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.

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 A H Williams, 1969 1/2-1/2
   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
   K Rogoff vs Timman, 1971 1-0
   K Rogoff vs Ulf Andersson, 1976 1/2-1/2
   Reshevsky vs K Rogoff, 1978 0-1

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

(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:; 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 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. 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 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 3155 OF 7593 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: <Jim Bartle><I'm not advocating socialism. There's a large spectrum between socialism and the laissez faire capitalism Friedman seems to advocate. I favor something between the two.> You misunderstand Friedman. He's simply advocating moving toward less government, and more freedom and free enterprise. Even the father of Economics, Adam Smith, didn't advocate capitalism without any government constraints -- just a lot less constraints.

My thoughts are simply that the US government and state and local governments combined are spending too much and have made promises for future spending US tax payers can't afford.

Stanford Economist Michael Boskin at indicates to keep government's promises (e.g. to seniors for social security, medicare etc.), middle income tax payers, making say 60,000 as a California teacher, would have to start paying over 70% of their income in taxes.

That's a burden the economy can't withstand, and younger tax payers won't put up with.

Spending cuts need to be made, and this administration hasn't even been able to put together a budget and get it through congress. Other than just piling up deficits and debt, that will crush the economy once interest rates begin to rise, the Obama administration hasn't put together any realistic plan to reign in future spending. We need some hope and change, but not the kind President Obama is offering.

Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: <kb2ct><It takes about four years for a national recession to hit the states. The 1987 crash didn't really hit until 1991.> OK! I'll bite. I don't believe it, and think it's absolute nonsense. But if you have a source saying it takes "four years for a national recession to hit the states," please provide it.

P.S.: Since the longest US recession since WWII was 18 months, taking four years to "hit the states" is quite a feat.

Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: <WannaBe: We can't control our spending, so we want you to pay more.> Well said! Instead, the taxpayers need to tell Washington in Nov 2012 we can't afford your spending! You're fired President Obama!
Premium Chessgames Member

<atzer2: >

Business will have less restraints when it earns them.

Charters should be rewritten to encourage social responsibility.

The AIDS cocktail that costs the U.S. government $200. per year per patient to ship to Africa costs $20,000 a year for U.S. patients.


May-14-12  karnak64: <JB> <There's a large spectrum between socialism and the laissez faire capitalism Friedman seems to advocate.>

I'm wondering -- have you ever read, at least, Friedman's "Free to Choose"? He sets out there some clear roles for government action in and regulation of markets, although less than perhaps you'd care for (maybe a spot less than I would). But I wouldn't call him purely lassiz faire.

His general rule seems to be (and others are free to correct me from the text, which I have not at hand because, hey, I'm watching the Rangers-Devils game) that we should give preference and presumption to markets, but should consider government interventions and regulations on an objective cost-benefit basis.

I think the best critique of this position actually comes from some of the nuns I work with, who would point out that Friedman's ideas of cost and benefit are purely fiduciary, and that there are values that are more pressing, spiritual values and such, and I think there is something to that critique.

If I get time I'll chat about the radical nun from El Salvador who spoke at graduation on such matters a few days ago, but, um, the game is on.

Back to hockey ... proof I am a lost soul.

Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: You are watching hockey?? I am watching blood/boxing on ice. :-))
May-14-12  karnak64: <Wannabe>: I confess -- that's why I'm watching.
Premium Chessgames Member

<atzer2: >

When I said there is a time delay of about four years for recessions to hit the states, I was speaking from personal experience. I know as fact that NYS did not lay off any government employees after the 1987 crash until 1991.

I suppose I could find a link that confirms my experience, but why bother.

California had a particularly bad housing bubble and unemployment there is higher that the national average. Still it has been nearly four years.

It does not really matter who spends money. The velocity of money is much more important than the source.


Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: Find myself rooting for New Jersey. I guess I've finally forgiven them for sucking all the air out of hockey in the 90s with that offsides trap.
May-14-12  karnak64: <shams>: Well, I live in (sort of) northern New Jersey and the ambivalence here is so thick you need a chain saw to cut it. Strange thing about this part of the U.S. sports world -- Ranger and Devils fans are just about on par, and thus with so many other regional professional sports (Nets/Kicks, Jets/Giants and all that).

I sort of have this thing for the ancient NHL (I grew up watching them play without helmets, and I watched them play Gordie Howe, for crying out loud -- oh, and with today's sticks and gear I wouldn't suggest that no helmets thing), so I have a modest favor for the Rangers. Modest.

Well, anyways, with the Blueshirts' third goal, it's all moot for tonight. Do I drink in celebration or commiseration? At least, I drink. And drink.

Premium Chessgames Member
  PinnedPiece: What the "dead man walking" magazine world won't do these days for a publicity hit.

Living in Africa I occasionally took some heat from educated Africans who would tell me that until western exploration and British colonialization, they didn't have what is now called slangly "white man's disease".

African-Americans are a group least impressed with Obama's recent "outing".

He is getting the beaucoup bucks from big donors however, so I'm sure he isn't worried bout being tagged like this:

"All his tribes" - new daytime serial starting in the fall.


Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <OhioChessFan: I vote the Department of Education be closed, Social Security be phased out, and the US get out of the United Nations. Where's my ballot?>

This looks like a fun game everyone can play. Do I only get three wishes? Let's see. I vote that marijuana be legalized, all upside-down mortgages be forgiven, and Goldman Sachs be nationalized.

Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: <kb2ct> <When I said there is a time delay of about four years for recessions to hit the states, I was speaking from personal experience. I know as fact that NYS did not lay off any government employees after the 1987 crash until 1991.> There was no recession in 1987. The stock market declined but it wasn't accompanied by or immediately followed by a recession.

The layoffs in NYC may have been due to the July 1990 - March 1991 recession, which was not caused by the 1987 stock price decline. Prior to that, the previous US recession was July 1981 - Nov 1982.

Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: <kb2ct><Business will have less restraints when it earns them.> Well freedom does have to be earned and our men and women in uniform have paid dearly for it. Some of them are now small business owners looking for a little freedom from onerous government regulation and excessive taxation.

Providing this freedom with the election of a Republican President and congress will free up US businesses, large and small, to invest, grow and put the US on a firm path toward strong economic growth and full employment.

May-15-12  King Death: <patzer2> That's one hell of a guest list, I wish that I could hire a few to play at my place!
May-15-12  King Death: < Jim Bartle: Well, the high school incident isn't a lie. Romney admitted it happened. But it was high school, it doesn't matter.>

For ordinary folks it might too, see what came back to bite this woman in the ^#! 40 years after the fact.

May-15-12  MORPHYEUS: <Well, the high school incident isn't a lie. Romney admitted it happened. But it was high school, it doesn't matter.>

Libs attacking the conservative candidate. This is normal. Conservatives attack Obama likewise. All politics.

May-15-12  cormier:
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tomlinsky: <MORPHYEUS: Libs attacking the conservative candidate. This is normal. Conservatives attack Obama likewise. All politics.>

All distraction from solutions based on reality other than personal agenda.

- Available For Children's Parties, Bar Mitzvah, Public Executions, Vicar's Lunches, Cheerleader Reunions & Balloon Dancing -

Premium Chessgames Member


I lost a lot of money in the crash of 1987. Over 3 million dollars and I did not recover until Clinton was elected. I am convinced that it caused the recession of 1991 largely because states are not allowed to carry a debt load like the federal government is. Thus the time lag.

The Obama concept of revenue sharing would eliminate this problem and help California immensely. Unfortunately Republicans and blue dog Democrats killed the concept.

Do you know what happened to JPM last week?? In essence they doubled down on a derivitive and called it a hedge when it really wasn't. This should be illegal. Buying derivitives through a clearing house and the Volker Rule would have prevented this.

Republicans are either financially illititerate or they actually want to bring the economy down for political reasons


May-15-12  MORPHYEUS: <I lost a lot of money in the crash of 1987. Over 3 million dollars and I did not recover until Clinton was elected.>

In the name of social liberalism, care to make a 50$ donation to AJ?

May-15-12  Jim Bartle: Elementary question, kb2ct: JP Morgan lost 2 billion or more. Is that money just gone, or did somebody else get that money?
Premium Chessgames Member

<Jim Bartle:>

JPM had around 16 billion dollars exposure to European debt. Rather than just sell it or reserve against a loss, they bought a derivitive index CDO of that debt rather than buy an actual CDO.

It wasn't really a hedge but a doubling down on the original debt since if the debt fails, the derivitive fails as well.

The money is gone. JPM will not ask for a bailout. Heads will roll and they will cover their own losses.

We learned in the savings and loan crisis that it is foolish to try and regulate your boss which is what the Federal Reserve is trying to do.

The too big to fail banks need to be broken up. The threat is much worse than when ATT & T was broken up.


May-15-12  diceman: <kb2ct:
I lost a lot of money in the crash of 1987. Over 3 million dollars>

Wow, I made money on black Monday.

<because states are not allowed to carry a debt load like the federal government is.>

How unfair, beside the government deficits, we should be allowed to have 57 more deficits. Smart folks know liberalism works best when you can spend more money than you have.

<The Obama concept of revenue sharing would eliminate this problem and help California immensely.>

Yeah, mixing failed idea revenue with successful revenue, you almost cant even find the failed idea revenue.

Liberalism seems a whole lot smarter when you mix it with successful ideas.

May-15-12  diceman: <kb2ct:
<because states are not allowed to carry a debt load like the federal government is.>>

<The Obama concept of revenue sharing would eliminate this problem and help California immensely.>

Notice what “analysis” is from liberal lightweights.

The <California> problem, isn’t the <California> problem , or how stupid, brainless, ignorant, irresponsible, folks were, its that we cant rape & sodomize the successful part of the country to pretend the <California> problem, was never there.

There’s never a flaw in liberalism except :
We haven’t taken enough of your money yet.

Under liberalism “responsibility” is a four letter word.

Obama 2012:
According to that Bartle fella
We cant fix the ghetto.

…but we still like taking your money

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 7593)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3155 OF 7593 ·  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. Don't post 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 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies