< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 12 ·
|Jan-01-04|| ||Ron: Yes, that is why I limited by thesis to 200 years |
|Jan-02-04|| ||blunder maker: Wow!Who is it?So handsome! |
|Jan-05-04|| ||marechal: FYI, Napoleon was not a great chess player. Au contraire...Great general, great administrator, a genius, but definitly not a great chess player. An d when he lost a game, most of the time he would pout. |
|Jan-05-04|| ||nimzowitsch returns: you have to understand that plans are not so important in an actual battle |
|Sep-14-04|| ||Knight13: Napoleon likes Scholar's Mate. But it dosen't work against strong players, everyone knows of. |
|Sep-16-04|| ||Morty: centurion82- do you know that without American support in WWII France would be part of Germany? So would the majority of the other European countries. I agree that the French support during the American Revolution was very helpful, but I hate it when people downplay the role the United States had in liberating Europe during WWII. |
|Sep-30-04|| ||morphy234: <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.>|
Tell that to Hannibal Barca.
|Oct-14-04|| ||nopawnintended: morty- very true..the US role should not be downplayed...I would propose that germany's great downfall was on the eastern front however. Contrary to popular US history, Germany lost the war in Stalingrad. D-day was waged against a military structure that had depleted itself on the eastern front due to Hitlers delusional egotism. Unfortunately it was another,equally horrific totalitarian regime that dealt the death blow to the third reich (Russia) although we like to think it was the democratic allies. However I agree with you that the role the United States had in WW2 was crucial and shouldn't be forgotten. Its just that ultimately, it was Russia, not the US that won the war. |
|Oct-14-04|| ||Hidden Skillz: lets say if staligrad had fallen all of europe perhaps would be nazi reich right now..frech were smart..they didnt downplay america..they were smart enough to not go to war for no bs stores like "womd"..did any terrorism happen in france btw?? |
|Oct-14-04|| ||Shadout Mapes: One has to wonder what would've happened if Hitler had concentrated on the Cacauses (i forget what it's called) oil fields instead of irrationally throwing forces into Stalingrad to be murdered. |
|Oct-14-04|| ||Spassky69: <Dustin J.> Are you kidding?! England would have been finished if Hitler would have done Operation Sea Lion. If he would have invaded England and even if 60% of his troops that were sent over there landed safely, England would have been crushed harder than Poland was. England's whole army was almost wiped out at Dunkirk although thank god for that miracle when Hitler stupidly but thankfully allowed 300,000 troops to escape off Dunkirk. Even some of the troops saved, none of the equipment, ammunition, guns, artillery, tanks were saved. The reasons Hitler didn't invade is because he thought he could still make peace with England, miralces seemed to always happen to England like the Spanish Armada, Dunkirk, etc., the generals thought the Royal Navy would have inflicted heavy damages but they still thought they could get ashore and conquer except it would bee costly. |
|Oct-14-04|| ||nopawnintended: A side note to Hitlers madness...
At a very critical moment in 1943 he ordered that two supply and reinforcement convoys (thousands of troops, artillery, trucks etc ) traveling east towards Russia actually cross each others paths.. like two traffic jammed highways intersecting each other...his generals were going crazy with the stupidity of the command but could do nothing.
One other thought...people often praise the tactical genius of military leaders such as Napoleon, Macarthur and so on...I see it a bit differently. These military "geniuses" are generally upper middle class, highly educated men in their middle ages who send thousands upon thousands of young, mostly poor and uneducated conscripts off to die horrible deaths to prove the effectiveness of their plans. Meanwhile, they sit in a bunker and drink cognac while pouring over maps that resemble the game "Risk". I just don't have any love for them...
|Oct-14-04|| ||OJC: <nopawnintended> <Meanwhile, they sit in a bunker and drink cognac while pouring over maps that resemble the game "Risk" > This is portrayed effectively in Kubrick's 'Paths of Glory' and come to think of it in quite a few of his other movies. In the eyes of the commander the "troops" do not exist as actual people but as tactical weapons not unlike how a chess player considers his pieces. |
It kind of makes you wonder... would you feel safe fighting in an army if Tal was the commander? He might sacrifice legions of troops to create complications! Probably a good thing he was a chess player :)
|Oct-14-04|| ||Shadout Mapes: <people often praise the tactical genius of military leaders such as Napoleon, Macarthur and so on...I see it a bit differently. These military "geniuses" are generally upper middle class, highly educated men in their middle ages who send thousands upon thousands of young, mostly poor and uneducated conscripts off to die horrible deaths to prove the effectiveness of their plans. Meanwhile, they sit in a bunker and drink cognac while pouring over maps that resemble the game "Risk".>|
Brutal, yes. Effective tactically? Certainly. Both sides had generals who took no risk, and Napoleon was just better at the game.
Of course, this is in the later years, Napoleon was born in Corsica, so he had to make a name for himself, and in his earlier battles he was in the thick of the fighting along with his soldiers.
|Oct-14-04|| ||Hidden Skillz: haha OJC nice thought.. |
|Dec-18-04|| ||DanielBryant: <OJC>
If I were a soldier, I'd rather have Petrosian in command.
|Dec-18-04|| ||iron maiden: Or better yet, Kramnik. You only have to survive eighteen moves before they agree to call the battle off. |
|Dec-18-04|| ||morphy234: <iron maiden> LOL!! |
|Dec-19-04|| ||SnoopDogg: <iron maiden> Hahahahahhahahahahhahahaha!!!!|
I nominate that the second funniest post ever.
The first being on the I think it was Karpov vs. Leko 1. d4 draw then someone posted "Kramnik's favorite game". Either this or that one was the funniest to me.
Anyways <DanielBryant> do you think Petrosian (if all his powers of chess were transformed into a general) could do a better job then Rommel did on D-Day? Not many people know that if Rommel would have just sent his divisions from Calais to Normandy within a half a day (which was feasible) D-Day would have been a disaster.
Anyways my General would have to be Mikhail Tal. However unsound, his blitzkreig tactics could conquer most of Europe as fast as the Germans did in '39-41. Plus I think he would have got to Moscow before the winter and Zhukov sorry Petrosian got there.
|Dec-19-04|| ||jcmoral: <spassky69> Hitler didn't launch Operation Sea Lion because the RAF had beaten the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. If he had gone in there would have been no air support for his landing forces. |
|Dec-19-04|| ||Novice713: <iron maiden> Lol, that's true |
|Dec-19-04|| ||SnoopDogg: <Hitler didn't launch Operation Sea Lion because the RAF had beaten the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. If he had gone in there would have been no air support for his landing forces.>|
To elaborate on <spassky69>'s point, it wouldn't matter because if they would have landed just a fifth of there amphibous landing army(so says Historian Tseshkovsky...no not the chess player!) England would have been gone in a month. Which is probably true since almost all of there army equipment were on the shores of Dunkirk, they had to call in Old English men because they were short of men, and then Africa would fall and due to the oil in Africa the campaign against Russia would be a breeze (as it was at least for the first months of Barbarossa).
Which makes this Hitler's greatest blunder of the war. That's why I'm nice to old British people because I know I would be screwed if Hitler would have invaded England even without TOTAL air superiority.
|Dec-21-04|| ||DanielBryant: <SnoopDogg>
Very good point. Perhaps Petrosian's play reminds me of European appeasement during the 1930s.
|Dec-22-04|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: Really? Reminds me more of how the Russians beat Germany at Stalingrad during WWII. You don't become world champion and successfully defend your title by appeasement alone. |
|Dec-22-04|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: And just to show that I don't always stray off-topic: Napoleon was beaten by the Russians in a Petrosian-style fashion too. |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 12 ·