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 B30 B38 B85
 Ruy Lopez (7) 
    C88 C68 C97 C65 C91
 English, 1 c4 e5 (5) 
    A29 A20 A22
 King's Indian (5) 
    E62 E74 E63 E60
 English, 1 c4 c5 (5) 
    A34 A30 A36
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (12) 
    B93 B30 B52 B50 B81
 Caro-Kann (11) 
    B17 B10 B13 B12
 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
   K Rogoff vs Larsen, 1976 1/2-1/2
   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 Bisguier, 1974 1/2-1/2
   Huebner vs K Rogoff, 1976 1/2-1/2
   A Matanovic 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. K Rogoff vs Z Vranesic  0-148 1970 Ontario opB83 Sicilian
6. J Durao vs K Rogoff 0-130 1970 MalagaB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
7. H Pfleger vs K Rogoff  1-059 1970 WchT U26 17thA58 Benko Gambit
8. E Paoli vs K Rogoff 1-026 1971 Liberation tournB06 Robatsch
9. V Tukmakov vs K Rogoff  1-042 1971 Liberation tournD93 Grunfeld, with Bf4 & e3
10. J Durao vs K Rogoff  0-165 1971 MalagaB93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4
11. Karpov vs K Rogoff 1-026 1971 06, Mayaguez tt-studA22 English
12. Ljubojevic vs K Rogoff 1-029 1971 MalagaB50 Sicilian
13. K Rogoff vs L Day ½-½21 1971 World Student OlympiadA15 English
14. K Rogoff vs Timman 1-048 1971 Malaga 11/138B08 Pirc, Classical
15. Ulf Andersson vs K Rogoff 1-036 1971 OlotB93 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. L Day vs K Rogoff  ½-½23 1973 CAN-opA07 King's Indian Attack
20. K Rogoff vs Suttles 0-147 1973 Ottawa op-CANB06 Robatsch
21. E Paoli vs K Rogoff 0-139 1973 NorristownB06 Robatsch
22. Pilnik vs K Rogoff  0-156 1973 NorristownB81 Sicilian, Scheveningen, Keres Attack
23. K Rogoff vs W Schmidt  ½-½39 1974 Rubinstein memA36 English
24. Saidy vs K Rogoff 0-136 1974 US ChampionshipA15 English
25. K Rogoff vs A Karklins  ½-½20 1974 US ChampionshipA46 Queen's Pawn Game
 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 6740 OF 6740 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <twinlark: His demand for ever more proof and evidence is reminiscent of creationists constantly demanding more evidence of evolution along the lines of <but where are the transitional fossils?> kind of willful intellectual derpitude. For him nazis only ever existed in Nazi Germany, and in effect for him, as you can infer from his response, There Can Be Or Ever Have Been Only One Set of Nazis.> More baloney from the neo-Italian delicatessen. If you're going to attribute ideas to me, at least have the decency to quote what I actually wrote. That isn't even a rough paraphrase. I never denied that there are Ukrainian right-wing ultra-nationalists in Ukraine. In fact, I affirmed that there are. There have been since at least the 1940s, and probably were before that. But they weren't responsible for the Maidan revolution and they aren't running the show in Kiev now.

It is no odder that the people of the western part of Ukraine, which abuts Poland and Lithuania (and some of which was part of Poland before World War II or part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before World War I, and long, long ago was part of Lithuania) should want to join the European Union than that the Russian-speaking East should feel itself culturally closer to Russia. It isn't surprising that the two regions experience divisive strains or that the eastern part exhibits centrifugal tendencies. Theirs is the same sort of alienation that makes some people in Quebec, Scotland, and Catalonia perennially yearn for independence. But the Quebecois, Scots, and Catalans don't start a war to gain their independence. (Actually, Catalonia did, just before WW II; Orwell wrote about it. But they haven't recently.)

<Softpaw> at least concedes that the Russians have supplied arms to the separatists. If you don't agree, you must be the only useful idiot left. How then did those arms move from Russia to Ukraine? Were they transported on remotely controlled self-propelled vehicles? If not, then either Ukrainians went to Russia to fetch them or Russians brought them. I don't know which it is. (How could I know?) But neither do you.

Is it too much to suppose that Russian personnel not only brought those weapons to Novorossiya, but also sent personnel to operate them? You know, "advisers," just like the ones the U.S. sends to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? You don't have to agree that that's what happened; just admit that it's plausible. So the stories about 9,000 green men pouring into the theater, though unproved, are at least believable. I believe them, at about a 51% confidence level -- maybe 52%. I've already given my reasons.

Jan-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I figured out who I am voting for next time:

http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.1142...

Jan-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: <HeMateMe: <You mean before or after the media drummed up emotions by breathlessly rebleating every administration talking point to make sure Hussein's misdeeds would be foremost in everyone's minds as we contemplated invading?>

"talking points"?

Abdel, you live in a fantasy world. Hussein:

1) started the Iraq/Iran war, with at least one million casualties.>

And with the active connivance and military support of the U.S. We can't point a finger at him on this without also pointing at ourselves.

If I were you, I wouldn't keep bringing up this flimsy talking point.

<2) poisoned over 100,000 kurds in Iraq with chemical weapons>

And we made no effort to stop him. (Not to mention the question of where those chemical weapons came from.)

Another trumped-up talking point invariably abandoned when our complicity is recalled. Why do invasion proponents keep trotting it out?

<3) invaded Kuwait and began the Gulf War, more dead, more blood on his hands>

That was in 1991; hardly a casus belli for "regime change" 12 years later.

<4) Redirected the agreed upon monies from oil, agreed upon after the war, to rebuild his military, resulting in the deaths of his countrymen form starvation and disease.>

Despite all of Hussein's malevolent semi-incompetence, Iraq under his rule was a fast-advancing modern state. Very few people died for want of medical treatment or food — until our invasion destroyed Iraq's hospitals and infrastructure. Today, another 12 years on, it is just beginning to restore reliable electric service to people who not long ago were practically part of the first world.

<Are those the "<talking points>" that would allow a USA Congress to vote for military action against Iraq?>

They were indeed among the flaccid excuses regurgitated by an obliging press into the public mind (including those in Congress) prior to the invasion.

They were, however, as unpersuasive then as they are now, so additional causes had to be invented: Iraq's imaginary "links" to 9/11 and its invented WMDs.

Like all your other talking points, they too were false. But in the tainted atmosphere created by the media, at the White House' behest, they were accepted by a cowed Congress that later came to regret its passivity (but never did anything about the underlying imperial-executive problem, assuming that it still can).

All you do by rebleating the trumped-up case against Hussein (carefully omitting the context) is prove my point about the reach of the Judith Millered media narrative.

Jan-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Softpaw: <al wazir: <Softpaw> at least concedes that the Russians have supplied arms to the separatists>

It's not a "concession". I've never argued otherwise.

<Is it too much to suppose that Russian personnel not only brought those weapons to Novorossiya, but also sent personnel to operate them? >

It's certainly quite possible. The question is: what's the <evidence> for that hypothesis? Well, there IS NO convincing evidence (if any at all) that Russian troops are "pouring in".

The 9,000 figure comes from Poroshenko--hardly a credible source. And consider the location and timing of the announcement.

"Russia has 9,000 troops in Ukraine, Poroshenko tells Davos forum"

<(Reuters) - Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko accused Russia on Wednesday of sending 9,000 troops to back separatist rebels in the east of his country, and the IMF chief said she backed extra financial help for Kiev as the conflict inflicts severe economic damage.>

See a possible motive there? Claim another "Russian invasion" and hope for increased financial help.

<Ukraine's economy has been pushed close to bankruptcy by the war with the rebels, and economists have warned of debt writedowns if an existing IMF loan program is not beefed up to plug a estimated $15 billion funding gap. Poroshenko told IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde at a meeting in Davos that his government had appealed for more funding.>

How many times has the Kiev regime cried wolf about a Russian invasion?

Typical example:

New York Times (<al wazir>-approved source)

< [Nov. 2014] Ukraine accused Russia on Friday of dispatching tanks, troops and other weaponry across the border to bolster separatists who control a small eastern portion of Ukraine, the latest in a series of charges and countercharges that are gradually undermining a tenuous peace plan signed two months ago.

Speaking in Kiev, the capital, Col. Andriy Lysenko, a Ukrainian military spokesman, said 32 tanks, 16 howitzers and 30 trucks hauling ammunition and fighters had crossed into the Luhansk region from Russia.

He presented no clear evidence to support the claim, nor did the wealth of social media outlets in eastern Ukraine display any footage of a tank convoy.

The Kiev government frequently made such claims that could not be substantiated during intense fighting between Ukrainian government troops and separatists earlier this year.

Neither NATO nor the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is monitoring a cease-fire, could confirm the report. >

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/w...

Besides, there is plenty of reason to believe that Russia wants to avoid <direct> involvement. With the collapse of oil prices and the imposition of sanctions, the Russian economy is feeling some pressure (though nothing as dramatic as what you read from some Western "experts") and a direct invasion would increase economic and political problems enormously.

As long as the separatists are surviving the assaults from Kiev, what would be the motive for a large-scale Russian incursion?

Jan-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: <OhioChessFan: I figured out who I am voting for next time:

http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.1142...

The problem is, the scum is mostly not on the streets, but in the White House, the Capitol Building, state capitals and city halls, and the boardrooms of our most powerful corporations.

Now, I wonder if a real Travis Bickle would be as blind to this as the trope you've shown us.

If he were not, if he could see where the real "scum" gathers, festers and grows, if he went there and dragged it into the light, then I too would vote Travis Bickle for president.

Jan-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: <Colonel Mortimer: <twinlark:> <I''ll be popping a bottle of champers for when either of these appears in the dock at The Hague.>

Hear, hear

As for <al wazir>'s blind spot on the Ukraine, it forms part of the larger problem that is his cognitive dissonance. He also exhibits wilful blindness with regard to Israel, GMO and a total refusal to believe his government is not above Machiavellianism.

Kind of like <HeMateMe> but with a physics degree.>

Actually, <al wazir> is plainly quite intelligent, well educated, articulate (if sometimes glib), and infinitely more self-possessed and polished than <HeMateMe> could be in 10 lifetimes.

However, once you strip away all the varnish, at heart he does indeed still think much as <HMM> does, and is nearly as hard to reach with reason. In both, there is a streak of invincible ignorance: "I don't know, I don't want to know, and you can't *make* me know!"

But I do hold out a bit of hope for <aw>, who at least has moved from "libertarian" to "liberal" and is gradually absorbing a few lessons about the unreliability of authority.

If he can stop glossing (really gliding, I suppose) over important points in order to focus on trivial ones, and suspend his trust in the objectivity and good intentions of those in power, he may yet arrive at the truth that there are neo-Nazis in Odessa (even though they don't control the government), that the cold war is not the defining paradigm of the conflict in Ukraine, and that conditions there are far more complex than he has so far admitted.

Jan-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: <HeMateMe: Tell us MORE about those happy, early days Mort, sleeping in the mud, when the Imam spoke for the whole village?>

No, you tell *us* more.

It sounds like a fascinating story. I had no idea you wrote fictional biographies, although from your fictional histories I should have expected it.

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Softpaw: <al wazir:...But [right-wing ultranationalists] weren't responsible for the Maidan revolution and they aren't running the show in Kiev now.>

For the record, I never made any such claims. They are strawmen, as far as I am concerned.

<al wazir: Yanukovych fled because of a violent coup>

1)Yes, and the ultranationalists/neofascists played a critical role in that violence, even if they were a minority Maidan faction.

2)Since the coup, they have played a major role in the war in the East (Asov brigade and similar)--not to mention the Odessa massacre. This involvement of neofascists in massacres and military assaults on the East inevitably strikes fear into the hearts of the Russian-speaking population and makes reconciliation with the West even more difficult.

3) Ultranationalists/neofascists have also been given powerful positions in the new regime, although they clearly are not the key players.

4) Furthermore, the ultranationalist/neofascists are only the extreme of a larger ethno-nationalist movement, a movement which defines the Ukrainian state/people primarily in ethnic terms and rejects the kind of civic-nationalism essential to "Western-style" secular-liberal democracies.

This broader ethno-nationalism, embraced by the neoliberal Kiev regime, is playing a hugely divisive role and fueling the separatist movement in the East. Exhibit A: The Kiev regime's <continuing> refusal to give the Russian language official status. ("Poroshenko rejects federalization idea, official status of Russian language"--http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukr...)

<in which no one lifted a finger to aid him.>

Not quite. For months, police and security forces protected Yanukovich. A number of them were killed. Yes, <at the end>, he was abandoned by security forces--but that's the way coups often work.

<The action that ousted him wasn't democratic, but it was a *popular* movement. >

It was popular in Western Ukraine. Not so much in the East. The country was divided almost 50/50 on the issue of the EU association agreement, which was central to the popular protests in Kiev.

Btw, the pro-Russian movement in Crimea was quite popular as well, so I suppose you supported that on the same grounds.

The critical point is: Yanukovich had agreed to early elections. That would have been the democratic way to oust him. Instead, there was an illegal coup which led to a divisive regime that excluded much of the country from representation. Civil war could have been avoided.

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Softpaw: It's not a "concession". I've never argued otherwise.> I "conceded" that there are extreme ethno-nationalists in Ukraine -- and I've never argued otherwise either.

<It's certainly quite possible. The question is: what's the <evidence> for that hypothesis? Well, there IS NO convincing evidence (if any at all) that Russian troops are "pouring in".> "Pouring in" was a scrivener's embellishment, not my preferred way of putting it. (Every journalist harbors secret thoughts of eventually writing a best-selling novel, and sometimes the suppressed literary impulse bursts -- like a blood vessel.)

<The 9,000 figure comes from Poroshenko--hardly a credible source.> I haven't relied on Poroshenko's word. As I said, I assume that Neil MacFarquhar, the reporter who wrote the story, asked other people and drew conclusions from the preponderance of evidence, or at least the preponderance of opinion. I agree, that isn't very compelling. But do you expect compelling clarity in a theater of war?

<See a possible motive there? Claim another "Russian invasion" and hope for increased financial help.> Yeah, yeah. And do you see any motives for the denials issued by Russians and neo-Russians? Do you expect candor in a theater of war? "In every war the first casualty is truth."

<The Kiev government frequently made such claims that could not be substantiated during intense fighting between Ukrainian government troops and separatists earlier this year.> What would you regard as substantiation? Videos of tanks and armored personnel carriers tooling over the fields, to the tune of "Kalininka"? What would that prove? That footage could have been shot anytime, anywhere. Satellite imagery *would* be conclusive, to an expert analyst -- but have you ever looked at satellite imagery? Try this experiment: Google the images of the Soviet missile emplacements in Cuba that provoked the famous confrontation between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Tell me what *you* see in those photos. I myself couldn't say with certainty, based on what I see, whether I'm looking at missile silos or a dairy farm.

<Besides, there is plenty of reason to believe that Russia wants to avoid <direct> involvement. With the collapse of oil prices and the imposition of sanctions, the Russian economy is feeling some pressure (though nothing as dramatic as what you read from some Western "experts") and a direct invasion would increase economic and political problems enormously.> Agreed.

<As long as the separatists are surviving the assaults from Kiev, what would be the motive for a large-scale Russian incursion?> I don't know. It seems foolish, but I don't understand Putin's motives for a lot of things he does. Why spend $157 billion on high-speed rail links (and in a country as spread-out as Russia too!), just for the 2018 World Cup? Why did he spend $50 billion on the Winter Olympics, and why is he spending $5.4 billion on Skolkovo? Does he think that all he needs to do is build a replica of St. Moritz or Silicon Valley and "they will come"?

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: <devere: <MarkFinan: I think everyone knows that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. Bush knew there was no weapons of mass destruction, but I think Blair genuinely believed there was. When Bush II was running for president he said there was "unfinished business" in Iraq. He was borderline retarded, and he was the perfect puppet for Rumsfeld and Cheney, who both wanted to invade Iraq after 9/11.>

I think that the Iraq war was a very serious mistake, and George W Bush was a poor President, but the "facts" you assert are imaginary.>

Your usual posting modus operandi is to put up a link and a one-sentence excerpt, perhaps accompanied by another sentence of your own; when you break that pattern, as here, sometimes you say something eminently worth reading, even if I do not agree with all of your conclusions.

<Clinton, Bush, and Blair all thought that there were WMDs in Iraq. They were all taken in by the same false intelligence reports. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/...

Those intelligence reports, however, were not the products of an objective or disinterested investigation. They were fabricated under pressure from Dick Cheney in part of a pattern of manipulations that enabled him to exert disproportionate influence on the White House and foreign policy, when surely any actual attempt to simply tell Bush (who has a strong personality of his own) what to do would have met with resistance.

In any case, it has been established that the plan to invade Iraq was laid long before 2003, and the Bush administration took office already prepared to put it into effect. Therefore, a mistaken belief in WMDs cannot account for the decision.

<I personally think that W's decision to invade Iraq might also have been influenced by Saddam's prior assassination attempt on his father, George H W Bush, but I am just guessing.>

I think you are right, although I also think political considerations were of far more weight. Remember that Bush went into this war with dismal approval ratings, which had spiked into the stratosphere immediately after 9/11, but which his subsequent misprisions had rapidly dragged into the gutter.

It is no secret that in time of war, most of the public sets aside its misgivings and lines up behind the president. That the administration hoped for a similar rally-to-the-flag effect in this conflict seems almost a truism; "everybody does it" for a reason.

<George W Bush was a graduate of Yale College and the Harvard Business School. Educational records purport to show that neither he, Al Gore, or John Kerry, were very good students, but none of them can reasonably be called "borderline retarded".>

Agreed.

Bush was essentially intellectually mediocre, but that means average, not "retarded."

Also, as even the late Molly Ivins admitted, "he has real political skills," and knew how to present a case (no matter how specious), and secure exactly the necessary compliance with his wishes. He was also skilled enough to get elected and then re-elected, in spite of the slow-motion car accident that was his policies.

[Continued in next post]

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: [Continued from last post]

<devere: George W Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, and refused Dick Cheney's earnest plea to pardon his close friend Scooter Libby before leaving office. To describe Bush as the puppet of either man seems seriously inaccurate.>

Agreed and also not.

As I said, Bush's is a strong personality. He would not have taken orders from anyone.

But he was also, I think, extraordinarily easily influenced by clever manipulators who knew how to play on his weaknesses and idees fixes. (Very like Ronald Reagan in this respect.)

<I believe that George W Bush's most serious mistake as President was to insist that the enemy that attacked the USA on 9/11 was "terrorism" rather than radical Islam. This unfortunate euphemism allowed Saudi Arabia, the home of most of the 9/11 attackers, to continue its extensive financial support to the spread of radical Islam. The war on "terrorism" euphemism was adopted by Bush's successor as President, with the result that the USA has never officially identified the adversary we are actually confronting.>

This was no "mistake"; it was a very deliberate choice to define our "enemy" in such vague terms that the war need never end.

To identify "radical Islam" as the enemy, meanwhile, would also have entailed facing our role as Viktor Frankenstein, being asked to confront the threat posed by his monster when he was busy in the lab making more of them.

All of this is done for reasons other than those released for public consumption; as a libertarian, you are surely aware of this.

We should always be wary when someone in power who wants *more* power starts declaring war on abstractions. The real enemy is likely to be our freedom.

<Rhetoric aside, it is difficult to distinguish the policies of Bush from those of his successor as President.>

This is a point I've made dozens of times; apparently we don't disagree on *everything*.

<Perhaps we need to have the White House water supply tested for mind-altering contaminants.>

The whole process by which politicians *reach* the White House is mind-altering. Even if they are honest when they set out, with a program they think will bring benefits to all, they have to make so many compromises with so many amoral entities in order to get the money needed for election that by the time they have enough power to do good, they are mostly of the devil-bought and do harm instead.

(And this is not to speak of the kind of personality that is profoundly attracted to power for its own sake, and is easily led to do evil because the conscience that should restrain it is weak or missing.)

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Abdel Irada: As for <al wazir>'s blind spot on the Ukraine, it forms part of the larger problem that is his cognitive dissonance. He also exhibits wilful blindness with regard to Israel, GMO and a total refusal to believe his government is not above Machiavellianism.> More mind-reading. Has anyone ever told you that you have no future as a carnival mentalist?

<Actually, <al wazir> is plainly quite intelligent, well educated, articulate (if sometimes glib), and infinitely more self-possessed and polished than <HeMateMe> could be in 10 lifetimes.> Thanks. But what's wrong with glibness?

<However, once you strip away all the varnish, at heart he does indeed still think much as <HMM> does, and is nearly as hard to reach with reason. In both, there is a streak of invincible ignorance: "I don't know, I don't want to know, and you can't *make* me know!"> Change that previous advice to "You have no future in any career that requires insight into another person's thought processes."

<But I do hold out a bit of hope for <aw>, who at least has moved from "libertarian" to "liberal" and is gradually absorbing a few lessons about the unreliability of authority.> Thank you, Butch Cassidy.

<If he can stop glossing (really gliding, I suppose) over important points in order to focus on trivial ones, and suspend his trust in the objectivity and good intentions of those in power, he may yet arrive at the truth that there are neo-Nazis in Odessa (even though they don't control the government), that the cold war is not the defining paradigm of the conflict in Ukraine, and that conditions there are far more complex than he has so far admitted.> I realize that your kibitzing is heavily over-committed, so you have not had time to read what I actually wrote. Consequently, I forgive you for this gross misrepresentation of my views. But it does mean that I can't take seriously anything else you write about me either.

Jan-26-15  HeMateMe: abdel, you should get your ego-inflated head out of your butt, once in awhile. Regarding Hussein killing 100,000 of his countrymen with poison gas, No. 1, there's nothing we could have "done about it," to use your words. No. 2, the chemicals used to make weapons are a part of many industrial processes. We can't control everything, regarding what we export.

Since you raise the topic, why don't YOU tell us how we could have stopped a military dictator from killing his own citizens by dropping poison gas on them from airplanes? In fact, we later established the no fly zone over northern Iraq to stop just this horror from reoccurring.

It's a shame you can't have a little more faith in your own countrymen, Abdel. And, if you could ever pretend you DON'T know everything, all the time, about EVERYTHING, you just might have a little bit more credibility here.

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: Correction: "Kalinka" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA-...).

And I actually meant "Katyusha" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRW...).

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: <al wazir: More mind-reading. Has anyone ever told you that you have no future as a carnival mentalist?>

You do note that the passage you're criticizing is in angle brackets? That means it's a quote, and the thought that made it was not mine.

In any case, it doesn't require "mind-reading" to make certain inferences about a poster's biases from the evidence supplied by tens of thousands of posts.

You are free to disagree with the inferences and show why, but to call them "mind-reading" is bad logic.

<Thanks. But what's wrong with glibness?>

What do you *think* is wrong with it?

What a question.

<Change that previous advice to "You have no future in any career that requires insight into another person's thought processes.">

Across several topics I have found your posting behavior (and I remind you that what you say is all we have to judge you by) consistent with my description.

You present an argument, which is met in detail and often eviscerated. Rather than accept the refutation as such, you then, <HeMateMe>-like, first quibble about semantics, then grudgingly and incrementally back out of the conversation, and subsequently return to repeat the original argument, only to be silenced again when the refutation is repeated and underscored.

One would think this repeated experience would convince you to read, understand and assimilate the refutation in full, but by evidence you block it out. Because your next step is to wait a few weeks or months and then *again* restate your long-discredited argument.

To more than one of your interlocutors, on certain topics at least, this smells of willful ignorance.

<I realize that your kibitzing is heavily over-committed, so you have not had time to read what I actually wrote. Consequently, I forgive you for this gross misrepresentation of my views.>

I was summarizing the chief error in your views, since I didn't want to recapitulate your entire discussion with <Softpaw> to an audience that's already familiar with it. You *do* oversimplify the situation, and to some extent you still appear to be under the influence of a binary Cold War mentality.

<But it does mean that I can't take seriously anything else you write about me either.>

I'm sure you'd be delighted to find an excuse to dismiss it. But you know that would be a perfect demonstration of fallacy-in-action: "I think you're wrong in some of what you say about me, so all of it must be wrong."

Well, all of it is not wrong, and I'm far from the only one who's remarked on it.

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: <HeMateMe: abdel, you should get your ego-inflated head out of your butt, once in awhile. Regarding Hussein killing 100,000 of his countrymen with poison gas, No. 1, there's nothing we could have "done about it," to use your words.>

Are you capable of opening a post without a graphic obscenity?

And sure there's something we could have done. If we were eventually going to invade anyway, *that* was the time to do it.

Short of that, there are countless economic and diplomatic weapons in our arsenal, not to mention our power to secure UN resolutions that could have forced Hussein to desist on penalty of a perfectly legal international intervention.

<No. 2, the chemicals used to make weapons are a part of many industrial processes. We can't control everything, regarding what we export.>

We can, do and did restrict exports of "dual-use" technologies and materials, denying access to many of them (including "supercomputers," such as PowerPC Macintoshes) to such designated enemies as Iran and Cuba.

If we let someone have access to the raw materials for chemical weapons, we do not do so in ignorance. This is especially true with a country with the record established by Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war.

<Since you raise the topic, why don't YOU tell us how we could have stopped a military dictator from killing his own citizens by dropping poison gas on them from airplanes? In fact, we later established the no fly zone over northern Iraq to stop just this horror from reoccurring.>

I guess I don't need to answer this question because you have already done so.

<It's a shame you can't have a little more faith in your own countrymen, Abdel.>

Again you fail to see the distinction — a vital one — between my countrymen and the elite that misrules us.

<And, if you could ever pretend you DON'T know everything, all the time, about EVERYTHING, you just might have a little bit more credibility here.>

I have never pretended to know everything; like everyone, I know what I know.

Different people are good at different things. Some specialize in one thing, others in another. We are made different for a reason, and it's when we put those differences to use by each bringing his own talents to the table that we prosper best.

This is called community, and it is the foundation of society. And it is best served by celebrating rather than ridiculing or demeaning each other's contributions.

Meanwhile, if you paid any attention in the Holiday Present Hunt, you would have seen me repeatedly express awe for the *really* smart people among us: the ones who can solve those clues and make it look easy.

But as so often, you see what you want to see, as long as it serves your cause of refusing to see the truth when it is spelled out before your eyes. This is a cognitive error, but I suppose it enables you to avoid painful dissonance between the narrative you've internalized and the evidence that shows it false.

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  MarkFinan: <<devere: <MarkFinan: I think everyone knows that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. Bush knew there was no weapons of mass destruction, but I think Blair genuinely believed there was. When Bush II was running for president he said there was "unfinished business" in Iraq. He was borderline retarded, and he was the perfect puppet for Rumsfeld and Cheney, who both wanted to invade Iraq after 9/11.> I think that the Iraq war was a very serious mistake, and George W Bush was a poor President, but the "facts" you assert are imaginary.>>

Firstly. Good post. Not quite sure what "facts" in my post you're talking about though because they're just my opinions, although I do think my opinions are based on facts.

<<Clinton, Bush, and Blair all thought that there were WMDs in Iraq. They were all taken in by the same false intelligence reports. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/... "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 >>

I did say in my post that I thought Blair actually believed in the WMD rubbish, but according to Dick Clarke, Bush II was overheard saying to Rumsfeld "Find me a way to do this". "This" being invading Iraq. America were going to invade Iraq with or without us (England) and regardless of what the UN said. But Bush still wanted to do it in a way that wouldn't look like unprovoked madness to the rest of the world, and waiting for more UN resolutions and other allies falling into line and being persuaded to get on board could have taken another 6, 12, 18 months. According to Dick Clarke Rumsfeld and Cheney were ready to go into Iraq in September of 2001, only Colin Powell and Clarke convinced Bush otherwise. Clarke said Rumsfeld and Cheney then started calling Afghanistan "phase one" in the war on terror, Iraq being phase 2...... and that's how it turned out, but they did give Saddam Hussein fair warning what would happen if he didn't leave the country. And even though I do think Saddam needed killing (like the mission to kill Bin Laden would have been better, but obviously harder) if he had left Iraq when he was told, the Americans were still going in to look for these wmd's, because without the WMD garbage Bush couldn't have invaded! You can't just invade countries for "Regime change", *unless* that country poses a serious threat to the Invading country ..... Step forward the WMD fairy tale.

<<George W Bush was a graduate of Yale College and the Harvard Business School. Educational records purport to show that neither he, Al Gore, or John Kerry, were very good students, but none of them can reasonably be called "borderline retarded". http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard...>

It doesn't matter what school or university he went to, what grades he got, he was dumb as s##t! He used to be a heavy drinker and a cocaine user, his motor skills aren't exactly the sharpest! You can just tell, everytime Bush made the speech I used to cringe for him!?

<<George W Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, and refused Dick Cheney's earnest plea to pardon his close friend Scooter Libby before leaving office. To describe Bush as the puppet of either man seems seriously inaccurate.>>

They had a heavy heavy influence over Bush, more than any other VP and DefSec in living memory.

<<I believe that George W Bush's most serious mistake as President was to insist that the enemy that attacked the USA on 9/11 was "terrorism" rather than radical Islam.>>

My views and opinions on that religion are well known, but to declare war on a religion (especially in September of 2001when every country in the world was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with America) would be complete madness and likely to bring about WW III! I know you said "Radical Islam", but for a country to say it's going to war with any kind of Islam would have made them all unite, and the world would have been mayhem. They're all mad as it is! Bush was very careful in that respect, he repeatedly called Islam a religion of peace because he knew, and his administration knew, you can't declare war on a religion.

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <abdel wazir>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-...

Does this give you a clue?

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: <twinlark: <abdel wazir>>

Speaking of monsters....

This sounds like one of the composite mummies under the Great Pyramid in Lovecraft's "Imprisoned With The Pharaohs": the one he wrote in collaboration with Harry Houdini, who was also the story's protagonist.

Let not such unclean hybrids* be unleashed upon the world!

---

*Unless they're GMOs. That might account for the <wazir> part.

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <twinlark: We won't even mention Odessa, where all those people in the Trade Union Building obviously killed themselves....>

Yup, obviously.

<....including the 8 month pregnant woman who strangled herself and discourteously left her own body lying on her desk, and the people who jumped from the burning building who vigorously and suicidally assaulted the fists, boots and sticks held by innocent freedom loving non-fascist bystanders....>

Mere collateral damage, don't you know.

< (aw's) demand for ever more proof and evidence is reminiscent of creationists constantly demanding more evidence of evolution along the lines of <but where are the transitional fossils?> kind of willful intellectual derpitude.>

Give me a full-on idiot to argue with any day; for that has got to be easier going than such wilfulness.

<For him nazis only ever existed in Nazi Germany, and in effect for him, as you can infer from his response, There Can Be Or Ever Have Been Only One Set of Nazis.>

Cloaked with his set of facts and utter moral certitude, he marches forth, a soldier in dubious battle with all the horrors the world has to offer.

<I'm afraid that is a blind spot he continues to flourish in this forum. You may as well argue the logic of God with <!!>.>

Or the lovely topic of OMVs, as espoused by that selfsame poster.

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Softpaw: "Syriza forms government with rightwing Independent Greeks party"

<Radical leftists form government with populist rightwing party after less than an hour of coalition negotiations>

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...

Populism vs Elitism trumps Left vs Right

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <Abdel Irada: <twinlark: <abdel wazir>>>

oops

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <Softpaw>

<Populism vs Elitism trumps Left vs Right>

A pity if that is the case. I thought the Greeks were fed up with being screwed by their pollies not to mention the whole pitiful euro-shambles run by those rapacious pricks in the banking sector.

The trillion-euro QE has to be the worst sort of joke. You couldn't make up that sort of far fetched scenario until it actually happens.

Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <twinlark> Politics and rapacity in the same sentence? You must be daft!
Jan-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Softpaw: <twinlark: <Softpaw> <Populism vs Elitism trumps Left vs Right> A pity if that is the case.>

My remark may have been a bit glib.

My idea was: left and right-wing <populist> parties in Greece oppose austerity, the troika, and the traditional political/economic establishment. They differ on other issues, of course. On the other hand, both left and right <elite> parties support austerity, the troika etc.

Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 6740)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6740 OF 6740 ·  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