< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 12 ·
|Feb-21-03|| ||Bismarck: Napoleon vs General Bertrand is an interesting game, we see a glimse of the man's genius expressed through chess. |
|Aug-04-03|| ||Cecil Brown: Genius? Invading Russia without any supplies was more like stupidity. He lost about 560 000 men in 1812, most to starvation and exposure. A soldiers general !? |
|Aug-04-03|| ||Cecil Brown: "Damn him! He is just a pounder after all." |
|Aug-04-03|| ||bishop: "The science of strategy is only to be acquired by experience, and by studying the campaigns of all the great captains.
Gustavus Adolphus, Turenne, and Frederick, as well as Alexander, Hannibal, and Caesar have all acted upon the same principles. These have been -- to keep their forces united; to leave no weak part unguarded; to seize with rapidity on important points."- Napoleon.|
What excellent advice for chessplayers!
|Aug-07-03|| ||Replic: I agree, his match against General Bertrand is quite an interesting one. Strange how the same genuis is used against him when playing the Turk.|
As for invading Russia- He expected to move quicker than he did, as well as take Russia without having to move as far as he did into it.
Why doesn't chessgames.com have more Napoleon games? Are these the only recorded ones?
And Bishop- I agree, it is an excellent quote for strategy and chess.
|Aug-07-03|| ||Sylvester: A lot of people were talking trash about the French military a few months ago, but that had Napoleon who is one of the great generals of all time. |
|Aug-07-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: <Sylvester>
Indeed, people forget their history quickly. No one would have dared to mock the French back in those days. I guess most people consider the French to be wimpy fighters because of WWI and WWII (the French were completely crushed both times. What people neglect to remember is that the French lost not so much because they were poor fighters but because the Germans cleverly blitzed their way into France through France's neutral neighbor Belgium whose French border lacked many strong fortifications.)
|Aug-07-03|| ||Sylvester: But the French had to be tough to survive Nazi occupation. What could be worse? |
|Aug-08-03|| ||Ashley: <But the French had to be tough to survive Nazi occupation. What could be worse?> German occupation of Poland. |
|Aug-08-03|| ||Cecil Brown: <But the French had to be tough to survive Nazi occupation>|
"It was the antithesis of the apathy and resignation that lay behind the French collapse in 1940.Then a people sacrificed their country and institutions for their own personal safety.The pleasures of wine,adultery and civilised conversation could it seemed, be preserved simply by refusing to fight."
From Barbarossa by Alan Clark.
Have you never heard of Vichy France?
|Aug-08-03|| ||Cecil Brown: Now to be fair, I should point out that both Alan Clark and myself are Englishmen, and we have spent so much of our history fighting Frenchie that there is a tendency to view him as the natural enemy.|
Some French resisted heroically in 1940 and through until 1945. The memory of their appalling and fruitless losses between 1914 and 1916 was still fresh in 1940 and was a big factor in the surrender.
I have to agree with Ashley as well, the German occupation of Poland and later large parts of the USSR was far more brutal than the occupation of France.
|Aug-08-03|| ||uponthehill: It's very nice to read such words, especially written by a person from a from very remote land.|
<But the French had to be tough to survive Nazi occupation. What could be worse?>
French like to forget that thanks for such Frenchmen as gen. Petain or LaValle occupation of France was a holiday comparing it to Nazi occupation of Poland.
And also French resistance comparing it to Polish AK was a scoutmen club.
It's true that Frenchmen are not good warriors- despite they had much better circumstances to resist Germans they were doing for much lesser range than smaller Poland, Norway, Yugoslavia and Denmark. (Poland and Yugoslavia much more pressed by nazis).
|Aug-08-03|| ||tud: Napoleon has shown that French are good warriors beating up germans, italians, russians and english armies for almost 20 years. In WorldWar first they dealt quite well with the germans. The american army which won independance was organized and trained by the french general Lafayette. It's WorldWar 2 where they blew off. And the brits would have share the same fate but Hitler did (happy us all) a stupid thing and stopped himself attacking England right after France.
The serbs had the greatest resistance against Hitler and then they stopped Stalin from occupying the country. |
|Aug-08-03|| ||Dustin J.: I'd hate too go off topic but England was not falling. They were producing more Spitfires then German Me-109s. The Atlantic Treaty assured that supplies would coming be in as Britain needed. Nevermind Canadian shipping. England could not be taken as the transports would flip over in the channel nevermind the RN & RAF would have sunk the invasion fleet. |
|Aug-08-03|| ||uponthehill: That does not deny fact that France World War 2 history is not glorious. |
|Aug-08-03|| ||uponthehill: But of course I admit that Napoleon was a genius and during 1st WW France was heroic. |
|Aug-08-03|| ||Sylvester: My Pop says geography is a key factor that a lot of people forget in how good a country's military record was. |
|Dec-05-03|| ||InspiredByMorphy: I wonder why there arent more Napoleon games? Im guessing due to the age in which they were recorded, but it is too bad. Im interested in his games for some reason... |
|Dec-05-03|| ||technical draw: My, my, this is the most erudite page in this site. But I wonder, if you were a general in Napoleon's army, and Bony invited you to a game of chess, would you try to beat him? |
|Dec-05-03|| ||Shadout Mapes: <Invading Russia without any supplies was more like stupidity. He lost about 560 000 men in 1812, most to starvation and exposure. A soldiers general !?>|
I've definitly gotta disagree. His victory at Austerlitz in particular shows his amazing ability of tactics. He didn't seem to think through his actions too the very end though, as his invasion of Russia and Egypt show. Still, he's not stupid.
|Dec-05-03|| ||InspiredByMorphy: Wouldnt it have been fun to have played and beat Napoleon?! Id just make sure to be armed and have my running shoes on! |
|Jan-01-04|| ||centurion82: without napoleon's military genuis, strategy would not change at all. he was the general that showed that quantity of soldiers is not enough to win a battle and the how you apply tactics is the best. he is a great general. |
|Jan-01-04|| ||Ron: France hasn't won a war in 200 years. See this link http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/tex... |
|Jan-01-04|| ||Ron: Wouldnt it have been fun to have played and beat Napoleon?! Id just make sure to be armed and have my running shoes on! |
I like to think that if you beat Napolean in a chess games, he would be impressed.
|Jan-01-04|| ||centurion82: Ron, do you know that without France support for the American Revolution against Britain. America will is still be a part of UK. |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 12 ·