Whoa! What an endgame! BTW, I saw your comment on that page, and it seems it was puzzle of the day, on Nov 18, 2014. I saw the puzzle was white's 54th move, after 53...Kh2:

click for larger view

I wondered why it wasn't move 51, after 50...g5:

click for larger view

When I played through the game, I stopped there, at white's 51th move, trying to see the winning method (but I was getting kinda dizzy and gave up!) Then I played through to the end (51.Ng3+ Kh2 52.Nf1+ Kh1 53.Ne3 Kh2 54.Ng4+ Kh1 55.Kf1 h2 56.Ng3 mate) and I thought: Oh, that's right! But it turns out that black missed 53...g4!

click for larger view

Position after 18...Bxf3 19.Bxf3

click for larger view

No.

My blitz move would probably be 19...Ne5.

Both are reasonable answers, actually. Given enough time, white could make very good moves (and perhaps not too difficult to find, again given enough time) and end up with a nice position.

But in blitz, I did play it, because the burden is on white to find the accurate defense, while attacking is easy.

Specifically:

19...Rxf3 20.gxf3 Ne5:

click for larger view

And now white has to fight the natural instinct to play 21.Qe2, and play 21.Qd1 instead. The reason is that on e2 the queen is unsupported. So:

21.Qe2 Qg6+ 22.Kh2 Qh5:

click for larger view

... and white doesn't have 23.f4. So, all options are unpleasant. Here, the computer says that 23.Kg2 is best and after 23...Rf8 white has to play 24.Rh1, and black has the (heavy!) upper hand.

In the diagrammed position, my opponent blundered with 23.Rfe1 (to protect the queen), and had to resign after 23...Rd6 (there is no hurry to take the f3) 24.f4 Nf3+.

Now, back to the first diagram, after 21.Qd1 a likely continuation is 21...Qg6+ 22.Kh2 Qh5 23.f4

click for larger view

23...Nf3+ 24.Kg3 Rd6:

click for larger view

PART 1

I was born in 1967, so I was a kid when Videla & cronies grabbed power in 1976, but I remember the 1978 world cup well. How could I not? I was a kid and it was super-exciting!

As for politics, I began to be aware of things by the early 80s, but by then most of the country still didn't know the whole truth about the dirty war. My parents knew by the late 70s, when a friend connected to the Navy told them they were throwing people into the sea from planes, but of course they didn't share that info with me.

What I can say for sure is that the media was 100% with the government all along the dirty war. There was censorship, including disappearances, of the dissenting press, so this is not surprise. Those who carried on were genuine sympathizers of the government or self-censored in order to survive.

Videla retired in 1981, as the economy was running into trouble (it had played in the military's favor that the economy had a good run during the Videla years) and then the infighting in the junta intensified. His successor was himself removed by an internal coup. What did the junta in was the disastrous Falklands (Malvinas) war in 1982. I remember than on March 30 or 31 there was a massive demonstration against the government in Plaza de Mayo (the historic square in front of Casa Rosada, the government's site). Then, on April 2nd, when we woke up to the news that the Malvinas had been seized, a spontaneous gigantic rally in the same spot showered love on Galtieri.

That same morning, in school (I was in the equivalent of 10th grade in the US), one of our teachers asked us, at the beginning of class, to write our thoughts on the seizure of Malvinas. I think he collected them afterwards. I remember I wrote something like I hoped the government had calculated correctly what to do if the Brits sent their Navy. Then the teacher proceeded to sing the praises of the government and the action taken. I went to a private Catholic school, btw. Most of my teachers leaned right-wing. They were traditionalist types. But again, the seizure of the Malvinas was immensely popular.

Galtieri was ousted after the defeat, and with the economy plunging on top of that, governing for the hapless military men became impossible. They allowed elections in 1983. The winner, Raul Alfonsin, from the misnamed "radical" party (they were and still are moderate, middle-of-the-road, middle-class oriented folks) had campaigned largely on restoring democracy and the Constitution The Peronists campaigned on labor issues and Peron's veneration. Their defeat was a surprise.

And then all the human rights abuses, concentrated in 1976-77, came fully into plain view. The verifiable documented cases of the disappeared were, if memory serves, about 17,000--estimates of actual murder went up to 30,000. That many were guerillas doesn't matter. People were horribly tortured and murdered, recently born babies of captive women stolen (and the mothers killed), and many innocent people who simply happened to be acquaintances of guerillas or suspected guerillas were disappeared too.

The government of Alfonsin took the incredibly bold step of putting the top leaders of the 1976-83 military juntas on trial. Nine people. At the same time, they passed two laws called "Due obedience" and "Final stop." The former exonerated lower ranks from following the orders from above. The latter stated that these trials would put an end to all judicial prosecution of the military dictatorship. In my view, both measures were politically necessary. It was important to focus on the top brass because you just can't put a huge chunk of your military in prison. The left hated these two laws and denounced the government, but I thought they were insane. There was no precedent in Argentine, or for that matter Latin American, history for anything like the trials of former military dictators. It was historically a huge step.

I must note that the trials were for the human rights abuses, not for overthrowing democracy. But they told the military they were hugely unpopular and unwanted anywhere near government ever again. And they got the message, I can say with the benefit of hindsight. A clumsy Army rebellion a few years later folded unsuccessfully and did not pose a real threat to democracy. Then there was an armed attempt at a coup from a small leftist crazy group too, that was crushed (I think in 1987). No attempt to overthrow the government (since 1983, always democratically elected) has happened again. And it is frankly unthinkable today. Forty years later, the Argentine military is composed of entirely new generations that have no interest in getting involved in politics and carry no baggage from the past.

All the events from the 1980s I remember very well. I was 14 during the Falklands war and 16 when Alfonsin was inaugurated.

There is a recently released movie titled "Argentina 1985" that I know deals with all this. I haven't watched it yet, but I will.

Definitely.

If I remember there was a massive women's movement, Madres de los Desaparecidos (?), that had a major impact.

I can't imagine living through something like that. I think Alfonsin and his successors were intelligent in how they handled it all.

Nerve-wracking, though. Holland scored with five minutes left, then hit the post a minute later.

I think the whole system, the round-robin among four teams with goal difference a potential decider, was rife for abuse. Argentina had to win 4-0 against Peru, which had already been eliminated. Made no sense.

I think we can agree that Argentina winning was a key to Videla staying in power. Had they lost many people think Videla would have been deposed.

There's a quite good documentary on Pele, I think on Netflix, where he discusses whether to play in the 1966 and 1970 World Cups, worried about appearing to support the military governmnet in Brazil. Somewhat analogous to Brazil.

Oh, you are right! I remember that they equalized close to the end, but had forgotten the hit on the post.

<I think the whole system, the round-robin among four teams with goal difference a potential decider, was rife for abuse.>

True.

<Argentina had to win 4-0 against Peru>

I thought only us Argentines remembered that!

<I think we can agree that Argentina winning was a key to Videla staying in power. Had they lost many people think Videla would have been deposed.>

Actually, we don't agree on it. I never heard of such speculation, and I can say from what I saw all around me that winning the world cup was an amazing feat, rather than something people expected. Now Argentines get upset if Argentina doesn't win the world cup, but back in 1978 that was not the case. Argentina was used to being eliminated, with its highest peak having been at the very first world cup in Uruguay (when it finished second).

So, I think winning the World Cup gave Videla a boost of popularity, but I don't imagine his job was at risk. He seemed to have had a firm enough grip on the top brass during his five years as president, although it is known there were disagreements with Massera (the Navy boss).

<There's a quite good documentary on Pele, I think on Netflix, where he discusses whether to play in the 1966 and 1970 World Cups, worried about appearing to support the military government in Brazil.>

Cool! I'll look for it.

<Interesting today that Mario Kempes is a lead analyst for ESPN in Latin America.>

My forum is not for politics, as my forum blurb notes. The <Rogoff> page is for politics.

<saffuna> True about the noise level! I remember that!

Black to play:

click for larger view

I was in Huaraz, Peru, also watching on black and white TV.

Right! Notice that if white moves the h-pawn after black's promotion, the mate is with Rxf1+ and Rh1 mate.

But I bet it was not louder than the South Africa World Cup 2010.>