<<I deserve it, but what's coming is even more deserved. He'll see>>

I just created a collection, Game Collection: FP's Yearly Best Games (pre 1950), and wanted to thank you for your wonderful Game Collection: Brilliancies By "Unknowns", which was very helpful.

I also noticed that you have a similar collection, Game Collection: The Game Of The Year (1851 - ), however I believe there is nothing wrong with me creating mine. In any case if you want me to take down my collection, please let me know.

Kind Regards,

<May I also make a few suggestions for the Brilliancies by Unknowns collection?> If you have any suggestions, post them here and I'll see about adding them.

As a matter of fact, I already did! So, thanks once again! :-)

<If you have any suggestions, post them here and I'll see about adding them.>

Thanks! Obviously you decide on whether or not to use them, I just didn't want to flood your page without permission! :D

Here are some beautiful games that have not been GOTD yet: J Corzo vs M Golmayo De La Torriente, 1896
P Kranzl vs Blatny, 1991
V Lilov vs M Bojchev, 2005

Some former GOTDs:
Przepiorka vs J Von Patay, 1926
E Sedina vs S Tkeshelashvili, 2003
M Paragua vs D Debashis, 2012

Some that I'm not sure if they can be classified as "Unknowns," although they never really among the chess elite:

Van Wely vs Acs, 2002 (Acs was a World Junior Champion)

P Wells vs Y Habu, 2005 (Habu is World Shogi Champion, probably even the greatest of all time of that sport)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk_...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RT...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuE...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTi...

I'll drop a few more games if I may:

Hmm, where to begin? They're a possible variant of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", perhaps?

Some probably genuinely believe they're doing good by championing their causes and white-knighting for "oppressed groups". Not by doing actual work e.g. campaigning for legislations, but simply bitching on the internet seems to ease their conscience just fine.

Also, I don't know exactly how to explain it, but people often need an outside enemy to justify their failings, in the sense that it's always someone else's fault (they're oppressed, not incapable). So, e.g. if you are a part of an "oppressed minority" and fail in a job interview, it's because you're oppressed and the victimhood makes you feel better about your shortcomings (truth be told, I am sometimes guilty of this too, where it's easier to believe you were sabotaged than that you screwed up). And if you aren't exactly successful in the job market, like many of these gender studies etc. crowd probably are, fighting these "injusticies" at least gives them purpose and it won't seem like they've wasted years of their life getting degrees that don't help them in the slightest.

The tumblr crowd are a "species" of their own, it's probably that most of them are lonely in real life and find a group to socialize and identify with (albeit only on the internet) and it makes them feel more special and important.

As with feminists, I believe most of them think they're doing good and the ends justify the means (mobbing opponents, silencing criticism, taking legal action, etc.) - most are essentially brainwashed and don't even consider their position might not be 100% right. The few who are leading are the ones with genuine agendas to benefit themselves and just use their "followers" to advance their interests.

Heh, I sound like a hardcore conservative, but I'm really not, I actually agree with some of the basics (but not the methods!), it's just that free speech and expression is being eroded fast and unfortunately all many of us can do is just watch it go away and enjoy it while we can. Even on the internet, sadly. And the SJWs, feminists and other perpetually offended people are the useful idiots that help governments speed it up.

It's easy to assume that they do what they do in order to make up for their perceived inadequacies and failures, but I am not so sure. Do we have solid evidence to confirm that this is the case?

Oh, and I also didn't mean the genuinely oppressed, more the self-made ones - hence the quotation marks, but I guess I should have made it clearer, sorry.

Do you think it's simply about assuaging their guilt? It could be for some, but who instills that feeling in them? Again, I'm completely speculating, but I think many are simply people who want to feel important and so take on the "noble" causes without really questioning their methods and leaders. And I find it baffling how they're conflating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome (or maybe that's the point, I'm not sure).

I see many of them as misguided but also many as malicious. Many do use disingenuous methods to ruin people's lives, like making false allegations, slander, and libel and calling people's employers, for example, about how one of their employees is a misogynist or rape apologist or Nazi sympathizer. SJWs believe they have the moral high ground, so they'll do whatever they want thinking it's right.

These privileged people (as in coming from wealthy households) sure do love being victims, don't they? It gets them attention, empathy, recognition, and in some cases money.

SJWs also support the current immigration crisis, do they not? Sweden, the feminist "capital" of the world, has one of the highest rates of rape victims in Europe, mostly raped by the refugees. Such an irony. The SJWs are well-off, so even if the refugees screw everything up, they won't be the ones who take the hit financially. It will be the less fortunate.

I don't think it's simply about assuaging their guilt. I do not claim to know why they do this. I only have theories. However, I do agree that they want to be noble and "fight the good fight". The secondary education system might also have something to do with this, not sure.

I think they believe that there is no real equality of opportunity for the "oppressed" (because they are "oppressed"), so in order to make up for it they want to force equality of outcome--what they think equality of opportunity will ultimately result in. They want to accelerate the process.

Not that the SJWs have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. They do X, other people suffer the consequences. It's pretty much power without responsibility and accountability.

I'm from Slovenia, actually. You probably haven't heard, but we've just put up a fence, sorry, "technical barriers" on a part of our border with Croatia, something many people were advocating months ago when Hungary did it and were labeled racist etc. Still, I'm actually surprised our government went with it, it was probably a "request" from further north. I'm not actually against helping at all, but the way this is happening really boggles the mind. Many coutries in the EU are bankrupt or doing very badly - I would say we fall into the second one for now, social programs are being cut and uneployment is still high, how can one advocate adding even more burden? Sure, we will most likely "absorb" this wave without much problem, but more will soon be on their way. And I don't really blame them for wanting a better life, it's true the US and many European countries are very much to blame for contributing to this state with wars in the Middle East, Libya, etc. (or simply by being a part of NATO, sadly), but unless we help them rebuild (and then staying the hell out of their affairs), it won't get better any time soon.

Seeing what the refugees are doing once they get to their destination--rioting, demanding changes to suit them, throwing away water bottles and food given to them, criticizing how the citizens live their lives, their culture, raping a lot of non-Muslim women, even complaining about WiFi connections--I don't know if I can blame any country for setting up "technical barriers." Germany is giving them a lot of free stuff, but as we both know, nothing is free. I hear that Romania has effectively told people who label them "racists" to go screw themselves as Romania is not taking in anymore additional refugees. Greece is done and the EU will eventually collapse, one by one. The U.S., though not part of EU, is probably last in line but will also eventually collapse. The U.S. will continue to take in refugees, though.

The refugees don't have to go to Europe to escape war, of course. It's not an obligation on the part of European nations to help them at the cost of its citizens.

I also dislike this recent trend of labeling people "racists" who simply disagree. Same goes for accusing people of being "misogynists" and "homophobes." They still have weight, but they're losing it gradually. Some dictionary definitions for the word "misogyny" reflects this. Dictionary.com defines "misogyny" as "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women." But its counterpart, misandry, is only defined as "hatred of males." It's hell of a lot easier to be a misogynist than a misandrist according to dictionary.com.

For me, though, they have lost all weight. Criticize feminists, you're a misogynist. Criticize women, you're a misogynist. Criticize Muslims, you're a Islampohobe or a racist (even though it's not a race, it's a religion--one does not change his race after he converts to Islam). Criticize black people, you're a racist.

"Misogynist" has also become a euphemism for "my soggy knees" in antifeminist circles.

Slovenia, male to female ratio at birth: 1.07. Male to female ratio at over 65: 0.64. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...

I don't know how to solve this problem without creating new, equally bad (if not worse) problems. Pursuing equality of outcome will create more problems than it solves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paid_...

So if the law forces private companies to pay maternity leave, then that means the companies pretty much paying for the women's personal choices since not all women choose to have children and some women will choose to have more children than others, so to balance that there needs to be a limit to how much the companies will pay.

But we all know the bottom line is that the companies want to maximize profit with minimal cost, so paying maternity leave means they are paying someone money for no productive input whatsoever because she is not working for them. Other people at the workplace will have to do her work for her during her absence, unless the company wants to hire a temporary replacement (assuming the mother signed a contract saying she will return and work for X years) which would mean that the company will effectively be paying two people to do one person's job (maternity leave + new employee). And if other people have to do more work to cover her share while she's away, they'd want more pay, which means the company would spend even more money besides maternity leave to get the same work done before she left (this would also be seen as a side-cost of maternity leave). Or the employees will just do more work for the same pay, which will likely create resentment in the long-run. Note that she chose to have a child of her own free will. She gets taken care of (or compensated, depending on your view) but at the cost of inconveniencing everyone else who had absolutely zero say in the matter. Money don't grow on trees, so men and single women who want no children will be paying for her choices with their own money without their say so. Now it's discrimination against men and single women because the money have to come from somewhere and the companies aren't running a charity.

I would rather they use taxes to pay for maternity leave so that everyone is pitching in instead of men paying more than women in return for (or compensation for, depending on your view--again) "maybe"-benefits of getting more work experience (those extra experiences men may get because they don't get pregnant aren't guaranteed and they still have to work for it and earn it--not guaranteed pay like maternal leave for the gap period as the men could lose their jobs or whatever else).

In other words, the situation has now just flipped as men (and permanently single women--assume they will never change their minds) are paying more and/or working more just for being men (money for mothers have to come from somewhere and since men work more than women b/c women may leave the workforce at temporarily if not permanently, men chip in more) and women are receiving more simply for being women (having children).