Linares 08 r11

Aronian needs to demonstrate that he is able to win...without Ivanchuk blundering a piece.

Why go that far? He could just play a dubious, rare line and wait for Ivanchuk to flag.

Great game by Topalov against Shirov. Man, can he conduct an attack or what.. Shirov played very interesting chess as always.

Oh My God! Leko won that endgame against Carlsen:http://www.chessdom.com/morelia-linares-2008/leko-carlsen-live

I badmouth Leko and call him a chicken but that man has technique that is second only to Kramnik, if even that.

Wow, most impressive win by Leko I have ever seen. I thought for sure that Carlsen would hold the draw.

Leko really is Carlsen's nemesis: Carlsen loses even when Leko is playing badly (-4 =5) and he is playing great (+3 =1).

-HUGE- win for Leko. Maybe this win will give him the confidence to stop playing like a chicken.

notyetagm what are you talking about? Leko hardly played like a chicken in this tourney. if anything he overpressed against Anand, Topalov and Ivanchuk..

Leko's "technique" is not his strong point. "Technique" would have gotten him at least a draw against Anand... Leko's strength is theoretical preparation and efficient use of active and surprising resources in positions.

Carlsen just pitched a pawn for nothing today.

Shirov really didn't put up any resistance. Bxg6 1-0. The Grunfeld main lines are pretty cooked at this point; it just isn't a playable opening in Category 20+ right now. I still don't think the King's Indian is either, although for some reason people keep avoiding the Bayonet attack with White so perhaps they know something I don't.

notyetagm what are you talking about? Leko hardly played like a chicken in this tourney. if anything he overpressed against Anand, Topalov and Ivanchuk..

-- Posted by: Jean at March 3, 2008 16:32

True. Perhaps I have a mistaken perception of Leko.

My point was that beating the "WonderBoy" when you are on a bad streak (-4 =5) will hopefully give Leko the courage to continue to play forcefully against the other top players.

That's the one thing I truly admire about Topalov: losses do not bother him. He loses, gets knocked down, bounces back up, fights hard next game.

Carlsen just pitched a pawn for nothing today.

-- Posted by: gmc at March 3, 2008 17:07

Well, Carlsen played it, so I thought it was some type of brilliant positional pawn sacrifice.

Of course, if a patzer like me had played that, people would have said -immediately- that I was a patzer for pitching a pawn for nothing. :-)

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the position was drawn with best play both before and -after- Carlsen threw the pawn by d6-d5. The b-pawn is securely blockaded until White's king arrives. I thought Black needed an active king more than an active rook, but computer analysis will tell.

Carlsen probably thought he had a fortress but underestimated the activity of White's rook.

"Radjabov said he thought there were too many rest days in Linares"

A somewhat intriguing comment from Radja considering he played a quick draw with white today (18 moves). Yes, easy to give (unfair) criticism, but Radjabov _is_ the champion when it comes to these fast draws. I like his style, but I wish he played less of these insipid white games. More objectively though, it's his first short draw with white in this tournament (and playing the leader).

And what was Carlsen thinking? Was he taking risks hoping to take advantage of the current bottom dweller?

God, guys, you are talking as if Leko is a complete patzer and Carlsen is a someone from other universe...
Leko got a slight edge in the endgame. d6-d5 was not a mistake by Carlsen, the point black would hate to have the rook blocking the pawn-its better to give away a pawn and defend actively.

Leko acted creatively (h5-h6, g4-g5) and Carlsen lost his patience. He probably would have drawn if he kept blocking that b pawn + threatening to take g5 and h6 (so white does not have time to gradually improve).

"Leko's strength is theoretical preparation and efficient use of active and surprising resources in positions."

That certainly characterizes the game of his against Beliavsky (from mid-1990s or early 2000s, I forget) that I watched on Dennis Monokroussos' Chessbase show last week. Leko originated a plan (involving b3 and the profound "mysterious rook move" Rb1) that put the Breyer Defense to the Ruy completely out of commission for some years, until eventually an antidote was found. He played the rest of that game profoundly and beautifully, too.

The game referred to in the previous post is Leko-Beliavsky, Bled Olympiad, 2002.

The combination of b3 and Rb1 enabled White to build a pawn chain on the queenside with c4, which Black could not break up because his bishop on b7 was vulnerable (this was the point of Rb1). After Leko has blockaded the queenside, he shifted to an attack on the other wing, thematic play in the Breyer.

Playing out this game, I was reminded of a much earlier one, Spassky-Unzicker, Santa Monica, 1966. Spassky managed to neutralize Unzicker's counterplay on the queenside, then mounted a decisive attack on the kingside.

Also Anand-Kamsky from the 1990's... I forget the year but it was either Sanghi Nagar or the later Candidates match. Anand's innovation was b2-b3, with the idea of using the bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal.

The combination of b3 and Rb1 enabled White to build a pawn chain on the queenside with c4, which Black could not break up because his bishop on b7 was vulnerable (this was the point of Rb1).

-- Posted by: Dave50 at March 4, 2008 14:10

White often plays this idea against the QGD Tartakower as well, playing Ra1-b1 at some point to indirectly menace the UNDEFENDED fianchettoed Black b7-bishop and thus threaten b4xc5 or b4xa5 at an inopportune time for Black.

Magnus gets another gift from Topalov. Is this a complot ?

Round 12

Anand-Leko 0.5 - 0.5
Shirov-Aronian 0.5 - 0.5
Ivanchuk-Radjabov 0.5 - 0.5
Carlsen-Topalov 1.0 - 0.0

Grand Prix Participants.

http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1607

As far as I can see the people who declined participation in the Grand Prix are Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Morozevich and Shirov.

That's a serious blow to the whole Grand Prix system if most of the top 5 and half the top ten are not participating. I'm honestly rather surprised at that decision making on their part. It must be that there were some truly onerous terms in the contract.

I wish Fischer were still around to tell us what he thought of these games, Carlsen's in particular.

Great game Shirov-Aronian; looking at it when I came home on ICC it seemed to be just another boring Marshall draw but then I saw the knight promo :)

I am gratified to see that many of the strongest players in the world are not willing to blindly follow the dictates of FIDE.

Yes the next World championship is already in trouble. Either all three big shots Anand, Kramnik and Topalov think that they are going to be the next world champion or they are thinking of retiring by 2010-2011 or they doubt the legitimacy or method of next cycle. In any case this is damaging to the chess. We want all of them to fight and then one of them or someone else crowned as champion. Anyway, FIDE has never done anything correct in its ling history, its foolish to expect it to do it now. Still does anyone know how this list came about? I tried to make a list by the criteria given by FIDE. But could not go down the list to Wang. Or it means so many people refused to play in Grand Prix. Like Judit must have refused,so is the case of Ponomariov, Akopian, Rustam and Alekseev. Lack of transparency again from FIDE.
Anyway Linares this year is an exciting affair! Great chess till end in most cases. With blunders by Chucky, Shirov and Topalov everyone is justified to play till end just to hope for one from his/her opponent.

Leko needs to get rid of his father in law as a coach and get himself a new coach.

Leko needs to get rid of his father in law as a coach and get himself a new coach.
Posted by: lovely at March 4, 2008 21:06

only that then he'll have to get himself a new wife too :P

"I wish Fischer were still around to tell us what he thought of these games, Carlsen's in particular."

He'd have made some pissy comment about not following "the old chess", if he made any comment at all.

Veselin, Veselin, what did you do?? :-(( Played beautifully, and then lost his sense of danger. Oh well, great effort as always.

>Veselin, Veselin, what did you do?? :-(( Played beautifully, and then lost his sense of danger.>

The kid keeps the game complicated however unsound may be his choices.
It is a logical approach, he uses his natural
advantage and plays them to exhaustion, until they start blundering.
It is easier to maintain a high level of tactical alertness for hours when you are 17.

All +30 yr old player should be allowed to use during the game the new generation stimulant-drugs ( as "provigil", etc) so to keep it fair. There's no chess wisdom to be learnt from Alexei's Ke5 or Veselin's Nc6.

"I wish Fischer were still around to tell us what he thought of these games, Carlsen's in particular."

FIXED! THE GAMES ARE ALL FIXED!

I propose we raise a petition: Ovidiu substitutes Joel Benjamin and joins Mig as a commentator for ChessFM broadcasts.
Sign here.

A rare pawn promotion to something other than a queeen:

From Shirov-Aronian (12) 2008-03-4

59.f8N+! Not 59.f8Q??

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4489

"All +30 yr old player should be allowed to use during the game the new generation stimulant-drugs ( as "provigil", etc) so to keep it fair."

The players are allowed to use whatever they want, including provigil, as long as the "stimulant" is not digital.

Yes, Gene, that is rare.

Seeing your comment I'd assumed that the underpromtion would either give checkmate, avoid giving stalemate, or force the win of opposing queen (via fork, or if opponent's only legal move was giving up queen for newborn N). Those seem like fairly common sources of underpromotion in published high-level games.

But the type of underpromotion seen here, where the newborn N neither mates nor wins any enemy material right away, but simply becomes part of the game for the longer term...that is very rare indeed. I recall just one or two famous games where that happened, plus one amateur-level example that was famous among us amateurs for a time: It was Lewis Cohen vs. John Meyer, from a US Open I think, mid- to late-1970s. Game went on a long time with one side having 3 N's.

"The kid keeps the game complicated however unsound may be his choices.
It is a logical approach, he uses his natural
advantage and plays them to exhaustion, until they start blundering.
It is easier to maintain a high level of tactical alertness for hours when you are 17."

That Carlsen-Topalov game was over before the first time control, ie. it was less than four hours. Hardly exhausting for any of these pros.

Mig, shouldn't you change that 'Who is Mig' link on the left into 'Where is Mig'? :)

> There's no chess wisdom to be learnt from Alexei's Ke5 or Veselin's Nc6.

Chess wisdom I: Some games are decided by blunders.

Chess wisdom II: Playing close to the edge for some time consumes one's energy and increases the likelihood to blunder.

Chess wisdom III: Old men should draw.

"I propose we raise a petition: Ovidiu substitutes Joel Benjamin and joins Mig as a commentator for ChessFM broadcasts.
Sign here."

Why because you enjoy listening to empty bromides and cliche piled upon cliche?

In his deepest subconscious, Topalov has long realized that he's an "odd-man out" in the chess world (how many photos have you seen of VT talking and laughing with other top GMs?), that his relationship with Danailov is the cause, and that the best practical way to dissolve that relationship is to makes loads of blunders.

Anand must be fit to be tied. Vishy is a solid plus 3, and yet he cannot pull away from Carlsen. If he were the paranoid sort, he'd probably feel that the other GMs are throwing points to Carlsen. Not only are players failing to win favorable positions, but they end up losing them....

Kamsky must be liking his chops at the prospects of playing these noodle spined GMs, and applying a little pressure at the right moment

Does anybody know whether Radjabov and Aronian have been shaking hands prior to their Chess Games? I haven't heard of any controversy, but both players might be tacitly opting to forego the ritual...

Is it just me or does Aronian seem to be hanging on by a thread in his game against Carlsen? White a2-rook, totally out of play and doing absolutely nothing, is the cause of Aronian's problems.

Darn--Aronian-Carlsen drawn in a bewildering position. Maybe time was short.

Mig,
Please update everyday with a new entry, even with a brief comment or a single line, because it's so annoying to comment on r13 in r11's section.

Does anyone know what's wrong with Shirov again? Everybody loves his fighting spirit and attacking style, but it's nice to have some solid results for a top GM like him from time to time. This level of shakiness is not pleasant for neither for him nor his fans.

Nothing is wrong with Shirov, like Morozevich, he has always been inconsistent with his game. On fire one day and drowning the next, so-to-speak.

problem with shirov is the city, linares :)

So Where is Mig?????

"So where is Mig?????"

Do you mean that you cannot see his posting?
Hmm, this template error seems to get worse day by day.

Saludos,

JSJ

In Carlsen-Radjabov, could anyone inform me as to the motivation behind Radjabov's pawn move to g5?

The move g5 was to avoid losing :-)

Henrik! Congratulations to your son on another great tournament. Well, 2nd place behind Anand is not bad!

It seems the Carlsen's clear second (above Aronian) shut up Mig...

I have a bad feeling about Mig. I think the people making snide remarks here might regret it later.

http://fide.com/news/download/gp_2008_schedule.pdf

This is insane. The Grand Prix is insane. Two free days (OMG TWO FREEDAYS!!!) in a 13 round tournament! That, and the anti-draw rule would cause extreme fatigue and horrible chess.

I can't believe it.

Any body knows if Mig is alright?

I don't believe these people. They play insanely quick draws; (see: Grischuk-Kramnik Mexico City), one round a day, and moan about not being rested enough. SUCK IT UP. Carlsen and Topalov are the only two top players that can complain about this, because they actually fight all their games. If I was being payed $10,000 to play chess for 14 days, I would play my heart out to satisfy the organizer's every whim. The current system is very convoluted.

Would you recline if Kramnik offered you a draw? If you would get the $10,000 anyway?

Just a common sense note: I think Mig is either travelling home or enjoying a free day in Spain or having just a rest day after time consuming tournament.

At least I hope so :)

>Any body knows if Mig is alright ?

Nobody knows. We are in a situation similar to which Topalov was during Kramnik's disappearances in the bathroom.
Perhaps nothing special happened to Mig, but, after all, who can tell for sure ?

One interesting point Magnus was unable to find anything against Radjabovs Schlieman although he knew almost for certain that is what he would face. Although the game lasted a while Radjabov equalised out of the opening and it is surely just a matter of time before we see it becoming very popular. It seems a lot simpler than the Marshall for example.As for Mig he has gone a bit silent for what is supposed to be a daily blog

Mig got laid, and that just put everything in perspective...

Mig has given up chess, and he is now reporting on golf!

>One interesting point Magnus was unable to find anything against Radjabovs Schlieman although he knew almost for certain that is what he would face. >

He chose wise, I guess. Schilemann is a nightmare-opening.
There are loads of tricky-lines and abnormal-positions and you can lose fast if you enter the complications head on (and unprepared).
At some point there was a yahoo.group dedicated only to analyze it.

[Date "1903"]
[White "Harry Nelson Pillsbury"]
[Black "Siegbert Tarrasch"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.exf5 e4 6.Qe2 Qe7 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.Nh4 d5 9.d4 a5 10.Bg5 Ba6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qh5+ Kd7 13.Ng6 Qxd4! 14.Nxh8 Bc5 15.Qh4 Rxh8 16.Rd1 Qb4 17.Qg4 Kd8 18.Qxg7 Re8 19.Qf6+ Kd7 20.a3 Qb6 21.Rd2 e3 -+ (0-1) 83.

Karpov Anatoli - Tseitlin Ma, 1971
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 Nd4 5.Ba4 Nf6 6.Nxe5 fxe4 7.0-0 Bc5 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Nxg6 Nf6 11.Qe5+ Be7 12.Nxh8 b5 13.Qxd4 bxa4 14.Re1 Kf8 15.d3 Rb8 16.Qe5 Ng8 17.Qh5 Kg7 18.Nf7 Qe8 19.Bh6+ Nxh6 20.Qxh6+ Kxf7 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Re3 Rb6 23.Rg3 1-0

>>>>In Carlsen-Radjabov, could anyone inform me as to the motivation behind Radjabov's pawn move to g5?
Posted by: Gutting at March 7, 2008 13:33

>>>>The move g5 was to avoid losing :-)
Posted by: Henrik C. at March 7, 2008 15:24

The point of my question is that I am too poor at chess to understand why the move is necessary. Anybody able to teach a patzer a little something?

"The point of my question is that I am too poor at chess to understand why the move is necessary"
The idea is that if Radja does nothing, white will play g4-g5, locking black down completely. I'm not sure if black will necessarily lose if he allows this, but it sure looks uncomfortable.

And there is no reason to allow it, as g5 ensures mobility and scope for black's pieces, resulting in an easy (at this level, anyway) draw.

My point about the Schleimann is that Radjabov is not playing it as a surprise weapon but up front as his main e4 defense. Tricky unusual openings have always had a place at the top level on an occasional unpredictable basis but not consistently in someones repertoire. Its amazing that 4 ...f5 (a weakening non developing move) appears to be a very good sound defense to the Ruy Lopez. How long before Kramnik and the others give it a whirl? Its bad enough having the Petroff and the Caro kahn but if this is a good for quick equality it could get quite dull for e4 players at least at the top levels. Anand Topalov Polgar Carlsen no one made the slightest impression against this f5 thing. Notice also how the main line of the Caro gave deadly quick level positions which has confirmed my view that white has got zero ways to get an edge against this (Leko even managed to lose!)

Thank you wingit, I understand much better now.

Hmm now I dont even got the latest comments anymore????

But atleast the so-called template error seems to be gone.

I wonder if the "template-error" has something to do about the comments and where the last comment has been posted.

>Its amazing that 4 ...f5 (a weakening non developing move) appears to be a very good sound defense to the Ruy Lopez.>

well now, some have even argued that 3.Bb5 is "obviously" a strategic mistake, (losing a tempo by misplacing the bishop, it should "naturally" go to c4/the a2-f7 diagonal)

3..f5 is a positional move, just as 2.f4 in KingG or 2.c4 in QG or 2.b4 in the ScilianG, which aims
to achieve complete control of the center after first deflecting sideways thorough sacrifice the opponent's central pawns.
(4.d3 in Sch. or 2..c6 in Slav says
'thanks, but no thanks' to this offer).

Well the idea that 3Bb5 can be a strategic mistake is just silly and the fact is that 3Bc4 just doesnt cut it and is not played consisistently by any top 50 player - despite the occasional Evans Gambit or Giuco Piano. Kramnik is on record as regarding 2f4 as white just throwing away his 1st move advantage and it is not remotely comparable with 2 c4 in the Queens Gambit. Yes it has some centre effect but its also about opening the file and it is a weakening move that does nothing for piece development. Maybe the best comparison of a reasonable early black f5 is with the dutch defense an opening incidentally that (a very young)Radjabov gave up after some hammerings and switching to the KID! But boy do you need a great memory to play this stuff a slip and your dead meat. Just look at Shirov's crushing win against Radj KID where the latter got confused early in a game that surely sent Fischer spinning in his grave. You have to love the guy to have the balls to play the Schliemann again and again though. I could see guys like Aronian Toplaov and Shirov having a go after Radj has shown the way lets hope so. For me its an influence of intense computer aided analysis that allows this stuff to be played.

Sincerely hope Mig is ok? Not like him to wander off for so long without explanation.

BTW - the Jaehnisch Gambit (to the best of my remembrance Schliemann's variation is a little different...) - is not refuted, yet.

it's a matter of taste, isn't it?

:)

As to "Where is Mig?", /The Other Russia/ http://www.theotherrussia.org/ has several updates dated March 7, i.e. Friday. Remember Mig has a role there too.

off-topic

Middle Israel: Vladimir Putin and the end of history, By AMOTZ ASA-EL

Nearly two decades after so many in a euphoric West celebrated "the end of history" - Russia is anything but free, whether politically, economically or spiritually. And it's all by design.

PUTIN'S MAIN message has been that the demise of communism and the Warsaw Pact, and even the arrival of former communist states in the EU and NATO, don't yet spell freedom's historic victory. Instead, the world has been introduced to a new authoritarianism, one which emulates the kind overseen a generation ago by Chile's Augusto Pinochet.

However, back when it was cultivated in Latin America, this combination of political oppression and economic freedom posed no threat to Western power or dogma. Russia is a different matter. Under Putin, the world's largest country, with its military might and mineral riches, has come to spearhead the counter-revolution no one saw coming in the heady days when the Berlin Wall fell.
The counter-democratic international today comprises China's quasi-communists, Russia's proto-capitalists and the Middle East's assorted fundamentalists. While there are differences among them - the Islamists think that we're infidels, the Russians that we're idiots, and the Chinese don't care what we think - they also share a cause, which is to actively obstruct democracy's advance. Now, having contained the totalitarian collapse in 1989, this newly confident cabal is on the counterattack.

Middle Israel: Vladimir Putin and the end of history

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1204546417112&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

That Jerusalem Post essay Ovidiu just quoted sounds like a warmed-over version of a long piece I read in Foreign Policy magazine last summer (Or was it Foreign Affairs? I don't usually read ruling-class think-tank thought, but was staying at my brother-in-law in Wash. DC area and they soak up that stuff the way we New Yorkers soak up the latest financial news and analysis).

The high-end version took a historical perspective starting with World War II: It explicitly argued that the intellectual framework for belief in a contest between "freedom" and "unfreedom" (or whatever you want to call the latter), was built in the immediate aftermath of World War II when the Western policy-intellectual establishment basically lumped Communism, Nazism and Fascism together in the "unfreedom" camp.

The resulting theories posited that freedom won in large part due to structural economic advantages. They helped sustain and elaborate the belief that freedom is superior not only from a moral, human-rights point of view, but also from an instrumental/efficiency point of view...making western capitalism's ascendancy in the postwar period appear inevitable.

The authors of the article, however, conclude that the prevailing theory (about why "freedom" prevailed) might be wrong - and that, as a result, the challenge posed by Russia and China today is greater than commonly believed. (I don't believe those authors included contemporary Islamofascism in their model, as the J-post author evidently does.)

The crux of the error in the theory, they said, is that it conflated different systems with different degrees of staying power. Communism's failure was indeed inevitable, due to its inherent and irremediable economic ineptitude. But that's not true of Nazism or Fascism, according to the authors. Germany and Italy were defeated in war, but due to what the authors categorize as (I'm oversimplifying here) historical accidents; their versions of statist economics weren't necessarily inefficient or ineffective, the way Communism was. (To buttress the latter point, the authors cited various economic data from Germany et al from the 1930s-40s period.) By analogy, the authors concluded that the authoritarian, statist models represented by today's Russia and China won't necessarily lose out in competition with the Western model.

We'll now all await the Final Word from His Holiness, Lord Koster, as to the validity of all this.

KWRegan, Mig's latest post on http://www.theotherrussia.org/author/admin/ dates Feb 4, 2008. Of course unclear how accurate that is.

I'm worried about Mig. :( Anybody know where he is yet?

I hope something like this didn't happen to Mig!

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Frozen-Body.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

If he was OK on 9/11/01 (I emailed him that evening, and he responded quickly), he's OK now. But bloggers are allowed to have lives, which often include personal emergencies....

I do worry about Billmon of Whiskey Bar, however.

I think the Chinese, Russian, and Islamic cause is to defend themselves against subjugation by the US. They are not worried by democracy, but by imperialism.

"they also share a cause, which is to actively obstruct democracy's advance"

Guys dont go to this other Russia site - its really tedious I had a look to see if I could spot any Mig trails. But its a pretty bad site (sorry Mig)it might help if they could fit the page on the screen

Here is front page post "Unknown pranksters have changed all the toilet paper in Russia’s lower house of Parliament with rolls that bear the logo of the Kommersant newspaper" There follows a picture of the toilet paper complete with offending logo. Hot stuff. Maybe Mig had to go out there to take a picture of the toilet paper on his mobile phone. Or perhaps Kasparov was there for a call of nature and took a sneaky pic and emailed it to Mig to be uploaded. Who pays for this crappy website - the CIA?

Whats with this Russia's a police state gig anyway? Kaspy was born and brought up on Baku with an armenian mum and married a Russian dancer(?) and got nationality and then it became his country. He doesnt know how lucky he is - in America he would not be allowed to run for the presidency cos you have to be born in USA - sob thats why Arnie is not the president. Its not like Russia has ever had a democratic system ever. After the wall came down it was supposedly ruled by that alcoholic twit Yeltsin who, when he was not downing 3 bottles of yer finest vodka a day was busy giving away most of the country to his family and friends billions and billions of dollars.

Come back Mig all is forgiven you can tell us how your house got blown up or your rabbit escaped or whatever - us chess druggies need you .....

> I think the Russian, and Islamic cause is to defend themselves against subjugation by the US. They are not worried by democracy, but by imperialism.>

This is very likely thr true cause, at least for Democrat Popular Republic of North-Korea (RPDNC) since it is already a democracy.

Well, let's take China. It is for all practical purposes not communist and has no interest in spreading its system all over the world. China will have no issue with democracy in, for example, Sweden. It is ridiculous to think they have a state cause to 'actively obstruct' democracy.

The US is weak model for democracy, and a stronger model for a culture of personal (rather than political) freedom. It is definitely an active imperial power.

Eventually, the US may evolve towards a mature democracy with active participation by an educated and informed citizenry. But that's China's ideal too.

Great point about PDRK, Ovidiu. In a similar way, China too is a great democracy with no state cause to "actively obstruct" democracy. Machine gunning down thousands of people in Tiananmen square? Of course! Those street hooligans and thugs were a threat to the great democratic State institutions of the people's republic.

And in comparison to Russia, the US is a fascist, repressive country when it comes to political freedom. For example, if you want to run for President outside of the two imperialistic, hegemonic, ruling parties in the US, you probably won't get invited to the debates on TV (unless there are a lot of people who are interested in what you have to say, e.g Ross Perot).

>Great point about PDRK, Ovidiu. In a similar way, China too is a great democracy with no state cause to "actively obstruct" democracy. >

China is, of course, a political sinkhole but it may change in the forseeable future.
I hope so because there is an underlying relation between the economical system and the political freedoms. The forces which the communists have allowed to unfold there (for the sake of economics) will end up changing people's minds too and then act to undermine the system.
Not that China will become soon anything close to what US and Europe is now when it comes to respect of liberties and life (orient is orient, life has always been cheap there)
but I hope for an overall movement in the right direction in the next decades.

I hope you are right that economic freedom leads to political freedom in China. The economic loosening began in 1979, but I don't see any signs of political loosening (but then again, I haven't paid much attention to China for the past 20 years and may have missed something). There were high expectations in the late '80s, but those were shot down in Tiananmen.

Yes, the idea that economic freedom requires political freedom was conventional wisdom 20 years ago (it was thought to apply just about anywhere, not just China) but these days it's been for the most part discredited.

For counterexamples, you don't even have to limit yourself to governments that massacre people: Singapore, for instance, has been a huge success with total economic freedom combined with a one-party political state that bears some similarity with Putin's Russia. Malaysia also has a reasonably successful capitalist economy combined with de facto one-party rule with many authoritarian trappings (Google "Anwar and Malaysia" to get a feel for what I'm talking about) - although the elections there this past weekend may herald a change.

See my previous post, which provides some intellectual framework for how the discussion has evolved in recent years.

All good points on complex issues.

Among governments that massacre people, the contribution of the US, in pursuit of its own political interests, to the death rate in Iraq should be remembered.

For Westerners to be sure: "orient is orient, life has always been cheap there"

>Singapore, for instance, has been a huge success with total economic freedom combined with a one-party political state that bears some similarity with Putin's Russia.>

Singapore is 4.6 mil population who has benefited from the British rule and then by mimicking (and following the advice of) the western world. The statue of Thomas Stamford is erected at the location where he first landed at Singapore and he is recognized as the founder of modern Singapore.

The problem is that with this, 2nd hand, approach to life you can go on (and do quite well in fact) only as long as there is someone else whose success you can imitate and whose failures you can avoid (both are function the political freedom of the West to invent, try and even be wrong without being hanged for it).

As far as their own ideas are concerned they prefer authoritarainism and to lead the Orient in who has the highest rate for the death penalty ( I thought that China or Iran leads, but it seems that it is Singapore).

They will do fine as long as they are things that they can copy from West ( from Rolex watches to prices for goods) but that's not what something that would work for those who are supposed to lead the world, as Russia or China.

Somebody has to be free to think so as other can benefit from imitating.

Mig has been assassinated by agents of the Canadian company MonRoi.

Oh wait... can I get sued for saying that?

Please go to

http://www.gettingto2000.blogspot.com/

for another chess problem. It's a Bishop ending, can Black hold?

When does round 12 begin?

when Mig comes back

Mig is hiding in the closet and won't come out.

Ovidiu makes a very big assumption that Singapore has benefited mainly because of western advice. Then why have other countries not reached the same level after following the same western advice for decades? I believe we need to give credit where it is due. They have built a system based on its Asian values and addressing the specific needs of the society.

Democracy is not a perfect system and no such system exists in its true sense. All political systems adopted by nations are a composite of different systems. What works in the west may not work in Singapore, China or Iraq. The U.S. has ONLY allowed every citizen to vote in the last 40 years. Yet the U.S. goes around touting this democratic model of inclusion and it is a society that was not borne from this tradition.

Someone said freedoms were shot down in Tianamen Square. If you go to China today (I just returned yesterday), you will see unprecedented growth and freedoms that we hear do not exist. Every western establishment is in China... even Hooters! Certainly the Internet is regulated (and even my website is blocked), but Shanghai and Beijing appear like any other industrial city. I only fear at the rate of growth and the terrible air pollution.

I believe that the Chinese government will have to make a decision on how to sustain growth over a steady period. One Chinese told me that Shanghai had no tall buildings when he left in 1994. Now if you go up in the Jin Mao tower (4th tallest in the world), the scene of urban sprawl is astounding. Now tall buildings should not be the measurement of prosperity, but people are doing much better as a whole and appear to be riding a wave of prosperity.

Overall I believe China has avoided many of the problems that has dogged Russia in their evolution into a free market. They have approached it from a gradualist standpoint whereas Russia was encouraged to build a free-market system overnight. The market immediately crashed, the ruble died, banks went insolvent and there was rampant corruption. A case study of China vs. Russia would be instructive.

Daaim, the legacy of the West includes science, free enterprise, and most aspects of "modernization". I don't think there's any question that Singapore has benefitted mightily from these. There's also no question that Singapore has benefitted mightily from its Chinese roots. As for "benefitted mainly", that's neither decidable or meaningful.

Is it possible for us to lose this ethnocentrism that would lead to such a bogus statement as "The legacy of the West includes science", being that every society in the world has science of some sort? The West does not hold a monopoly on scientific research, nor is there any reason to believe that we are the most exceptional at discovering things about the world or developing technology. The only reason our legacy includes "modernization" is because we regard only things that are consistent with our ethnocentrism as "modernized".

Hotep,

Maliq

>Is it possible for us to lose this ethnocentrism that would lead to such a bogus statement as "The legacy of the West includes science" ?>

It isn't bogus, it the history of the mankind.
Nearly all scientific progress, and all important scientific and artistic ideas, were made by white Europeans or their descendants (such as white Americans, Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment

Ovidiu,

You're citing wikipedia??

There are so many examples if you do not live in a historic bubble. In addition, you need to realize that this book is only referring to categories such as "Western Philosophy" and "Western Music" and not overall rankings.

Certainly the Chinese, the Muslims (both in Africa and the Middle East) and also Indians (both east and native Americans) have much to contribute to this debate. What would the world be like if you have to use Roman numerals instead of Arabic? The game of chess came from the east!

Of course, the ancient Egyptians use of advanced mathematics geometry and produced the pyramids and to this day, no western scientist has figured out how they were built. Many of the pharmaceuticals you have in your medicine cabinet were derived from remedies from the jungles of either Africa, Asia or Latin America from people who we claim are "primitive" and "backward."

What about the Dogon people of Mali who understand complex star systems without the use of telescopes. The Western astronomists did not believe the Dogon cosmology of "Sirius" until they trained their powerful telescopes toward the clouds and in their marvel, had to confirm what the Dogon had known for eons. We also know that westerners thought the earth was flat while that knowledge has long been disproven.

Certainly western science has made advancements, but we should not try to raise them at the exclusion of others. We have benefited from all... although I somehow think some modern technologies have done more harm to our social health than good.

As for art, that is all relative and depends on how one views art. It's clearly subjective. I remember the legendary conductor Daniel Bariboim of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra making a statement when someone derisively asked him about rap music. He said some like, "Music has eight notes, but there are variations in pitch, tone and emphasis. All forms of music have their own character and should be respected in their own light." The crowd went quiet because they didn't expect such as answer.

As one who appreciates Hector Berlioz as well as Tupac, I can also appreciate the music from the 88-key piano and from the one-stringed berimbou (played with a stick). It clearly depends on the cultural context... and the enlightment one can find in various artforms.
Ethnocentrism is not enlightenment.

>Ovidiu,You're citing wikipedia??

You followed the link, you found that I was citing Murray's study, thus what is the point of your outrage ?

>Ethnocentrism is not enlightenment.

"ethnocentrism" is a buzz-word, an attempt to thought control (to censor debate) by using loaded, condemning, labeling.

as for Zulus, I will read them when they produce a Tolstoy

And, Ovidiu, it's simple ageism and professionocentrism to pay so much attention to Linares instead of the games of the eight 3rd and 4th graders in my "beginning chess" course. Therefore, the weaving patterns of the Navajo are just as important to the advancement of science as any dead white males.

Daaim :

Very good response to Ovidiu. But a person of your erudition should know when not to respond to trolls.

as for Zulus, I will read them when they produce a Tolstoy..Posted by: Ovidiu at March 11, 2008 10:44
That is the seal of approval the whole Zulu race has been waiting for. They must hurry to produce a Tolstoy and earn the approbation of the great Ovidiu.Being read by Ovidiu is the ultimate sign of civilization.

No, producing Tolstoy is the sign of civilization.

Well, the "West" has produced a lot of things, but its not necessary to conflate it with "white". There are many black westerners/ Europeans, and if there were white Zulus they would probably not be all that creative either.

As for inventing Arabic numbers, or the idea of 'zero' - OK fine but it really was an idea waiting to happen. I doubt that without Arabs we would be stuck on MMVIII today. Its just not that deep compared with Einstein's theories or nice Japanese electronics.

Western science began with alchemy, a word that means "Egypt" (Al-Kemet). Fact is, Europe was colonized by Africa via the Middle East, and the technology of Egypt was outsourced to "white Europeans" as it will be outsourced in the future to India and china. European science, language and religion all originate in Africa.

If anyone is interested, you can see what has come of the "Communist" China. I have more photos and I may "flicker" them. My only disappointment was that I couldn't find anything but xiang qi or Chinese chess. I went looking for Bu Xiangzhi and could not find him. Also the pollution is an issue and I read today in the New York Times that Haile Gebriselassie is pulling out of the Olympic marathon due to Beijing's pollution. Yes... industrialization has a price.

Enjoy the photos!

http://www.thechessdrum.net/blog/?p=188

"Nobody knows. We are in a situation similar to which Topalov was during Kramnik's disappearances in the bathroom. Perhaps nothing special happened to Mig, but, after all, who can tell for sure?" --Ovidiu

The surest indicator of the highly civilized white European male is his ability to insert a "Kramnik/bathroom" reference into every Daily Dirt thread.

The accomlishments and successes of western culture (e.g., science and free-enterprise) have nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with culture.

And it does little honor to other cultures to make tenuous and trifling arguments that their contributions are somehow responsible or underlie western science. For example, to make the argument that the Europe's building of a strong foundation of science in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s is really an "outsourcing" of Egyptian culture sounds absurd and makes Egypt look pathetic. Egypt is an ancient and spectacular land with amazing culture and history. There's no need to belittle it by suggesting its claim to fame is that it played a tenuous and miniscule role in the development of modern western culture. Let's celebrate Egypt qua Egypt.

Actually, language originated in the middle east, then went to Egypt, and then to Europe. But before that, people went from Africa to (everywhere else) so maybe it did all begin in Africa.

Hopefully by now people have realized I am providing only irony, and intend that they understand just how silly discussing the contributions of geographical areas to human development is.

Peace.

gmc,
How do you know language originated in the middle east? It's not conclusively proven. The early group going out of Africa might already have language, for all we know.