: I did NOT claim your two points were untrue. Can't you read.>

<Jim Bartle: Both cannot be true.>

NEXT!!

LOL!!

Since you said both can't be true I asked which one isn't true.

I've asked maybe ten times by now but you won't answer. You just try to ask me more questions.

So AGAIN which point is untrue?

(Hey, just once more for laughs:

Jim Bartle: I did NOT claim your two points were untrue. Can't you read.>

<Jim Bartle: Both cannot be true.> )

A question for <OCF>, <dice>, <tpstar>, <sugardom>, <jambow>, <the focus>, <pinned piece>:

Is it wrong that I so thoroughly enjoy smashing these weak, lying, liberal beta males like this? I mean, should I continue to utterly crush them with overwhelming force, or should I let them have their fun once in a while?

I enjoy entering this fly filled room with my fly-swatter and swatting the flies left and right.

It's good, honest work.

It's a man's work.

Feb-07-16  Jim Bartle: <Jim Bartle: I did NOT claim your two points were untrue. Can't you read.>

<Jim Bartle: Both cannot be true.>

I mean, really, how outright utterly stupid can you be?

There's no contradiction. I am saying BOTH cannot be true. I have NEVER said both are false. Only ONE can be true.

Feb-07-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Jim Bartle:
Nobody on this page can do it. Not <big pawn>, not <diceman>, not <OCF>. Just the same unsupported claim, over and over.>

<OhioChessFan: Own them, Jim, own them.>

Jim has neither the courage or honesty
to stand behind the lies he supports or the failure.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 7786)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 7786 OF 7786 ·  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 | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2016, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies