|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-29-04 | | jcmoral: <snoopdogg> <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> That's a very big 'if', especially without air cover and without a strong navy (The U-boat effort got a lot of press but it didn't have such a large effect on the balance of naval power.). I guess we'll never know. Good though, that Hitler didn't make an attempt of it. Good too, that he let his ego and emotions affect his military decisions. |
|
| Jan-28-05 | | aw1988: Carrying on the tradition of players to direct actual chess-like battles I think I might choose Capablanca. We wouldn't need to participate... he would be the king and win against the entire black army. |
|
| Jan-28-05 | | Backward Development: I think that Karpov would be an excellent general, or at least Pandolfini does...
"Known as a negative player, Karpov sets up deep traps and creates moves that seem to allow his opponent possibilities - but that really don't. He takes no chances, and he gives his opponents nothing. He's a trench-warfare fighter who keeps the game moving just an inch at a time." – Bruce Pandolfini Although if i was a soldier myself, I'd like to have Petrosian as a general too.... May i add that the Mel Gibson movie "Gallipoli"(is that the correct spelling) delivers a powerful message about the 'heartlessness' of field generals. |
|
| Mar-11-05 | | Knight13: "... When he(Napoleon) is angry there's a devil in him."-- Letizia |
|
Apr-07-05
 | | TheAlchemist: [Event "Alexander Petroff Composition"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Russia"]
[Black "Napoleon"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3n4/2p3p1/4prB1/n1P5/p1pP1rp1/4b3/1pP1Np1K/1k3N1Q w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "27"]
(The b1 square represents Moscow, the h8 square Paris; the h1-a8 diagonal
represents the Berezin -I'm not sure about the name- river; the black king represents Napoleon and the white knights the russian cavalry, that chase Napoleon to his doom) 1. Nd2+ Ka2 2. Nc3+ Ka3 3. Ndb1+ Kb4 4. Na2+ Kb5 5. Nbc3+ Ka6 6. Nb4+ (Here white can mate with 6.Qa8#, but the original solution is much more spectacular. Too bad about this flaw, though.) 6... Ka7 7. Nb5+ Kb8 8. Na6+ Kc8 9. Na7+ Kd7 10. Nb8+ Ke7 11. Nc8+ Kf8 12. Nd7+ Kg8 13. Ne7+ Kh8 14. Kg2# (And so, Russia checkmates Napoleon in Paris!) 1-0 |
|
| Apr-20-05 | | WorldChampeen: There are numerous references to Chess by Sir Winston Churchill. That would be something if some games by him could be found. He said:
"Moves are made upon the scientific and strategic boards, advantages are gained by mechanical means, as a result of which scores of millions of men become incapable of further resistance, or judge themselves incapable of further resistance, and a fearful game of chess proceeds from check to mate by which the unhappy players seem to be inexorably bound." - http://www.fiftiesweb.com/usa/winst... |
|
| Apr-28-05 | | vampiero: i disagree, petrosian would not be the best general. few people know but he too liked to make sactrifices, he could sacrifice a rook for a bishop or even a pawn just to solidify his defences. i would like to have capablanca as my general, because capablanca was not keen on draws, which would keep the morale of any solier up, and because his mechanical "boaconstrictor" like play would stick the upposing army into a corner and counter attack their mistakes. and by the way, it is a statistical fact that Russia fought 97% of all land battles in world war 2 |
|
| Apr-28-05 | | vampiero: and also, i dont like karpov because his "trench warfare tactics that would keep the fight going and inch at a time" would demoralise the army. |
|
| May-24-05 | | WorldChampeen: The Reti opening ( Richard Reti
) is also called the Zukertort opening ( Johannes Zukertort ) < also see http://www.eudesign.com/chessops/re... > but was actually played by Napoleon in 1804 according to Irving Chernev. |
|
| Jun-20-05 | | WMD: <and by the way, it is a statistical fact that Russia fought 97% of all land battles in world war 2> Did the Germans fight the other 3%? |
|
| Jun-20-05 | | vampiero: he means on the allies side agaisnt the Germans, showing that the US did not defeat Germany, it was Russia who did. |
|
| Jun-20-05 | | WMD: Don't call us, we'll call you. |
|
| Jun-20-05 | | vampiero: ?????????????????? |
|
| Jun-21-05 | | qwertyu: do u mean 97% of battles vs germany
because russia didnt decare war on japan until about 7 or 8 days before they surrendered if i remember right |
|
| Jun-21-05 | | qwertyu: plus the royal navy would have done alot of damage to the german navy if they tried to invade england |
|
| Jun-21-05 | | Cecil Brown: <qwertyu> Have a read of:-
http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Russo.htm
The Soviet defeat of the Japanese at Khalkin Gol in 1939 led the Japanese to expand into the Pacific instead. All went quiet between the two until August 8 1945 ( two days after the first A bomb was dropped ) when the Soviet Union declared war on Japan at midnight and invaded Manchuria with 1.5 million men and 5500 tanks. The fighting stopped on August 23rd ( 9 days after the Japanese surrender ) with the Soviets claiming 87 000 Japanese casualties and 540 000 captured. |
|
| Jun-21-05 | | schnarre: <Cecil Brown> In the late 1930s, despite Stalin's purges, the Soviet military was well up to the task of handling the Imperial Japanese Army (especially with the to-be-famous General Zhukhov on the scene). After 2 major clashes in which the Japanese army was crushed handily, Japan went out of its way to avoid provoking Russia. By 1945, the Soviets actually answered the American hope to open the second front on Japan (Roosevelt & Truman had been pressing for a Soviet attack on the Japanese). |
|
| Jun-21-05 | | acirce: <despite Stalin's purges> I would say "thanks to", partly at least. Getting rid of pro-German elements and anti-Soviet conspirers in general couldn't have hurt. http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/nod... (and forward, click "next") is good reading on the matter. |
|
| Jun-21-05 | | SnoopDogg: <Don't call us, we'll call you.>
<??????????????????> <WMD> meant you referred to yourself in the third person. <he means on the allies side agaisnt the Germans, showing that the US did not defeat Germany, it was Russia who did.> Also one question mark shall do on a relatively easy statement to understand such as this. Also <vampiero> about Petrosian's sacrifices I'll quote Mikhail Botvinnik, "When Tal sacrifices accept it, when I sacrifice consider it, when Petrosian offers a sacrifice resign!" |
|
| Jun-22-05 | | vampiero: unfortunatly, it does not work that way in an actual battle, if you sacrifice a legion, it definitely does not mean that your opponent will lose |
|
| Jun-23-05 | | schnarre: <acirce> I would probably disagree; a Soviet-German Alliance would have been extremely powerful! Culling the disloyal elements from the regime though a sound policy can go too far.
Thanks for the link, I'll have to check it out as time permits. |
|
| Jun-24-05 | | Mitch Mitchell: Chessmasters as Generals?
Well, we had the timid Bernard Montgomery, who was so slow he let half the German army escape France, and STILL didn't get into Caen until the other allies launched an attack against the deep harbor city. Or we have the overly aggressive Patton, who sacrificed too many troops at Anzio, to get personal glory. But his rapid tank and air power combos bagged a lot of ground and enemy troops.....hmmmmm..... Wasn't it Napoleon who advanced the idea of massed concentrations of artillery and rapid marches of troops, to break through in a strategic area? "Pound the Point" was a Napoleonic maxim. I liken this to "attacking from a winning position", ala fischer or botvinnik. I think this eliminates Tal or Shirov. Karpov and Petrosian are too slow. Lets say the players who play forcing moves, and quickly open up the board in an unspecualtive manner would be good commanders. Field Marshals Polgar and Kasparov, anyone?
|
|
| Jun-24-05 | | schnarre: Napoleon was a dedicated artillery man (retreating Russian troops at Austerlitz would find that out the hard way).
<Mitch Mitchell> My late grandfather (Royal Canadian Engineers) use to say that if Montgomery had pursued the German army as much as the press corps he could have been in Germany nearly a year earlier. Patton did quite well up until Metz (the fortifications there nullified the advantages of air power & rapid ground movement, & gave a real bloody nose to his units). Would you add Anand to the list anywhere? |
|
| Jun-25-05 | | Perkins: Was it the Canadiens who helped Monty finalley get into Caen, or the americans? think of the massing of artillary as piling on the file, with rooks and Q, like Botvinnik. Anand sacrifices to win quickly, and is fast in tactical thinking. A great divisional commander, in a forward position, I think. Sort of Rommel meets gandhi? |
|
| Jun-25-05 | | Airlock: I've met three men, two american and one british who hated Montgomery's guts. They claimed he got guys killed because of his ego. None of them knew each other, all said this independently. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
