A Horrible Final Jeopardy Wager

I'll never get over the mathematical ignorance of some people. Yesterday the scores going into Final Jeopardy were 14,400 and 12,400, with the three-time returning champion having the higher score. The player with the lower score inexplicably wagered 11,000, and lost when neither player got the question right.

The correct reasoning for the lower player would start with the assumption that the champ would bet 10,401, thereby assuring the win if both got the question right. Therefore, the only way to win would be to bet so as to win if both got the question wrong. That is, bet anywhere between 0 and 8,400. Betting 11K was a huge blunder.

The Weakness of Trump's Election Lawsuits

Donald Trump has been involved in over 4,000 lawsuits in his life, many of them frivolous, as when he sued a writer for defamation for writing that he, Donald, was not as rich as he claimed he was. But the flurry of lawsuits over the recent election have to be among the most frivolous of all.

The decision Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Cicuit in a Pennsylvania case illustrates just how weak Trump's position is. The decision, written by a Trump-appointed judge, threw out the Trump campaign's appeal as being totally without merit.

The opinion stressed that PA state law governs how PA elections are to be held, and that law was followed in the recent electoin. The law requires that election law be interpreted liberally to apply the public policy of having every vote count; i.e., technical violations are supposed to be overlooked. The court made clear that it is not the province of a federal court to rewrite state law.

The Trump campaign complained about county-to-county variations in how mail-in ballots were handled, in that some counties allowed voters to correct technical problems, like a signature being in the wrong place. The court held that this presented no constitutional problems.

The Trump campaign complained about restrictions placed on poll-watchers at some polling places. The court held that there is no evidence that Republican poll-watchers were treated any differently than Democratic ones; therefore, there is no Equal Protection case to be found here.

It should be noted that a whole series of attorneys for Trump dropped out of the case, ending up with the clownish Rudy Guliani taking over, even though it had been twenty years since he'd seen the inside of a courtroom. Guliani made a complete fool of himself by repeatedly alleging fraud in press conferences, while inside the courtroom he said forthrightly, "This is not a fraud case". The fact is, this was the freest and fairest election in our history, with cameras everywhere overseeing the proceedings.

Yesterday Trump said that he wanted the Supreme Court to take the case, saying it was "the best case ever". I seriously doubt the Supreme Court will touch this case, as it really presents no significant issues.

The Crown

 Season four of the great Netflix series 'The Crown" has just come out.  I am again struck by the loving care with which the secondary characters are portrayed.  The Duke of Edinburgh (the queen's husband), Princess Anne (the rambunctious tomboy), Prince Charles (who we get to actually sympathize with), and, most of all, Princess Margaret.

I realized that one of my favorite episodes was the episode in season 3 in which Margaret and her husband visit the U.S.  The relations between the two countries were quite strained at the time, and Britain needed U.S. help to stabilize its currency.  After initial efforts to repair the relationship fell through (Johnson was not enthused about visiting Balmoral Castle, an honor never extended to JFK), the queen called Margaret, who was then in San Francisco, and asked her to visit the White House to try to repair relations.  Margaret said no way, that her husband was opening an art exhibition in New York on that day, and she had to be there for him.  Eventually the queen had to tell her straight out that this was not a request, it was a "command".

Well, Margaret and her husband did visit the White House, and they were feted at a black tie dinner.  Accounts at the time confirm much of what is depicted in "The Crown's" telling of it; the president and the princess did dance, and the president did give the advice to Lord Snowdon (the husband) about how to keep a wife happy:  "First, let her think he's having her way.  Second, let her have it."  There is no mention of the dirty limerick contest, but it is thought that that is not something that reporters at the time would have publicized.  

The depiction in "The Crown" shows Margaret making a snide comment during dinner about the late President Kennedy.  The whole room grew silent with horror, and then Johnson broke the silence with a comment and things moved on.  The Princess then made a private comment to Johnson about how stifling it was to be the number two, always subservient to a higher-up.  This definitely boke the ice and the two of them bonded from there on out.

In thinking about what it would be like to be living your life under a microscope, as the royal family does, I keep going back to a comment Gloria Steinem made when I heard her speak in the early 70s.  She said, "A pedestal is just as confining as any other small space."  That's always stuck with me.

Missed Tactics

 An instructive game I played recently showing tactics I missed, as uncovered by an engine analysis.

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 e3  This move is payed only 4% of the time.  My response has not been seen at all, but I like the idea of securing e5 or g5 for a knight.

5 Bxe3 e6 6 f4 Bb4 7 Nf3 Nbd7 8 Bd3 BxN 9 bc Nd5 10 Bd2 f5?  This move, weakening the P/e6, boosts my advantage by a full point, to 1.62.  The bot likes 9 0-0.

11 0-0 0-0 12 Qe2 Qf6 13 Ng5 N7b6 14 Rae1 Re8?  Black fails to appreciate the weakness of having an unguarded Rook on e8.  Unfortunately, by my response I also fail to appreciate this weakness.  I should have played 13 Nxh7.

15 c4? h6? 16 cd hg 17 fg Qxd4+ 18 Be3 Qxd5? 19 g6?  I miss 19 Qh5, dropping my advantage from 8 points own to less than 5.

19...Kf8 20 Bg5 Nd7 21 Qh5 (missing 21 Rxf5+, winning) Nf6 22 Qh8+? (BxN) Ng8 23 Rf3? (Bxf5) Bd7 24 Rfe3 e5 25 Qh4? (Be4!) Bc6? (e4) 26 Rg3? (Be4!) e4 27 Bf1 Re6 28 Bf4  After numerous blunders and second-best moves, I am now at a slight disadvantage according to the bot!

28...Rd8 (Be8) 29 Bxc7 (Bc4!) Rd7 30 Bf4 Bb5 31 BxB QxB 32 Rb3 Qd5 33 Qf2 Rc7?? 34 c4?? Rxc4 35 Qd2 Qc6 36 Qd8+ 1-0  And here he runs out of time, while I have less than a second left!

The Coming Election

 Only two more days now till the country reverses course and starts the healing process from the four-year disaster it embarked on in 2016.  

In the presidential race, Hillary won 232 electoral votes last time, so Biden needs to add 38 to reach the magic number of 270.  His leads in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are all outside the margins of error, and these states will give him 46 votes, more than needed.  The closest of the three is Pennsylvania, where Biden leads by only six; hence, both candidates are concentrating mainly on this state in these final days of the campaign.

In addition to the three rust belt states just mentioned, Biden also has slim leads in five other states--Arizona, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida, totaling 77 electoral votes.  Ohio is currently tied.

CNN's John King presents a plausible scenario that has the final result tied 259-259 without PA, and whoever wins PA then becomes the winner.  Hence the importance of PA, where legal teams on both sides are ready to pursue challenges in that state.

In the Senate races, eight races are close, with the rest splitting 49-43 for the Democrats.  I have to believe Susan Collins is toast in the Maine race.  Her masquerade as a moderate in a blue state has worked for her for 24 years, but it has fallen apart for her in 2020.  She has alienated liberals by her votes for Kavanaugh and on other matters on which she has either toed the Trump line (as with impeachment) or remained silent.  And of course her moderate approach on other issues has alienated conservatives.  Adding in this race gives the Dems 50 seats.

I also think David Perdue in Georgia is toast.  Jon Ossoff simply destroyed him in their last debate, so badly that Perdue canceled their last debate which was scheduled for today.  Ossoff called him a crook to his face for insider trading, and criticized him for doctoring a photo to make Ossoff look more Jewish, making fun of Kamal Harris's first name, minimizing the virus (even as he was making stock transactions based on his inside info that it was bad), and voting four times to do away with protection for pre-existing conditions.  Ossoff stayed on message and was quite focused, while Perdue flailed away, repeatedly using the phrase "radical socialist agenda" (I counted five times in the part of the debate I watched).  This puts the Dems to 51.

Even if the GOP wins all of the remaining six close races, the Dems will control the Senate, with a total of somewhere between 51 and 57 seats.

The Georgia Senate Races

Quite an interesting debate the other night between the incumbent Senator, David Perdue, and his Democratic challenger, Jon Ossoff.  Ossoff so eviscerated Perdue that Perdue refused to go ahead with the last debate scheduled for tomorrow, basically waving the white flag of surrender.

Ossoff did a great job of staying on message, pointing out repeatedly that Perdue has voted four times to take away protection for pre-existing conditions, and had said CoVid-19 was no worse than the flu.  Perdue had no answer for Ossoff, except to repeatedly use the phrase "radical socialist agenda".  Perdue is the guy who made fun of Kamala Harris's first name recently.  Surely a man so shallow and ignorant has no place in the United States Senate!

But what stung the most for Perdue is when Ossoff called him a "crook", for his insider trading.  Perdue also was skewered for altering the face of Ossoff in an ad, to make it look like Ossoff's nose was bigger than it is.

In the other Georgia Senate race, Republican candidate Kelly Loeffler also made a fool of herself recently, when she claimed she was not familiar with Trump's infamous Access Holly wood tape.  Loeffler is also guilty of insider trading.

What should we do about the Supreme Court?

 A thoughtful article in the latest issue of The New Republic discusses what the Democrats should do after the election (assuming of course that they win the presidency and the Senate).  

The article argues against "court-packing" by adding justices, as this will only serve to make the Court even more partisan than it already is.  Rather, Congress should  limit the jurisdiction of the federal court system.  One way to do this would be to require a "super-majority" for invalidating a federal law.

How the Court handles the ongoing challenges to state election laws will determine the attitude the Congress will take next year.  Will the Court do the right thing and let validly-enacted state election laws be enforced?  Or will the Court take an "activist" approach and invalidate state laws?  And, most scarily, will the Court uphold state laws enacted by Republicans, and strike down state laws enacted by Democrats?

Time will tell.

The State of the Race

 The second and final debate took place last night.  Biden supporters are breathing a sigh of relief, as the notoriously gaffe-prone Biden held his own, and in fact three overnight surveys had him as the winner.  CNN had eleven undecided North Carolina supporters give feedback afterwards.  They had Biden winning 9-0, and all seven that made up their minds based on the debate were for Biden.

Trump actually restrained himself and did not interrupt like he did during the first debate.  However, the CNN fact-checker had him spouting even more lies than in the first debate.  He insisted we were "rounding the corner" on the virus, when in fact the virus is on the rise in most states.  He falsely claimed Biden would take 180 million people off their health insurance, when he has always been for a public option, and this was actually a bone of contention during the primary season.

There is still angst that the polls might be wrong, as they were thought to be in 2016.  However, I believe Biden will win, for three reasons.  First, the pollsters have adjusted for the demographic weighting errors which skewed the results four years ago.  Second, Clinton arguably lost because of the infamous Comey letter, saying the FBI investigation of her emails had been re-opened, and there is no such "October surprise" on the horizon here.  Third, Clinton supporters were notoriously lacking in enthusiasm, and many stayed home.  This time around, Biden supporters are quite enthusiastic, and the "enthusiasm gap" which we saw in 2016 has disappeared.

Getting inside the head of a Trump supporter

In the past two days I have spent 4-5 hours watching the FOX news channel, in an attempt to understand the Trump supporter.  It was really quite interesting.  The main story on FOX is the New York Post story on Hunter Biden's emails.  FOX keeps stressing that Joe Biden has not denied the story.  Hunter Biden is painted as selling access to his father throughout the countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia.  In one email he complains that he has to split everything he makes with his father.

People on FOX are complaining that Twitter and Facebook have blocked posts about the NY Post story.  Ted Cruz said angrily that his Tweet about this story was immediately deleted by Twitter.  During a break in the Supreme Court confirmation hearing, he went up to chairman Lindsey Graham complaining about this, and Lindsey immediately ordered that the heads of both Twitter and Facebook be summoned to appear before the Judiciary Committee to explain themselves, possibly as early as Thursday.

By contrast, what CNN and MSNBC are saying about this story is that it is so fictional that the reporter who wrote it refused to allow his byline to be put on the story.  Another reporter's byline was used, totally without her knowledge or consent.

Adam Schiff and other liberals are complaining about Russian disinformation being behind the story, but FOX stresses that the Director of National Intelligence has issued a strong statement saying there is NO evidence of Russian involvement here.  FOX also stresses that there is no dispute that this was in fact Hunter Biden's laptop, which he took into a Delaware shop for repair.

FOX keeps hammering about how Biden is spending 5 of 6 days "hiding in his basement", instead of going out and meeting people.  This way he doesn't have to answer the tough questions about his son Hunter.  The Trump rallies are portrayed in a positive light, with one reporter calling a rally yesterday a "lovefest".  CNN and MSNBC, by contrast, portray the Trump rallies as "super-spreaders", and continually talk about how the people are packed together, most without masks.  It is obvious CNN and MSNBC are determined to defeat Trump.

Look for questions about Hunter Biden to come up in tomorrow's debate.

Concerning the debate, FOX contributors complain bitterly about the Debate Commission setting the rules (mute buttons will be used during the two-minute time that's supposed to be uninterrupted).  They talk about how the moderators are all liberal Democrats.  They say that the Commission should be responsible for basic arrangements like providing the cameras, but the two campaigns should agree on who the moderators will be.  The ironic thing here is that Trump's advisers are all telling him he should stop with the interrupting, as his best chance for a comeback is to let Biden talk and make a fool of himself, as he is prone to do.  Thus, the mute button actually helps Trump, as it will save him from himself.

Why This Time Is Different

Many Biden supporters are expressing angst that the polls might be wrong, given how wrong they supposedly were four years ago.  Many convoluted theories abound--pollsters not understanding the landline vs. cell phone issue, not properly weighting different demographic or age groups, etc.

I suggest we apply Occam's razor, the principle that says the simplest explanation is usually the best.  An article in electoral-vote.com a few days after the 2016 election was headlined "Democrats lost because Democrats stayed home".  A very simple and to-the-point explanation.  What happened is that people who, if they voted would have voted for Hillary, chose to stay home, because they just weren't motivated enough to go to the polls to vote for her.

Donna Brazile, in her book on the Clinton campaign, says she knew the campaign was in trouble when she would visit state campaign headquarters and see a total lack of enthusiasm for the Clinton candidacy.  The problem in 2016 is that the Democrats offered a candidate who generated no enthusiasm whatsoever, no passion at all.  Hillary never made a strong case for why we should vote for her; with her robotic campaigning style, she just was unable to reach the average voter.  Trump, by contrast, generated lots of passion among a certain portion of the electorate.  The result was that many people who would have voted for Hillary, and told this to the pollsters, ended up staying home.

This time is totally different.  There is great enthusiasm for the Biden candidacy; granted, much of this is based on an opposition to Trump, but no matter, the point is there is great enthusiasm there.  People are coming to understand the importance of voting.  Old people have always understood this, because it was impressed upon them in the Civics courses they took in high school  (My mom used to talk often of her Civics course; it was obviously an important part of her formative years.)  Now, the younger generation is getting its civics course through current events, rather than in the classroom.

Other than the 2016 glitch, the polls in recent elections have been remarkably accurate, and I believe they are now also.  The outcome will be positive, provided we turn out the vote!

__._,_.___

"The Executioner's Song", by Norman Mailer

I am a big fan of Norman Mailer, but this book was a disappointment.  He obtained the rights to Gary Gilmore's life story through his partner, Larry Schiller, and he wrote a 1,092-page book giving a day-by-day account of the last few months of Gilmore's life. 

Mailer uses very sparse language, with simple, declarative sentences, using few adverbs.  He gets so into using this voice that even when he is not quoting one of the many Utah figures he writes about, he still uses incomplete sentences and silly slang.  To me this was quite off-putting.

The book really flounders in the last half, when Larry Schiller becomes a major character in the narrative.  The account of how Schiller went about obtaining the rights to Gilmore's story is simply not very interesting.  He wasn't permitted to visit Gilmore himself, so he had to go through Gilmore's two attorneys.  Every day Schiller would come up with a list of questions, and the attorneys would visit Gilmore on Death row and tape record his answers.

This Q and A went on for months, with no real results.  Schiller wanted to get at what makes Gilmore tick, why he killed two people in cold blood like he did.  Gilmore was an intelligent person, but he was unable or unwilling to delve into his own psyche and come up with any coherent explanation for his actions. 

The result is that we are left with a portrait of someone who was an incorrigible child, even, according to Gilmore, when he was as young as three or four years old.  He went to Reform School at age 13, and spent most of his life after that in prison.  When he got out, a few months before the killings, he continued to steal on a daily basis.  He would go into a store and walk out with a six-pack of beer, preferring to do that even when he had money in his pocket.  He just enjoyed the stealing, and was never caught.

Mailer came onto the scene after the execution, and interviewed the other key characters in the story.  But the failure of Schiller and Mailer to come up with any coherent explanation for Gilmore's psyche renders the book a failure.  Nevertheless, there are some interesting aspects which would have made a shorter book of some value.

One of these is the great love affair between Gilmore and his girlfriend, Nicole.  They were truly soul mates, and in fact both tried to kill themselves as part of a suicide pact, with Gilmore using drugs that Nicole managed to smuggle into the prison.  The efforts both failed; Gilmore tried a second time to kill himself, and at one point went on a 16-day hunger strike.  Surely one of the great love affairs in literary history.

The role of Gilmore's attorneys is interesting.  His original set of attorneys tried to appeal the conviction, and were fired by Gilmore who wanted the execution to proceed.  The new set pledged to carry out Gilmore's wishes, and so they were reduced to being messenger boys relaying messages between Gilmore and the outside world.  They really did nothing that we would consider to be actual legal work.

Since Gilmore's own attorneys could do nothing, outside forces tried to intervene on Gary's behalf.  His family tried to intervene, without success.  The ACLU intervened, on the theory that as a taxpayer it had standing.  Another capital punishment defendant tried to intervene, on the theory that Gilmore's execution would make it more likely that his own death sentence would be carried out.  And anti-capital punishment groups tried to intervene, on the theory that the Supreme Court had not yet ruled on the constitutionality of Utah's death penalty statute, and on the theory that a mandatory appeal should be required for any death sentence.

These efforts all came to a head on the day before the execution, when last-ditch efforts resulted in a decision by a federal judge, issued at 1 AM,  putting a stay on the execution, which was scheduled for sunrise that day.  Attorneys for both sides rode in a prop plane all night to get from Utah to to the Court of Appeals in Denver, where an early morning hearing was held.  At 7:35 AM the three-judge panel issued its ruling lifting the stay. 

At this point the warden in charge of carrying out the execution had qualms about whether he could proceed, given that the sentence specified that the execution was to take place at "sunrise", and he could not get it done by sunrise.  The sentencing judge was pressured to issue a modified order stating that it was to take place on that date, either at sunrise or at a later time.

The heart of the case, and the book, centers around issues regarding Gilmore's state of mind.  Specifically, can someone who insists on being executed be sane?  His original set of attorneys tried to raise the sanity issue, but Gilmore refused to go along, and psychiatrists who examined him pronounced him sane.  (Gilmore believed in reincarnation, which was part of why he didn't fear death.)  His mental functioning was completely intact; the conclusion, therefore, was that he had no psychosis, but he was definitely a psychopath and/or sociopath.  There was no mental disease, just a severe character defect.  He knew what he was doing and that it was wrong, but did it anyway, so no insanity defense could be (successfully) raised.

The fact is that people have a right to die, despite the Catholic Church's propaganda to the contrary.  We wonder about why Muslims are so willing, even eager, to die for their cause.  One reason is that the faith teaches that the quickest way to get to paradise is to die in a Jihad.  But what I learned recently which finally explained the suicide bombing phenomenon is that Muslims believe that your time and manner of death is determined at the time you are born.  Now it all made sense to me.  If your death is predetermined, then by dying you are simply fulfilling your destiny.

When Gary Gilmore was executed by a firing squad on January 17, 1977, he became the first person executed in the U.S. in nearly ten years.  Since then there have been 1,526 executions, an average of 35 a year.  The trend, however, is away from the death penalty; in the first nine months of 2020, there have been only 14 executions, and only half of those by the states.  The number of years which elapsed between sentence and execution ranges from 13 to 34.

A Gruenfeld

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cd Nxd5 5 e4 NxN 6 bc Bg7 7 Be3 0-0 8 Rc1  Usual moves here re Nf3, Bc4 and Qd2.  Rc1 is a distant fourth at only 6%.  I could have avoided this line by playing ...c5 on my last move.

8...c5 9 dc?  Played here are Nf3, Qd2 and d5.  Black's move is weak.

9...QxQ+ 10 KxQ Be6 11 a3 Rd8+ 12 Kc2 Nc6 13 Bb5 Na5 14 Bd4  The engine says this ups black's advantage from half a point to two points, a huge jump.  But my next move knocks the edge back down.

14...Rac8 15 BxB KxB 16 Ne2 Rxc5 17 Ba4 Nc4? (missing b5!) 18 Ra1? (Nd4) Ra5  19 Bb3  Rd2+ 20 Kc1 RxN 21 BxN BxB 22 Rd1 Rxf2 23 Rd7 Rb5 24 Rxe7 Rbb2 25 Rd7 Bb3 and mate soon on the back rank 0-1 

Yet Another Blackmar-Deimer

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef 5 Nxf3 e6 5...Bg4 is most usual, and probably best. I like it when black plays 5...e6, as I can then preserve my light-squared bishop for use in a king-side attack.

6 Bd3 Be7 7 Bg5 0-0 8 Qd2 Nc6 9 0-0-0 Kh8 10 Rhe1 Nxd4 11 NxN QxN 12 BxN BxB 14 Re4  I am two pawns down but I have attacking chances on the light squares.

14...Qc5 15 Rc4 Qa5 16 Kb1 c6 17 Qe3 b5? 18 Rxc6 Bb7 19 Rc5 a6 20 Qh3 g6 21 Rh5 Bxg2?! 22 QxB PxR?? (BxN)  23 Qe4  Black resigns  1-0

Another Blackmar-Deimer

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef 5 Nxf3 Bg4 6 Be2 White can try 6 Bc4, hoping that black will not see the threat of 7 Ne5. However, in my experience black almost always plays correctly with 6...e6; hence I play 6 Be2 and continue thematically rather than rely on a cheapo. The database move is 6 h3, but it scores a poor 38% for whit. 6...e6 7 0-0 Castling queen-side is probably stronger objectively, but I am more familiar with king-side castling. 7...a6 8 Bg5 Be7 9 Qd2 0-0 10 Rad1 Nd5 11 BxB NxB 12 Ne5 BxB 13 QxB Nd5 14 NxN QxN 15 c3 Nc6 16 Ng4?! The engine likes 16 NxN, and says 16...Qxa2 leaves black a clear pawn up. I was trying to create some king-side pressure. 16...Ne7 17 Ne5 Rad8 18 Rf3 Qd6 19 Rdf1 Nf5 20 g4 Nf6 21 g5 Nf5 22 Rh3 c5? Here black goes wrong. I now get a huge 5-point advantage. 23 Qh5 h6 24 gh Nxh6 25 Rg3? (Rf6!!+-) Kh7 26 Rxf7! RxR 27 NxR Qd5 (mate is now forced) 28 Qg6+ Kg8 29 Qxg7# 1-0

A Budapest Defense Game

This game is presented for two reasons: first, it show how easy it is for white to get a good game against the lame Budapest Defense; and second, the ending is a real shocker!

Moves began 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 de Ng4 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 b3  I have never played this move before, but it seemed logical.  The white queen's bishop will get a great diagonal to operate on. The only database game has white winning.

5...Ngxe5 6 NxN NxN 7 Bbb2 Bb4+ 8 Bc3 Qe7 9 BxB QxB+ 10 Qd2 QxQ+ 11 NxQ 0-0  The engine says equality here, but my focus is on exercising control of the crucial d-file, which to me will give me an advantage.

12 g3 d6 13 Bg2 c6 14 Rd1 Bf5 15 e4 Bg4 16 f3 Bh5 17 0-0 Rhd8 18 Nb1 Rfe8 19 Nc3 Nc3 f6 20 Rd2 Re7 21 Rfd1? Red7?  We both miss 21...Nxf3+.

22 Kf2 Kf7 23 h3 Ke6 24 g4 Bf7? 25 f4!  Wins a piece by force.

25...Ng6 26 f5+ Ke5 27 fg Bxg6 28 Ke3 h5 29 Bf3 h4 30 c5 Bf7 31 cd RxP 32 RxR 33 RxR KxR 34 Kd4 g5 35 Na4 b6 36 Kc3?  Here I inexplicably wander away from the king-side, allowing his king a worrisome incursion.

36...Ke5 37 Ke2 Kf4 38 Ke2 Kg3 39 Nc3 Kxh2 40 Kf2 Be6 41 e5!  A desperate attempt to get my knight into the game, and it succeeds handsomely.

41...fe 42 Ne4 Bxg4? 43 Nxg4+  And here I glanced at the time and realized to my horror that I only had 1.3 seconds left!  Fortunately, I saw the easy mate, the traditional mate of bishop + knight vs. king.  Pure luck.

43...Kh2 44 BxB Kh1 45 Bf3+ Kh2 46 Bg2! c5 47 Nf3#  1-0

Comparing Trump and MacArthur

Trump was unanimously nominated today at the Republican National Convention.  The adulation shown him by the delegates remind me of General Douglas MacArthur's adulation from Congress upon his return to the continental U.S. in 1951 following his ouster from command by President Truman.  The Congress interrupted him fifty times with ovations.

However, MacArthur's star flamed out fast.  He gave campaign speeches leading up to the 1952 Republican Convention, but these got fewer and fewer as people realized he was more interested in pursuing his private squabble with President Truman than in being a constructive force in the civic life of the country.

MacArthur lived out his life in a New York apartment, and died 13 years later.  Trump's fate will surely be the same.

A French Miniature

1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 Nc3 de 4 Nxe4 Bb4+ 5 c3 Ba5 6 Bd3 a6 7 Bf4 Nf6 8 Qe2 Qxd4?! 9 0-0-0 (b4) Qa4 10 Kb1 NxN 11 BxN f5? (0-0) 12 Bg5? (Bxb7!) QxB? (0-0) 13 QxQ fe 14 Rd8+ Kf7 15 RxR Bd7 16 Ne2 Bb6 17 Rd1 Bc6 18 Rdd8 h6 19 Bh4 Ba7 20 Rdf8+ Kg6 21 Nf4#  1-0

Catalan morphs into a Benoni

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 c5  3...d5 is most usual, but this scores the best for black.  With this move, black is inviting a switch into the Benoni.  I am content with this, since I often play the king-bishop fianchetto line as white against the Benoni.

4 d5 d6 5 de I figured that if black disdained the normal move of 4...ed, I would initiate the exchange myself.

5...fe 6 Bg2 Be7 7 Nc3 0-0 8 e4 e5 9 Bg5 Nc6 10 Nge2 Be6 11 b3 Nd4 12 0-0 Qa5 13 f4 ef 14 Bxf4 Bg4 15 Rf2 BxN 16 NxB NxN+ 17 QxN Qc3  The engine now gives white a healthy two-point advantage.

18 Rad1 Rad8 19 Rd3 Qa5 20 Qd1 Qb6 21 Rfd2 h5? 22 e5 de 23 Bxe5 RxR 24 RxR Ng4 25 Bd5+ Kh8 26 Bf4 Bf6 27 Rf3? (h3) Bd4+ 28 Kg2 Qh6 29 Qe2 Nf6 30 Bg5? (Be3) Qd6?? (Re8) 31 RxN!!  I made this move instinctively, as time did not allow calculating all the possible continuations.  It wins in all variations.

31...gf 32 Qxh5+  Black resigns  (it is mate next move)  1-0

The Exchange Gruenfeld with Nf3

I am familiar with the exchange Gruenfeld with Ne2, but not so much with Nf3.  Well, today I got a good lesson in why Nf3 is playable.  The game began 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc5 d5 4 cd Nxd5 5 e4 NxN 6 bc Bg7 7 Nf3 0-0 8 Rb1 c5 9 Be2 Nc6 10 d5 Bxc3+  This is not the best move.  It allows white to trade dark-squared bishops, thereby weakening black's king-side defenses.  10...Ne5 is most usual, although 10...Na5 scores the best in practice.

11 Bd2 BxB+ 12 QxB Nb8?  12...Na5 is most usual and scores the best, by far.

13 h4 h5 14 Qh6  I now realized that whit has an overwhelming attack.

14...Qa5+ 15 Kf1 Qc3 16 e5 Bg4  And now white has a force mate.  The game concluded 17 Ng5 BxB+ 18 Kg1 Qxe5 19 Qh7#  1-0

A Classical French

I used to have a lot of trouble against the French, especially the classical French.  Recently I have embraced playing the white side of this opening, instead of shying away from it, and I am doing much better.  Here is a nice win against a higher-rated player.

1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6  Black opts for the classical variation.  The Winawer (3...Bb4) is the main alternative.

4 Bg5 Be7 5 e5 Nfd7 6 BxB QxB 7 f4 a6  The main move, preventing Nb5.  7...0-0 is a close second, while 7...c5, allowing white's knight to jump to d7 via b5, is a distant third and scores poorly.

8 a3?  This is not one of the moves played here.  It is a pointless waste of time, as white need not fear b7-b5-b4, as white can then move the queen's knight effectively to e2.

8...c5 9 Nf3 Nc6 10 g3 0-0 11 Bg2 Rb8 12 0-0 b6 13 Qd2 Bb7 14 Rad1 Rfd8 15 Qd3 d6 16 g4 

The engine dislikes this move, saying the advantage has now switched to black.

Nf8 17 Rde1 cd 18 Nxd4 NxN 19 QxN b5 20 Kh1 Rbc8 21 Qd2 d4 

The engine think this switches the advantage back to white.  However, we are talking about tiny differences; the position is essential equal.

22 Ne4 BxN 23 BxB Qc5 24 Re2 Rc7 25 Bd3 Nd7 26 Rfe1 Nb6 27 f5 ef  

The engine thinks it is now dead equal.  It gives black a half-point advantage after 27...Nc4.

28 gf Nc4 29 Qh6 Qf8 30 Qg5 Nxb2 31 f6 NxB 32 cd Rc3??

Here is where black goes horribly wrong.  He is going pawn-hunting on the queen-side, when he should be playing defense on the king-side!

 33 Rd1 Rxa3 34 Rf2 Rc3 35 e6 fe??

35...h6 defends, though white still has a point advantage.  White now has a forced mate.

 36 f7+ Kh8  37 Qe5+ Qg7 38 f8(Q)+ RxQ 39 RxR#

One of the things I like about this game is that it shows that white can still get a good king-side attack, even after castling king-side, instead of the more normal queen-side castling in this opening.  It also illustrates the benefits of making and executing a plan, even if that plan is not 100% sound.

A Caro-Kann

This game is not particularly special, but it does illustrate some important themes in the Panov-Botvinnik attack in the Caro-Kann.

1 d4 d5 2 e4 c6 3 ed cd 4 c4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e6  This move and 5...Nc6 are both played about 40% of the time.  5...Nc6 leads to a completely different type of game, however.

6 Bf4 Be7 7 Nf3 0-0  This is the usual move here, but black must know what he's doing if he is going to allow white's response of 8 c5.

8 c5 h6?  This move is weak.  Usual is 8...b6, after which the play can get tricky.

9 b4 a6 10 a4 Nh5 11 Be3 Nd7 12 Bd3 Nhf6  One gets the feeling that black is floundering around, while white is making progress in getting his queen-side pawns rolling.

13 0-0 Qc7 14 Re1 b6 15 Qe2 (Qc1) bc 16 bc Bb7 (e5) 17 Reb1 Qc6 18 Rb2 Ne4 19 Rb3 (Qc2) NxN 20 RxN Nf6 21 Rb3  (Better is 21 Ne5, but I am fixated on the idea of getting control of the b-file.

21...Ne4 22 Rab1 Rab8? 23 Qc2 (Qb2) Rfc8 24 Rb6 Qd7 25 Bxa6 (c6) Qc7? (Bxa6) 26 RxB RxR 27 RxR Qd8 28 c6? (missing RxB) Qa5 29 Bd3 Kf8 30 BxN de 31 Qxe4 Qxa4 32 h3 Bd6 33 Ne5 (Bf4) Qd1+ (BxN) 34 Kh2 BxN 35 QxN Qc1??  Black blunders his queen in mutual time trouble, but I had a forced mate anyway.  1-0

The College Foorball Season (or non-season)

Interesting discussion today on ESPN.  Two commentators were asked if they would allow a son of theirs to play football this fall.  One was adamant that he would; his reasoning was that a young man in that age group needs structure, and football gives him that structure--his whole life is centered around it.  Without the structure what would he be doing?  It is a good point, as these kids are surely not going to sit around in their dorm rooms avoiding all personal contact.

The other guy was just as adamant the other way.  He felt that if it wasn't safe for fans to come to the games, it certainly won't be safe for the players.  Hard to argue with that.

The discussion continued on a more cerebral level for quite awhile.  The NCAA came in for much criticism due to its lack of leadership. 

But more than that, the NCAA is vulnerable for continuing to insist on the fiction of the athletes as students, who therefore should not be paid in recognition of the millions of dollars the big schools earn from collegiate athletics.  The students are starting to organize to advocate for safe working conditions, and it seems only a matter of time till the NCAA will be forced to recognize a union and pay the players, a development it has resisted for so long.

This may be another example of a positive result of the virus; the college players may finally get the rights they deserve to make money from their efforts.

An Odd French Game

This is an oddball French game, but for some reason I feel compelled to annotate it, so here goes.  1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Nge2 a6?  Normal is de, Nc6,or Nf6.  Black's move is weak.

5 a3 Ba5 6 b4 Bb6 7 e5  The engine doesn't like this move, preferring 7 g3.  My thought was that 7 e5 limits the scope of both of his bishops.

7...h6 8 Ng3 Ne7 9 Nce3  The engine prefers 9 Qg4.  It says the position is now equal.

9...Nbc6 10 f4 Ng6 11 c3 f6 12 Nh5 fe 13 fe Qh5+ 14 Neg3 0-0 15 Bd3 Nf4??  The engine gives black a full point advantage after 15...Ngxe5, but that's a tough move to find in a blitz game.  Black's move loses the exchange.

16 BxN RxB 17 NxR QxN 18 Qf3 Qg5 19 Rf1 Qe7 20 0-0-0? (missing 20 Qh5, winning) Bd7 (finally developing his QB) 21 Qh5 Be8 22 Qg4 Nd8 23 Rf2 Nf7 24 Rdf1 c6 25 h4 a5 26 Nh5 Nxe5?  And now white has a forced mate, but black was lost anyway.

The game ended with 27 Rf8+ QxR 28 RxQ+ KxR 29 Qxg7#.

What To Make of Barr's Testimony

Attorney General William Barr testified Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee, the first such testimony in his year and a half in the AG job.  The day before his opening statement had leaked out, and the buzz in the media was how combative and confrontational it was.

When I heard his opening statement, I didn't hear anything combative in it.  It turns out he had toned it down greatly overnight, in response to the negative feedback he'd gotten.  His testimony itself was also predominately low-key.

Since it was so low-key, we must examine it more closely in order to understand it.  When it is so analyzed, we see that Barr is 100% on board with the Trump campaign strategy.  Here are some examples of this.

When asked about his intervention in the cases of Trump cronies Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, Barr said that  "The president's friends don't deserve special breaks, but they also don't deserve to be treated more harshly than other people."  He made a convincing case that the initial DOJ sentencing recommendation in the Stone case, while within the standard federal sentencing guidelines, was outside of normal DOJ guidelines.  He stressed that a 67-year-old first-offender who committed a white-collar crime would never get a sentence as long as what was originally recommended.

Barr repeated Trump's latest talking point that voting by mail is susceptible to large-scale fraud.  He offered no evidence to back this up, and, in fact, there is no evidence that there is any large-scale fraud associated with voting by mail.  Five states have exclusively mail-in voting, with no problems, and this year there will certainly be many more states transitioning to mail-in voting

This attack on voting by mail i part of an ongoing Republican effort to restrict access to the ballot box.  There are many examples of such GOP efforts--closing polling places, ID laws, rejecting ballots based on technicalities, and, in the latest and most outrageous example, sending out fake voting instructions to confuse people.

Barr strongly supported sending federal officers to Portland and other cities, claiming that "violent rioters and anarchists" are conducting "an assault on the government of the United States."  This supports the Trump campaign talking point that "You will not be safe in Joe Biden's America".  Trump has been running ads using this catch phrase for months now.  Trump seeks to portray Portland and other cities as under siege, so as to scare people away from voting for Biden.  He always stresses that these cities are being run by "liberal Democrats".

Although outside of his area of expertise, Barr was asked about the virus testing problem, and he claimed that "the problem of the testing system was a function of President Obama's mishandling of the CDC."  This is blatant (and false) partisan advocacy, which traditionally AG's have avoided.

When asked "Is it ever appropriate, sir, for the president to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election?", Barr initially said that "It depends what kind of assistance", and then later acknowledged that it is never appropriate.  This kind of hedging is ludicrous, given that there is a federal law specifically prohibiting such assistance!

He insisted that there is no systemic racism problem in US police departments, asserting, without citing any evidence, that "police are less likely to shoot at a black suspect".

All in all, this analysis shows that Barr is nothing more than a political hack, doing everything he can to help re-elect the worst president in US history.

A Blackmar-Deimer Game

Played today vs. player "Brinkie47".  1 d4 d5 2 e4 de 3 Nc3 Nf6  Top players play 3...c6 (62%) or 3...e6 (25%).  3...Nf6 comes in at only 8%.

4 Bg5  Top players prefer 4 f3 (82%), with my move coming in at only 11%.  4...Bf5  Preferred is 4...e6 (93%), with his move at only 3%.

5 f3 ef 6 Nxf3 e6 7 Bd3 BxB 8 QxB Be7 9 0-0-0 Nc6(?) (c6) 10 Rhf1(?) (10 BxN BxB 11 d5)  h6(?) (0-0) 11 BxN BxB 12 d5 ed 13 Rfe1+ Ne7? (Kf8) 14 Nxd5 Qd6? (Kf8) 15 NxB+ QxN??  And now it is mate in three!

The game concluded 16 Qd7+ Kf8 17 Qd8+ RxQ 18 RxR#  1-0

2020 MLB Predictions

AL East  --  Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Blue Jays, Orioles

Only issue here is between Sox and Rays for second. I'm going with the Sox.

AL Central  --  Indians, Twins, White Sox, Royals, Tigers

I originally had the Twins in first, but the Indians young rotation impresses me. Had the Indians gotten rid of Lindor, I would have dropped them down, maybe even to third.

AL West  --  Astros, Angels, A's, Rangers, Mariners

I usually find an excuse to rank the Angels higher than they deserve. Here it is the free agent signing of Anthony Rendon.

NL East  --  Braves, Nationals, Phillies, Mets, Marlins

This is the most puzzling division to predict. Any of the top four teams could win it. I look for the Nats to have a letdown after their amazing run last year. Keeping Strasburg should help in 2020, although the 7-year contact given to a player who's been on the DL ten times is ludicrous.

NL Central  --  Brewers, Cardinals, Cubs, Reds, Pirates

There's something about the Brewers that interests me; it seems I always enjoy watching them play.  I actually think the Reds will finish higher then fourth, but I don't know which of the top teams to drop down to fourth.

NL West  --  Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Padres, Rockies, Giants

D'Backs signed Madison Bumgarner, showing a desire to compete. Padres still have the top-ranked farm system, but that doesn't mean they will compete this year.

Is the Political Comvention Obsolete?

At this writing the Republican Party still hopes to have an in-person national convention in Jacksonville, Florida, while the Democratic Convention will take place remotely.  This raises the question:  why have conventions at all anymore?

It used to be that the political convention was held every four years to pick the party's candidates for president and vice-president.  However, every candidate since 1952 has won on the first ballot.  There has still been occasional drama, as when Reagan challenged Ford in 1976, or when Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980, but the drama has largely gone by the wayside.

The political convention was a source of excitement and party fervor from 1832 to 1952, but is now obsolete.

Themes in the Budapest

The Budapest Defense, sometimes called the Budapest Gambit, was first played in 1896, but has never found favor among the world's top players.  It is rather easy to play against by white players who have some idea of what they are doing.

My approach has been to not try to hang onto the gambit pawn, but to play for development, and pressure on the d-file. A game I played today on chessbase illustrates this theme.  It began  1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5?! 3 de Ng4  A trappy line is 3...Ne4, but if white knows to simply play 4 a3, it comes to nothing.  I rarely, if ever, face 3...Ne4. White's moves with his king's knight in the Budapest violate basic principles against moving the same piece twice in the opening. The trick for white is to be patient and not try to capitalize violently on this violation on black's part.

4 Nf3  White can also play 4 Bf4, 4 e3, or 4 e4, all of which score in the 60%+ range.

4...Bc5 5 e3 Nc6 6 Be2 0-0 7 0-0 Nxe5 8 NxN NxN 9 Nd2  9 Nc3 is the overwhelming favorite here, but I like the d2 square, preparing to go to f3 and oppose the black knight on e5.

9...a5 10 b3 Ra6  This "rook lift" is actually a major idea in the Budapest, although I wasn't really familiar with it before this game.

11 Bb2 Qe7 12 Nf3 NxN+ 13 BxN Rg6 14 Qe2 d6 15 Rfd1 Qh4 16 g3 Qh3 17 Bg2 Qf5 18 Rd5 Qe6 19 Rh5 Rh6 20 Bh3!  I offer black a rook and bishop for his queen, an offer which he wisely declines.

20...Qg6 21 RxR QxR 22BxB RxB 23 Qd4 Rg8 24 Rd1 Bxe3?  Black, unable to realize anything from his king-side pressure, unwisely sacs his bishop for two pawns.  Patience is the virtue he lacks.

25 fe Qxe3+ 26 Kh1 g6 27 Qd4  27 Bd4 was objectively better, but I choose to simplify into an easily won endgame.

27...Qf3+ 28 Kg1 f6 29 Rf1  1-0  In a position in which white has complete control of the board, black ran out of time.

Themes in the Gruenfeld

Here is a game I played today on chessbase which illustrates some modern themes in the Gruenfeld Defense.  The game began 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cd Nxd5 5 e4 NxN 6 bc Bg7 7 Nf3  Back in 1970s when I used to play the Gruenfeld, this was considered a blunder.  Now, however, this is the most popular move for white.  All major alternatives score about 55% for white.

7...0-0 (7...c5 is preferred 8:1.) 8 Bc4  Other moves are preferred, and score better (8 Bc4 scores only 40% for white!).  Most usual is 8 Be2.

8...c5 9 0-0 Nc6 10 Be3 cd 11 cd Bg4 12 Rb1  Five different moves have been played here, but this seems the most principled.  White seeks to pressure the b-pawn which black left unprotected when he played 11...Bg4.

12...b6  12...Nxd4 and 12...Bxf3 have been played.  My move is perhaps too passive.

13 d5 Ne5 14 Be2 Rc8 15 Bf4 NxN+ 16 BxN BxB 17 QxB Rc2 18 Qa3 Re8? (18...Qd7=) 19 Qxa7 Qa8 20 Qxb6 Qxa2 21 Qb5 Rec8 22 Qd7 h5 (22...Bd4) 23 Qxe7 Rxf2! 24 RxR??  Mate is now forced.  24 Bg3 would have preserved white's one-point advantage, though this is a hard move to find in a blitz game.

The game ended 24...QxR+ 25 Rf1 Bd4+ 26 Be3 BxB+ 27 Kh1 QxR#.

Yet another Saemisch

Here is a game played today on chessbase against player "Gnaggi".  1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nc3 g6 
4 e4 Bg7 5 f3 0-0 6 Be3 Nc6 7 Qd2 e5 8 d5 Ne7 9 Bd3  The database overwhelmingly prefers
9 Nge2 here, but I prefer getting the king's bishop developed.

9...Ne8 10 Nge2 f5 11 ef  Theory and practice indicates a move on the queen-side, either 0-0-0, b3, b4 or Rc1.  I prefer to take the f-pawn,because it opens up lines on the king-side for attack.  If black plays ...f4, as he usually does, then I have a great square on e4 for use by my minor pieces.

11...gf 12 h4 (or 12 Bg5) f4 13 Bf2 Nf5 14 Ne4 h6 15 h5 Nf6 16 g4 NxN?  This is the first real bad move of the game.  16...fg maintains equality, while 16...NxN leaves black more than a point behind.

17 BxN Ne7 18 0-0-0 Bd7 19 Bb1 b5 20 Qc2 bc??  This loses the game for black.  He had to stop for a defensive move, either 20...Kf7 or 20...Rf7.

21 Qh7+ Kf7 22 Bg6+ Kf6?? 23 Bh4#  1-0  22...NxB would have challenged white to find the continuation 23 hg+ Ke8 24 Bh4 Bf6 25 g7 Qe7 26 Qg6+ Qf7 27 gf(Q)+.

The Bronstein Variation of the Saemisch

Here we look at an interesting variation in the Saemisch King's Indian.  Opening moves go 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 6 Be3 e5 7 d5 Nh5 8 Qd2 Qh4+ 9 g3 Nxg3 10 Qf2 NxB 11 QxQ NxB 12 Ke2 Nxc4 13 Rc1  In this odd position, black has given up his queen for two bishops and two pawns!  White need not worry about guarding his b-pawn, since 12 Rc1 Nxb2 13 Nb5 favors white.

13...Nb6 14 Nh3 c6 15 Rhg1 cd 16 Nxd5 NxN 17 ed Bf5 18 Rc7 Nd7 19 Ng5 h6?  A better defense was 19...Nf6, avoiding the weakening of the king-side pawns.

20 Ne6!  Here is the key move of white's system.  Black's reply is forced.

20...fe 21 RxN Rf7?  Best is 21...ed 22 Rxb7 Rad8, with white up a point and a half.

22 Rd8+  Best is 22 RxR KxR 23 Rc1 g5 24 Qb4.

22...RxR 23 QxR Bf8 24 de Re7 25 Qxd6 Rxe6 26 Qb8 e4 27 f4 Rb6 28 b3 a6 29 h4 h5 30 Qe5 Rb5 31 Qe8 Rc5 32 Kd2 Rd5+ 33 Ke2 Kg7 34 Qb8 Rd7 35 Qe8 Rd3 36 Qb8 Rh3 37 Qe5+ Kh7 38 Qc7+ Kh6 39 Qxb7 Rh2+ 40 Kd1 Bb4? 41 Qa8?  (Apparently an odd double blunder)  Bc3 42 Qxa6  Here the engine says I turned over the advantage to black.  Engine says 42 Qf8+.

42...Rxh4  But here black returns the favor.  Engine likes 42...e3.

43 Qc6 Bg7 44 a4  I could have simplified with 44 Rxg6+! BxR 45 f5.

44...Rxf4 45 a5 Rf2 46 a6 e3 47 Qc1? Rd2+ 48 Ke1 Bd3  Engine says 48...Bc2 draws.

49 a7 Be4 50 Qc8? (50 Rg3) Bf3 51 a8(Q)? Re2+ (Missing 51...Rd1#) 52 Kf1 Rf2+ 53 Ke1 Re2+ 54 Kd1 Rg2?? (Black should repeat moves) 55 QxB RxR+ 56 Ke2 Rb1 57 Qxe3+Kh7 58 Qd7 Rb2+ 59 Kf3 Rb1 60 Qc3 Black resigns 1-0

At the time this game was played, I was under the influence of the king-side attack with Nh3, Rg1, etc., with the queen infiltrating into the black camp. This may not be the best approach, though, as the queen-side pressure looks more promising.

The Saemisch King's Indian

I have played the Saemisch, characterized by White's 5 f3, for many years, and have seen no reason to switch to anything else.  Here is a game played in 1996 against player "raizel", at a time when we both were rated in the high 1700s.  It is an internet blitz game, played at 2, 10.

1 d4 d6 2 c4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 e4 Bg7 5 f3 Nc6  This is a legitimate system, although played only 3% of the time, compared to 83% for 5...0-0.

6 Be3 e5 7 d5 Ne7 8 Qd2 c6 9 Bd3 cd 10 cd a6  Black needs to play this, otherwise his pawn on a7 will be hanging whenever he moves his queen's rook.

11 Nge2 0-0 12 0-0 Ne8  This is a common move, which allows the push of black's f-pawn.  However, look how cramped blacks position now is.  He now has two minor pieces on his back rank, and the other two on his second rank.  By contrast, white has three minor pieces on the third rank, and the other on his second.  Plus, his queen is developed, so that white's rooks are now connected and ready to double on the c-file, while black's rooks are three moves away from being connected.

13 Rfc1 f5 14 Rc2 f4 15 Bf2 b5 16 Rac1  Proceeding according to plan.  White is not worried about 16...b4, as the knight can effectively go to a4.

16...g4 17 b4 Rf7 18 a4 ba 19 Nxa4 Rb8 20 Ba7 Ra8 21 Bb6 Qd7 22 Nb2 Ng6 23 Bf2 Bf8 24 Nc4 Qd8 25 Nb6!  This wins at least the exchange.

25...Bb7 26 NxR BxN 27 Rc8  And now I will go up a whole rook.

27...Qe7 28 RxB g4  With his position being hopeless on the queen-side, black's only hope is a desperation king-side attack.

29 Rcc8  I calmly respond by doubling rooks on his back rank, confident that my back rank pressure trumps his king-side pressure.

29...gf 30 gf Nh4 31 BxN QxB 32 RxN Rg7+ 33 Kh1 Qf2 34 RxB

This game illustrates typical Saemisch play.  Black expects white to castle queen-side and mount an all-out king-side attack.  In combatting this expected attack, black ignores his queen-side and allows white to build up strong queen-side pressure, characterized by doubling rooks on the c-file and making some well-timed pushes of the a- and b-pawns.

The Houston Astros Are Morally Corrupt

In the off-season it became known that the Astros used electronic equipment to steal signs from the opposition, and then used either an electronic buzzer system or banging on a trash can to relay the info to the hitters, telling them what pitch was coming. It is not yet clear how much of this cheating was going on in 2018 and 2019, but it definitely was in 2017, when they won the World Series.

This breaks my heart, since the Astros have been an amazing success story which is quite inspiring. It simply ruins my ability to admire them at all. Jose Altuve used to be my favorite player, as was David Eckstein before him; but now I cannot admire him at all. The video of him grabbing his jersey and pleading with his teammates to not rip it off shows without a doubt in my mind that he had the buzzer system installed underneath his shirt. His teammate's lame excuse that he had an unfinished tattoo which he didn't want exposed doesn't ring true at all. And when asked about this whole mess at the start of spring training, Altuve refused to answer legitimate questions, so much so that the writers backed off and largely left the subject alone.

A lot of the problem here is the inadequate apologies from the Astros management and players. They are looking like fools and cheaters, which is what they are.

Commissioner Rob Manfred also has major egg on his face, in giving the Astros players immunity from punishment. Manfred underestimated how upset opposing players would be about this. Many opposing players, most notably Mike Trout, the game's best player, have spoken out about how there should be punishment for the Astros players who participated in this illegal scheme.

In defending his decision not to take away the Astros' 2017 championship trophy, Manfred put his foot in his mouth by saying the trophy is "just a piece of metal". This has raised a big stink among the players. They point out that this "piece of metal" is what they are all playing for, and a championship means a lot to them. Manfred doesn't seem to understand this, else he would not make such a stupid statement.

The anger of the other teams is so palpable that it is assumed that Astros hitters will be thrown at this year. Manfred will then have to deal with this ongoing crisis, a crisis which he created by his own bungling.

The Iowa Caucuses

The Iowa Caucuses were a complete disaster. After many Democratic candidates, along with thousands of their supporters, spent the better part of a year campaigning in Iowa, the Democratic Party could not even get its act together to count the votes in a timely manner.  No results were available until the the next day, and only three days later did 100% of the results become available. And even these are said to be questionable.  The Democrats blame a failed app, but that's no excuse--it should have been tested beforehand.

Even before this debacle, I was beginning to question the wisdom of the caucus system.  It is quite anti-democratic, in that it favors retirees and students, and discriminates against working people with families, who either have to work or perhaps hire a babysitter in order to invest the hours of time involved in attending a caucus.

You would think the Left would criticize this anti-democratic system as vociferously as it does the Electoral college.  Like the Electoral college, the caucuses can produce different results from delegates to raw vote totals.  This is fact actually happened in Iowa this year--Sanders won the popular vote, but Buttigieg narrowly won the delegate count. This is because the system rewards candidates whose votes are more broadly distributed geographically; here, Sanders piled up huge margins in college towns, thereby winning the "popular vote", but the Buttigieg votes were better distributed.

But the Left doesn't criticize the caucus system, because it allows a motivated group of supporters to dominate a district and dictate the delegates to be selected.  This is exactly what we McGovern supporters did in 1972 in Wichita, when we so dominated the Sedgwick County caucuses that we selected all four of the delegates from our Congressional district.

The caucus system should be discarded completely.  Some advocate for a national primary, but that is a bad idea also, because the candidate with the greatest name recognition would win every time.  What is needed is an initial primary in a small state, and then go on from there.

Yesterday's Democratic Debate

Last  night's debate between the remaining seven candidates was informative. All  the candidates stuck to their talking points and avoided getting derailed,  Biden did as he was expected to do, which is to come out swinging after his pathetic fourth-place showing in Iowa. However, his performance seemed to fall flat. Instead of coming across as aggressive, he simply came across as a pathetic loser. I'm afraid this is the beginning of the end for him.

All the other candidates did well, and Klobuchar continues to gain in stature.

Unlike the previous debate, in which the moderators repeatedly interrupted the candidates, the ABC moderators in this one let the candidates develop their thoughts and make their points. Kudos to George Stephanopoulos and the other moderators.

2/10/20 update.  As a postscript to this last point, at the Oscars last night the best picture winners were cut off in the middle of their comments.  The audience booed lustily, and the producers finally relented and let the winners finish their comments. In this era of short sound bites, it is refreshing to have some momentum developing for allowing people to express more complex thoughts and ideas.

Impeachment Winners and Losers

The Senate has acquitted President Trump, so here is my take on winners and lowers out of this whole process.

                                                               Winners

Adam Schiff.  The leader of the House managers conducted himself throughout with calmness, reason, and dignity, despite the constant name-calling from Trump and the right wing.

Mitt Romney.  He remained true to his conscience and voted for conviction on the abuse of power Article, the only Republican Senator to do so.  He became the first Senator ever to vote to convict a president of his own party in an impeachment proceeding.

Fiona Hill.  She distinguished herself in her testimony as a dedicated public servant, and answered all questions intelligently and persuasively.  The same could be said for several other of the House witnesses.

Doug Jones.  He is the Alabama Senator who won the seat when the Alabama Republican Party went brain-dead and nominated the sexual predator Roy Moore. His re-election was in doubt already, but  he showed great political courage in voting to convict even though it killed his re-election chances in red Alabama.

Joe Manchin.  Again, great political courage shown by West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who tried to get a compromise solution by proposing to censure Trump, but his proposal didn't go anywhere. In a state which went for Trump by 42%, the easy thing to do would have been to vote to acquit, but he voted to convict, denying Trump the "bipartisan acquittal" that he sought.

Nancy Pelosi.  She has conducted herself with class and dignity throughout this process.  Trump has denounced her as evil and corrupt, but she has had the dignity not to respond in kind, even though that would have been appropriate.

                                                              Losers

Donald Trump.  The House evidence clearly showed that he violated his oath of office in trying to shake down a foreign government for political favors.  But what really makes him a loser is his continuing insistence that he did nothing wrong, and his castigation of all who oppose him as "evil" and "corrupt".  The man has no class at all, no dignity whatsoever; he revealed himself to be a mean, vulgar, despicable human being.

The Republican Party.  It is really had to see how the Republican Party will survive the Trump era.  They have all (except for Mitt) sold their souls in support of a corrupt president, and surely these chickens will come home to roost.

Alan Dershowitz.  He is still one of America's best lawyers, even at age 81, but his arguments here bordered on the ridiculous. His position that only an actual crime is impeachable conduct is supported by no constitutional scholar, and is contrary to common sense and the background of the impeachment provision in our constitution.

Ken Starr.  Like Dershowitz, Starr made himself look ridiculous by making the opposite argument to what he advocated during the Clinton impeachment.  Starr was also ineffective in making his arguments to the Senate, unlike Dershowitz who was as persuasive as he could possibly have been in advancing an untenable position.

Jonathan Turley.  Turley purports to be a liberal Democrat, but when it comes to impeachment, he in anything but.  He was on the cable news channels daily during the Clinton impeachment, arguing in favor of it, but now he testified before the House committee against the Trump impeachment.  He wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal on 11/28/19, but, unfortunately for him, an alert reader called him out soundly with a stinging rebuke published a week later.

(added 2/17/20).  Susan Collins.  This Maine Senator, who likes to portray herself as a moderate, brought disgrace upon herself for voting to acquit Trump.  She said after the vote that she thought Trump had "learned his lesson"; however, Trump's actions since have made it clear he has not learned his lessen, and in fact is only getting worse.

The Equal Rights Amendment

Virginia recently ratified the ERA, which was first submitted to the states for ratification in March of 1972.  Virginia's vote meant that 38 states have now ratified it, giving the ERA the 3/4 vote of the 50 state legislatures which it needs for adoption.

However, the are two huge problems with this. First the deadline for ratification expired in 1982. And second, five states have rescinded their ratification.

Thus, the ERA has not been adopted, and will not be. The wisdom of this amendment is seriously open to question. It seems like a make work project for clever lawyers, as many issues could be presented as unconstitutional discrimination against women, should the ERA become law.

The ERA feeds into the national obsession with "rights". In no other country of the world is there such an obsession with rights as in the United States. We are consumed with the concept of rights, rather than with the nobler concepts of duty, honor, integrity, and personal character.

The Decline and Fall of Susan Collins

Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins now has the highest disapproval rating of any Senator in their home state. Fifty-two per cent of Maine voters now disapprove of her job performance, compared with only 27% three years ago.

Collins in the past has tried to portray herself a a moderate Republican, in the tradition of past independent-minded Maine Republican Senators like Margaret Chase Smith, Bill Cohen, and Olympia Snowe. But now, she has completely gone over to the dark side, voting with her fellow Republicans on all but one of the eleven Democratic amendments to the impeachment rules. She refuses to allow subpoenas to secure the testimony of relevant witnesses, showing that she is no better than hacks like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. The only amendment she voted for was an innocuous procedural proposal to allow Senators more time to respond to motions.

The demise of the moderate Susan Collins foreshadows the demise of the Republican party itself, which surely cannot last as a viable major party in the wake of its sychophantic support of the disastrous Trump presidency.

Here are the Republican Senators who are the most unpopular in their home states: Collins (52% disapproval), McConnell (50%), Joni Ernst (42%), Lisa Murkowski (41%), Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, and Deb Fischer (40%). Of these, Collins, McConnell, Gardner, and McSally are up for re-election in 2020 and are considered vulnerable, along with Thom Tillis and David Perdue.

The Decline of Alan Dershowitz

Alan Dershowitz has joined the Trump impeachment team to argue the constitutional issue. He has taken the position that, even if the allegations are true, they don't meet the constitutional standard for an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz is claiming that to impeach a president, Congress needs to allege a crime. The news media has come up with a clip from 1998 when he said the exact opposite during the Clinton impeachment! The other day Dershowitz attempted to explain this, but not very successfully.

I cannot escape the impression that Dershowitz is in serious decline. He seems to be turning into a caricature of himself, just as Howard Cosell did in his later years. The arrogance and condescending tone of Dershowitz is becoming more and more pronounced. We saw these traits a bit in a TV interview years ago, when he said that he often had to "talk down" to judges, because many judges were unable to grasp the legal arguments he was making. Small wonder, then, that now the judiciary is starting to complain about his condescending attitude.

I saw him on three different Sunday morning shows this past Sunday. In all three he said the same thing, refusing to express an opinion on whether Trump pressured a foreign country to help him in his upcoming campaign, because to Dershowitz this is immaterial. His argument is that the constitutional standard for impeachment is higher than this.

In all three appearances he referred to former Supreme Court justice Benjamin Curtis, who served as Johnson's chief counsel during the Andrew Johnson impeachment, arguing that criminal conduct must be present. In all three he mentioned that Curtis dissented in the Dred Scott case, as if that has anything at all to do with impeachment.

Dershowitz is making a losing argument, and surely he knows this. It is almost like he is trying to see how much nonsense he can get away with. He seemed to be practicing his arguments before the TV cameras, to see how ridiculous he had to sound before people started laughing at him.

The fact that the Trump team is using Dershowitz, a criminal defense attorney, to make the constitutional argument, rather than a constitutional law expert, shows just how weak his argument is. They can't use Jonathan Turley, their constitutional law expert before the House Judiciary Committee, because even Turley admits that asking a foreign government to help in a political campaign would be an impeachable abuse of power. Turley simply doesn't think the allegation has been sufficiently proven.

Howard Cosell, in his later years, burned all his bridges behind him, alienating all of his former friends, and spending his last days holed up in his New York apartment as a recluse. Nobody except his immediate family visited him. I see Dershowitz heading down the same path, filled with the same kind of egomaniacal fantasy of his own greatness as Cosell was.

Sorry, Alan, your time has come and gone.

Elizabeth Warren vs. Bernie Sanders

About the only thing of interest in last week's Democratic debate was the exchange between Sanders and Warren, in which Warren accuse Sanders of saying that Sanders told her a woman could not win the presidency.

This makes Warren look bad on two counts. First, she should not be revealing what was said at a private conversation. And second, it is inconceivable that Sanders would have ever said such a thing, and he of course denied saying it.

This is probably the kiss of death for the Warren campaign.

A House Divided against Itself

Lincoln once declared that "A house divided against itself cannot stand". He was certainly correct, and the United Methodist Church recently took this to heart and, following 48 years of conflict over LBGTQ issues, took steps to break into two different denominations.

If only the General Conference of the Mennonite Church had been this wise, we would be in much better shape today. Instead, the denomination pushed forward with an ill-conceived merger with the Old Mennonites, even in the face of opposition from the OM's over LBGTQ issues.

Lincoln unwisely implemented his principle by making war on the South, instead of allowing them to peacefully secede as they were attempting to do. The Mennonite Church, in continuing a consolidation opposed by many members, is pursuing the same bad policy.

The Democratic Debate

The most recent Democratic debate had the participants down to seven, and it was the best one yet.

There were several memorable exchanges.  Elizabeth Warren chastised Pete Buttigieg was holding a fund-raiser in a "wine cave", which promptly became the most looked-up term on the Internet.  But Mayor Pete had a great response, saying "This is the problem with issuing purity tests which you yourself cannot pass."  The audience gasped in appreciation (he and Amy Klobuchar got the most positive audience responses at this debate).  Pete went on to point out that Warren herself had used traditional fund-raising techniques for her Senate race, and then transferred her huge stockpile of funds over to her presidential campaign.  He rightly asserted that fund-raising is a necessary part of running for president, and a candidate should not turn away supporters based on any artificial purity test.  Point here to Mayor Pete.

Another memorable exchange was when Pete criticized Klobuchar for relying on committee meetings instead of real-life experience. Amy shot back, when she got the chance, with an articulate defense of her work in committees, dealing with the problems of U.S. citizens. Point to Amy.

Klobuchar's performance was the highlight of the debate, as she has consistently performed well, stressing her accomplishments and her constituency of an area many semi-contemptuously refer to as "flyover country." She looks better and better to me with each debate. She would be the type of calming influence needed after the turmoil of the Trump years, just as Ford was after the Nixon scandals.

In many debates it seems the candidates fail to actually answer the questions, instead using the opportunity to spout their basic talking points. In this one, however, there were three questions which I felt were so stupid and inane that the only sensible response was to not take it literally.  The first such question was one which asked "why do you think more people are not in favor of impeachment?".  This question is bogus on several levels.  First, it calls for mere speculation on the part of the person answering. Second, it assumes there is one reason why sixty million or so people oppose impeachment, which is absurd.

Another question asked whether the candidate would favor federal funding for wholesale relocation of cities impacted by climate change.  This assumes we don't solve the problem first; it looks way ahead to a different time period, totally irrelevant to the issues facing us in 2020.

The last question was particularly inane. It asked "who on the stage do you want to ask for forgiveness, or give something to?".  Huh?? What kind of ridiculous question is this?  There is absolutely no point to this question, no news value here.