Any term like 'dumb' or 'stupid' should not be attached to any chess player at any time. No matter how poor or inept one may play at any given time, one is always thinking and planning, and so is not 'dumb', despite the result

<Redshield> This phrase today is hardly a masterpiece; On the other hand, <The Sinking of the Graf's play> is or was definitely brilliant and I'm at a loss as to how this has not been approved

There are dictionaries all over the web. If you don't know what a word means, you can look it up. You even know how to spell it!>

From the one who thought Stalingrad was in Ukraine!! LMAO

OMG just check the Rogoff page from a few months ago.

Well, yeah, most the really stupid people who can't follow instructions tend to be Democrats.>

From our holier than thou friend <OCF> on Page 4837 of the Kenneth Rogoff

but we cannot have cg.com insulting anyone! After all, that is <OCF>s domain.

Then there is this:

< OhioChessFan: ...- Democrat Jesus>

on page 4845 of the Rogoff page:

Kenneth Rogoff

Oh, sorry, I misremembered the noun to which you attached the adjective. I must be a liar! Or it was 7 freaking months ago and I misremembered the noun. Hmm, I wonder which one is the truth....

You are right, I am not cut out for denial, unlike you. Which is why I posted several posts showing what you are full of.

1892 was part of the romantic era of chess. You should compare this game with others of the era. You will then realize it probably was <not> composed.

Fittingly, it starts with the Danish Gambit -- I'm always happy if someone plays that one against me, I just take the pawns offered, then develop solidly and have a really nice position. Here however about about every second move is, objectively speaking, a mistake and/or a straight blunder. Stockfish's evaluation flaps around wildly, with the climax reached with <13...fxg5??>, where the position goes from -4 to +6 -- i.e. Black gives away a winning game by blundering the equivalent of his queen. (Some people don't seem to mind, but I'm too much of an autist that the stupidity of it doesn't affect my aesthetic enjoyment.)

But from then on, White actually plays faultlessly (Stockfish does prefer <17.Nxe7>, but Stockfish always finds something to nag), and the game ends with a lovely smothered mate. This ending position (D) makes all the mindless previous moves worth it:

click for larger view

Here Black is up a whopping 17 points of material, but most of it is just there to help suffocating his king.

<This game illustrates a line of mobilization by the right, combined with a complex line of manoeuvre against an objective plane located on the centre and compromised by the formation of the minor left oblique.>

From his <Grand Tactics of Chess>, Boston 1898, p.412f. https://books.google.de/books/about...

I can only heartily recommend to read his <Chess Player's Epitome> (p.387ff), a set of XX rules easy to remember rules where you will learn everything about "objective planes", "strategetic masses", "radii of offence" and "pawn altitudes", that will definitively help you improve your game:

<In every situation the student, by means of these rules, will be able to apply to the best advantage all the chess capacity that he possesses; and he should never forget that at all times the ideal move is: --

To create a Strategetic Mass, having the Strategetic Offensive, and to direct it along a Strategic Line of Operations against the Objective Plane.>

"Objective Plane" is probably the one that most sticks out in my mind - I have not to my knowledge seen any other author define such a concise term for this very specific strategic "bullseye" zone around the king (King's Field is probably the closest common term, but normally refers to a wider area, while Objective Plane much more specifically refers to the exact squares that need to be controlled at the conclusion of a mating attack).