Another Gruenfeld

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Bc4 c5 8. Ne2 O-O 9. O-O Nc6 10. Be3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Na5 12. Bd3 Bg4 13. f3 Be6 14. d5 Bxa1 15. Qxa1 f6 16. Bh6 Re8 17. Kh1 Rc8 18. Nf4 Bd7 19. e5 Nc4 20. e6 Bb5

The usual move here is 20...Ba5, played 40 times in the 365chess database to 12 for 20...Bb5. However, black's 20...Bb5 actually scores slightly better for black than the more usual move (46% to 41%).

21 Nxg6

I played this move, which is the normal response to 20...Ba5. However, this was played in only one of the 12 games with 20...Bb5, with 21 Qe1 played in the other 11 games. After 21 Qe1, the most usual continuation is 21...Nd6 22. Bxg6 hxg6 23. Qg3 Bd3 24. Nxd3 Kh7 25. Nf4 Rg8 26. Qh3 Rh8 27. Bf8 Kg8 28. Bxe7 Qxe7 29. Qxh8 Kxh8 30. Nxg6 Kg7 31. Nxe7 Rc7 32. g4 Rxe7, after which 33 Rc1 drew, but 33 Kg2 lost.

21...hxg6 22 Bxg6 Ne5 23 Be4 Bxf1?

In the only game in the database, black played 23...Qa5, preventing white's Qe1 move, and drew.

24 Qxf1? (21 Qe1) 24...Qa5 (Rc4) 25 Qf2 Kh8??

This is the losing move. Stockfish gives 25...Ng4, giving back material to blunt white's attack.

26 Qh4 Nxf3 27 Bg2+! Black resigns 1-0

About the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

We have yet another example of someone filing a defamation lawsuit which blows up in his face. History is full of examples of this, some of which I have discussed in this blog.

Amber Heard, Depp's ex-wife, wrote a newspaper commentary about domestic violence, describing herself as a victim. She never mentioned Depp by name, but sophisticated readers could figure out that Depp was who she was talking about.

Depp felt like her essay cost him millions when Disney cut him loose from the "Pirates of the Carribean" franchise, and he sued for $50 million. Heard countersued for $100 million, and now the trial is taking place.

Recent testimony poked huge holes in Depp's narrative, as his former friends and business associates testified to his increasing unreliability, due to his alcohol and drug use. He was habitually late to the set, and in all ways was just plain difficult to deal with. A Disney representative tetified nobody at Disney even knew about the Heard essay when they cut Depp loose.

This illustrates the down side of these defamation lawsuits. Your whole life is opened up to scrutiny, often with devastating effects for the plaintiff. Heard is no angel, but she is certainly not repsonsible for Depp's ruining his career. Neither party will likely get anything out of this public spectacle, other than the eternal embarrassment at having their dirty laundry broadcast to the world.

We Will Be Welcomed with Open Arms: The Folly of Wishful Thinking

I just finished reading "The Zimmerman Telegram", an informative book by Barbara Tuchman explaining in detail the events leading up to the U.S. entering World War One. The author describes the German efforts to enlist Mexico and Japan in making war on the U.S., so as to keep the U.S. armed forces occupied fighting to defend its homeland instead of fighting the Germans. But the factor in the German thinking that is relevant for this post is the idea that there were millions of German-Americans living in the U.S. who would be opposed to their adopted country making war on their homeland. In actuality, once the German plans were revealed by the relase of the infamous Zimmerman telegram, followed by Zimmerman's admission that the telegram was authentic, opposition to the U.S. getting involved in the war evaporated, even among German-Americans.

This got me to thinking about how this type of error has been repeated over and over by invading countries. For example, Russia is currently making war on neighboring Ukraine, with much of the rationale being that Ukraine has many ethnic Russians who would welcome the invasion with open arms. This has proven not to be the case.

The first infamous case of relying on false intelligence was in the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which was planned by the CIA based on the false information that the Cuban people would rise up in support of the invaders. This proved not to be the case; in fact, Castro had such good intelligence, in contrast to our bad intelligence, that he knew in advance (and successfully thwarted) every step the CIA was planning, including some two dozen assassination attempts on his life.

The most despicable example of wishful thinking was in the run-up to the 2003 war on Iraq. We now know that this was was based on false information provided by an informant code-named "Curveball". Curveball was a character who defected from Iraq to Germany in 1999, and started provideding German authoriites with information claiming that he had first-hand knowledge of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons. German intelligence was so leery of him that they concluded he was totally untrustworthy, being as he was a congenital liar and an alcoholic. Nevertheless, American and British authorites chose to believe him and invaded Iraq based on this misinformation, ignoring German concerns about his reliability, and never undertaking to verify his information from other sources. Years later Curveball admitted that his information had been totally fabricated, and he claimed to have been totally flabbergasted to discover that the U.S. and Britain were taking his lies seriously.

The whole Vietnam debacle was filled with one example of wishful thinking after another. We went to war to prop up a corrupt South Vietnamese government, a government which never had the support of its people.

An example of a different sort, one in which our president disbelieved intelligence which he should have believed, was Jimmy Carter's huge blunder in letting the former Shah of Iran into this country. Carter was told that letting the Shah into the country would put our embassy in Tehran in jeopardy, but he chose to ignore this intelligence, on the false rationale that there was medical treatment available here that was not available in Mexico. This excuse was later proven to be false when the U.S. doctors spoke up and said that they had been willing to go down to Mexico to treat the Shah, and he could indeed have gotten the same treatment there. This one mistake isn't why I hold Carter in such low esteen, as every president makes mistakes. Rather, this is part of a pattern of total incompetence that characterized Carter's entire bleak term in office.

Creating a Good Trivia Question

One of the joys of being a fan of Jeopardy! is to appreciate the craftmanship that goes into creating a good "Final Jeopardy" clue. The writers have to keep the questions in the middle ground between so easy that everyone gets it immediately, and so hard that no one has any reasonable chance to get it. This is true of any trivia question.

Although none of the three contestants got Thursday's "Final Jeopardy" clue, I was able to figure it out, so I count it as a good clue. The clue was, "It's an Italian word for 'mercy' but also the name of a movie character who kills Stracci and Carlo". An awesome clue, combining as it does some linguistics knowledge with some movie knowledge.

I initially had no idea, but then I recognized Carlo as Connie's husband on "The Godfather", and then it hit me that the name "Clemenza", one of the Corleone lieutenants, might be related in Italian to "mercy", based on "clemency". I didn't recognize "Stracci" from the movie, but now I see that he was the leader of one of the five families who Don Corleone brought together for the famous meeting to stop the war and make peace.

About the Infamous Leak from the Supreme Court

The leak of the draft opinion overruling Roe. vs. Wade raises many interesting issues. One is about the perceived necessity for such overwhelming secrecy over the operation of the Court. The other two branches of government operate in the open, as mandated by open meetings laws, sunshine laws, Freedom of Information laws, and the like. But the Court thinks that it is horribly wrong to have a draft opinion leak out. Why? It makes no sense. The American people deserve to know more about how the Court operates, so that we can make more informed decisions about our political future.

Another key issue is the identity of the leaker. The Republicans have focused on this, and have been reluctant to talk about the substantive issues involved, which is reminiscent of their silly posturing during the first Trump impeachment, when they whined and whined about who the whistleblower was, a totally irrelvant complaint since the whistleblower's allegations had been verified many times over by other witnesses.

The right wing asumes the leaker was from the left; when Ted Cruz was asked why he assumed this, he answered, "Because I'm not a moron!" However, the prevailing opinion now is that the leak probably came from the right. The theory goes that this draft was circulated back in February, and in the three months since then Chief Justice Roberts has been lobbying his fellow conservatives to take a more moderate course. Given Roberts' concern for the reputation of the Court, this is certainly what has been going on since the draft was first circulated. Alito's draft opinion is ridiculously inflammatory and derogatory toward the original opinion in Roe v. Wade. There is no doubt that Roberts is committed to moving the Court away from this extreme position toward a more moderate and nuanced opinion, in his ongoing efforts to salvage the integrity of the Court. In response, the extremists on the right are trying to "lock in" the five who originally suported this extreme draft, hence the leak, which some think might have come from Alito himself, who is upset that his original supporters are deserting him.

The Repubicans are clearly running scared, because in a post-Roe world, they will be on the defensive, given that 2/3 of Americans support the idea of a woman's right to choose. The fallout wil be beneficial to the Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections, in my humble opinion.

Overruling Roe will take the issue of abortion out of the legal arena, and put it back into the political arena. The GOP will be in the position of the dog finally catching the car that it has been chasing. The GOP has now caught the car, and it will only be embarrassing for them when their autocratic position becomes painfully obvious. They think the government should make our personal lifestyle decisions for us, and this autocratic approach will hopefully be rejected. If not, then we don't deserve the liberty-based republic that our Founders have so carefully crafted for us.

The Greatest Episode of "The Crown"

I recently re-watched my favorite episode, which was a Season 3 episode entitled "Margaretology". In this episode Margaret and her husband are touring the U.S., and the people are showering Margaret with adulation. When Queen Elizabeth hewars of this, she gets an unforgtettable look on her face, a look of surprise and wistful envy, as she herself is considered dull and uninspiring by comparison.

At the same time, Britain is facing a serious crisis with its currency. To prevent devaluation, Britain desperately needs financial help from the U.S., now led by LBJ after the death of JFK. The Queen tries everything to get Johnson's cooperation, but nothing works. She even offers to host Johnson at Balmoral Castle in Scotland, an honor never extended to Kennedy. Still Johnson resists, dismissing the offer with a caustic remark about why anyone would want to go hunting in the cold and windy Scotland weather.

Finally the QWueen calls Maragaret and asks her to visit the White House to try to win Johnson over. When Margaret resists, saying she has promised to be with her husband during his photography exhibit in New York at that time, the Queen makes it clear it is not a request, but a royal order.

Margaret does of course go to the White House, and is a huge hit with President Johnson. When she makes an anti-Kennedy remark during the banquet, the room goes silent, until Johnson relieves the tension with a supportive remark. The bond between the two is made clear here, in that they both know what it is like to live in the shadow of another.

After dinner they engage in a "dirty limerick" contest. This was so memorable that I wll quote Margaret's limericks. "There was a young lady from Dallas/ Who used a dynamite stick as a phallus/ They found her vagina/ In North Carolina/ And her asshole in Buckingham Palace." Also, "There was a young woman from Delaware/ Who liked to make love in her underwear/ A terrible prude/ She woud never go nude/ And her baer hips and tits she would never bare."

When Maragaret returns to London following her triumphant tour, she suggests to Elizabeth that she, Margaret, should take on more royal duties. Elizabeth talks this over with her husband, who counsels against it. When Elizabeth informs Margaret that she won't share her duties, the disappointed look on Margaret's face tells the whole story, with no words needed. These two actresses really shine in this episode, Helena Bonham Carter as Princess Margaret, and Olivia Colman as Queen Elizabeth.