On that theme can someone compile a poll list on here of THEIR fav/best English players like:

(Percentage of wins)

Howard Staunton 68.2
Amos Burn 53.6
Michael Adams 61.3
Henry Bird 43.9
Nigel Short 55.7
Anthony Miles 61.9
Raymond Keene 75.1
John Nunn 61.0
Jonathan Speelman 58.7
Joseph Blackburne 62.7

Who have i forgotten?

I think you're wrong. I saw film footage of that battle on the History Channel. It was a long time ago, and I may be remembering incorrectly, or simply delusional, but I distinctly recall seeing old newsreel footage of that attack. Actually, the planes seemed to be more devastating than the tanks.

<szunzein> There are actually a number of reasons for the Napoleon height myth. As <vampiero> notes, Napoleon's personal guards were required to be over six feet tall. Additionally, the French measurement system at the time used feet and inches, which were somewhat larger than British and American foot measurements. Napoleon's height was recorded as 5'2" in the old French system. That would be between 5'6" and 5'7" in today's measurement system. Furthermore, due to modern nutritional and medical standards, the average man today is far taller than the average man in the early 19th century. Napoleon would have been of somewhat above-average height at the time.

<SniperOnG7> I think your list actually applies better to chess than real battles. Many of those suggestions are vague or simply incorrect.

<4. Willing to take risks in order to take the initiative.>

Apparently you like attacking chess. I'm a positional fan myself. At any rate, it is often better to avoid taking risks. For example, the Russian retreat during Napoleon's invasion was cautious and successful. A more controversial example: Bush's Iraq War is risky, siezed the initiative, and seems to be a total and utter failure.

<2. Know how to set traps.> Like Napoleon at Austerlitz? That's not really a trap. Perhaps you mean land mines or stuff like that. Those very rarely actually impact the result of a battle or war. It's more of a nuisance- slowing down troops.

<3. Know how to exploit the other side's mistakes.> It's hard to disagree with this one. How exactly does one know what the other side's mistakes are until the battle's over, though? I think it's more misleading than anything. Battles are generally pretty different from chess games, and generals rarely have perfect information about the battlefield, and moreover they lack the time to improvise in a battle situation. The best generals have planned thoroughly before the battle and simply watch their plans unfold. There are exceptions, of course. And in the modern era, instanteneous communication allows faster reaction time. Still, most generals prefer to stick to a plan rather than improvise. Improvisation has seldom reaped success, historically speaking.

Article in the web : Chess Attack

http://www.ajedrezdeataque.com/04%2...

britain 48%
usa 44%
german 35%

britain 48%
usa 44%
german 35%>

Lol i seriously dispute that.

Well, here i am again. I made a new site located at:

http://ayefantry.tripod.com/

Next on my mind is genious Percy Hobart and then that other tank commander George "Pip" Roberts.

Vive la England !

Smile it's sunday =)

(See above link)

I've also added the page 'The Motherland' where a female pictorial will be appreciated by the more mature gentleman.

I think Austerlitz is comparable to exchanging a knight for a bishop in an open game. I don't think it's comparable to trapping the Queen after a rook sac- which is more properly regarded as a chess "trap".