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

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum
al wazir
Member since Feb-20-05 · Last seen Feb-06-16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...
>> Click here to see al wazir's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   al wazir has kibitzed 16637 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Feb-06-16 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
 
al wazir: <Karposian: But yeah, for Chris Christie only one "gate" was apparently enough to derail his presidential bid.> But his misdeed was the real thing. Not a fiction.
 
   Feb-06-16 Svidler vs F Vallejo Pons, 2004 (replies)
 
al wazir: <Eric Jager: How does black win after 27. Qxc4?> 27. Qxc4 Rxa3+ 28. bxa3 b2+ 29. Ka2 b1=Q#.
 
   Feb-05-16 Jobava vs Galego, 2005 (replies)
 
al wazir: <Jimfromprovidence: I do not believe anyone mentioned this, but in the text line 25 Rxe6 fxe6 26 Rg4 e5 27 Qg6, 27...Bf8 instead of 27...Bf6 makes no difference as 28 Qf7 forces mate.> Thanks. That's a lot simpler than the line I came up with.
 
   Feb-04-16 J Gallagher vs A Compton, 2014 (replies)
 
al wazir: As usual, my solution isn't as good as the one played, but I like it anyway: 28. Qd2 f6 29. Rd8+ Rxd8 (29...Kf7 30. Qd7+ Nxd7 31.R1xd7#) 30. Qxd8+ Kf7 31. Rd7+! Nxd7 32. Qxd7+ Kg8 33. Qe8+ Kg7 34. Qe7+ Kg8 35. Qf8+ Kh7 36. Qf7#
 
   Feb-01-16 F Libiszewski vs Harikrishna, 2016
 
al wazir: Seven ♕ move is a row in the opening, then wait for your opponent to blunder. That's the way a super-GM wins.
 
   Jan-31-16 H van Dongen vs E Wijsman, 2005 (replies)
 
al wazir: I also think 74...b3 was better than 74...Nb5, the move played. My try was *totally* different: 74. Rh3 Nd5 (74...d3? 75. Rxd3) 75. Rh4 d3 (75...e3 76. Re4 Nf4+ 77. Rxf4 exd2 78. Re4 Rxh6+ 79. Kxh6 d1=Q 80. Re8+ Kf7 81. g8=Q#) 76. Rxd3 exd3 77. Rxc4 Ne7+ 78. Kxf6 Rxh6+ 79. Kxe7 ...
 
   Jan-30-16 L Milman vs J Fang, 2005 (replies)
 
al wazir: I see this is the third time I've solved this puzzle. I guess I have to forfeit the point.
 
   Jan-27-16 M Mchedlishvili vs R Sangma, 2014 (replies)
 
al wazir: Got it, sort of: 33...Rxa2 34. Rc1 cxd1=Q+ 35. Rxd1 d2 36. Be3 b3 37. Bxd2 Rxd2 38. Rxd2 a4 39. Rb2 b4 40. Kf3 a3 41. Rxb3 a2.
 
   Jan-27-16 Louis F Stumpers (replies)
 
al wazir: <PinnedPiece>: I think that was a dénouement, an *un*knotting. If they had actually tied the knot it would have been considered naughty at the time, though maybe not now.
 
   Jan-25-16 Tarrasch vs G Marco, 1892 (replies)
 
al wazir: <Ratt Boy: I'm thinking 13...♖d4 14.f3, ♗c5 15.♔f1> f5, with complications. For example, 16. Ke2 Bb6 17. fxe4 fxe4 18. Nf2 Rc4 19. Nd1 Rxc2 20. Bd2 Ba5 21. Nc3 Rd8 22. Red1 Rxb2 23. Rac1 Bxc3 24. Rxc3 Rxa2 25. Rxc7 b6. White has ♗ vs. 3♙s.
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

The Joy of LEX

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-26-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: 5:03 p.m. PDT

OK. I propose that starting the round after next, whoever's turn it is to make the proposal gets a vote that counts for one more than than it did on the round before. The voting weights for all others voting on the proposal remain at 1.

That is to say, if this proposal passes, then the next round, when it is <Shams>'s turn to propose, the voting will be normal. Then the round after, when it is <AgentRgent>'s turn, his vote will count for double, and all other votes will have regular weight. Then the round after that, when it is <al wazir>'s turn, his vote will count for triple, and all others will have regular weight... etc.

May-26-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  AgentRgent: <SamAtoms1980:> After a quick check of the math, it looks like your proposal would give you absolute power in a mere 5 days... nice try...

NO! ;-)

May-26-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Is it uncouth of me to ask what exactly is going on here? Does it amount to a game of Risk?
May-27-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <OCF>: You're beginning to get the idea. <AgentRgent> and <SamAtoms1980>: You too.

I vote "no."

It is now 1:43 pm, EDT.

May-27-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: "No."

Wait, let me put a finer point on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbR...

May-27-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: <OhioChessFan: Is it uncouth of me to ask what exactly is going on here? Does it amount to a game of Risk?>

Hey, the game has sold a jillion copies, this fundamental flaw and all.

Though my attempt was crude and very thinly veiled, I thought there was a slim chance that it just might work. However, the much larger chance that it would flop was the reality.

May-28-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: Who's next? <Shams>? Go for it.

It is now 1:04 am, EDT.

May-28-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: It is my opinion that nothing will happen unless circumstances force our cooperation. Let's not forget, among the exigencies that compelled the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was the fact that the Colonies couldn't even get their act together to raise money to fight the damn British. People are simply far more afraid of being taken advantage of than they are hopeful of attaining non-zero sum cooperation.

I therefore propose the following: We give ourselves one week to pass a <BILL OF URGENCIES> detailing: 1.) the calamities that threaten all of us, as well as all the cg members we represent, and 2.) the steps we need to take to create a viable state that can respond to those and other threats.

Rep. Shams

May-28-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Shams> (or should I address you as <Rep. Shams>?): Is that a rule you are proposing? If not, you have lost your turn and <AgentRgent> is coming up to bat.

These are the rules of LEX:

1. Any number can play.

2. Players take turns in alphabetical order.

3. On his or her turn, a player can propose a new rule or a change or repeal of an existing rule.

4. A proposal for a new rule or for change or repeal of an existing rule is adopted if and only if it is approved by a majority of the participants.

5: A player who fails to propose a new rule or rule change or repeal in accordance with rule #3 on his or her turn within 24 hours loses that turn; and a proposed new rule or rule change or repeal is ratified if and only if it is approved by a majority of the players voting within 24 hours after it is proposed.

6. [I]n the next world game with white pieces, all LEX players vow to vote 1. c4.

It is now 3:35 pm, EDT.

May-28-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: Whether what <Shams> has proposed is a rule or not, it conflicts with rule #5. If we were to adopt it, it would bring on a constitutional crisis. I'm afraid I have to vote "no."
May-28-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I find crises exciting, so I vote yes.
May-29-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  AgentRgent: I vote Yes
May-29-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: I vote "no."
May-29-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: WA State Open this weekend. I'll probably just pop in here once or twice and vote yes on whatever absurdities you all are proposing.
May-29-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Shams>: Unless I have miscounted, it's a 2-2 tie. Your bill of urgencies will have to wait for another season.

<AgentRgent>: It's up to you now.

It is now 9:39 pm, EDT.

May-30-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: It is now 9:55 pm, EDT. Since we have heard nothing from <AgentRgent>, his turn is over and my turn has begun.

By now all of you must have at least a glimmering of what LEX is about. It's a model of the democratic legislative and political processes. Or if you wish, it is a model of the British constitution. As you probably know, the U.K. doesn't have a written constitution. Their constitution consists of the entire corpus of British law since Magna Carta. Thus, every time Parliament passes a law, it is in fact amending the constitution, but it must do so within the framework of previously existing law. They do have a sort of supreme court, the "Law Lords," but their role in ruling on the constitutionality of laws is much more circumscribed than that of our Supreme Court.

As I said a few days ago, this is the first time I've tried playing LEX online, so this has been in the nature of an experiment. The conclusion I've drawn from the experiment is that in this mode LEX doesn't work very well. In my experience the game works best when everyone meets in a single room to vote or propose new legislation. (I like to use a whiteboard to keep a written record of the current status of the "constitution" and of proposed changes.) But in order to mimic the real-life legislative process, the participants should be able to get together in private to make deals and to form caucuses and conspiracies. (In a sense it is the ultimate "party game.") Because all communication here has been open, we have not been able to do that. When players are able to meet privately and join in cabals, however, that introduces an element of competition that has been lacking in the present game, and the action becomes quite cutthroat. Some individuals can acquire more power than the rest and the democracy can be replaced by a tyranny. (I think you realized that.)

Another conclusion I have drawn is that the game is far too slow when played this way. That too was a consequence of the way we communicated, since the only way to find out if someone had done something was to log into this forum, and none of us stayed logged in continuously.

But to sum it up, I think it's time to end the experiment. I therefore propose the following new rule:

6. This game is now over.

All who vote in favor are winners. I vote "yes."

May-31-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: I vote "Yes"

From very early on I could see two things:

(1) There would likely be "pork-barrel politics" involved and that would probably be needed to get anything done

(2) A good illustration of why, in our actual Congress, it is so hard to get things done

But on an open forum, where everybody can see everything that gets proposed, it keeps the "pork-barrel politics" and backroom deals from getting going

I also propose the amendment that all winners go out for a barbecue. But, please, let's stay away from the pork barrels...

May-31-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <SamAtoms1980: I vote "Yes"> Damn, I was hoping to be the only winner . . .

Aut Caesar aut nihil. (Maybe that should be "Et Caesar et nihil.")

May-31-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: It's 11:49 pm, EDT. Finitus est ludus.
Jun-01-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  AgentRgent: <al wazir: It is now 9:55 pm, EDT. Since we have heard nothing from <AgentRgent>, his turn is over and my turn has begun.> Was out of town for several days on vacation, hence why I voted against the silly 24hr rule... ;-P

As for ending the game.. I vote NO (mostly to be contrarian).

Jun-01-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Well, now that I know the point of the game......

I vote yes.

Jun-03-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: <al wazir: Finitus est ludus.>

Ludus? Or iocus?

Dec-01-11  theodor: <<al wazir>: It's 11:49 pm, EDT. Finitus est ludus.> I think it's better to say: ''ora venientibus - ossa!''
Aug-09-15  dusk: I enjoy your posts. Best regards.
Aug-09-15  Chess Is More: <dusk: I enjoy your posts. Best regards.>

Seconded. Best Rogoff poster by some distance. My compliments.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Bobby Fischer Tribute Shirt
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 user 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.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


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