A CNN contributor made the comment that 'Ann Romney never worked a day in her life'. Since then she has been vilified, and also the Democratic party by association, since she used to be a part of it. But let's analyze this with some intelligence, instead of blind partisan rhetoric and emotion.
Several networks have shown a Mitt Romney campaign speech from just this past January, in which he is advocating that women on welfare be required to "go to work", even if they have small children. He repeatedly uses the term "work" in this context, obviously advocating that they should get a job outside the home. Rosen is vilified because she seems to be saying that working in the home is not "work", but Romney used this term in the exact same way, and, to be honest, this is the generally accepted use of the term. Everybody works in his or her home; even those who live alone have plenty of work to do at home to maintain a household. So, perhaps we should rethink the vilification of Rosen, and acknowledge that the usual and accepted use of the term means holding down a job outside the home.
The second thing about this is that the comment was in response to Romney claiming that he consults his wife for advice on "what women care about". This is really the heart of the matter; that is, most women do not have the luxury Ann Romney has of staying home and taking care of a household, because they have to work for economic reasons. Most women are not fortunate enough to be married to a millionaire. To say that he consults his wife to find out what women want is an absurd joke for Mitt Romney, and the Rosen criticism is right on point.
A third point is that Rosen is a paid CNN contributor, not associated with either party though she once was a Democratic employee. The vilification of her by the right-wing fanatics seems silly when you realize that.
A fourth point is that at the same time this has been going on, a GOP congressman made the ludicrous claim that "78-81 Democratic congressman are members of the communist party". This outrageous claim has engendered little media scrutiny compared to the relatively innocuous Rose comment. Then we have the claim by a Romney supporter, Ted Nugent, that if Obama is reelected, he will be "either dead or in jail". He went on to make other inflammatory comments.
Our media is so biased toward the right that the relatively innocuous Rosen comment has been beaten to death, while the absurd, over-the-top comments of the right get a pass. Welcome to 2012 America.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
The end of my postal chess adventures: the Benko Gambit with h3 instead of g3
I played chess by mail off and on from the middle 1960's to the early 1990's. Most of this was under the auspices of the United States Chess Federation, playing in their annual Golden Knights tournaments. In the Golden Knights you start in a preliminary section, playing six opponents, and if you score well you advance to an intermediate round. If you score well there, then you advance to the finals.
By the late 1980's I had become disenchanted with the USCF, as I had come to believe that it was a completely incompetent organization, if not a downright corrupt one. However, I had to maintain my membership as long as I had postal chess games going. My last USCF-sponsored tournament was the 1984 Golden Knights. I qualified for the finals, and in the finals I had a long, drawn-out game with Murray Kurtz, which lasted two and a half years. Neither of us was violating the time limits, but he was in Canada and this delayed the mail by a day or two each move; plus, we got to an ending and it was not decided until 54 moves had been played. I was anxious for the game to end so I could drop my USCF membership, but I was also anxious to get the draw because that would give me an even 3-3 score in the finals, which to me would have been a great accomplishment. So, I fought on.
Kurtz-Weaver, 1984 Golden Knights finals, Benko Gambit
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 Bxa6 6 Nc3 d6 7 e4 Bxf1 8 Kxf1 9 Nf3 Bg7 10 h3
This move was new to me, but I came to understand that it makes eminently good sense. Usually when White "castles by hand" he plays g3, and then his king on f1 goes to g2. Now White will need an extra tempo for the by-hand castling, but this is trumped by two considerations: first, White often plays h3 anyhow to prevent a Black knight from coming to g4; and second, the White King is much more safely placed on h2 than it is on g2. Black often puts his Queen on either b7 or a8, and he then gets tactical shot possibilities if the White king is on that same diagonal, as it is on g2.
10...0-0 11 Kg1 Nbd7 12 Kh2 Qa4 13 Re1 Rfb8 14 Re2 Rb4 15 Qe1 Ne8 16 Nd1 Qa7 17 Bd2 Bxb2?!
Certainly it is tempting to recover the gambit pawn here, but perhaps Black should not be so ready to part with his dark-squared bishop. But if I don't take on b2, he then neutralizes my bishop with 18 Bc3. Hard to know what is best here. At the time I felt that the endgame was in my favor, since my passed pawn on c5 is protected, while his passed pawn on a2 is unprotected and isolated. However, Murray demonstrates a deeper understanding of the position.
18 Nxb2 Rxb2 19 a4 Qa6 20 Re3 Nc7 21 Bc3 Rb7 22 Qc1 Rab8 23 Nd2 Ra7 24 Rg3 Ne8 25 Nf3 Qc4 26 Nd2 Qe2 27 Kg1
This illustrates what is said to be the other drawback of the system with 10 h3, which is that White often moves his king back to the g-file, expending another tempo. However, it seems irrelevant here as we have been engaging in aimless maneuvering anyhow.
27...Nef6 28 Qc2 Nh5 29 Re3 Qa6 30 Qd1 Ng7 31 a5 f6 32 Qf1 Qxf1 33 Kxf1 Rg5 34 Nc4 Rb3 35 Bd2 Rxe3 36 Bxe3 Ne8 37 Ke2 Nc7 38 Rb1 Kf7 39 Bd2 Ke8 40 g4 Kd8 41 Kd3 Kc8 42 Nb6ch Nxb6 43 Rxb6 Rb7 44 Rxb7 Kxb7
Here I thought sure that I had achieved the draw. My knight on c7 holds the Queenside, leaving my king free to guard the weak pawn on e7. How is White to break through?
45 Kc4 Kc8 46 f4 Kd7 47 h4 h5?
Murray said after the game that he thought this was the losing move. However, it seems that White is threatening 48 f5 no matter what I do, so probably Black was lost regardless.
48 f5! gxf5 49 gxh5 Ke8 50 exf5 Kf7 51 h6 Kg8 52 Bf4 Kh7 53 Be3 Kg8 54 Bxc5! Black resigns 1-0
Only while doing research for this post did I learn that Murray finished second in that tournament, scoring 17 and a half out of 18, and then he was a co-winner of the 1990 Golden Knights with a perfect 18-0 score. He also won the 1991 Canadian Correspondence Chess Championship with a 13-1 score.
Having determined to cut my ties with USCF, toward the end of my postal chess adventures I played in tournaments with two other organizations, the CCLA and the APCL. In 1990 the Kansas Chess Association held a postal tournament, and I played in that as well. In a game against Jason Kasick, Black played the Benko so I got a chance to try my hand at the White system with h3.
Weaver-Kasick, 1990 KCA postal, Benko Gambit
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6 6 Nc3 Bxa6 7 e4 Bxf1 8 Kxf1 d6 9 h3 Bg7 10 Nf3 0-0 11 Kg1 Nbd7 12 Kh2 Qa5 13 Re1 Rfb8 14 Qc2
I vary from 14 Re2 as played by Murray in the last game.
14...Ne8 15 Bd2 Qa6 16 Nd1 Nc7 17 Bc3 Nf6 18 Ne3 Nb5 19 a4 Nxc3 20 bxc3 Nd7 21 Ra3 Rb7 22 Rb1 Rab8 23 Rab3!
After all the rooks are exchanged on the b-file, my passed a-pawn will become quite strong.
23...Rxb3 24 Rxb3 Rxb3 25 Qxb3 Nb6
Practically forced, as I was threatening to get my a-pawn moving with 26 Qb5. Black will now be able to capture my a-pawn, restoring material equality, but in return I will get a decisive kingside attack, due to the unavailability of Black's queen and knight to help in defending the Black king.
26 g4 h6 27 c4 Nxa4 28 Qb8ch Bf8 29 g5 h5 30 Qe8 Nc3 31 Nf5! gxf5 32 g6 fxg6 33 Qxg6ch Bg7 34 Ng5 Black resigns 1-0
He would have to give up his queen to stop the threatened mate.
By the late 1980's I had become disenchanted with the USCF, as I had come to believe that it was a completely incompetent organization, if not a downright corrupt one. However, I had to maintain my membership as long as I had postal chess games going. My last USCF-sponsored tournament was the 1984 Golden Knights. I qualified for the finals, and in the finals I had a long, drawn-out game with Murray Kurtz, which lasted two and a half years. Neither of us was violating the time limits, but he was in Canada and this delayed the mail by a day or two each move; plus, we got to an ending and it was not decided until 54 moves had been played. I was anxious for the game to end so I could drop my USCF membership, but I was also anxious to get the draw because that would give me an even 3-3 score in the finals, which to me would have been a great accomplishment. So, I fought on.
Kurtz-Weaver, 1984 Golden Knights finals, Benko Gambit
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 Bxa6 6 Nc3 d6 7 e4 Bxf1 8 Kxf1 9 Nf3 Bg7 10 h3
This move was new to me, but I came to understand that it makes eminently good sense. Usually when White "castles by hand" he plays g3, and then his king on f1 goes to g2. Now White will need an extra tempo for the by-hand castling, but this is trumped by two considerations: first, White often plays h3 anyhow to prevent a Black knight from coming to g4; and second, the White King is much more safely placed on h2 than it is on g2. Black often puts his Queen on either b7 or a8, and he then gets tactical shot possibilities if the White king is on that same diagonal, as it is on g2.
10...0-0 11 Kg1 Nbd7 12 Kh2 Qa4 13 Re1 Rfb8 14 Re2 Rb4 15 Qe1 Ne8 16 Nd1 Qa7 17 Bd2 Bxb2?!
Certainly it is tempting to recover the gambit pawn here, but perhaps Black should not be so ready to part with his dark-squared bishop. But if I don't take on b2, he then neutralizes my bishop with 18 Bc3. Hard to know what is best here. At the time I felt that the endgame was in my favor, since my passed pawn on c5 is protected, while his passed pawn on a2 is unprotected and isolated. However, Murray demonstrates a deeper understanding of the position.
18 Nxb2 Rxb2 19 a4 Qa6 20 Re3 Nc7 21 Bc3 Rb7 22 Qc1 Rab8 23 Nd2 Ra7 24 Rg3 Ne8 25 Nf3 Qc4 26 Nd2 Qe2 27 Kg1
This illustrates what is said to be the other drawback of the system with 10 h3, which is that White often moves his king back to the g-file, expending another tempo. However, it seems irrelevant here as we have been engaging in aimless maneuvering anyhow.
27...Nef6 28 Qc2 Nh5 29 Re3 Qa6 30 Qd1 Ng7 31 a5 f6 32 Qf1 Qxf1 33 Kxf1 Rg5 34 Nc4 Rb3 35 Bd2 Rxe3 36 Bxe3 Ne8 37 Ke2 Nc7 38 Rb1 Kf7 39 Bd2 Ke8 40 g4 Kd8 41 Kd3 Kc8 42 Nb6ch Nxb6 43 Rxb6 Rb7 44 Rxb7 Kxb7
Here I thought sure that I had achieved the draw. My knight on c7 holds the Queenside, leaving my king free to guard the weak pawn on e7. How is White to break through?
45 Kc4 Kc8 46 f4 Kd7 47 h4 h5?
Murray said after the game that he thought this was the losing move. However, it seems that White is threatening 48 f5 no matter what I do, so probably Black was lost regardless.
48 f5! gxf5 49 gxh5 Ke8 50 exf5 Kf7 51 h6 Kg8 52 Bf4 Kh7 53 Be3 Kg8 54 Bxc5! Black resigns 1-0
Only while doing research for this post did I learn that Murray finished second in that tournament, scoring 17 and a half out of 18, and then he was a co-winner of the 1990 Golden Knights with a perfect 18-0 score. He also won the 1991 Canadian Correspondence Chess Championship with a 13-1 score.
Having determined to cut my ties with USCF, toward the end of my postal chess adventures I played in tournaments with two other organizations, the CCLA and the APCL. In 1990 the Kansas Chess Association held a postal tournament, and I played in that as well. In a game against Jason Kasick, Black played the Benko so I got a chance to try my hand at the White system with h3.
Weaver-Kasick, 1990 KCA postal, Benko Gambit
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6 6 Nc3 Bxa6 7 e4 Bxf1 8 Kxf1 d6 9 h3 Bg7 10 Nf3 0-0 11 Kg1 Nbd7 12 Kh2 Qa5 13 Re1 Rfb8 14 Qc2
I vary from 14 Re2 as played by Murray in the last game.
14...Ne8 15 Bd2 Qa6 16 Nd1 Nc7 17 Bc3 Nf6 18 Ne3 Nb5 19 a4 Nxc3 20 bxc3 Nd7 21 Ra3 Rb7 22 Rb1 Rab8 23 Rab3!
After all the rooks are exchanged on the b-file, my passed a-pawn will become quite strong.
23...Rxb3 24 Rxb3 Rxb3 25 Qxb3 Nb6
Practically forced, as I was threatening to get my a-pawn moving with 26 Qb5. Black will now be able to capture my a-pawn, restoring material equality, but in return I will get a decisive kingside attack, due to the unavailability of Black's queen and knight to help in defending the Black king.
26 g4 h6 27 c4 Nxa4 28 Qb8ch Bf8 29 g5 h5 30 Qe8 Nc3 31 Nf5! gxf5 32 g6 fxg6 33 Qxg6ch Bg7 34 Ng5 Black resigns 1-0
He would have to give up his queen to stop the threatened mate.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
American Hubris
It is really depressing to see so many examples of this topic. Let's start with the drug laws. We now imprison our citizens at four times the rate of just back in 1980. The blame for this can be laid entirely at the feet of the draconian drug laws. The mandatory minimum sentences enacted at the federal level back in the '70's caused a number of federal judges to resign, as they could not in good conscience impose the draconian sentences required by this idiotic law. And over 90% of the federal judges signed a petition asking Congress to come to its senses on this issue. Of course, Congress has typically ignored the voices of reason.
Our hubris causes us to blame the supplying countries, and view the solution as cutting off the supply lines into the U.S. Blame the users in the U.S. for the problem? Of course not, nothing is ever our fault. Emphasize more and better treatment programs, instead of tossing folks in jail for using? Of course not, that makes too much sense.
European countries imprison people at 1/7 the rate of the U.S. But should we try to learn from these countries? Of course not, that would be admitting they have better ideas than we do. California now spends more on incarceration than it does on education! What kind of sense does that make?
A similar situation exists with regard to health care. European countries spend about half of what we do on health care, with demonstrably better results. But do we study how they accomplish this and try to implement improvements here? Of course we don't.
And in foreign policy, why do we think it is our inherent right to dictate to countries all around the world how they are to organize their governments? Would we stand for any other country doing the same to us? Of course not, in fact there was a big stink back in 2000 when it was alleged that Al Gore had received campaign contributions from China. Yet, we not only influence elections in other countries, but there are a number of instances in which we have assassinated leaders in other countries. We tried numerous times to assassinate Fidel Castro, without success, and he lives on to this day, in fact he just met with the Pope.
Why do we continue wars such as the one in Afghanistan? What do we hope to accomplish? Anybody who knows anything about that region knows we have already done all we can, and should pull out immediately. But we don't, even with a "hope and change" president at the helm.
I could go on and on, but I am already too depressed.
Our hubris causes us to blame the supplying countries, and view the solution as cutting off the supply lines into the U.S. Blame the users in the U.S. for the problem? Of course not, nothing is ever our fault. Emphasize more and better treatment programs, instead of tossing folks in jail for using? Of course not, that makes too much sense.
European countries imprison people at 1/7 the rate of the U.S. But should we try to learn from these countries? Of course not, that would be admitting they have better ideas than we do. California now spends more on incarceration than it does on education! What kind of sense does that make?
A similar situation exists with regard to health care. European countries spend about half of what we do on health care, with demonstrably better results. But do we study how they accomplish this and try to implement improvements here? Of course we don't.
And in foreign policy, why do we think it is our inherent right to dictate to countries all around the world how they are to organize their governments? Would we stand for any other country doing the same to us? Of course not, in fact there was a big stink back in 2000 when it was alleged that Al Gore had received campaign contributions from China. Yet, we not only influence elections in other countries, but there are a number of instances in which we have assassinated leaders in other countries. We tried numerous times to assassinate Fidel Castro, without success, and he lives on to this day, in fact he just met with the Pope.
Why do we continue wars such as the one in Afghanistan? What do we hope to accomplish? Anybody who knows anything about that region knows we have already done all we can, and should pull out immediately. But we don't, even with a "hope and change" president at the helm.
I could go on and on, but I am already too depressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
