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 Smejkal, 1976 1-0
   Huebner vs K Rogoff, 1976 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs Timman, 1971 1-0
   K Rogoff vs Bisguier, 1974 1/2-1/2
   A Lombard vs K Rogoff, 1976 0-1
   Petrosian vs K Rogoff, 1976 1/2-1/2
   Sosonko vs K Rogoff, 1976 1/2-1/2
   Tal vs K Rogoff, 1976 1/2-1/2

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

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


KENNETH ROGOFF
(born Mar-22-1953, 61 years old) 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: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fa...; 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 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. Ljubojevic vs K Rogoff 1-029 1971 MalagaB50 Sicilian
10. K Rogoff vs L Day ½-½21 1971 World Student OlympiadA15 English
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. 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 Reshevsky 0-128 1974 US ChampionshipC68 Ruy Lopez, Exchange
24. K Rogoff vs K Commons  1-042 1974 US ChampionshipD47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
25. Benko vs K Rogoff ½-½30 1974 US ChampionshipB30 Sicilian
 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 6197 OF 6197 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <achieve: Just the mere stating that there must be a timeless endless maximum, whatever, perfect being, in order to argue that individual humans can not have objective moral values, gliding down the path that each's moral values are in fact subjective, does not match up well with our being created in His Image.>

That's not what I've argued.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Clearest illustration is that, a couple of hundred years ago, he could have made the same "abusing a baby? How can that be a matter of opinion? Here, surely, is an OMV if ever there was one" - but he could have made that claim with his anti-homosexuality pitch.>

Appealing to moral experience in no way relies specifically on any one moral dilemma. All that we need to agree on is that at least some things are objectively right and wrong and NOT just opinions.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Jim Bartle: <!!> <1. No one has disputed the truth of #1.>

I have. >

Assertions carry no weight. You need to be substantive to matter.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <In fact, your "circularity" is familiar to professional mathematicians as "assuming what you need to prove the theorem". >

No it doesn't.

1. If not A then not B.
2. B
3. Therefore A

Not contradictory. A contradiction would be this:

1. If not A then not B.
2. B
3. Therefore NOT A!!!

Sep-22-14  diceman: <HeMateMe:
I think that CEO's who hide income abroad and cheat the American taxpayers should be castrated.>

You'll need to find something else for democrats.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: < johnlspouge: < <schweigzwang> wrote: <<!!> God, as a maximally great being that has existed timelessly, is obviously existing apart from us.>

Well there you go. You've posited (3.) and nothing more needs to be said. >

It's not positing #3.

That would be to remove the words IF and THEN.

Get a clue Spooge.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: <Assertions carry no weight. You need to be substantive to matter.>

You said nobody questioned your claim. I clearly did. You were mistaken.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <schweigzwang: <Beware potential word play here on "God">

This gets back to the criticism of <Big Pawn> that his arguments suffer due to imprecise, or even lack of, definitions.

<Big Pawn> responded with a long list of definitions, but I don't recall that it included a definition of God.>

You're not going to weasel out with that lame argument.

God: The timeless, immaterial, non spacial, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator of the universe and, as a maximally great being the locus of goodness and moral value.

Easy.

This is really easy - it's just the classical definition of God. It is this definition of God that atheists try to use to "prove" that the concept of God is incoherent...Like the problem of evil (how could an all good, all loving God create a world with evil?)

Sep-22-14  diceman: <Jim Bartle: The average corporate income tax paid by major corporations is around 12-14%, from what I've read. Is that excessive?>

...not for all that fine/handsome poverty fix'in!

...and the ghetto/slum "equality" is icing on the cake.

...besides, it looks like the IRS email system needs an update.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: <This is really easy - it's just the classical definition of God.>

True, but of many different Gods, not just the one you believe in.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: < Bureaucrat: <nok: <If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.>

That's just dumb creationism, only applied to ideas. Zebras exist objectively so they were created by God. Yeah, right.>

p1: If God does not exist then Zebras do not exist.
p2: Zebras exist.
C: Therefore God exists.>

You could expand this and it would be much stronger:

1. If God does not exist then the universe does not exist. 2. The universe exists
3. Therefore God exists.

Better yet is the kalam version:

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause (and that cause it God).

You can go further with this and use Leibniz's argument:

"no fact can be real or existent, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise."

With this he claimed that anything that exists has an explanation for its existence. This is the "principle of sufficient reason".

Put into form it goes like this:

1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3) The universe exists.

4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.

5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

It's an argument from contingency in effect, but Leibniz maintained that nothing in the universe could really explain why something else existed, which lead him to theistic conclusions.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Big Liar: Assertions carry no weight.....>

You should know--your career is spent on such windy posts.

<....You need to be substantive to matter.>

However one defines 'substantive', you clearly are not, in any meaningful way.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  devere: <HeMateMe:>

What you happen to think and reality may diverge.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/ho...

It is not companies playing lurid tax games that want to leave the USA; it is those not playing games, and not able to repatriate foreign profits to the home office without paying substantial extra taxes. As has been proven many times, rich people and corporations will vote with their feet, and the USA is foolish to give them substantial incentives to leave.

Sep-22-14  diceman: <Big Pawn:

God: The timeless, immaterial, non spacial, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator of the universe and, as a maximally great being the locus of goodness and moral value.>

Wow, throw in "golfs a lot"
and is sounds like the almighty Obama.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gregor Samsa Mendel: <BP--(how could an all good, all loving God create a world with evil?)>

Actually, how does that happen?

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  johnlspouge: < <Big Pawn> wrote: < johnlspouge: < <schweigzwang> wrote: <<!!> God, as a maximally great being that has existed timelessly, is obviously existing apart from us.>

Well there you go. You've posited (3.) and nothing more needs to be said. >

It's not positing #3.

That would be to remove the words IF and THEN.

Get a clue Spooge. >

Get off the drugs, take a deep breath, read carefully, and then quote me accurately (and don't get too confused when I quote <schweigzwang>).

..."you can see how these liberals get very upset when you don't agree with them"...

La-lala-lala-lala    ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤   ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  johnlspouge: < <Big Pawn>: God: The timeless, immaterial, non spacial, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator of the universe and, as a maximally great being the locus of goodness and moral value. >

You implicitly made the following claims about the maximally great being (in reality, there can be only one, by the way - proof left to the reader): timeless, immaterial, non spacial, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator of the universe.

You need to prove them. Have fun.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <devere> <As has been proven many times, rich people and corporations will vote with their feet, and the USA is foolish to give them substantial incentives to leave.>

I'm in full agreement. Remember what happened to Oliver Twist when he asked for more? The smart thing to do is to keep your mouth shut and drink your six ounces of gruel. Somewhere in the world there's a poor bastard even more desperate than you, and he'll pick oakum for 5.9 ounces of gruel a day.

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: There's one more grownup in Alaska tonight: <'@#$% it, I quit': Alaska TV reporter makes on-air exit to fight for pot legalisation> http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...
Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <al wazir> That's awesome. The anchor's fuddle afterwards is great too.
Sep-23-14  Tomlinsky: <jls: You implicitly made the following claims about the maximally great being (in reality, there can be only one, by the way - proof left to the reader): timeless, immaterial, non spacial, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator of the universe. You need to prove them. Have fun.>

But <jls>:

1. If God does not exist then God does not exist.

2. God exists.

3. Therefore God exists.

Sep-23-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  pawn to QB4: <Appealing to moral experience in no way relies specifically on any one moral dilemma. All that we need to agree on is that at least some things are objectively right and wrong and NOT just opinions>

We don't so agree: you think that things are really right or wrong and my sort of opponent merely holds the opinion that things are right or wrong. You're welcome to any moral superiority you think that gives you: when you go on to condemn homosexuality, for instance, I just think that your sense of morality is unappealing.

I like the reformulations of the syllogism with "God" or "zebras" replacing OMVs. Pity, it would have been nice to have the existence of God proved, always assuming He's been misrepresented in some of the scriptures.

Sep-23-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Can a supposedly intelligent being be so tone-deaf to the tenor of life, reasoning and so much else as <Big Liar>? At least <dice> is no more than a snivelling, gormless attack dog and makes no pretences to anything more on this page.
Sep-23-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: <perfidious: Can a supposedly intelligent being be so tone-deaf to the tenor of life, reasoning and so much else as <Big Liar>?>

Shure.

The lesser knowledge about life/reality, the easier it is to jump on the ABC train.

And how to exchange ideas and having adult conversations if you fall in love with your own brain ?

Sep-23-14  Tomlinsky: Well, that way it's easier to convince yourself that you have found the reason for life, the universe and everything by trying to apply boolean logic to sentences of words.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6197)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6197 OF 6197 ·  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 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 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies