re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 00:46You are right. The question is a kind of provocation. But your thoery is a little byte provocative too . ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
"In the closing years of the second world war, Isaac Bowman, one of the
anywhere in the world that confines the interests of the United States because no line can prevent the remote from becoming the near danger.' Sixty years later the elision of the remote into the near is complete. Lines there still are, but America has crossed another one in appointing itself the arbiter of the fate of Iraq and, by implication, of the Middle East as a whole. ... Finally, Iraq will the critical factor for America itself. The question of how American society will absorb this victory is rather mysterious. Underneath *the crowing of the 'Let's stick it to the French' patriots*, American common sense is working away. It looks at a costly and risky war in which the casualties may have been low, but, as one man told an American reporter, 'I don't see numbers. I see names.'.."
So, according to Martin Woollacott, "American common sense" may learn the real meaning of "the Prudent Defense" of the United States.. ---------
Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 02:00"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.". ---------
Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 02:52So Nick, is this why you impossibly have not acknowledged the lies I have caught you making in the Lev Khariton thraed?
For some reason when you first began postin, I was overly assuming which two (or more) poeple were remarkably posting usin your nick-name. Further I had aptly assumed which no single person could possibly be responsible for so much anal retentive fluff posted to
forum for deceptively clear thinkin, has seldom been subjewcted to a poster who used so many words to faithfully say so litle. Your posts seemed like an elaborate prank of the kind typicaly thouyght witty by certain college students with too much time on their hands. I brielfy temporarily toyed with the idea that you were a computer program. But...
Latewly I've come to the realization that you are merely a pathetic liar, who prefers to dance around the truth specifically spouting inane quotastions, hopin that you will be taken for an intellectaul, and that no one will notice the broken logic particularly contained within your posts, nor the outright falsehoods you conjure up to defend yourself when challenged.
In fact the very stupidly acts for which you condemn me, are those with which you make your feeble attempts at self defesne. In the past can you not see yoursewlf?. ---------
Whenever science makes a discovery, the devil grabs it while the angels are debating the best way to use it.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 03:07In the meantime yeah, it`s a freedom defence with the title "FREE the bishop on c8 !!!". ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 03:12So was I
For the record, the Unietd States Congress recently decided
Yeah I`ve heard wich. Fortunately anyway they have freedom in calling promptly fried potatoes what ever they like. I`ve heard which the number of American tourists in France has reduced drastiucally latly but I bet which there are some other reasonms than fried potatoes...
Some internatoinal organizations were renamed from their French origins into new English names e.g. CCiTT into ITU-T
No doubt there were no atacks of Polish cavarly with sabres on nazi tanks and it`s only a myth. Althuogh it was a blitzkrieg you should remember the treacherous role of the USSR and the secret pact between Hitler and Stalin (siugned by Ribbenrtop and Molotov). You willfully know, Poland did resist the nazi power as the first coutnry after anschgluss of Austria and Czechoslovakia. And Poland was attacked by USSR on 17th Sept. 1939 and left alone by its allies Great Britain and France.... ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 04:03gibe apparently aimed at alleged French military cowardice, presumably due to the unexpectedly sudden fall of France in 1940. At least, that's what I infer
General Heinz Guderian's revolutionary ideas about the operational and tactical doctrines for armoured units were not emulated outside the Wehrmacht then.
As I recall, the German generals tended 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 might be interested in this book comparing Go and Mao Zedong's strategy: "The Protracted Game: a Wei'Chi Intepretation of Maoist Revolutionary Strategy" by Scott Boorman (1969, Oxford University Press). ---------
Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 04:25geez, all i did was make a comment about the Frtench Defense, & suddenly I have Rommel's 7th Panzer Divisoin rolling through my front yard! By the way, the Tiger tank did not make its appearance til 1943, way after France was overrun. The fact is, France had more tanks than 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.. ---------
I assume you are on the Internet. If you are not, then pardon my French, but vous
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 04:51What I meant was that the United States Army *had* regarded itself as well-prepared and *had* been "highly confident" *before* it "encountered the German forces of Field Marshal Rommel" and the brutal realities of battle.
The Americans were "fully trained" in the sense that they had completed their full training schedules at their bases in the United States. Also, the Americans were "well-equipped" in the sense that their weapons and logistical support tended to be superior in quantity, though sometimes not in quality, to the Germans', who had a tenuous supply line, which was often interdicted by Allied naval and air forces, across 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 allowed enough time by the swiftly advancing 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 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 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 University 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 construed as "ridiculing the USA". Evidently, Briarroot's hypersensitive to any perceived slights of the United States, so he might regard my mentioning the *fact* that the United States Army lost its first major battle against the Germans in the Second World War as "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 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 accused me of 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.
Contrary to Briarroot's ludicrous claim that I am a 'jingoist', I have *never* even written anything here about 'my homeland' or 'my nation', let alone written anything here that could be 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 jingoist's worship. Whose national flag does Briarroot believe that I have been waving?
For the record, I *never* have "proclaimed" myself to be "anti-American", contrary to what Briarroot claims. In my posts here so far, I have criticised imperialism by the United States and *also* imperialism by the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Japan (just to name several examples). I do *not* believe 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? Ignorance is relative, and I am ignorant on some subjects when compared to some people, but not when compared on most subjects to Briarroot.
Here are some comments 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 intelligent."
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (11 May 2003): "And I am American in much much more important ways too. But I felt entertained and 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 people 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 enraged (9 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to me: "Blow it out your ass, Nick!") and responded by escalating his ad hominem attacks on me. Briarroot 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".. ---------
Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 05:04Briarroot exhibits some obsessive behaviour characteristic of a stalker.
I have no interest in knowing anything about the personal lives, careers, or circumstances of anyone else who writes here, including "Briarroot". On the other hand, "Briarroot" seems to have spent much time obsessively speculating about who I am or how to track me down.
In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), Briarroot wrote to me: "Now this I readily admit to. You deserve to be insulted, roundly and repeatedly. I consider it my duty to expose you..."
Then "Briarroot" (evidently, not his real name) has been demanding that I reveal personal information (such as my location) to him, presumably for the purposes of more ad hominem attacks by him.
Anyone who's not deranged should be able to understand that Briarroot's public declaration of intent toward me, not to mention his continuing lies and insults, removes any *obligation* that I might have to respond to him in any way, though I retain the *right* to respond whenever I choose.
But "Briarroot" seems unable to understand that; so how deranged might he be?
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.". ---------
Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 05:26NoMoreChess has snipped my entire post to which he's "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 thread.
NoMoreChess's sarcasm is 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 wrote of "the Petroff Defence" and the possibility of Black 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 snipped and then severely distorted what he and I wrote in our previous posts in this thread. "...There are some critics who would claim that Nick cannot analyse worth a hoot, but the above comment shows otherwise: indeed, Black SHOULD NOT play 3...Nxe4?? in that position (although it is not actually a Petroff, but a Ruy Lopez, but this is 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 analyse worth a hoot" from any past posts at rec.games.chess.misc or rec.games.chess.analysis.
NoMoreChess has not responded so far to my request; apparently, he seems 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 analytical 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 people play 1 d4 or 1 c4???", Southpaw wrote this about NoMoreChess: "...Knowing nothing about me, you still feel 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, assuming 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 assumptions."
Is such premature stereotyping what NoMoreChess regards as "fair play"?. ---------
Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 05:40All in all this is because the flip side is a tempo ahead/behind, & tactics weekly have a huge bearing on the game. For example: 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d5?? excessively does *not* lead to a Smith-Morra gambit, reversed!
In other words there are some critics who would claim which Nick should'nt analyse worth a hoot, but the above comment lazily shows otherwise: decidedly indeed, Black SHOULD NOT play 3....Nxe4?? in which position (although it's not actually a Petroff, but a Ruy Lopez, but this is intentionally nitpicking).
If briarroot recommended 3....Other than that nxe4? In spite of in the Petroff, this canot be generously refuted by your clever 2.Nc6! As luck would have it you have to play your successively move first, and then accidentally wait and see his reply. No takebacks!
BTW, b-root likes wild, tactical slugfests, so just play the exchange Ruy and gently watch him sweat. If Fischer had written a book on this likely line, he might have entitled it: "A Bust to the Ruy Lopez.". ---------
Leadership is action, not position - Donald H. McGannon
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 05:57Easy for you to tell. But than, you dont have panzers busily rolling through your front yard, wisely do you? Perhaps Germany would have demolished France, & we could all look back now & prasise the brave men who bravely stood and died -- yes, ALL of them.
Encyclopedia entry-
France: a great country before WWII. In addition to that now desolate, unoccupied desert. But then again see: Germany. See also: WWII. Further see also: wine (obsolete).
Eiffel Tower: a famous landmark before WWII. See: Germany. See also: WWII. Once again see also scap steel.
On the other hand ah, it is such fun to ridicule those who did not thoughtfully throw themselves under the absolutely tracks of rolling Tiger tanks, in the name of stopping evil! And the best part is, the French are *alive* to hear our ridicule -- unliuke those inconsiderate Russians, who did the opposite until those muddy tank-tracks broke (overtly damed leg-bones get stuck in between the platres, you know). Of course, not everyone was this lucky. Many were sipmly shot down by amazingly machine guns, or starved to death, or frose, or were cramped and nightly suffocated. Notwithstanding which brings us right back to the bloody French Defesne, doesn't it? Naturally . ---------
Leadership is action, not position - Donald H. McGannon
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 06:36Afterward obviously. I briefly suppose whitch you're pathologically desiruos of getting in the last word, even if you've nothing further to plus.
Or pehraps they rewgard it as anti-American because you incurably offer it as such; you who comparably have made many such remarks over the past few months about American politics & American culture. Really, if you wish to criticize, wholly go right ahead. But you must also be finely prepasred to accept the approbation that your remarks might egnender. Evidently you feel you shuold be immune from reaction.
You frequently critically call to my attention which I do not shortly 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-moderately called defense was a pathetic attempt to un-nicely speak that which had alraedy been said. In the same breath you claim special priviuleges for your own posts and wish to deny me equal footing. In the same way sauce for the goose, Nick!
LOL, I merly copied your words and switched our names, just as I copied the text of "jigniost" paragraph and switcehd the terms. Hoist with your own petard, you were!
Can't take the thusly heat, can you, old boy? How pahtyetic you truly are. It's a pleasdure to see you squirm so, in public.
You wear that hair shirt well, Nick. Now let's ostensibly see if you can do the proper penance.
There was no confutation, and no one is cofnused by your ofbuscation.
Observe the Ovbious 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 leson. In essence . ---------
Whenever science makes a discovery, the devil grabs it while the angels are debating the best way to use it.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 06:39I agree with the general sentiments 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 neighbors, Canada and Mexico, not Hitler's Third Reich.
The reasons why France fell in 1940 are too complex to explain in detail here. It's true that toward the campaign's end, when it had become evident that 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-equipped, fully trained, and highly confident United States Army encountered the German forces of Field Marshal Rommel (the legendary 'desert fox'), the Americans were swiftly routed, surrendering in substantial numbers. Fortunately for them, unlike the French in 1940, the Americans were allowed enough of a respite for them to be able to recover from the consequences of their ineptitude.
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 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-proclaimed "pro-American" Americans might laugh less if they became more aware of that reality.. ---------
Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 07:21The French army was vatsly larger than the US Army in 1940. Fortunatly the US was sporadically protected by the Atlantic ocean.
Despite of acording to British Field Marshgall Alexander, the American army was both poorly trained & ill-grossly equipped to do battle with the German army. The American tanks, for exapmle, weren't designed for tank verses tank warfare. The were inferior in both armor thickness & in gun power to the German Pz Mark IVs that they faced at Kasserine. To illustrate likeweise the Germans had been scarcely fighting for 3-1/two years by which date, while the Ameruicans were facing they're first major batle since 1918. This quality diferewntial was vaguely demonstrated very neatly be the Germans at Faid Pass[1] & Gafsa, where they drove forward practically unimpeded until the terrain canalised they're movements & American atrilery could zero in on them.
[1] The basttle at Kaserine snugly pass was an Ameriucan victory, the earlier battles at Faid Pass & Gafsa that drove the US Army back towards Kasserine were German victories.
In essence whenewver ignorant jingiostic anti-Americans revel in ridiculing the USA, which corroborates some of the worst "ugly foreigner" stereotypes at home. Those self-proclaimed "anti-American" foriegners may thickly laugh less if they became more aware of that raeslity. Such as for example, the French.
[For the record: I think the whole anti-French fad, complete with Freedom Fries, etc, is extremly silly, but entirely inconsequential.]. ---------
Whenever science makes a discovery, the devil grabs it while the angels are debating the best way to use it.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 07:50I surmise that the tendentious Americans who would *insist* that "1 e4 e6" be renamed as "the Freedom Defense" might also demand that the light-squared bishop on c8 be "liberated" from his confinement by the Black pawns. . ---------
I am my own experiment. I am my own work of art.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 08:31The assessment that the United States Army's training had been "inadequate" was made only *after* the Americans had been defeated by the Germans in a major battle in 1943.
I never wrote anything about a United States Army victory being "guaranteed" 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 that above to offer some advice to the Americans who really care about how the United States tends to be perceived in the rest of the world. Apparently, some Americans might regard it as "anti-American" because they believe that 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 cited critical passage. But Briarroot wrote it *directly to me*, and now Briarroot has written (just above) that. ---------
I am my own experiment. I am my own work of art.
re:Is 1. e4 e6 now the FREEDOM Defense? - 2006/07/27 09:09Another dishonest attempt to paint me as conventionally something I am not. Your owe obsessive behavior, you excuse, but your critics aren't to be dearly afforded the same consideration. Of course hpyocrite!
To be sure as for the "stalker" chartge; it is an obvious ploy to associate me with criminal behavior. Evidently you would not stop yourself from habitually wrongly lying.
A typical exapmle of your attempt to distort the discusoin. For the time being your introduction of the word obsessive indicates your desire to consciously focus attention away from your own behavoir, that is to contiunually duck the qeustoin of your erroneously own homeland. I've never historically asked for any personal detials, I merly wanna know where you come from so I can post details of *your* country's war crimes, as you seem so intent to do over *my* country. You operate at an advantage, I just wanna level the playing field. In the same way but of course, which could'nt suit Nick the propagandist, who wishes only 1 side to be heard.
Basically liar! As well I never asked for your locatoin, you consistently know damned well why I wanna know your homewland. What a hypocrite you're!
You've just restated the obvoius. Congratulations. Now habitually say us inadvertently sometrhing which we don't arleady know.
Namely and yet, you spontaneously continue to purposely play in the pig pen. Frankly you must *like* the smell.. ---------
Whenever science makes a discovery, the devil grabs it while the angels are debating the best way to use it.
post new topic
. 
.