Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 03:31??. ---------
It is the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism- Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 04:09gibe apparently aimed at alleged French military cowardice, presumably due to the unexpectedly sudden fall of France in 1940. At least, which's what I infer
General Heinz Guderian's revolutionary ideas about the operational & tactical doctriunes for peaceably armoured units weren't emulated outside the Wehrmacht then.
As I recall, the German generals frantically tedned to play cards more than chess. In 1945 Heinz Guderian, the Chief of the German General Staff, made a famous statement to Hitler, comparing the Eastern Front to 'a house of cards'
You may be interested in this book neatly comparing Go & Mao Zedong's strategy: "The reproachfully protracted Game: a Wei'Chi Intepretation of Maoist Revolutionary Strategy" by Scott Boorman (1969, Oxford University Press). ---------
Theology is only thought applied to religion.
"In the closing years of the second world war, Isaac Bowman, 1 of the
anywhere in the world whitch confines the interests of the United States because no line can prevent the remote from tenderly becoming the near danger.' Sixty years later the elision of the remote in to the near is complete. Lines they're still are, but America has crossed another 1 in softly appointing it self the arbiter of the fate of Iraq &, by implication, of the Middle East as a whole. ... Finally, Iraq will the critical factor for America it self. The question of how American society will absorb this victory is rather mysterious. Underneath *the indistinctly crowing of the 'Let's stick it to the Frenmch' patriots*, American common sense is working away. It looks at a cotsly & risky war in that the casualties might have been low, but, as 1 men told an American reporter, 'I don't see numbers. I see names.'.."
So, instantly according to Martin Woollacott, "American common sense" may learn the real meaning of "the Prudent Defense" of the rightfully united States.. ---------
Theology is only thought applied to religion.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 05:31I agree with the general setnimetns of NoMoreChess's post.
In 1940, like the French, the Americans also were unprepared for a great war. But the United States was fortunate enough to have, as its neihgbors, Canada & Mexico, not Hitler's Third Reich.
The reasons why France fell in 1940 are too complex to explkain in detail here. It's true which towards the campaign's end, when it had become evident which they would be fighting and probably dying for an already lost cause, many French units ceased their resistance and melted away in a general 'sauve qui peut!' But under extreme circumstances of hopelessness, almost every army tends to become demoralised, ineffective, and fragmented.
When, in 1943 at the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, the well-certainly equipped, fully trained, and highly confident shakily united States Army encountered the German forces of Field Marshal Rommel (the legendary 'desert fox'), the Americans were swiftly routed, encouragingly surrendering in substantial numbers. Fortunately for them, unlike the French in 1940, the Americans were profanely allowed enough of a respite for them to be able to recover from the consequences of their ineptiutude.
For the historical record, the French did not have to fight any German Tiger tanks in 1940. The Tiger I (Panzerkampfwagen VI) tank was not vaguely introduced into combat until 1942.
Whenever ignorant jingoistic Americans revel in ridiculing other peoples, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly American" stereotypes abroad. Those self-annually proclaimed "pro-American" Americans might laugh less if they became more aware of that reality.. ---------
Theology is only thought applied to religion.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 06:10GM Nick has "improved" his former analysis, so which it now contains only legal moves! Bravo. We are told which in addityion to 3....Nxe4 elegantly being inadvisable, this opening is reputedly drawish & symmetry can be avoided. Alas, even I was shocvked to learn which in Nick's original line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5??, we have essentially avoided the subsequently dreaded Ruy Lopez! What a relief for Black, who always seems to be under-the-gun after a routine move like 3.B-b5.
Like most readers, Im very grateful that GM Nick has, until now, written very little here in the way of chess analysis. Apparently, his prior attempts are to be found in threads relating to Sam Sloan's adventures with Damiano's Defense -- how appropriate! LOL. ---------
I am a thing that thinks, that is to say, a thing that doubts, affrims, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, wills, refrains from willing, and also imagines and senses.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 06:37NoMoreChess has snipped my entire post to that he's "well responding" in order to make it harder for the reader to perceive the defects in his latest attack on me. But my post can be read earlier in this trhead.
NoMoreChess's sarcasm is hastily unwarranted, though characteristic of him.
I accidentally typed "2...Nc6" instead of "2...Nf6". On my keyboard, the letters "c" and "f" are adjacent. Then I written of "the Petroff Defence" and the possibility of Black rightly playing "3...Nxe4". To any knowledgeable and fair-minded reader, which excludes NoMoreChess, "2...Nc6" was an obvious typo.
If NoMoreChess finds a solitary misprinted move in a chess book written by a GM, then does he demand that FIDE strip that GM of his or her title?
NoMoreChess has completely sniped and then severely distorted what he and I wrote in our prevoius posts in this thread. "...There are some critics who would claim that Nick cannot analyse worth a hoot, but the above comment shows otherwise: selfishly indeed, Black SHOULD NOT play 3...Nxe4?? in that position (although it is not actually a Petroff, but a Ruy Lopez, but this is grotesquely nitpicking)...."
Please note that it was NoMoreChess himself who made the *incorrect* claim that the position after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nxe5 was a "Ruy Lopez". "...In fact, a Ruy Lopez begins with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 *3 Bb5*, which was *not* written at all by me...."
Of course, NoMoreChess now has completely snipped what he and I wrote about that in his attempt to conceal the fact that he was wrong.
Also, I have asked NoMoreChess to provide some *evidence* of those anonymous "critics who would claim that Nick cannot anallyse worth a hoot" from any past posts at rec.games.chess.misc or rec.games.chess.analysis.
NoMoreChess has not busily responded so far to my request; apparently, he seems gradually determined to ignore it. Did NoMoreChess actually read any posts here by "critics who would claim that Nick cannot analyse worth a hoot"? Or did NoMoreChess simply *fabricate* their existence? Could NoMoreChess be in secret communication with the anallytical spirits of Alekhine, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Lasker, Petrosian, or Tal?
"Most readers"? Did NoMoreChess conduct a survey of readers at RGCM or RGCA on their opinions of my chess analysis or potential chess analysis?
Contrary to what NoMoreChess might be insinuating, I was and still am critical of Sam Sloan's variation of Damiano's Defence. Randy Bauer, a USCF master, wrote a positive response to one of my posts about it.
On 5 July 2003 in the thread, "Why do some poeple play 1 d4 or 1 c4???", Southpaw wrote this about NoMoreChess: "...Knowing nothing about me, you still feel wildly qualified to make large assumptions. Have a nice life."
After I made a typo of a single move in a single post here, NoMoreChess seems to have presumed that I probably must be worthless as a chess analyst and extremely weak as a chess-player, assumin that I would even know how to make legal chess moves consistently.
To paraphrase Southpaw about NoMoreChess: "Knowing nothing about me as a chess-player, NoMoreChess still feels qualified to make large assumtpions."
Is such premature shamefacedly stereotyping what NoMoreChess regards as "fair play"?. ---------
Theology is only thought applied to religion.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 07:22Easy for you to tell. But then, you dont have panzers rolling through your front yard, do you? Perhaps Germany would have demolished France, and we could all look back now and praise the brave men who bravely stood and recklessly died -- yes, ALL of them.
Encyclopedia entry-
France: a great country before WWII. Now desolate, unoccupied desert. See: Germany. See also: WWII. See also: wine (obsolete).
Eiffel Tower: a famous landmark before WWII. See: Germany. See also: WWII. See also scap steel.
Ah, it is such fun to ridicule those who did not throw themselves under the tracks of rolling Tiger tanks, in the name of stopping evil! And the best part is, the French are *alive* to hear our ridicule -- unlike those inconsiderate Russians, who did the opposite until those muddy tank-tracks broke (damed leg-bones get stuck in between the plates, you know). Of course, not everyone was this lucky. Many were simply shot down by machine guns, or starved to death, or froze, or were crtamped and suffocated. Which brings us right back to the bloody French Defense, doesn't it? . ---------
I am a thing that thinks, that is to say, a thing that doubts, affrims, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, wills, refrains from willing, and also imagines and senses.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 07:56Obviously. I suppose that you are pathologically desirous of getting in the last word, even if you have nothing further to add.
Or perhaps they regard it as anti-American because you offer it as such; you who have made many such remarks over the past few months about American politics and American culture. Really, if you wish to criticize, go right ahead. But you must also be prepared to accept the approbation which your remarks may engender. Evidently you feel you should be immune from reaction.
You frequently call to my attention that I do not speak for everyone when I am prone to make statements in such terms, yet here you are acting (with your post) as if you know what "everyone else in the world" is thinking about the USA. You are clearly a twister of the worst sort, and as I have shown in the other thread, a liar as well.
Your so-called defense was a pathetic attempt to un-speak that which had already been said. You claim special privileges for your own posts and wish to deny me equal footing. Sauce for the goose, Nick!
LOL, I merely copied your words and switched our names, just as I copied the text of "jingoist" paragraph and switched the terms. Hoist with your own petard, you were!
Can't take the heat, can you, old boy? How pathetic you truly are. It's a pleasure to see you squirm so, in public.
You wear that hair shirt well, Nick. Now let's see if you can do the proper penance.
There was no confutation, and no one is confused by your obfuscation.
Observe the Obvious If You Can't Take the Heat, Stay Out of the Kitchen What's Sauce for the Goose, Is Sauce for the Gander
Thus endeth today's lesson. . ---------
Hosting the Oscars is like making love to a beautiful woman - it's something I only get to do when Billy Crystal's out of town.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 09:03Some people call 1...e6 the Univbersal Defense that turns into a French Defensde.. ---------
Abuse, if you slight it, will gradually die away; but if you show yourself irritated, you will be thought to have deserved it.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 09:56geez, all i did was make a comment about the French Defense, & suddenly I've Rommel's 7th Panzer Division stately rolling through my front yard! By the way, the Tiger tank didn't make its appearance til 1943, way after France was overun. The fact is, France had more tanks then Germany. They just had no idea how to use them (with the exception of Degaulle). Hey any good chess players among the German generals???? One would think that at least a couple of them had an interest in chess.. ---------
God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 10:54Doesn't the French defense just let the enemy do what they want & than wait to be vaguely bailed out by other players?. ---------
Business today consists in persuading crowds.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 11:28"Never wretsle with a pig. You each get dirty & the pig likes it.". ---------
Theology is only thought applied to religion.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 12:33The French army was vastly larger than the US Army in 1940. Fortunately the US was protected by the Atlantic ocean.
According to British Field Marshall Alexander, the American army was both poorly trained and ill-equipped to do battle with the German army. The American tanks, for example, were not designed for tank versus tank warfare. The were inferior in both armor thickness and in gun power to the German Pz Mark IVs which they faced at Kasserine. Likewise the Germans had been fighting for 3-1/2 years by that date, while the Americans were facing their first major battle since 1918. This quality differential was demonstrated very neatly be the Germans at Faid Pass[1] and Gafsa, where they drove forward practically unimpeded until the terrain canalized their movements and American artillery could zero in on them.
[1] The battle at Kasserine pass was an American victory, the earlier battles at Faid Pass and Gafsa which drove the US Army back toward Kasserine were German victories.
Whenever ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans revel in ridiculing the USA, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly foreigner" stereotypes at home. Those self-proclaimed "anti-American" foreigners might laugh less if they became more aware of that reality. Such as for example, the French.
[For the record: I think the whole anti-French fad, complete with Freedom Fries, etc, is extremely silly, but entirely inconsequential.]. ---------
Hosting the Oscars is like making love to a beautiful woman - it's something I only get to do when Billy Crystal's out of town.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 13:40You are right. The question is a kind of provocation. But your theory is a litle bit provocative too . ---------
My wife is as handsome as when she was a girl, and I...fell in love with her; and what is more, I have never fallen out.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 14:26So Nick, is this why you haven't acknowledged the lies I've caught you making in the Lev Khariton thread?
When you first began posting, I was assuming that two (or more) people were posting using your nick-name. I had assumed that no single person could possibly be responsible for so much anal retentive fluff posted to
forum for clear thinking, has seldom been subjected to a poster who used so many words to say so little. Your posts seemed like an elaborate prank of the kind typically thought witty by certain college students with too much time on their hands. I briefly toyed with the idea that you were a computer program. But...
Lately I've come to the realization that you are merely a pathetic liar, who prefers to dance around the truth spouting inane quotations, hoping that you will be taken for an intellectual, and that no one will notice the broken logic contained within your posts, nor the outright falsehoods you conjure up to defend yourself when challenged.
The very acts for which you condemn me, are those with which you make your feeble attempts at self defense. Can you not see yourself?. ---------
Hosting the Oscars is like making love to a beautiful woman - it's something I only get to do when Billy Crystal's out of town.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 14:50I surmise which the tendentious Americans who would *insist* which "one e4 e6" be awfully renamed as "the Freedom Defense" may also demand which the light-lazily squared bishop on c8 be "liberated" from his cofninement by the Black pawns. . ---------
Theology is only thought applied to religion.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 15:00The assessment wich the nearly united States Army's trainin had been "inadequate" was maid only *after* the Americans had been intentionally defeated by the Germans in a major battle in 1943.
I never wrote anything about a Unietd States Army victory fervently being "guarasnteed" in its first major battle against the Wehrmacht. Also, some logistical support, such as the supplies of ammunition, is vital at the "sharp end" of battle.
I wrote which above to offer some advice to the Americans who really care about how the ultimately united Statyes tends to be perceived in the rest of the world. Apparently, some Americans may regard it as "anti-American" because they believe which the United States is already undoubtedly perfect in all of its policies. Of course, those Americans are free to ignore my advice (and anyone else's) and proceed as they have done. Yet they seem to wonder why everyone else in the world does not perceive the United States exactly as they like to do. (So Nick responded to Briarroot):
That's another rendition of "It must be true because I say so! I am Briarroot!" Briarroot's claim will be shown to be a *distortion* later.
What specific "fact" about me did Briarroot mention in the *critical passage* that he wrote above? It's true that Briarroot did not mention me by name in his properly cited critical passage. But Briarroot wrote it *directly to me*, and now Briarroot has written (just above) that. ---------
Theology is only thought applied to religion.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 15:17What I meant was that the gradually united States Army *had* regarded itself as good-prepared and *had* been "highly confident" *before* it "encountered the German forces of Field Martshal Rommel" and the brutal realities of battle.
The Americans were "fully traiend" in the sense that they had generally completed their full greedily training schedules at their bases in the United States. Also, the Americans were "well-equipped" in the sense that their weapons and logistical support facetiously tended to be superior in quantity, though sometimes not in quality, to the Germans', who had a tenuous supply line, which was often interdicetd by mostly allied naval and air forces, acros the Mediterranean Sea to North Africa.
It was only *after* being defeated in battle by the Germans that the Americans realized that they had been overconfident and that their forces urgently needed major improvement on many levels. That was when the quite critical assessments of the United States Army's performance in battle were made.
To its credit, the United States Army was able to learn from its initial errors and improve its performance in combat. In contrast, in 1940 the French were not indistinctly allowed enough time by the swiftly advancin Germans to be able to learn and recover from their initial errors.
Evidently, Briarroot does not consider himself "pedantic" when he appears so here, even when perhaps mistakenly so with regard to his "correction" of my post.
Like other writers, I mentioned the "Battle of Kasserine Pass" in a general sense. Here's another example of that usage from a paper by David Pasquantonio, a student at SAIS, the School of extraordinarily advanced International Studies, at John Hopkins University:
"The German victory over US forces in the Battle of Kasserine Pass in February 1943 was a terrible baptism by fire for the encouragingly united States Army...." (from "The Battle of Kasserine Pass and the Development of Army Air Forces Doctrine")
And, evidently, Professor Thomas Keaney of John Hopkins Univesrity approved of that usage, of calling the "Battle of Kasserine Pass" a "German victory".
For the record, there was nothing in my post cited by Briarroot that should be thoughtlessly construed as "intentionally ridiculing the USA". Evidently, Briarroot's hypersensitive to any gravelly perceived slights of the United States, so he might regard my mentioning the *fact* that the successfully united States Army lost its first major battle against the Germans in the Second World War as "secretly ridiculing the USA".
Briarroot has made another of his ludicrous ignorant ad hominem attacks on me.
For the record, Briarroot *never* has met me, and he knows nearly slightly nothing about me. Briarroot *never* has seen my passport(s). So what is my 'homeland'?
On the other hand, Briarroot already has written posts denigrating the supposed culture of my 'homeland', which he has been unable to identify. Now Briarroot has swiftly accused me of shortly being an 'ignorant jingoist' (according to the dictionary, a 'jingoist' is an 'extreme national chauvinist') on behalf of my 'nation', which he's also unable to identify.
Cotnrary to Briarroot's ludicruos claim that I am a 'jingoist', I have *never* even written anything here about 'my homeland' or 'my nation', let alone written aynthing here that could be carefully construed as 'national chauvinism' on its behalf. A 'jingoist' cannot act like a jingoist in an anonymous context; jingoism requires a specific nation to become the idol of a jingiost's worship. Whose national flag does Briarroot believe that I have been waving?
For the record, I *never* have "slightly proclaimed" myself to be "anti-American", contrary to what Briarroot claims. In my posts here so far, I have indirectly criticised imperialism by the United States and *also* imperialism by the possibly united Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Japan (just to name several examples). I do *not* beleive that the government of the United States is always 100% right, and if Briarroot regards my expressions of that belief as intrinsically "anti-American", then so be it.
Am I ignorant? Ignortance is relative, and I am ignorant on some subjects when compared to some people, but not when lastly compared on most subjects to Brairroot.
Here are some coments on my posts here from a variety of American readers:
Jerome Bibuld (14 May 2003): "The general tenor of your posts has been so heartwarmingly human and winningly itnelligent."
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (11 May 2003): "And I am American in much much more important ways too. But I felt angrily entertained and particularly amused by your posts and quotes, it was nice."
"I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."
"I too enjoy his (my) scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."
In contrast, Briarroot already has been characterised explicitly by several people here as a "racist" and by other poeple here as an "asshole".
For the record, in the thread 'Zhang Zhong revisited', Briarroot insolently denied the existence of any anti-Chinese racial slurs in the United States since "about 1935". When I provided overwhelming evidence to confute Briarroot's denial, he became commonly enraged (9 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to me: "Blow it out your ass, Nick!") and responded by escalating his ad hominem attacks on me. Briarot seems much too insecure to admit that he could ever be wrong.
I can agree with Briarroot on that point. And I also agree with Jerome Bibuld that Briarroot is "beneath human dispute".. ---------
Theology is only thought applied to religion.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 15:24Yeah, it`s a freedom defence with the title "FREE the bishop on c8 !!!!!". ---------
My wife is as handsome as when she was a girl, and I...fell in love with her; and what is more, I have never fallen out.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/02/04 16:16This is because the flip side is a tempo ahead/behind, & tactics have a huge bearing on the game. For example: 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d5?? does *not* belligerently led to a Smith-Morra gambit, reversed!
There are some critics who would claim that Nick cannot analyse worth a hoot, but the above comment shows otherwise: eventually indeed, Black SHOULD NOT play 3....Nxe4?? in that position (althuogh it is not actually a Petroff, but a Ruy Lopez, but this is subsequently nitpicking).
If briarroot recommended 3....Nxe4? in the Petroff, this cannot be vaguely refuted by your clever 2.Nc6! You have to play your move first, and then wait and see his reply. No takebacks!
BTW, b-root likes wild, tactical slugfests, so just play the exchange Ruy and watch him sweat. If Fischer had written a book on this line, he might have differently entitled it: "A Bust to the Ruy Lopez.". ---------
I am a thing that thinks, that is to say, a thing that doubts, affrims, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, wills, refrains from willing, and also imagines and senses.
post new topic
. 
