Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile Chessforum
al wazir
Member since Feb-20-05 · Last seen Oct-01-14
>> Click here to see al wazir's game collections. Full Member

   al wazir has kibitzed 13520 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Oct-01-14 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
al wazir: <Jim Bartle: Peach pits work, too.> No, that's laetrile -- a different quack treatment altogether ( ).
   Oct-01-14 M Martinez Romero vs D Gonzales, 2014 (replies)
al wazir: My move was 18. Nf6+. A) 18...gxf6 19. Qg4+ Kh8 20. Qf5, with Qxh7# to follow, B) 18...Kh8 19. Nxh7 Re8 (19...Rd8 20. Qh5 g6 21. Qh6, with Nf6# to follow) 20. Nf6 gxf6 21. Qh5+ Kg7/Kg8 22. Qh7+ Kf8 23. exf6, with Qh8# to follow.
   Sep-30-14 H Lehmann vs K Junge, 1942 (replies)
al wazir: <Abdel Irada: The question with <chrisowen> is not whether he *can* write normally, but whether he *will*. So far, the answer has been no>. Wrong. Jul-15-14 Premium Chessgames Member chrisowen: <al wazir> Yes I agree ( Potkin vs Kamsky, 2010 )
   Sep-26-14 Short vs R Pogorelov, 2004 (replies)
al wazir: I was with Short the first three moves. Then I wanted to play 27. Qg8+, followed by 28. Bxf6. I think that wins too.
   Sep-25-14 R Figares vs K McDonald, 1996 (replies)
al wazir: Damn. I started off right, but I wanted to continue 45...Qxf1+ 46. Kxf1 Nxb4. This also wins (black is two Ps up), but it takes 15 or 20 more moves than the game line.
   Sep-24-14 Beliavsky vs Tarjan, 1979 (replies)
al wazir: Got it, except that I would have played 46. Rg7+. It also wins, but takes longer and is less elegant.
   Sep-22-14 Marshall vs Capablanca, 1909 (replies)
al wazir: 48...Rxc3 47. Rd6+ Kf7 48. Rxg6 Kxg6? 1/2:1/2.
   Sep-21-14 R Lau vs Kotronias, 1988
al wazir: <plumbst: 27...Qe5 28.Qxe5 dxe5 29.Ne6> Nd7. A) 30. Nxd8 Kxd8 31. Bg5+ (31. Rg1 Bg7) Kc7 32. Rf1 Bg7. Black is bottled up and white has two connected passed Ps for his piece, but I don't see any way to make ...
   Sep-21-14 Louis F Stumpers (replies)
al wazir: <Sneaky>: I didn't mention it before, but I really admire your device of "concretizing" or "reifying" abstract and exotic terms. It's the sort of thing that I would do if I had thought of it. One of my problem-solving rules is to be quantitative where possible, or at least be
   Sep-19-14 Votava vs A Zatonskih, 2004 (replies)
al wazir: <Lighthorse: I saw that on 17..Qxf3 if 18.exf3 then 18..Bh3+ 19.Kg1 Re1# but I couldn't see far enough after the game line of 20.Qxd3 to see getting the Queen back with the discovered check.> That could describe me. And even more to the point, though black is only a
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

The Joy of LEX

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: "No."

Wait, let me put a finer point on that:

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.

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

It is now 1:04 am, EDT.

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

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.

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."
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I find crises exciting, so I vote yes.
Premium Chessgames Member
  AgentRgent: I vote Yes
Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: I vote "no."
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.
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.

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."

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...

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.")

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: It's 11:49 pm, EDT. Finitus est ludus.
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).

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

I vote yes.

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!''
Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: I want you to know that the "roadkill" post was not aimed at you personally. I just meant that I will defend myself when I have to.

I hope you did not take that in the wrong way. It was not meant as an attack on you.

Dec-22-13  MostlyAverageJoe: Hey, you had a good idea here: Kibitzer's Café -- I merged it with some of my old ideas here: chessforum

May I solicit you to provide one more voice of support at the chessforum ?

Premium Chessgames Member
  jessicafischerqueen: <al wazir>

I wanted to thank you for alerting folks to the Vladimir Petrov biography.

Several of us worked really hard on that over the course of several months, including me, <OhioChessFan>, <twinlark>, and <SwitchingQuylthulg>, so I'm sure the contributors will be happy the bio got some extra exposure.

Also, thanks to an alert post on the "Game of the Day" page in question, I was able to improve the bio's accuracy by changing "lung inflammation" to "pneumonia."

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <al wazir: <thegoodanarchist: You could stand to read up a bit more.> You could stand to identify your sources more>

Source for what statement or statements? I will be happy to identify my source for you if you can give me specifics. Thanks, and I appreciate the debate! Godspeed to you.

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: Reply on Rogoff, here, or even my forum. Thanks. I will find you if life doesn't distract me in the next few days. :)
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>

from the Chessgames Store
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 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, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to
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 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies