A Solid Game vs. the Gruenfeld

A game featuring wild fluctuations between one side and the other may be more interesting to play over, but I prefer a game featuring solid play by both sides, even if there are no wild tactics. Here is a solid game I played today, in which I never was at a serious disadvantage.

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cd Nxd5 5 e4 NxN 6 bc Bg7 7 Bc4 0-0 8 Ne2 c5 9 0-0 Nc6 10 Be3 Qc7 Here black declines to go into the main line with 10...Bg4. His move, 10...Qc7, is played almost as often these days as the "main move".

11 f3? This pointless move is not even in the database! The usual move here is 11 Rc1. The engine says that my move gives black a half-point advantage.

11...cd 12 cd a6? Black keeps a slight edge with 12...Nxd4!

13 Rc1! I now have a one-point edge.

13...Qd7 14 d5 Ne5 15 Bb3 b5 16 Qd2 Bb7 17 Rc2? (f4) Rac8 18 Rfc1 RxR 19 RxR Rc8 20 Qc1 RxR 21 QxR Qc8 22 QxQ BxQ 23 Bd4 I am quite comfortable in this minor piece ending.

23...Nd3 24 BxB KxB 25 Nd4 Kf3 26 Kf1 Bd7 27 Kd2 Nf4+ 28 Kf2 Nd3+ 29 Ke3 Nc5? 30 g3 h5? 31 f4! Kg7 32 e5 a5 33 Nc6 a4 34 Bc2 Bh3? 35 Nxe2 Bf1 36 Nc8 Bc4? 37 Bb1? Bxd5 38 Kd4 Bb7 39 KxN! BxN 40 Kxb5 From here the win is easy.

40...Bd7+ 41 Kb4 f6 42 ef+ Kxf6 43 Bc2 g5 44 fg+ Kxg5 45 Bxa4 Bf5 46 Bd1! This key move prevents the black king from attacking the P/h2.

46...h4 47 a4 gh also wins, but I didn't want to risk getting into the drawn ending of K+B+RP vs. K, when the queening square is the wrong color.

47...hg 48 hg Be4 49 a5 Kf5 50 a6 Ke5 51 Kc5! Ke6 52 Ba4 Bd3 53 a7 1-0 Black resigns

The Incompetence of Rudy Giuliani

Rudy tried to go into court and argue the Pennsylvania election case, and in the process made a complete fool of himself. He told the court, "This is not a fraud case", even after he was telling reporters on the courthouse steps about the supposed widespread fraud in the Pennsylvania presidential election. But the kicker came when the court asked him "What is our standard of review?" Rudy, not understanding the question, replied "the usual one". What Rudy didn't understand is that the court has three standards of review when examining the constitutionality of a statute. The most stringent is strict scutiny, meaning the law in question must have been passed to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must be "narrowly tailored to achieve that interest". Next is intermediate scrutiny, in which the law in question must "further an important government interest", and do so by means that are "substantially related to that interet". And finally we have the rational basis test, wherein those defending a statute must show only that there is a "rational connection between the statute's means and goals". Unfortunately for Rudy and his deranged client, Trump's case failed no matter which standard was used. Hard to imagine a more frivolous case.

The Issue of Equal Pay for the U.S. Women's Soccer Team

CNN has a special tonight at 9:00 P.M. Eastern time on women's soccer. Apparently the special raises questions about equal pay between the women's and men's US soccer teams.

Please take this with a grain of salt. The facts are that the union representing the women's soccer team negotiated the current contract under which the women's players have been working. The women negotiated a different sort of pay system, based on security rather than based on results. To now complain of unequal pay is legally indefensible, which is why the women's union has lost in the courts.

Unlike the men, the women are on full-time salaries; they get paid the same regardless of results, regardless of whether they play or not, and regardless of whether they even make the team. They also have very generous fringe benefits, such as a year's maternity leave at full pay.

Equal pay for equal work is an important issue in this country. Frivolous lawsuits like this debase the equal rights movement.

I have noticed recently that CNN and other networks typically create controversy where none exits. Apparently controversy attracts more viewers than simply reporting the news in a straightfoward manner. An example is the continual bashing of Joe Biden over the Afghanistan pullout. The fact is that the Biden administration reached out privately 19 times to Americans living in Afghanistan, urging them to get out of the country and offering financial assistance to help them do so. But does this get reported? Of course not. All we heare is who Biden left Americans "stranded" in the country.

And just the other day CNN's Wolf Blitzer repeatedly suggested that New York officials did not adequately plan for the huge, record-setting rainfall and resulting flooding. Hey Wolf, shape up or find another line of work!

And now this ridiculous "special", again stirring up controversy where none exists. Shameful!

Next day update. The CNN "special" last night was worse that I had feared. Quite simply, it was one of the most biased and one-sided examples of journlaism I've ever seen.

There was repeated harping about "equal pay", implying that women were not getting paid as much as men. This is totally false. The opinion of the District Court Judge, in granting summary judgment to the U.S. Soccer Federation, pointed out that in the 2015-2019 period at issue, the women received $220,747 per game, compared to $212,639 per game for the men. The fact that the women chose to divvy up the pot differently than the men is on the women, not the USSF. And the CNN program failed to mention this, choosing instead to fan the flames of controversy.