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 Bisguier, 1974 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs Smejkal, 1976 1-0
   K Rogoff vs A H Williams, 1969 1/2-1/2
   K Rogoff vs O Castro, 1976 1-0
   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

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 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. 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. Ljubojevic vs K Rogoff 1-029 1971 MalagaB50 Sicilian
9. K Rogoff vs L Day ½-½21 1971 World Student OlympiadA15 English
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 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 3094 OF 6550 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-27-12  quantum.conscious: <goldenbear: <quantum conscious> I'm sure the dolphins have their own variety of "Lorentz transformation" and undoubtedly a statistical one for all possible locations of the fishes, analagous to quantum mechanics.>

:)

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: <So is it any wonder what an Ethiopian electrical engineer had in mind when he named his son Electron? But while engineering may have been in the boy's blood, this youngest of five children with siblings named Positron, Neutron, Deutron and Proton grew up to have medicine in his heart.>

I don't like the name Electron - too negative.

A woman at my medical school was named Positron. I would get a charge out of knowing that was her.

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  johnlspouge: < <tpstar> wrote: [snip] A woman at my medical school was named Positron. I would get a charge out of knowing that was her. >

Did you ever get - dare I say it - a bang out of her? :)

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  PinnedPiece: <FSR: Incidentally, by some accounts the group names "10cc" and "The Lovin' Spoonful" both referred to the quantity of a man's ejaculate.>

I don't know why---but for some weird reason I was reminded of Biden on Thursday of this week going on and on about "I promise you, President Obama has got a big stick!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...

Is this another ploy to get the women's vote?

.

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: <Did you ever get - dare I say it - a bang out of her?>

She had a very strong nuclear family.

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  johnlspouge: An amusing commentary on dinosaurs and nation-states, recommended particularly to the American exceptionalists:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...

Here is the general source :

[ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anon... ]

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <Ohio>

<That's pretty much what I think about you. One of us is wrong.>

Quite correct. You're wrong. Let me put it this way, I can't disprove with 100% certainty that your young earth notion is wrong, but the evidence is that you are. I probably do have blind spot or two, but not in the area of denying evidence-based science.

<PiPi>, with whom I have almost as many disagreements as with you on matters of political philosophy, has the same blind spot as have most of the posters on this site - neither he nor most of the posters here are science-deniers. Faith-based assertions cannot stand up to the withering heat and light of empiricism. If you want to promote young earth creationism, then <provide objective evidence> in support of your notion. You can't validly tear down the evidence of science as being insufficient or unconvincing when firstly, there is a huge mass of it, and secondly, there is none to support your counter-notion let alone to invalidate the scientific evidence.

If you want to believe in something contrary to the evidence, that is entirely your prerogative. Personally there are things for which there is no evidence in which I do believe, but I don't believe in stuff which clearly runs contrary to the massive bulk of evidence. That would be irrational.

<And you know this, how?>

This question, which I asked of you - <and which you have not yet answered> - you've flung back at me?

All right, I'll answer that, but note that you didn't answer that question yourself. You simply asserted it as your understanding.

It's my understanding based on my research, which of course is derived from secondary and tertiary sources written by people who did the actual work in uncovering the evidence. I'd like to claim I was there but let's look at the <fact> that humans arrived in Australia 40,000 years or more ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehis...).

Back then, glaciation meant sea levels were lower than they are today by 100 or more metres and there was a land bridge connecting present day Australia with New Guinea and Tasmania, but none of these places were ever connected by land to Eurasia from which place modern humans must have arrived. The last connection the Australian continent (including Tasmania and New Guinea) had with other continents was with Antarctica 45 million years ago, hence it's characteristic fauna and flora whose evolution diverged from that of Antarctica and the rest of Gondwana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana) since that historic sundering.

These people - modern humans - had to have arrived by sea, probably across the Wallace Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallac...) unless they were able to walk across the water, or swim across, or fly across. So we have to conclude they came over on boats. It wasn't an ocean crossing feat equivalent to the mind boggling feats of the Polynesians a few thousand years ago, as the lower sea levels at the time meant they "only" had to cross about 90 kilometres of sea, but it was impressive nonetheless.

Actual evidence (ie: remains) of boats don't really appear in the historical narrative of the species until about 30,000 years later (the oldest boat found is 10,000 years old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesse_...), although it seems clear that Crete had to have been reached by boat even before the aborigines hit Australia. One estimate is that Crete was first populated 130,000 years ago: http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/index.php/n...

All this stuff is easy to glean from readily available sources such as Wikipedia. I can if you like provide you with a raft of other online sources, let alone a shipload of other sources.

Back at you: <<And you know this, how?>> in respect of you assertion about the appearance of lungs?

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <<FSR: Incidentally, by some accounts the group names "10cc" and "The Lovin' Spoonful" both referred to the quantity of a man's ejaculate.>>

The story I heard many years ago was that 10cc did in fact refer to the quantum of ejaculation, the average amount being thought to be 9cc. So 10cc meant they were 1cc spunkier than average.

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <PiPi> <Irrefutable. One has to accept the evidence, or reject all technology.>

100% agree.

Apr-27-12  I play the Fred: <One of the most infuriating claims in the infuriating book "Freakonomics" is that the biggest reason for the decline in serious crime over the past twenty years is Roe v. Wade. The authors cite research which claims that many future criminals were aborted rather than born, lowering the population of crooks. (Most abortions are among the poor, more of the poor turn to crime, etc.)>

Infuriating, perhaps - but was it <incorrect>?

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: How could anyone possibly conclude anything one way or the other?
Apr-27-12  cormier: Officials: US could agree to limited Iranian uranium enrichment Los Angeles Times - 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON - In a major concession, Obama administration officials say they could support allowing Iran to continue a crucial element of its disputed nuclear program if the government in Tehran took other major steps to curb its ability to develop a ...

Apr-27-12  Alien Math: The officials told the Los Angeles Times they might agree to let Tehran continue enriching uranium up to concentrations of 5% if the Iranian government agreed to unrestricted inspections, and strict oversight and safeguards that the United Nations long has demanded. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...
Apr-27-12  I play the Fred: <How could anyone possibly conclude anything one way or the other?>

I don't know. Presumably the authors of the book weren't offering up simple conjecture.

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <PinnedPiece: I don't know why---but for some weird reason I was reminded of Biden on Thursday of this week going on and on about "I promise you, President Obama has got a big stick!">

You evidently have an obsession with politics. As for me, I think it lends a whole new dimension to the expression (said of an attractive woman), "She's a ten!"

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <I don't know. Presumably the authors of the book weren't offering up simple conjecture.>

Sounds like conjecture to me:

<The authors cite research which claims that many future criminals were aborted rather than born, lowering the population of crooks. (Most abortions are among the poor, more of the poor turn to crime, etc.)>

This is more about crapping on the poor than about crime prevention. The notion of "future criminals", especially when defined as a product of socio-economic stratification, is a dud at best and offensive and probably racist (more people of "colour" are poor, relatively speaking) BS.

The issue here, if indeed there is one other than shallow partisan propaganda, is that poverty prevention or alleviation will reduce blue collar crime rate. White collar crime, especially high level criminality at the corporate level, is still under-prosecuted. How many banksters have been arrested since the GFC started?

The answer is zero unless you count Bernie Madoff.

Apr-27-12  Marmot PFL: <ust playing with numbers here:

Taxes that could have been collected through 2050.

60,000,000 abortions approx. since Roe v. Wade. to 2012

Null Hypothesis: "Not even the aborted could help keep up with Obama's spending."

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

Remove 5,000,000 as non-available for "work" = 55,000,000

( http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03... )

Potential avg salary: 50,000 (through 2050)

Potential earning range: 30 yrs

Potential lifetime earnings avg of these Americans, say from 1990 through 2050.

30 X 50,000 = 1,500,000

1,500,000 x 55,000,000= 82,500,000,000,000 (82.5 Trillion)

Avg individual tax rate paid: 12% est

Taxes lost to abortion 1990-2050:
9,900,000,000,000 (10 Trillion)

Note that this does not include second generation wage earners that would have been born to the 70s-80s aborted groups.

Note that this does not include corporate income that any of these 55 M might have owed as a result of creating successful businesses.>

This is a joke, right?

Who would pay for education for all those kids? We can't educate the ones we have now.

Who would pay for for health care for all those kids? We can't afford care for the ones we have now.

Maybe though if we cut taxes more for the top 1% enough extra money would flow in/trickle down to fund it all.

The upside is more cannon fodder for the next oil war.

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <Wannabe: Carbon Dating, and I am not talking about going out with a girl named Carbon.>

If the earth's crust was broken up and laid down in sedimentary levels after a worldwide flood, and you carbon dated it, what would the numbers show?

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <OhioChessFan: If the earth's crust was broken up> What does this mean?

<and laid down in sedimentary levels> And what does *this* mean?

Please explain.

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <twinlark: <PiPi>, with whom I have almost as many disagreements as with you on matters of political philosophy, has the same blind spot as have most of the posters on this site - neither he nor most of the posters here are science-deniers. Faith-based assertions cannot stand up to the withering heat and light of empiricism. >

Yeah, sort of like your faith based belief that life came from nonlife. It doesn't stand up.

<If you want to promote young earth creationism, then <provide objective evidence> in support of your notion.>

Actually, I'm in the midst of a discussion about a fairly narrow point. You don't get to change the terms of debate. I'll decide what I have to do, thanks.

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <twinlark: It's my understanding based on my research, which of course is derived from secondary and tertiary sources written by people who did the actual work in uncovering the evidence. I'd like to claim I was there but let's look at the <fact> that humans arrived in Australia 40,000 years or more ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehis...).>

And they know that how? Alternatively, is that the <only> possible explanation?

<Back then, glaciation meant sea levels were lower than they are today by 100 or more metres and there was a land bridge connecting present day Australia with New Guinea and Tasmania, but none of these places were ever connected by land to Eurasia from which place modern humans must have arrived.>

And they know that how? Alternatively, is that the <only> possible explanation?

< The last connection the Australian continent (including Tasmania and New Guinea) had with other continents was with Antarctica 45 million years ago, hence it's characteristic fauna and flora whose evolution diverged from that of Antarctica and the rest of Gondwana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana) since that historic sundering.>

And they know that how? Alternatively, is that the <only> possible explanation?

<These people - modern humans - had to have arrived by sea, probably across the Wallace Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallac...) unless they were able to walk across the water, or swim across, or fly across. So we have to conclude they came over on boats. It wasn't an ocean crossing feat equivalent to the mind boggling feats of the Polynesians a few thousand years ago, as the lower sea levels at the time meant they "only" had to cross about 90 kilometres of sea, but it was impressive nonetheless.>

Hey, a point where the possibility of alternatives is raised. A bit inconsistent, though, since the other points are presented as <fact> It's so nice when people aren't dogmatic about what happened 45 million years ago.

<Actual evidence (ie: remains) of boats don't really appear in the historical narrative of the species until about 30,000 years later (the oldest boat found is 10,000 years old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesse_...), although it seems clear that Crete had to have been reached by boat even before the aborigines hit Australia. One estimate is that Crete was first populated 130,000 years ago: http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/index.php/n...

All this stuff is easy to glean from readily available sources such as Wikipedia. I can if you like provide you with a raft of other online sources, let alone a shipload of other sources.>

Wow, Wikipedia. Can I appeal to my sources and say that settles the matter? On a more important note, which of these 2 things happened in your life? (I'll accept other options, of course when such options are presetned they tend to be exagerations)

1. You spent many years studiously examining the earth in a search for scientific truth, and much to your chagrin, you concluded that the Biblica account of Creation couldn't be true.

2. You reached an age where your hormones took over and you began to behave in a manner you knew was at odds with the behavior stipulated by the Bible, so you forsook the Bible, and later on latched on to the claims of scientists as an ex post facto salve for your guilty conscience.

<Back at you: <<And you know this, how?>> in respect of you assertion about the appearance of lungs?>

Asked, answered.

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  kb2ct:

<OhioChessFan: >

THe Old Testament and other middle Eastern creation myths were fine for their time. However humans have enhanced their senses and now can see things unknown thousands of years ago.

Microscopes, isotope dating, etc. are quite common.

Who is to say that God not create life from non life and let it evolve??

:0)

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <OCF>

<Yeah, sort of like your faith based belief that life came from nonlife.>

Wrong.

Firstly I haven't raised this issue in this discussion.

Secondly, <this actually more closely reflects your belief system>, that life was created out of nothing, which is neither life nor "non-life" (whatever that is). Given a choice between life evolving out of "non-life" and life being created out of nothing, I'll take the former any day of the year. At least abiogenenis posits that life came from <somewhere> and out of <something>.

I make the distinction between the theories of abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution does not theorise about the origin of life, only about the development of biodiversity once life came into existence.

Abiogenesis is a fundamental question about which scientists are quite frankly unsure. They have some notions, based on the behaviour of matter and especially the observed capacity of organic molecules to assemble in greater complexity, but evidence for abiogenesis is incredibly difficult to accumulate. One can only make some informed guesses - interpolations - based on everything biologists know about life, evolution, organic chemistry and physics.

<Actually, I'm in the midst of a discussion about a fairly narrow point. You don't get to change the terms of debate.>

You're still dancing and pirouetting around my question to you about what the basis is of your belief that lungs happened overnight.

It's incredibly ironic that you bang on about the fallacy of lungs happening instantly when the whole notion of young earth creation is absolutely predicated on <everything> happening instantly.

Apr-27-12  Marmot PFL: <Small viable groups kept widely apart diverge over time, from just ordinary genetic mutation. But scientists believe that AT THIS POINT IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, due to the enormous number of individuals, and the ease of movement for mingling genetic material, no further mutation will be possible. Those futuristic humans with huge foreheads and smallish legs? Fuggeddaboutit.>

Not sure which scientists those are. There have been times before where for hundreds of thousands of years Australopithecus or whatever went along with no major changes.

We might see advances in genetic engineering that we can't imagine yet. Possibly not, as a kid watching 2001 I was sure we would have Mars colonies by now but it's evidently not going to happen.

Apr-27-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: <al wazir> As the Wikipedia article says, they used an abnormally large quantity to indicate how virile they were, as opposed to your average guy's 2-3 cc IIRC.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6550)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3094 OF 6550 ·  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