Azerbaijan was crowned the European Team champion today after squeaking out a win over the outperforming Dutch squad in the final round. At the same time they got some help from the Spanish team, who held Russia to a draw. Had the Russians won (or Azerbaijan drawn), Russia would have taken the title on the first tiebreak, the board points that should be used to decide victory in the first place. Grumble. Several unlikely things happened in the final round to send the second-seeded Boys from Baku home with the trophy. First, Russian 4th board Alekseev had to get blown off the board by Spain's Ivan Salgado, a 170-point underdog. That evened the match after Morozevich beat Vallejo with black on board two.
Hard to say what inspired the theoretically-obsessed Alekseev to play a very risky French that left him struggling to survive from the start. White has a fantastic score in this h7 sac line. Alekseev defended it successfully against Mamedyarov earlier this year, however, so maybe just bad luck for him and a very powerful game from Salgado to play the spoiler. And/or Alekseev just wasn't ready for the immediate 13.h4 the Spaniard played -- followed by 14.h5 and 15.h6 and 16.h7! Excelsior! Something to be said for single-mindedness.
Then it was up to Vugar Gashimov, who had an extra pawn in a rook endgame against Stellwagen with the other three games already drawn. With six moves to draw on move 70, either retreating the rook along the file to check from behind or moving it along the rank to check from the side, the Dutchman put the tower behind the pawn where it was too close to the white king. (70..Kd4 loses for the same reason. b4, c4, h3, h3, or h1 are natural drawing squares. e4 also draws, cutting off the white king to keep it in front of the pawn, but that's unnecessarily exotic.) Tough to hold up under such pressure, no doubt, and let's think about the joy it must have been for Gashimov and the Azerbaijani team.
Other big favorites Ukraine and Armenian finished 3-4. Aronian failed to light much of a fire on board one this time around. Eljanov turned in an excellent performance on board one, which has been occupied by Ivanchuk pretty much forever, with a brief cameo by Ponomariov. (Chucky was playing in the turgid Unive tournament instead.) Bulgaria was the 4th seed, but that was entirely due to Topalov's massive 2813. And he didn't help much, falling ill and playing only four games, scoring +1 and shrinking the distance between him and Carlsen to just four points on the live list. Cheparinov failed to raise his game to fill in, making an even score well below his rating. Someone who did raise his game to fill in was Jon Ludvig Hammer, who made a 2800 performance for Norway while keeping Magnus Carlsen's first-board seat warm after the teen sensation dropped out at the last minute.
I've been buried with a book proposal and a few other projects, each more urgent than the last, so I haven't had much of a chance to look at the games. But once again the amateur Brit comes to the rescue. Luke McShane, fresh from bashing Cheparinov, played the Brave Sir Robin Variation against Shengelia in the sixth round with white. 1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d4 3.Nc3 a6 4.h3 Nf6 5.e5 Ne4 6.Nb1!?! The knight bravely runs away, away! And it gets better. 6..Qb6 7.Qe2 h6 8.d3 Ng5 9.Nh2!? The black knight is a terror, causing the white knights to flee. Naturally McShane went on to win in just 32 moves, or this wouldn't really be very funny at all. And Aronian-Shirov was a wild battle that lived up to expectations.
"1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d4 3.Nc3 a6 4.h3 Nf6 5.e5 Ne5 6.Nb1!?! The knight bravely runs away, away! And it gets better. 6..Qb6 7.Qe2 h6 8.d3 Ng5 9.Nh2!?"
This Caro-Kann Two Knights Attack was an interesting game.
"Aronian failed to light much of a fire on board one this time around."
Not just this time (4.5/8, TPR 2707), look at his results for Armenia in previous team events:
2008 Dresden Olympiad 5.5/10 (TPR 2743 - better but not very super either)
2007 European Team Championship 4.5/8 (TPR 2700)
2006 Calvia Olympiad 7/11 (TPR 2768 - ooops ... this was the last team event decided on board points rather than match points)
So currently, Aronian's role seems to be mostly to "hold" board 1, and they rely on the lower boards to score decisive points [hard to say if this is a deliberate strategy, but it could be]. Incidentally, Radjabov did the same for Azerbaijan (4.5/9, TPR 2677).
Related, the ETC has some funny implications for the ELO situation on the World top:
- Topalov hardly played (and decided so _during_ the tournament)
- Carlsen didn't play (and decided so just before the tournament)
- Anand didn't play (no questions asked, India isn't part of Europe ...)
- Aronian didn't impress
- Kramnik didn't play (and said so well before the tournament)
This leaves Gashimov as the big winner - now solidly #6 on the live rating list (and tomorrow on the official list, if the tournament is already rated). BTW, he is now about 20-25 points ahead of Radjabov, posing a problem to the Azeri organizers of the candidates event: who should get the wildcard? I guess they now hope - even more - that Radjabov will qualify via Grand Prix or World Cup ...
Gotta assume that either Mig copy pasted those moves from a dodgy source, or else I gotta start a new course in notation.
These are the correct moves from McShane-Shengelia:
1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 a6 4. h3 Nf6 5. e5 Ne4 6. Nb1 Qb6 7. Qe2 h6 8. d3 Ng5 9. Nh2 Ne6 10. c3 g5 11. g3 d4 12. Bg2 Nd7 13. O-O Bg7 14. Nf3 h5 15. Nxg5 Nxe5 16. Na3 dxc3 17. Nxe6 Bxe6 18. bxc3 Rd8 19. Rb1 Qa5 20. d4 Nd7 21. Rxb7 Qxc3 22. Bb2 Qa5 23. d5 cxd5 24. Bxg7 Rg8 25. Qb2 Rxg7 26.Qxg7 Qxa3 27. f4 Qc5+ 28.Kh2 d4 29. Re1 Rc8 30. Re5 Qc2 31. Rxh5 Nf8 32. Rh8 1-0
So "Robin the first" ended up on a3 until it was captured; "Robin the second" reentered on f3 a few moves later.
Modern chess!? Will we see more of this at the London supertournament?
"Modern chess!? Will we see more of this at the London supertournament?"
Let's see... Nakamura is participating, Short is participating... did we really need to muse?
Congratulations to Azerbaijan team with well-deserved win (a great summary by Mig as always). The team becomes real powehouse. Even with Radjabov being not at his best, the team delivered solid performance with Gashimov being a main star. Gashimov's latest raise is second only to Carlsen's and I wouldn't be surpised if he will be Azerbaijan's wildcard for pretendent match
Yes, a very good result, but don't forget to say thank you to Stellwagen for playing such a stupid move against Gashimov.
Thank you, Stellwagen, for handing us this win. Otherwise, everybody might have thought that we actually played well and actually deserved the first place. As it happens, we only got there because we are lucky that one guy on one board in one round made a mistake. None of the other teams had ever had a lucky win in any of the rounds of this tournament, and only we were lucky. Never mind that Vugar had to tenaciously fight for the win and find a forced line after Stellwagen just gave it to us on a golden plate. Never mind 9 long rounds of great and mostly dominating play. Never mind us winning more rounds than any other team, including the 2-d place Russians.
(I hope sarcasm is detectable)
Eh.. If only Luke had played instead of that Stellwagen...
( Openly sarcastic )
To make the Azeri thank you list complete, they also have to be grateful to Croatia (as early as round 1), the Netherlands (again) and Spain for drawing their matches against Russia. But this means just two things:
1) the Russians should blame themselves rather than Stellwagen for "losing gold" - still an achievement to get silver after their shaky start
2) unless you win all matches (and even then, as Luke might argue) you need some help from other teams to come in first.
About Gashimov: No doubt he has arrived at the absolute world top, now he has to confirm his status by frequently playing other top10 players - the FIDE GP is relevant, other supertournaments should be next. Not his fault that he wasn't invited yet, maybe now he will overtake Radjabov and Mamedyarov also in that respect.
I hate to have to admit this, but you are right. It was a stupid move. It was such a basic and simple rook and pawn position.
Mig said: "the board points that should be used to decide victory in the first place"
Never. This new system is much the better. It puts the emphasis on team performances and awards good play through-out the tournament. In the old system you could have 5-6 mediocre grounds and then get back to fighting for the medals with couple of 4-0's against weaker sides. Thus this new system is fairer too.
You mean Gashimov is really going to be 6 in the world?? Wow, maybe he'll climb more. or will go down? maybe he's part of the best players now, or just a fluke.
Mig,
I thought you were for the match points. I remember this conversation back in 2006. Many were upset that China got the Olympiad silver after they crushed many weaker teams while other contending teams beat up each other. The majority on this board was that match points be used.
Gashimov now IS #6 in the live rating list. Whether he will stay or even climb further, the future will tell - as I wrote, he needs to play other top10 players on a regular basis.
I checked on chessgames.com: If this database is complete, so far Gashimov played 10 classical games against #1-10 on the live rating list (+1=6-3), and NO games against Topalov, Anand or Kramnik. He played Anand and Kramnik in the Azerbaijan vs. World rapid match (0.5/4).
Based on his results in the FIDE GP tournaments, I think it is safe to say that he is "part of the best (20 or 30) players". By comparison, I would say the evidence for Nakamura is still insufficient - but unlike Gashimov Naka will play London and Corus A.
"Based on his results in the FIDE GP tournaments, I think it is safe to say that he is "part of the best (20 or 30) players""
Absolutely, in the Grand Prix he is ahead of players like Leko, Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Svidler, Karjakin and Jakovenko, and far ahead of most of them, after 3-4 tournaments each. He could still finish second in the whole series with a good result in the last event.
Stop Press: FIDE November 2009 Ratings- 1. Topalov 2. Carlsen 3. Anand 4. Aronian 5. Kramnik etc
Looks like Carlsen could make the no 1 spot in the next list if he has good results in the Tal Memorial and the London Classic.
Radjabov is ahead of Gashimov so it looks like the EU Club Ch didn't make this list.
Gelfand up to 6th..............
To Thomas: "...- Anand didn't play (no questions asked, India isn't part of Europe ..."
Is Azerbaijan? Is Israel? Is Armenia?
Azerbaijan: yes.
Israel: not in general, but in sports it is.
Armenia: yes.
Why are you asking?
Yes, I'm surprised that so many people on different sites claim with such certainty that Azerbaijan in no way is a European country, after their winning the ETC. Like Russia it has parts in both Europe and Asia but according to the most common definitions it is counted as a European country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_Europe
Generally agreed, but claiming that Gashimov is "far ahead" of most of these players is - while formally correct - a bit misleading: In three cases (Jakovenko, Ivanchuk, Gelfand) it simply reflects the fact that these players each had one bad tournament. Looking at the direct scores against some "competitors" gives the following picture (excluding draws): +2 against Grischuk, +1-1 against Svidler, -1 against Leko and Jakovenko.
And BTW, while Wang Yue is currently "slightly" ahead of Gashimov in the GP standings [only he and Radjabov can reach second place in the final standings without depending on other players' results], I would briefly summarize or interpret his results in other supertournaments as "he is unlikely to become world champion or serious WCh contender in the near future". Gashimov can prove something else - once he is given the chance.
@curzon only that much: In the context of my comment, all I said is that Anand couldn't play the ETC, even if he wanted to ... .
On the map, it looks like it is in Asia.
Hm. Where does your map say, is the border between Asia and Europe?
Quite curious, this unusual interest in one of the finer points of geography.
Anyhow, the decisive factor is probably membership in the European Chess Union. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Israel are members of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Chess_Union.
Geographically speaking Europe is usually said to end with the Caspian Sea to the east and the Caucasus Mountains to the south. Northeast Azerbaijan is north of the Caucasus Mountains, so in that respect it is (like Russia and Turkey) a country with part of its lands in Europe. From a socio-political point of view it is more European, and in everything from football to music and chess they (like Russia and Turkey) participate in the European competitions.
For sports events -- culture and location both matter.
Israel is "culturally" a European country -- thus it is included in Europe for many sports events.
And doesn't Europe "end" in a vague way at the Ural mountains? The nations of the Caucasus would seem more out of place playing China and Japan, no?
No, what are you guys talking about. We should exclude Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Israel from European competitions, because from our (real Europeans') perspective on the map it looks like they are all in Asia. And if we see it like that, it must be right. If we do that, real Europeans will finally have a shot at winning something in European competitions. These bloody Asians won't just let us enjoy our real Europeanness and to show how great we real Europeans are at playing chess.
Is Iceland in Europe? Bartleby should know.
The Ural, at approx. 60E separates Europe from Asia. Geographically, the center-of-mass of Europe lies somewhere between Warsawa and Kiev.
This is not including Greenland, which is a borderline case. Politically european, geographically north american.
Brilliant idea, Vugar - but how do we get rid of Ukraine? I guess we can keep Bulgaria, provided they play the way they did at the event.
Half serious: Taking geological boundaries into account - other ones are the Ural and Caucasus mountains and the Mediterranean Sea - Europe should end at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which passes halfway through Iceland. Assuming that most Icelandic players are from Reykjavik, they would actually be Americans? But, like other nations spread over two continents (e.g. Turkey) apparently they prefer Europe.
Fully serious: It should be known - but it cannot hurt to be mentioned - that Israel is not welcomed by its Asian Arab neighbors. I think this - rather than "cultural considerations" - is the reason that it is 'considered European'. Else Israeli players would be deprived of ANY international competitions below the world championship level.
"Israel is "culturally" a European country"
We are in for an interesting reclassification of the continents at this rate. Given the amount of crap American TV pouring out around the globe (no offence meant, Americans), the US must have some very elastic boundaries by now.
"that Israel is not welcomed by its Asian Arab neighbors"
Also, can we rephrase that to "relations between Israel and its neighbours are difficult".
"that Israel is not welcomed by its Asian Arab neighbors"
Also, can we rephrase that to "relations between Israel and its neighbours are difficult".
I would prefer the more honest "hated and warred upon by abysmal dictatorial regimes and terrorist cells that surround it." Israel is European by culture, ancestry, history and civility. It is surrounded by barbarity.
The way FIDE is going...I assume that al Qaida will have a team at the next Olympiad.
Israel is European by culture (?), ancestry (Semitic?), history (at least this one is somewhat correct) and civility (?), because once upon a time most of the Jews that inhabit it have been kicked out of Europe by the real Europeans. This way the real Europeans created a real European island in the midst of the sea of barbarity.
Please, no discussions about the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict. As always (cf. Armenia vs. Azerbaijan) both sides are at fault and to be blamed. But I dare to make two statements:
1) Some of its neighbors did or do deny Israel's very right of existence.
2) Europe (I wouldn't limit this to Germany ...) has some sort of historical responsibilities towards the Jewish/Israeli population - IMO, this doesn't mean blind support of Israeli politics.
Concerning an al Qaida team at the next Olympiad: Chess was officially forbidden under the (at least closely related) Taliban government in Afghanistan ... .
Israel is European by culture (?), ancestry (Semitic?), history (at least this one is somewhat correct) and civility (?), because once upon a time most of the Jews that inhabit it have been kicked out of Europe by the real Europeans. This way the real Europeans created a real European island in the midst of the sea of barbarity.
Yes, similar to how the USA and Canada are European nations on the North American continent.
Same principle.
Since the discussion is moving to lovely topics of cultures and civilities I just saw a report at www.azerisport.com (in russian) that during award ceremony Armenian team left the hall right before gold medals were handed to Azerbaijan and their county's anthem was played. Don't know how trustworthy the report can be, and maybe they were just trying to catch a flight...
"...during award ceremony Armenian team left the hall right before gold medals were handed to Azerbaijan..."
If so, that's very weak and insulting. They should not be allowed to play next time.
I just yesterday attended a talk on putting together book proposals. Check out: http://www.alanrinzler.com/blog/
Good luck!
" Israel is European by culture, ancestry, history and civility. It is surrounded by barbarity."
Israel should have claimed a piece of land from Germany after what happened in WW2 , instead they decided to install (force? , impose?) this lovely country in the middle of the oil market.
The same barbaric principle that made USA attack Irak even though they had nothing to do with 9/11 and the weapons of mass destruction were a fake orchestrated by the only country that ever used weapons of mass destruction upon civilians...
IMO Israel is exactly as barbaric as its neighboring countries , they just happen to have a better grip on the world media that allow them to convince simple people like you (SPLY ! ™) that they are " surrounded by barbarity " instead of being a key part of it which be a lot more accurate and fair .
Of course when i talk about Israel and the other barbarians i keep having in mind that they are RULED by the true barbarians , the eternal parasites of conflict that would loss their jobs of spreading hate and violence if people could just take a different path.
"Concerning an al Qaida team at the next Olympiad: Chess was officially forbidden under the (at least closely related) Taliban government in Afghanistan."
Wow. Fundamental muslims forbids chess. Can this be a threat to the popularity of chess in certain muslim countries?
+censor all non-topic postings
After reading this I feel that I have become much better very smart. I say thank you do many more.
Instead of incoherent historical nonsense, here's a sane and engaging interview with Svidler:
In Russian: http://chesspro.ru/_events/2009/svidler.html
In a garbled Google translation :)
http://tinyurl.com/y93dcr3
I'm sure it must be very easy to prove it wrong , but you just don't do it for the sake of the thread , what a charmer.
No discussions? You mentioned it. And not in a neutral fashion, but in the usual pseudo-neutral tone which is in fact wholly biased. What makes me react is this facade of non-bias. Having had my fill of "neutral" American news sources lacing all their Israeli news with pro-Israel bias, I was annoyed to see yet another "neutral" comment along the same lines. Look at this stuff below! All of it wholly one-sided. You post this and pretend to be neutral? You want no discussion? But you propagate a certain viewpoint.
"1) Some of its neighbors did or do deny Israel's very right of existence.
2) Europe (I wouldn't limit this to Germany ...) has some sort of historical responsibilities towards the Jewish/Israeli population - IMO, this doesn't mean blind support of Israeli politics."
"It should be known - but it cannot hurt to be mentioned - that Israel is not welcomed by its Asian Arab neighbors. "
Both sides at fault indeed. But no mention of Israeli sins. Just the wrongs that have been done to them and the hate of their neighbours.
I'm not even going to bother pointing out the other omissions and assumptions in the few lines quoted above. Another narrative erased. It's the usual Fox News line, poor little state heroically fighting its evil neighbours. Frankly I expect better from you. I'm not going to bother posting on it again cos I've said what I've got to say and let's get back to chess.
No discussions? You mentioned it. And not in a neutral fashion, but in the usual pseudo-neutral tone which is in fact wholly biased. What makes me react is this facade of non-bias. Having had my fill of "neutral" American news sources lacing all their Israeli news with pro-Israel bias, I was annoyed to see yet another "neutral" comment along the same lines. Look at this stuff below! All of it wholly one-sided. You post this and pretend to be neutral? You want no discussion? But you propagate a certain viewpoint.
"1) Some of its neighbors did or do deny Israel's very right of existence.
2) Europe (I wouldn't limit this to Germany ...) has some sort of historical responsibilities towards the Jewish/Israeli population - IMO, this doesn't mean blind support of Israeli politics."
FACT: The jewish people historically lived in the area of present-day Israel -- read some Roman history
FACT: The Ottoman turks ruled the area during WWI
FACT: The territory was ceded to Britain after WWI as a League of Nations mandate
FACT: Following WW2, the UN voted to partition the territory (British mandate territory) into two separate states.
FACT: The neighboring countries (4 of them -- Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Syria) declared war and invaded the territory.
FACT: They lost.
FACT: Israeli independence was recognized by Truman in 1948
FACT: Israel's neighbors launched or planned to launch three more wars in 1956, 1967 and 1973. They lost. They lost territory during their losses.
FACT: Israel's neighbors...while suffering those losses...now want to return to the original UN mandate of 2 separate states...and they want the victor/victim of those four wars to cede territory that was won by force of arms.
FACT: Israeli control over Gaza and/or the west bank occurred only because of the actions of its neighbors.
FACT: Egypt will not take back the Gaza Strip -- think about that.
FACT: Jordan seized the west bank and occupied it after the series of wars...losing it in 1956 but getting it back at the peace table...and losing it again in 1967. Funny how now they have ceded all claim to it (which by the UN mandate they never had in the first place). Funny, too, how the king of Jordan drove the PLO out by force of arms after they tried to overthrow him.
FACT: Palestinians cheered Iraqi missiles aimed at Israel during the Gulf War I.
FACT: Israeli actions saved the world from an Iraqi bomb in the 1980s and took out a covert Syrian nuclear bomb facility just a few years ago.
We can debate all night whether or not Israel has always been upfront or honest in all of its actions.
But there is no denying that its neighbors have been dreadful thugs over the last 60 years.
From a US perspective...there is a reason that most news is pro-Israel. That's because its neighbors are dreadful. If they didn't control oil resources, it would be crystal clear how dreadful they really are.
"From a US perspective...there is a reason that most news is pro-Israel. That's because its neighbors are dreadful. If they didn't control oil resources, it would be crystal clear how dreadful they really are."
"But you propagate a certain viewpoint."
Q.E.D.
I just have to congratulate myself for spoting this simple minded liar long before this discussion started .
"We can debate all night whether or not Israel has always been upfront or honest in all of its actions."
No need for an all-night debate. Just tell us -- has Israel always been upfront and honest in all its actions?
Next topic (choose 1 of 4):
1. German invasion of Poland - violation of international law or legitimate German action in response to rude comments by Churchill following tea party with Goebbels
2. Japanese invation of Indochina and Dutch colonies in Indonesia -- ruthless aggression vs. war-strapped European countries or colony-shopping at discount prices by savvy empire.
3. North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950 -- act of war or simply a misunderstood attempt to stage world's largest family reunion.
4. Soviet blockade of West Berlin -- violation of agreement with Allies and act of war/outrage or legitimate expression of displeasure over Truman authorizing use of atomic bomb vs. Japan (and thus denying the Soviets a share of Japan during occupation).
Since all history is relative -- deconstruct as you wish. Or is it just certain history that is relative?
Chesspride, you do not have the quality of debate or intellect to engage in a meaningful discussion of this issue. I wil therefore not bother to engage with you and your ferocious army of strawmen and rubbish-heaps.
Clubfoot replied to comment from chesspride | November 1, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply
"We can debate all night whether or not Israel has always been upfront or honest in all of its actions."
No need for an all-night debate. Just tell us -- has Israel always been upfront and honest in all its actions?
Of course not.
Just because one side is not 100 percent pure doesn't mean the evil acts of the other can be overlooked.
On a 1-100 scale of "nation state accountability" Israel gets about an 85 and its neighbors get about a 20. This is not a case where both sides are equally culpable.
I look forward to reading how the German side of WW2 was really just misunderstood.
"Just because one side is not 100 percent pure doesn't mean the evil acts of the other can be overlooked."
Actually, no one was saying that until you brought it up just now.
Chesspride, the posters here have let you have a lot of fun, but you can stop anytime. An avalanche of received opinion backed up by Godwin's law is not an argument. And if people here really wanted hysteria, they would re-read My System.
Enough of the history guys. Anyway 3things,
1. I think Aronian's perf on board one is ok. Playing on this board is the hardest because you usually meet the toughest opposition.
2. Gashimov's perf is great. But getting a high rating and into the top 10 is one thing...Staying there is something else.
3. Match points and board points have the merits and de-merits. Match points while focusing on a team perf have the disadvantage of reducing on agressive games because once one board has one, all the other boards have to do is draw their games for their team to win. Someone can help up search but i bet their are more 2.5-1.5 scores now than when board points were used.
@I M Stoopid
Armenia and Azerbaijan have been member states of since 25 January 2001, here is the European political map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Map-Coeurope.jpg
and of course, these countries should be included in European sports events too, when they feel that's natural, like in chess.
"Gashimov's perf is great."
Yes, "chess phantom" has a rather big blog entry featuring his game against Mchedlishvili:
http://translate.google.no/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsjakkfantomet.blogg.no%2F1257027338_31okt2009.html%23comment&sl=no&tl=en&hl=no&ie=UTF-8
the original text is in Norwegian:
http://sjakkfantomet.blogg.no/1257027338_31okt2009.html#comment
"member states of since"
Ooops.. should be:
member states of Council of Europe since
"Gashimov's perf is great. But getting a high rating and into the top 10 is one thing...Staying there is something else."
Agreed. There are 5 players in the world who are World Champion strength. The rest are pretenders. That's why I don't get excited about the new rating lists anymore. Plus the live list is always available.
"3. Match points and board points have the merits and de-merits. Match points while focusing on a team perf have the disadvantage of reducing on agressive games because once one board has one, all the other boards have to do is draw their games for their team to win."
Agreed, but
Nevertheless, in the not-to-improbable case that Stellwagen had drawn against Gashimov, board points would have been the decider, giving Russia gold.
A lesson to all aspiring teams. It's pretty close in the top.
"Frankly I expect better from you."
Thanks ,:) - I did not want to write a long historical essay, keeping my earlier posts short may have made them look simplistic. My view is simply that politics, including chess politics, should interfere with chess as little as possible. Rephrasing my line of thought:
1) Israel couldn't participate in Asian competitions. I take this as a fact, and to me in the given context it is irrelevant to what extent it is their own fault (government/entire population/military or individual chess players?), their neighbours' fault, the fault of the Germans (generation of my [great-]grandparents ...) or "history's fault".
2) Should they still be able to play international competitions? If so, based on simple geographic proximity, the choice would be between Europe and Africa. But Africa would be an odd solution, because
- Israel doesn't have any notable "cultural ties"
- they would rather easily win everything.
Bottom line: In chess as well as other fields, Israel participates in European competitions for a specific reason, and I have no problem with it.
Manu: "Israel should have claimed a piece of land from Germany after what happened in WW2 , instead they decided to install (force? , impose?) this lovely country in the middle of the oil market.
The same barbaric principle that made USA attack Irak even though they had nothing to do with 9/11 and the weapons of mass destruction were a fake orchestrated by the only country that ever used weapons of mass destruction upon civilians..."
Manu: "I'm sure it must be very easy to prove it wrong , but you just don't do it for the sake of the thread , what a charmer."
You want "proof" that it's absurd to suggest that setting up Israel in Palestine was an act of revenge for the Holocaust that somehow missed it's target? (read any history of the subject - the idea of Israel didn't quite start with Hitler) Or that a much better solution would have been to set up a Jewish state somewhere in Germany (despite there no longer being any Jews there)? Or perhaps you had in mind some German-occupied territory which the locals would be happy to concede?
The thing is I'm with you in finding the current Israeli state barbaric in its treatment of the Palestinians. It's more civilised internally than the countries around it - people can and do openly protest against the policies of the government - but it's a classic example of "Those to whom evil is done do evil in return". You can see after what happened that the survivors didn't want to become passive victims ever again, but they could have avoided becoming oppressors.
Anyway, I'm glad there's a huge chess tournament coming up in a few days :)
One might wonder about the actual evidence that Israeli players aren't welcome at Asian events. Indeed, one has to go relatively far back in time in the history of Olympiads - all info and quotes from olimpbase.org:
Dubai 1986: "Of course Israel, officially in the state of war with most of Arab countries, couldn't participate. [were they ever at war with the United Arab Emirates?] ... According to FIDE rules the Olympic organizing committee had right to refuse to invite one selected country."
Only a few western countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands) and a few individual players (Korchnoi, Huebner, Lobron) boycotted the event.
Haifa 1976: "Of the 90+ FIDE member countries only 48 sent teams to Haifa and the loss of the East Europeans was the more keenly felt since such countries as the USSR, Yugoslavia, Hungary and more would naturally have been high in contention for the important medals." [good that the Cold War is now over ...]
No explicit info whether Arab countries could have participated, but there was a parallel "Against Chess Olympiad" [sic] in Libya. BTW, in its own way a rather interesting event: Italy (also participating in Haifa) was represented by the Palermo Chess Club. "The Uruguayan team was made up of political dissidents, who happened to be competent chess players, and were escaping from the military dictatorship in their home country. ... Uruguay might have done much better hadn't they only lost three matches (12 games) by default due to being late."
Personally funny for me that Hebert Perez Garcia was board 4 of the Uruguay team; he (ELO 2137) later ended up in the Netherlands. I played a few games against him with an overall minus score, and he played Corus B back in 2002 and 2003 (when the event wasn't quite as strong as these days).
Tel Aviv 1964: no scandals, all top teams participating
Mishamp: ¨You want "proof" that it's absurd to suggest that setting up Israel in Palestine was an act of revenge for the Holocaust that somehow missed it's target? (read any history of the subject - the idea of Israel didn't quite start with Hitler) Or that a much better solution would have been to set up a Jewish state somewhere in Germany (despite there no longer being any Jews there)? Or perhaps you had in mind some German-occupied territory which the locals would be happy to concede?¨
Nop , you are starting to think like Thomas with those weird conclussions , i just said that it would have been a lot more logical (like at the end of many wars in history )to make the loser of the conflict (and responsable for the holocaust) to pay with land ...
IMHO opinion that makes much more sense than giving the jew-haters the satisfaction of erradicating them from Europe and placing them door to door with its former enslavers.
But yet i clearly stated this as an opinion and you jumped with ugly remarks about historical incoherence which you were unable to prove about any historical fact that i stated on my post ...
This is not the first time you do this , maybe you shouldn´t reply to my posts with such a bias , specially when im not talking to you.
About ¨reading any hystory on the subject¨ , that i would leave it to you since the first movie i edited was called Holocaust 6 , a fiction-documentary combo that gave us the privilege to work with the entire collection of material from the holocaust and WW2 , hear the opinion from many experts on the subject and even include music from oscar winner Jorge Drexler on the film.
I don´t know what is your knowledge or experience on this subject, but my guess is that it is not enough to attack other people´s opinion in such an idiotic way .
I wouldnt bother to answer you if the subject werent so delicate... but like you said:
Anyway, I'm glad there's a huge chess tournament coming up in a few days :)
"I just said that it would have been a lot more logical (like at the end of many wars in history )to make the loser of the conflict (and responsable for the holocaust) to pay with land..."
You didn't "just" say that, though, did you. You compared 9/11 to the Holocaust and setting up Israel in Palestine to invading Iraq which is, putting it very politely, "historically incoherent". You even threw in the comment about the "lovely country in the middle of the oil market", not the most convincing in terms of geography or history, even ignoring your insinuations.
"This is not the first time you do this , maybe you shouldn´t reply to my posts with such a bias , specially when im not talking to you."
How many times does it have to be pointed out that posting a blog isn't a private conversation. By they way, my comments were also directed at chesspride, so don't feel overly singled out.
"How many times does it have to be pointed out that posting a blog isn't a private conversation."
Probably many, many more times. Manu is what one might call "maturity challenged" a syndrome apparently afflicting many internet posters. The key symptom of said syndrome being an inability to distinguish the posts of sufferer over a prolonged period from that of a pre teen or in the best-case an early teen. The prescribed cure is to ignore posts of sufferer, faithfully and unwaveringly, a course of treatment which has the wonderful added benefit of greatly improving the internet experience of people who dont suffer from this syndrome.
¨You didn't "just" say that, though, did you. You compared 9/11 to the Holocaust and setting up Israel in Palestine to invading Iraq which is, putting it very politely, "historically incoherent". You even threw in the comment about the "lovely country in the middle of the oil market", not the most convincing in terms of geography or history, even ignoring your insinuations.¨
Both invading Irak and setting Israel in its current location are oil related campaings (among other things) , both involved direct or indirect use of US military forces and weaponry very far from their home territory and logical interests , the parallels in media propaganda and mass manipulation are even bigger.
When i say ¨same barbaric principles¨ im talking about the oil and economical-strategical interests that every conflict in that area has.
¨You compared 9/11 to the Holocaust¨
No i didn´t , little man , learn to read.
About the ¨geographical or historical incoherences¨ you keep babbling about without any further explanations please explain your self a bit more , last time i saw the ¨oil map¨ of the region things were looking very much my way.
¨How many times does it have to be pointed out that posting a blog isn't a private conversation. ¨
A 1000 , who cares , replying all the time to someone who is not talking to you is just as pathetic here as it is in real life.
Off-topic, as it is unrelated to the initial issue whether Israel should (be allowed to) participate in European championships. Sorry d_tal, but being German and being personally attacked I have to react again:
I had history lessons in high school and further interest in the topic ... facts are:
- Germany DID lose considerable parts of its territory after World War II, and the remainder was split in two.
- Many Germans were expelled from areas inhabited by them and their ancestors for centuries - my father and his family were among them.
Both are logical consequences of losing a war (actually regardless of who started it, and strictly spoken independent of the Holocaust) - "acceptable" even if it meant further injustice (I had quite some discussions and arguments with my father about it ...). Would it have been wise to humiliate Germany even further? This was done after World War I, and in a way it already set the stage for Hitler and World War II - no excuse but a partial explanation.
History didn't repeat itself, instead Germany (eventually all of it) became a stable democracy with peaceful or even friendly relations to all of its neighbours.
Moving on to Israel: You can even question its right of existence - or rather the right of existence of a Jewish state in its present form and geographic location. But this is now an established fact - who wants the Israeli population moved into the Mediterranean Sea? Some people do, I am not among them, I think or at least hope you (Manu) aren't either. And I guess even you wouldn't suggest to take a slice out of German territory tomorrow and relocate all the Jewish/Israeli population?
Fact is also - as mishanp pointed out - that Israel, unlike most or all of its neighbours, is at least a democracy with free elections and freedom of press. BTW, another fact is that Israel or any of its direct neighbours doesn't have notable oil reserves.
I will stop here, and not elaborate on evidences for the fact that Saddam Hussein wasn't exactly an innocent character worthy of the Peace Nobel Prize. So that conflict isn't black and white (aggressor against innocent victim) either ... .
"Both invading Irak and setting Israel in its current location are oil related campaings"
Sorry, Manu, I agree with you about Iraq but oil wasn't a significant factor in Jewish immigration to Palestine and the setting up of a state. Of course it influences the level of America's continued support, but historically you're talking nonsense.
As for being in the middle of the oil map... it might be in a strategically important position, but do you need it spelling out that geographically Israel & its neighbours certainly weren't important oil powers from the C19th to 1947, and aren't now as far as I know (perhaps Egypt!?). There's also the Mediterranean...
Wowee Thomas. Another long post whose main feature is again absence. The erasure of another narrative.
You don't mention the price others have had and continue to pay. The usual strawman of suggesting that everyone might want all Israelis drowned. Who wants the suffering of Palestinians? Why, pray tell, do you fail to mention that? Why is it a silent "given"? I'm sure it's pure coincidence.
You can disagree all you want but claiming is nonsense only shows your bias or poor understanding or whatever the f is that makes your fingers reply to someone who don´t give a f of what you have to say.
I don´t have time to explain you about the rute of oil and how things would be completely different if Israel were in Argentina instead of where it is now , you also seem to be unaware about the difference between having a large amount of oil and the availability of the resource , your wiki-knowledge is not enough for this subject , leave it , have a cookie.
Nevermind, Manu. I'd actually quite expressed you made some attempt to respond to criticisms with a semblance of an argument, for a change. Back to pure trolling.
"I'd actually quite expressed" should be "I'm actually quite impressed" :)
¨Back to pure trolling.¨ should be ¨i m out of my element and all i have left is this agression¨
"Moving on to Israel: You can even question its right of existence - or rather the right of existence of a Jewish state in its present form and geographic location. But this is now an established fact - who wants the Israeli population moved into the Mediterranean Sea?"
An extremely annoying and dishonest argumentation technique. Or do you seriously think that the only alternative to Israel as a Jewish state is to push the Israelis into the sea?
Not that the Zionists had any qualms about pushing maybe 750,000 Palestinians out of _their_ land so that the Israeli "fact" could be established.
But I'm getting so tired of reading nonsense like this every time the subject of Israel comes up.
Also, we'll see how "established" the fact is 100 years from now.
But the more hate Israel creates by its oppression of the Palestinians, the worse are the chances of a peaceful, democratic solution based on mutual respect (not between Israel and Palestine, but between the Jews and the Palestinians). It could be that dismantling the colonial project as soon as possible is the one thing necessary _not_ to have people "pushed into the sea".
I think the Israeli leadership should learn from de Klerk.
Hear, hear. (Applause)
This talk is so very ridicolus. So very much spit and poop throw into other faces. I am not too add to nastieness just to want to say it is so very enbarasing for all chess plaers.
Not as embarrassing as your syntax, typos, handle and grammar.
Ah, the monkey-poo flinging begins...
It is very well and I applud you my friend. Thank you for advise and lack of nastieness. But you drop into gutter sometime as most all with this awful talk.
The most embarrassed must be Mig reading now all this non-chess garbage on his blog. It is funny (or sad - pick one) how an innocent discussion on geography turned into heated one on Israel/Palestine. On days like that I wish Mig uses Susan Polgar's approach to blog moderation.
Yes but I am lerning things and getting better. Wish all well.
I M Stoopid: - my post wasn't aimed at you. Actually, your posts are making much more sense to me that many others filled with lines of 'historical facts'. I'll take Forest Gump over 'smart a#$%'.
Ha ha. I am not so smart as others but prhaps that is to my favor! Thank you.
"On days like that I wish Mig uses Susan Polgar's approach to blog moderation."
Mig can go ahead and flood the blog with brutal-attacks-and-fawning-praise-of-himself-all-written-by-himself. But if he starts posting dozens of pictures of himself I'm slitting my wrists.
Oh I don't know, are you denying that our Blogmeister has a certain rugged charm?
"Greater Israel cannot be a democratic state, because there will soon be -- if there aren't already -- more Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea than there are Israeli Jews.
So, if you give each person one vote, Israel becomes Palestine. That is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, which leaves two possible outcomes: apartheid and expelling the Palestinians -- and there are more than 5 million of them -- from Greater Israel.
Talk about repulsive options. It is worth remembering that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that if there is no two-state solution, Israel will end up in a South Africa-like situation and that will mean the end of the Jewish state. In effect, he is saying that Israel is turning itself into an apartheid state."
--John Mearsheimier, Foreign Policy, 3/26/09
Just enough rugged charm to justify the current policy of one Mig-photo every year or two.
Some comments on quotes:
[Gorsky13] "how an innocent discussion on geography turned into a heated one on Israel/Palestine"
I don't think it was innocent in the first place ... to suggest that Israel (as well as Caucasian countries) should be banned from European competitions. I merely gave the IMO most plausible reason why Israel does participate.
[chesshire cat] "You don't mention the price others have had and continue to pay."
I said before that there are two sides to the story, and that granting Israel a right to exist doesn't fully endorse Israeli politics. (continued below)
[acirce] "do you seriously think that the only alternative to Israel as a Jewish state is to push the Israelis into the sea?"
What would be other alternatives? Disappearance of Israel as a state or moving it to another location? "Established situation" only meant that Manu's suggestion of a Jewish state on German territory - absurd IMO to start with - offers no help whatsoever in the current ongoing conflict.
There is hatred on both sides, and the dilemna is that - again, on both sides - attempts towards compromises are seen as signs of weakness rather than smartness. Consequently hardliners win - as far as Israel is concerned, in democratic elections, not equally clear by which means on the other side(s) ... . Who should make the first step? "Some people" (my words, not 'everyone') want or dream of having all Israelis drowned. Then Israel "overreacts" (of course a euphemism), with the Holocaust burned into their collective memory.
I do not see a solution ... .
[acirce] "I think the Israeli leadership should learn from de Klerk."
As you introduce another country, have also a look at its neighbour. In South Africa, the transition was possible by peaceful means - and the white population was subsequently neither pushed into the sea nor sent back to where they came from generations ago. Zimbabwe is another story: a new dictatorship, white farmers expelled from their land, the entire country (excluding the clique of leaders) falling into poverty.
It would be helpful if Israel got some guarantees or at least signs that a "South African solution" is on the horizon - I do not see such signs.
In the meantime, I still don't have any problems with Israeli players participating in European competitions ... .
Thomas, you have an ongoing problem with strawmen, and they are holding hands and dancing in circles in this post.
Dear Thomas,
I'm sorry to elongate your discussion along a different branch but the penultimate paragraph of your last post really gnaws at my soul.
'Zimbabwe is another story: a new dictatorship, white farmers expelled from their land, the entire country (excluding the clique of leaders) falling into poverty'.
Please get your facts right.
You failed to mention that those white settlers had recently forcibly taken the land from the original Black landowners.
I think you'd be less sanguine if the Turkish immigrants in Germany suddenly owned 90% of the land in Germany.
And the poverty in Zimbabwe is not explained by the misguided land redistribution policies of the corrupt and incompetent Mugabe regime.There are better clues in the wholesale adoption of IMF/World Bank prescriptions in the mid-1980s and the corruption in the government.
Your 'South African solution' means that I can steal 70% of your money and later return 40% of the loot to you in exchange for peace and some pyrrhic illusion of equity. The South African solution is still in evolution.
"In the meantime, I still don't have any problems with Israeli players participating in European competitions ... "
Only idiots (better call them that way than racists ) would challenge right of Israel as well as ex-Soviet states to participate in European competitions. It is done in all other sports as well. And if someone needs proofs based on geography, culture, etc. - they not gonna get it anyway. Why to bother answer those posts as well others with their great ideas how to fix things in Middle East (it is easy to do it sitting in your cozy European cafe than being at risk blown-up by suicide bomber every day).
That is correct.
Hardy, apparently you have more detailed info on Zimbabwe and South Africa than I do. I will cut down my earlier post to a - probably - undisputed quote from Wikipedia:
"Mugabe has been in power since the country's long war for independence. His rule has been characterized by economic mismanagement, hyperinflation, and widespread reports of human rights abuses."
No doubt the situation is better in South Africa, I couldn't say how much better. Some parallels between Zimbabwe and Israel:
- The Palestine authorities are also incompetent and internally divided by violent clashes (too easy to blame all of this on the situation in occupied territories)
- Israel is economically in better shape than its Arab neighbors, despite similar climate and lack of resources such as oil - and despite (having to) spend lots of money on the military.
BTW, as far as Germany is concerned: agriculture and hence land ownership is less important. Some people in Germany as well as other European countries are more concerned about Russian and Arab investors taking over part of the economy, as well as some of the leading football/soccer clubs ..... .
Thank you for displaying some actual knowledge and understanding of the issues. That is quite rare when it comes to international affairs at all, and more so than usual in the case of Zimbabwe (in the West that is). But I would add the international economic warfare against Zimbabwe that has been waged ever since Mugabe started to displease the Western elites.
God, reading that post made my stomach ache.
"I don't think it was innocent in the first place ... to suggest that Israel (as well as Caucasian countries) should be banned from European competitions."
A long-time Fawlty Towers addict, I thought it was just a display of transatlantic ignorance of (semi)basic geography, along the lines of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANTDkfkoBaI
Of course a hidden agenda cannot be ruled out, there is lots of space between the lines.
On the chessboard, in contrast, there is nowhere to hide.
"Israel is economically in better shape than its Arab neighbors, despite similar climate and lack of resources such as oil - and despite (having to) spend lots of money on the military."
Thomas, your posts currently account for up to 40% of every Chessninja thread. And unfortunately a majority of them are as insightful, informed and unironic as the above passage. This time we had posts from Hardy and acirce indicative of books read and history considered, but you jumped right in armed only with a trip to a Wiki page. Why must you respond to absolutely everyone as if your pride's on the line, and why respond with continually diminishing returns of logic, knowledge and readability? Would it kill you just to listen?
I see it possible for some peoples to always be angry and spitt but Thomas seem not to be so. Others also not angry. Some very angry.
You and Luke are the same , aren't u?
Whatever the answer to that question is , Clubfoot is just being nice on that post , almost too nice if u consider what he is capable of , Thomas would be wise to hear his advise.
Oh before I forget the angry peopel are smart and maybey I am wrong. I have lernd from them too even though they are angry. Someday I may go away from here but not now. I will make tea.
Hello Manu. I did not see your writting until now. We are nto the same. Also, Clubfoot is sometimes angry. I need to go now.
"Thank you for displaying some actual knowledge and understanding of the issues. That is quite rare when it comes to international affairs"
and acirce hits the weak cow as usual but we all love you man!
- - -
"Robert White | October 19, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply
PlayJunior, thank you. This is 100% correct statement.
Regarding acirce statement:
"First of all, the issue was of course never about "Jews" but about Israelis."
- a very ignorant statement. Either you are ignorant or just make such statements to support your agenda.
"And yes, I count that alleged statement as a rumour - media can report wrongly (yes, it has actually happened), and they denied that it had ever been made."
- So when they made the statement, the media reported wrongly (yes, it has happened as you say) but all the media reports that this was just a rumor was 100% truth? (let's pick and choose what the media reports as right or wrong?)
"Makropoulos asked the rhetorical question if they should cancel the World Championship due to some rumour that spread over the internet, and for once I agree with him."
- of course you do.
"Of course if it WAS made, their statements and actions meant it was effectively retracted anyway."
- yes, sure it was. After all, they are saints. It is crazy to think that they would have actually meant anything negative toward Jews. How paranoid of these Jews to think such things!
"No doubt the Israelis wouldn't have felt particularly welcome (like Arabs don't in Israel)"
- here your ignorance shows again. More than half of workers in Israel are Arabs, who prefer to work in Israel over nearby places, as they have more rights in Israel than anywhere else. Israel actually provides very favorable conditions to Arabs working there and they feel very welcome. You should travel to Israel some time and see for yourself and not base your entire ignorant world outlook on Reuters.
"and as you say there was other sorts of discrimination. But as for the specific issue I was addressing, they would have been allowed to play, had they chosen to. At least by Libya! Israeli law said otherwise, but maybe they solved that matter.."
- again, ignorance. Now you are an expert on Israeli law. Not only you deny what happened, but you twist it into the other side - now Israeli law is at fault. Those damn Jews, they just cause all the trouble in the world, don't they, acirce?
"It's another thing that Israeli representatives are lucky to be allowed to play anywhere... But I won't go there now."
- yes, I have always known that an anti-semite just can't hold it back. You were just dying to say that, and you just couldn't hold it back anymore. Finally you wrote it for all to see. Feel better now? After all, everyone should know how you feel about these Jews, these Israeli criminals, right acirce? "
----
And a cute answer, BANG! BANG!
"acirce replied to comment from Robert White | October 19, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply
Why do you think I should or would bother to reply to a confused rant where I am repeatedly and based on no grounds whatsoever being called an ignorant antisemite? Go away and troll somebody else, gnat.
"
Just like CG-KamikazeAttack, Luke, et al. Strange how a respectable man can be MANY men when it comes to STRONG opinions, isn't?
I have no idea what you are yelling about. Can you please slow down and summarize it?
I only replied because I saw my name in your post. I thought: who is this guy, and why is he ranting so much? Does he have a point? What is it?
I plead guilty: I shouldn't have mentioned that Anand couldn't play the European Team Championship because India isn't part of Europe - this sort of started the whole discussion ... . The rest was opinion, supported by (selectively chosen) facts - from all sides, I don't exclude myself. No consensus will, or even needs to be reached. I will single out Gorsky13's last comment: it is easy to come up with strong opinions from a safe geographic distance ... .
Chessnack's point was to remind us that acirce, at an earlier occasion, implicitly questioned whether Israeli "representatives" should be allowed to play anywhere. This may be limited to team competitions, yet notably the European individual championship is an important qualifier for the World Cup. Whether this is antisemitism or just anti-Israelism is debatable. In other contexts, it is easy but unfair to accuse people with different opinions of islamophobia or - new aspect regarding Zimbabwe, taken straight from Mugabe's books - neocolonialism ... .
I was waiting for that "anti-semitism" word to pop up, thrown in as always in a random fashion.
Given the quality of your posts on this issue-execrable-I am not surprised that it came from you, Thomas. You know me long enough not to take criticism personally, and that I do not randomly attack people. But I do wish that on charged issues like this you would not feel obligated to contribute when you don't have a ruddy clue what you are saying.
To be fair Chesssnack brought up the question of antisemitism. And while I certainly wouldn't subscribe to various things Thomas wrote in this blog apologies for either the event in Libya or, of all people, Robert Mugabe certainly aren't any better.
I gave up trying to read Chessnack's post after a few lines, it was too incoherent. And I made no reference to Libya or Mugabe.
Although I consider Thomas's posts to be far removed from trolling, I think Clubfoot has a point. A post of mine from a few months ago:
"Only you, thomas, only you could possibly consider that to be interesting. While I do not contest your right to post, may I ask you to consider the following suggestion seriously, though it may doubtless annoy you.
Please imagine that you have a limit on the number of words you can post everyday, you can set this limit yourself. Perhaps count the no. of words you write on a single day, averaged over a week or month, and set the limit at half the value. Then try to limit yourself to this no. This will force you to actually think about what you write, instead of knee jerk ill considered reactions to pretty much every post other than yours, and sometimes your own as well. The reason I ask is you swamp this blog, along with 1 or 2 others, and its becoming increasingly tedious to weed out the mindless drivel.
I feel it will also be a very fruitful exercise for you, and you may just discover the wonderful quality of brevity and increase the value of your posts immensely. What do you say? Please?"
This is nothing to do with the current debate, I dont know enough about the history of Israel to actually have an informed opinion. I am just refering to the tendency Clubfoot referred to above: "Why must you respond to absolutely everyone as if your pride's on the line, and why respond with continually diminishing returns of logic, knowledge and readability?"
However I think there are at least two much worse trolls posting here: namely Manu and Luke. Thomas is at least sincere, and doesn't resort to personal attacks and childish drivel as the other two always do.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you'd said anything about Libya or Mugabe - just comparing Thomas' posts to some of the other comments here.
Yes, indeed. I have no problem with Thomas either, he is not a malicious person. I just find that he has made a complete mess of the current issue-mainly because he felt obliged to post on a subject on which he knows little, in the process perpetuating some of the common and damaging strawmen which infect the debate. Particularly that old "anti-semitism" nonsense, which is thrown about far too freely.
"Chessnack's point was to remind us that acirce, at an earlier occasion, implicitly questioned whether Israeli "representatives" should be allowed to play anywhere. This may be limited to team competitions, yet notably the European individual championship is an important qualifier for the World Cup. Whether this is antisemitism or just anti-Israelism is debatable."
No, it isn't, and saying that I'm even arguably antisemitic is offensive, although something you have to get used to very quickly when you are taking a consistent stand against Israel. That's not more antisemitic than calling for sports boycotts against South Africa was anti-White: there were a whole lot of notable personalities, organizations and institutions you'd have to call "debatably" racist. I'm sure you can find something about it on Wikipedia....
Sad to say, but on this blog, you are to international politics what Manu is to chess.
Back to chess, does anyone agree that 'the dragon is not a serious opening'? If this is true, then I have wasted 25 years of my life. Please reassure me I haven't been wasting my time.
So... I am a malicious person ? Says who ? You and Dtal ? based on what ? your own understanding ? ...
So... attacking someone who constantly ignores you (like i do with d-tal and very often with u) is not trolling per se if you call the guy a troll first ?
Get a life or something similar , and pronto.
`Sad to say, but on this blog, you are to international politics what Manu is to chess.`´
Lol , good one .
So many discussions involving conflicts in various countries seem to end up with debates about Israel.
I don-t know if qualifies as genocide , but good one.
All this talking of Thomas makes a big contrevorsy and I don’t understand much of course but like to read and understand all views. I think Thomas is true and polite and is also many others but not some who I don’t name but they know themselves who I mean. I think these lands of Asia and Afica must have many people who work hard all day and not play chess but need food so they must work hard. Anyway I must work hard too maybey we all do ha ha. Then we play chess or do some thing nice.
Manu, kindly be quiet, and cut down on your sugar intake. I was not referring to you at all, or Luke.
I thought so.
Thanks for (most of) this, but I will come to a difference between Manu and me even concerning international politics in a while.
First, if this (still) isn't clear, Chessnack referred to an earlier thread, originally about the candidates event in Azerbaijan. There Mig brought up the issue of the WCh in Libya (briefly in the main entry, in more detail in the comments). Then Israeli players, to say the least, didn't get the same conditions as everyone else - they were not allowed to bring their coaches, seconds, wives or girl-friends - and subsequently did not participate.
Acirce, I get your point: criticizing the Israeli government is not antisemitic, just like (another example) criticizing the US government is not anti-American - be it only because quite a few Americans do or did the same. So I retract the suggestion of antisemitism - unlike Manu I can correct earlier suggestions. Whether it is even "anti-Israel" is IMO still debatable: the way I read some posts by you (as well as Manu, but not chesshire cat) in the current thread, Israel shouldn't exist in the first place? Correct me if I got this wrong ... .
Regarding sports boycotts, two issues arise:
1) Is the situation of Israel _directly_ comparable to South Africa under the Apartheid?
In the case of South Africa, there was a virtually global consensus that one side deserved at least 99% of the blame. In the case of Israel, there is no such consensus. You may consider this wrong and deplorable, but (my impression about you so far, while we never met personally) you are open-minded enough to acknowledge and accept that other people have different opinions?
2) How useful are sports boycotts in general? Related, where should "we" (or rather people and committees making such decision) start and where should we stop? If all countries involved in wars, human rights violations and atrocities should be boycotted, the list would include among many others Armenia and Azerbaijan [picking one of them would mean taking sides in the conflict] and even the USA ... .
In any case, should the individual players be blamed? In the Israeli case, some (a minority at top level) happened to be born in the country, most others immigrated from elsewhere. While immigration may imply overall endorsement of Israeli politics, it still doesn't mean unconditional support of the government. From the starting point of being or feeling discriminated on religious grounds in the country of origin, there may be three non-political reasons to choose Israel:
- simply because they are welcome there
- because they already have friends or family in the country
- because Israel is (or historically, became) a strong chess country.
I dunno, I hate to say this but ever since Fishcer's hey day, the Dragon has had a dodgy reuptation at the highest level I think. But why call it a waste, I (used to) play the Evans' gambit, Smith Morra and Wing gambit against the Sicilian as White, and probably totally unsound lines of the French (McCutcheon among others!), and various concoctions involving Indian defences as Black. My main aim used to be to get into the middle game with a playable position; i.e. avoid being massacred through my almost total lack of knowledge of theory. It worked well at my level, and I avoided looking up reams of opening theory. Surely the Dragon is good enough at non GM level?
"Fishcer's hey day" should read "Fischer's heyday"
¨the way I read some posts by you (as well as Manu, but not chesshire cat) in the current thread, Israel shouldn't exist in the first place? Correct me if I got this wrong ... .¨
Don´t worry about it!, you have more important things going wrong there.
Keep accusing me of anti semitism , chesshirecat says you are not malicious at all , so you must be doing it for a good reason.
Keep asking for forgiveness , smile while you are being punished ,i´m sure acirce will eventually need another idiot to concur with.
Sure, it is a serious opening, but somewhat loose. In general, looseness tends to favor white because white has the first opportunity to exploit the looseness. Almost always, this involves white using a can opener on the h-file with h4-h5. But still, I don't think black has much to worry about against the Yugoslav f3 lines other than white having some drawing lines available.
The slow-down classical approach with Be2, h3, and O-O is annoying, but probably equal at the beginning of the middlegame. The h4-h5 can opener is delayed, but still possible. More common is another can opener down the f-file with f4-f5 etc.
Studying and playing the Dragon is not a waste of time. I hope this reassures you.
"So I retract the suggestion of antisemitism - unlike Manu I can correct earlier suggestions."
Good, thank you.
"ther it is even "anti-Israel" is IMO still debatable: the way I read some posts by you (as well as Manu, but not chesshire cat) in the current thread, Israel shouldn't exist in the first place? Correct me if I got this wrong ... ."
As far as my opinion goes you're basically right about that, I don't know about Manu. It's a colonial settler's state that can only exist on the basis of a massive and still ongoing crime. The main argument against letting the Palestinian refugees return says it all - that it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. But if a state's very existence depends on not letting the original population return to their own land simply because they are not Jews, what legitimacy does it have? You don't have that situation in any other country. It's as if South Africa was _defined_ by the apartheid system, or if Nazi Germany was a new state _defined_ by Nazism. Alternatively, look at the Soviet Union - there were certainly a good number of people who thought the whole Soviet system should be dismantled, i.e. by definition the end of the Soviet Union...which of course also happened. I view that as a legitimate opinion, even though I would have disagreed if I were older and politically conscious at the time.
In a different but still somewhat similar way, I am also against the existence of North and South Korea as countries - as I think they should be united in one state.
My point is that at the very least, Israel shouldn't exist in its current form -- if in the future Palestinians and Jews together democratically decide that their state should still be called "Israel" then fine, although I find it unlikely to say the least..
"In the case of South Africa, there was a virtually global consensus that one side deserved at least 99% of the blame. In the case of Israel, there is no such consensus. You may consider this wrong and deplorable, but (my impression about you so far, while we never met personally) you are open-minded enough to acknowledge and accept that other people have different opinions?"
Well, even for South Africa, it took a while before the whole world started to realize that. For some time it was still viewed by not so few as a natural part of the "free world", a civilized outpost against Communism and dangerous liberation movements. As far as Israel goes, it's true that there is also not yet such a consensus in some parts of the world. But I'm not sure I get your point. Why should that stop me and others from arguing the analogy?
"How useful are sports boycotts in general?"
Of course a difficult question, and one I don't intend to discuss in detail right now. But I think it was useful in the case of South Africa, and it should be useful in the case of a small country like Israel that would not be able to do what they do if not for the international support they do have.
"If all countries involved in wars, human rights violations and atrocities should be boycotted, the list would include [...]"
But for reasons I have begun to touch upon here (and I could go on), I think Israel is both quantitatively and qualitatively different in this regard from other countries. It is also more vulnerable than others from boycott.
"In any case, should the individual players be blamed?"
I think that in the normal case you should be held responsible for your active choice, regardless of what it is. It is, of course, a separate discussion whether that means you shouldn't be invited to competitions just because you represent Israel.
Thanks again, more constructive than "reading that post made my stomach ache" ... . I continue the discussion, as some misunderstandings remain - maybe I did and still do not always find exactly the right words.
Small then major comment-clarification:
Of course colonial and post-colonial South Africa was very much defined by apartheid. Still eventually the country could continue to exist, on the same territory and in a different form, while keeping the same innocent geographic name. Other countries (former Rhodesia) as well as cities (Leningrad, Stalingrad, Karl-Marx-Stadt in former East Germany) changed their names as history moved on. In any case, finding a new name for Israel is not the most urgent issue - many other things would have to be settled first.
"As far as Israel goes, it's true that there is also not yet such a consensus in some parts of the world. But I'm not sure I get your point. Why should that stop me and others from arguing the analogy?"
My point was that such a consensus is unlikely, because - different from South Africa - there is no neat division between good guys and bad guys.
Maybe you still disagree. Starting from your premise that "Israel shouldn´t exist in its current form", missile attacks and suicide bombings might be legitimate acts of resistance and self-defense? One person's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter ... . I would still distinguish between targeting civilians and accepting civilian casualties as collateral damage (horrible term, I didn't invent it!), while both are deplorable.
[Disclaimer: I emphasize "bad guys" on the Palestine/Arab side, because you already addressed the other side. I do not question any of your facts - and, different from how it might appear and what you and others assume, I am not an unconditional supporter of the Israeli side.]
To clarify part of my "stomach-aching" post: Every now and then, there were glimmers of hope for a road towards peace, subsequently destroyed by extremists on both sides - both Rabin and Sadat were assassinated.
Thomas: "One person's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter ... . "
The PA, Hamas, Al Qaida, Taliban, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc. are not fighting for freedom. Arabs and Muslims in Israel have greater freedom (economic, political, religious, etc.) than anywhere within the Arab or Muslim world in general.
Yes. One is staggered by their shocking ingratitude, eh?
State-sponsored terrorism isn't a term you would understand, I guess.
The fact there's so many comments here does prove that racism (in the form of anti-semitism: YES, antisemitism IS indeed a form of racism, notwithstanding all you racists who pretend otherwise) continues to hold all its virulent power and appeal.
And why not? It's existed literally for thousands of years. Longer even than chess. As long as Christians have existed, and almost as long (or perhaps AS long) as Jews have existed.
Some years ago, some Third World figure, I forget who, argued that Asians and Africans owed no debt of guilt toward Jews the way Europeans do (not only for Hitler, but for some 2,000 years of massacres before he came along). The implication was, because historical anti-semitism is a distinctly European (and European Christian) phenomenon, non-Europeans were/are/will be somehow immune from the obviously very deep, very dark human impulses that breed it.
Alas, the past decade or three have made abundantly clear that isn't so. Asians and Africans may bear no guilt for what was done to the Jews historically. But they're doing their best to "catch up" with their European counterparts, in the anti-semitism department.
To be clear: arguing that Israel shouldn't exist is automatically an expression of anti-semitism. It's saying Jews have no right to their own country (in an area where they've lived historically for centuries, as others on this thread have pointed out - that's simply a historical fact, extending up to recent times, not an appeal to some ancient biblical prophecy).
China oppresses various people and groups. Do any of the most passionate critics of China's government policies argue that China should be torn up as a sovereign entity and turned into something else?
Rwanda had an infamous genocide not long ago. Today Rwanda still exists as a state. Is that unjust?
Even Germany was reconstituted after the Nazi era and handed back to be governed by Germans, after a few years of occupation.
To be brutally honest - yes I know this is unpleasant to be so honest, it's much easier to avert one's eyes and mouth platitudes to minimize the unpleasantness - all the people who say, "I'm not anti-semitic, I'm just anti-Israel," are being disingenous (there, even I slid into using a euphemism - a platitude to deodorize the unpleasant reaction. "Disingenuous" is just a polity way of saying "liar.")
To drill down a bit further: Yes one can criticize Israel's government without being anti-semitic - specific actions or policies, or the governing party, or all current political parties in Israel. But denying that the Jewish people have any right to a country of their own - whether explicitly as acirce and Manu do here, or implicitly - is racism in the form of anti-semitism.
What is meant by denying "implicitly" Israel's right to exist? I'm referring to the very large number of people who robotically denounce any type of self-defense by Israeli forces - even non-violent defensive actions such as erecting a wall or closing up tunnels to stop terrorists from getting in....Meanwhile, such people invariably make excuses for (a few even celebrate!) any Arab atrocity against Jews, no matter how extreme or unprovoked and no matter how indisputably innocent the individual victims. Such as the numerous instances of infants in Israel who are consciously sought out by terrorists to be slain alongside their mothers. Not as abstract, unintented damage from some bombing, but sought out consciously and individually by a terrorist infiltrator and knifed or shot point-blank.
And in Arab capitals, they build monuments inscribed with the names of specific individuals who commit such "heroic" acts.
"To be clear: arguing that Israel shouldn't exist is automatically an expression of anti-semitism."
an·ti-Sem·i·tism (ān'tē-sěm'ĭ-tĭz'əm, ān'tī-)
n.
1.Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2.Discrimination against Jews.
You're talking through your rear.
If you want "racism", then:
"Asians and Africans may bear no guilt for what was done to the Jews historically. But they're doing their best to "catch up" with their European counterparts, in the anti-semitism department." fits the bill very nicely indeed.
Anti-Semitism older than chess?! Chess was invented by the ancient Indians who were around long before the Abrahamic religions.
¨But denying that the Jewish people have any right to a country of their own - whether explicitly as acirce and Manu do here, or implicitly - is racism in the form of anti-semitism. ¨
Where did i say that Jewish people don´t have a right for a country of their own?
Please quote me , if not retract your statement.
My wife is jew , i did a movie about the Holocaust , i am very aware of what real anti semitism is , i am also aware that playing the rol of a victim is a common tactic used by many jewish zealots like you to confront the tinniest criticism.
But unfortunately that is not even the case here:
Do i like Israel point of view in this conflict ?
Not at all , they became opressors of another ethnia , they should know better.
Do i believe Israel have the right to exist ?
Of course yes , but IMHO it would be more productive for everyone if they had their country in some other place .
My only opinion in this subject is that after WW2 Germany should have lost some land to the jewish people as a compensation for the genocide.
Is that anti semitism?
chesshire cat, thanks for inadvertently revealing your bias - which may be either conscious/recognized, or not.
So, you think it's inherently racist to point out other people's / governments' racist actions and attitudes - if such people (Asians and Africans, in this case) are part of the favored or privileged segment of humanity who you and like-minded people apparently feel can do no wrong?
May I ask, chesshire, if in elevating what used to be called the Third World this way, you view them as Noble Savages who earned exemption from any criticism by virtue of their own history of oppression at the hands of the West?
Or is their immunity and nobility more of an inherent thing in your view - sort of a Chosen People?
The first alternative seems to be preferred by those of you who (like the Mugabe apologists above), when facing the unpleasant chore of explaining away Third World people's massacres of their own, always concoct some way of saying "It's really the Europeans' fault." When you aren't denying it altogether, like the cheerfully fact-free claim above that Mugabe's forces are only persecuting white farmers - or "settlers," a term that apologists for oppression have marvelously built into an equivalent of N-word applicable to people targeted for elimination who happen to be white.
Back up your accusations or STFU , insect.
No, fly. I think it's inherently STUPID to start a post accusing people of racism and make racist comments in the same post. Geddit?
I don't answer strawman attacks, so I'll ignore the rest.
If you want a logical argument, don't construct spurious, insulting rubbish and chuck it about like confetti.
If we extend your 'logic', which I don't agree with, that a man is an antisemite if he denies Israel's right to exist, then surely you are subject to the same claim re Palestinians by your almost ludicrous abstraction (albeit not uncommon) of the Jews' rights in Israel. These examples you give of other states being rebuilt have little bearing on your argument, as whatever we may feel about the ethnic wars/political situation in these countries, no ethnic group was displaced and not allowed to return - which is, of course, the reason a non racist person could claim Israel doesn't have a right to exist.
Your second to last paragraph was classic btw. You should write for the NY Times..its just amazing the number of Palestinians killed vs. the number of Israelis killed in the 30 years with the Israelis spending all their time erecting walls or closing tunnels in self defense.
Acirce wrote:
As far as my opinion goes you're basically right about that, I don't know about Manu. It's a colonial settler's state that can only exist on the basis of a massive and still ongoing crime. The main argument against letting the Palestinian refugees return says it all - that it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. But if a state's very existence depends on not letting the original population return to their own land simply because they are not Jews, what legitimacy does it have? You don't have that situation in any other country. It's as if South Africa was _defined_ by the apartheid system, or if Nazi Germany was a new state _defined_ by Nazism. Alternatively, look at the Soviet Union - there were certainly a good number of people who thought the whole Soviet system should be dismantled, i.e. by definition the end of the Soviet Union...which of course also happened. I view that as a legitimate opinion, even though I would have disagreed if I were older and politically conscious at the time.
In a different but still somewhat similar way, I am also against the existence of North and South Korea as countries - as I think they should be united in one state.
***
This is appalling commentary by Acirce. It completely ignores the history of the League of Nations mandate for Palestine and the UN declaration of two states (one Arab and one jewish).
The Israelis were willing to accept the UN division. The Arabs were not -- they attacked the territory and the existing population fled their homes *in anticipation of an Arab victory*.
The attackers lost the war.
The mandate territory was never an Arab state in recent times. It was Ottoman territory. Then it was British territory. Then it was Israeli and partly Arab territory (until seized and held by Jordan in the 1948 war -- blame Jordan for the land grab!)
Jordan subsequently lost (and regained) it in 1956, then lost it again in 1967 and renounced its claims (how convenient that it only took multiple wars to get them to do so).
The statement that "Israel's existence is the result of some type of ongoing crime" is the most anti-semitic statement I have ever heard -- at least since the infamous UN declaration by third world thugs that equated zionism with racism.
The ongoing crime is that the Arab world refuses to accept the two-state solution in ways that 1) recognize the existence of Israel, 2)recognize that the Arab side lost 4 wars. That last part is important -- you cannot go back to the UN declaration without the Arab side acknowledging and admitting its past wrongs..and offering some measure of compensation. The territorial integrity of modern Israel is based on the principle that the land that was lost in 1948 is now Israel proper.
This argument is not only about Israel...it is that losing wars has consequences.
For example -- the Allies will never permit a Prussian state on the continent of Europe -- post WW2 the Prussian state was destroyed, divided between Russian and Poland, and forever lost to Germany. Perhaps that should be undone, too?
"you cannot go back to the UN declaration without the Arab side acknowledging and admitting its past wrongs..and offering some measure of compensation."
Lord spare us. Black becomes white. Truth untruth. Israel deserves compensation. Orwell lives on!
Are you suggesting that UN resolutions are valid and should be abided by? Or just some of them?
"Of course colonial and post-colonial South Africa was very much defined by apartheid. Still eventually the country could continue to exist, on the same territory and in a different form, while keeping the same innocent geographic name."
That was exactly my point. Reasonably speaking, Israel can't, since the very idea of Israel is _based_ on a racist ideology.
"My point was that such a consensus is unlikely, because - different from South Africa - there is no neat division between good guys and bad guys.
Maybe you still disagree. Starting from your premise that "Israel shouldn´t exist in its current form", missile attacks and suicide bombings might be legitimate acts of resistance and self-defense? One person's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter ... . I would still distinguish between targeting civilians and accepting civilian casualties as collateral damage (horrible term, I didn't invent it!), while both are deplorable."
I'll agree as far as to say some actions of the Palestinian resistance can't be condoned, although Hamas has quit the strategy of suicide bombings against civilians since some years. (Incidentally, Israel could have stopped them at any moment by agreeing to Hamas' offer that both sides should stop targeting each others' civilians.) So what? Some Black South African fighters also used "terrorist" methods, and even ANC was long declared a terrorist organization in the US and other Western countries... Read up! In an embarrassing moment, it was only very recently that Mandela was officially removed from the terrorist watchlist in the US. ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm ) There are, obviously, lots of other examples from liberation struggles worldwide: Algeria, Kenya, Afghanistan, China, etc, etc... but nothing of that ever changed the fundamental division between oppressor and oppressed and the equally fundamental right of the latter to resist. Again, as for Israel, there is already a near-consensus in most of the world, and even in the West, the understanding of the Palestinian situation is much better now than some decades ago. (I know well that Israel was once widely admired on all sides of the political spectrum in Sweden.) So, again, we'll see how the situation looks in the future.
"The statement that "Israel's existence is the result of some type of ongoing crime" is the most anti-semitic statement I have ever heard"
Glad to know that you don't consider antisemitism such a big problem.
Thanks d_tal and Luke. May the spirit of the dragon abide with you and crush my opponents.
Jokes aside, I am amazed how many players below IM strength dismiss certain openings and then consistently fail to justify their opinions over the board. I suppose such arrogance is good if it garners points for those who bother to learn these 'dubious' openings.
Ah, there's too much emphasis on openings at our level. Truth is, you can get away with most anything. And these days, anything can get refuted or rehabilitated at top level. Dragon, Evan's Gambit, Scotch...I don't like lines where your opponent can rattle off 15 moves without "playing", myself.
I have had great success with the rhubarb defence. I play it all the time a while consuming large amounts of vinegar.
My memory is not what it used to be though and I once played 13...a5 in the bloobenstein pimpleneck variation of the weasel attack. Yes I hear you all laugh at me for playing such a silly move, I was very embarassed by that.
In a round robin tournament against doctor grimlick and dr herbalwax I once played the dangerous honeybee gambit and was fortunate to draw!
To hysterics like Chesspride and flywall, UN resolutions only have teeth if based on the immutable tenet that Israel is a state entirely above criticism whose every action is just and inevitable, whereas Arabs (in this case Palestinians) are prehistoric creatures whose bellies scrape the earth, forever craving the slaughter of innocents to slake their bloodthirst.
So we can turn the discussion back to the Sicilian Dragon or keep arguing with these guys.
But to respond to acirce, who wrote:
"Incidentally, Israel could have stopped them at any moment by agreeing to Hamas' offer that both sides should stop targeting each others' civilians."
This is a fair point, especially considering that Hamas was originally bankrolled by a special Peres-led Israeli Cabinet group (apparently their reasoning for getting Hamas off the ground was that Hamas could be controlled as long as it stuck to the occupied territories, where it was hoped that Hamas and Fatah would cancel each other out like rats killing rats, heralding another PR victory for Israel). But regarding the civilian targets offer, it's worth pointing out that around the time of the last Intifada and shortly after a Tel Aviv disco was suicide-bombed, Arafat met with Hamas' then-leader and made a handshake deal to halt suicide bombings.
However, the meeting was surveilled and Israel learned of the plan. Sharon's response was to order the assassinations of members of the Hamas leadership in an attempt to nullify the deal. Shortly after the murders were carried out, suicide bombings resumed and Sharon made his famously lofty "police your people" comment to Arafat.
I just thought, since flywall cautioned us against "minimizing the unpleasantness", that it was useful to be up front about this sort of thing. And I'm sure flywall appreciates it.
I have not visited to Israel but have seen pictures and it looks nice. It is bad that so many want to blow it up. They play good chess I think but have no big name like Topalov. They have many emenies for some reasons that you all talk about and I do not know. It is bad that they will soon blow each up and kill so many. Maybe this talking will help stop the blowing up.
HardyBerger, re the dragon. My experience is that as the time control increases the dragon becomes tougher for black. I used to play it in correspondence games (before computers) but was made to suffer by white. In shorter games, allegro, blitz I'm happy to play either side though.
Clubfoot wrote:
"Hamas was originally bankrolled by a special Peres-led Israeli Cabinet group...
Arafat met with Hamas' then-leader and made a handshake deal to halt suicide bombings....response was to order the assassinations of members of the Hamas leadership in an attempt to nullify the deal. Shortly after the murders were carried out, suicide bombings resumed and Sharon made his famously lofty "police your people" comment to Arafat.
....And I'm sure flywall appreciates it."
Yes, Clubfoot, I do appreciate it. Thanks for informing us all of this dastardly false-flag operation by those scheming, conniving people who are so clever with money.
You forgot to mention the many other false-flag operations Israel has orchestrated over the years. Bankrolling the German Nazis, for one. Not to mention al-Qaeda; in fact, 9/11 was laid out step-by-step in Yitzhak Rabin's office before he died ... following blueprints originally drawn up by the Mossad during the time Golda Meir. (During a well-earned break from boiling Christian babies to produce matzoh, no doubt.) With Elie Wiesel and Chaim Potok standing in as observers to bring Israel's spin to Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the ZOG-controlled news media.
Or - turning to an image whose outrageous irony is less likely to be lost on dim-witted Clubfoot, acirce and your fellow ZOG-buster crowd:
You forgot to mention that the Africans were sold into slavery by their own kinsmen.
flyonthewall,
Your argument is becoming increasingly desperate, incoherent and illogical. You have used, in 3 ignoble posts, used enough insulting group epithets to make me seriously question your sanity. Your crude allusions to 'Mugabe apologists', 'noble savages', 'sold into slavery by their kinsmen' etc are inaccuate and ignorant simplifications of reality and do little do cover the poverty of your basic argument.
It is not even worth pointing out that your invention of 'increasing African and Asian anti-semitic attitudes' is inaccurate as you could not possibly have an accurate barometer of 'African or Asian' opinion- assuming such exists. But you seem set in your ways and it is really pointless arguing with those who come to a discussion with near-fanatical certainty and will not be swayed by any thought of being wrong.
This has not been your finest hour.
"..as the time control increases the dragon becomes tougher for black."
I agree with that. Some openings are easier to play because the plans are more direct and intuitive than in other openings, and the Dragon is one of them. In short time controls, this favors the player using the easy-to-play, cookbook openings. In the Dragon, white seems to have more choices than black, and deciding which plan to use in a short time control can prove to be a problem for white.
We now return you to the Arab-Israeli war.
Hardyberger,
Thanks for your response, which contains the germ of support.
If you can now bring yourself to read my posts in full, you'll see I was explicitly acribing racist views such as "noble savages" and "Africans sold into slavery by their kinsmen" to people such as acirce and Clubfoot - without expressing any sympathy for such views myself.
Perhaps the sight of unpleasant terms such as those causes your brain to freeze up, as it does to many people from "polite" Europe. Please just make an effort to suspend your disgust and read for meaning. It will be worth it. Not only that: once able to read certain types of racist epithets without automatically closing your brain, you may suddenly find yourself more sensitive to other racist language that's widely used against groups you previously held only negative feelings toward - such as the caricature of Israel as a "settler state" or the idea that a Jewish conspiracy runs the mass media or the US government - both expressed by others earlier on this thread.
As for "Mugabe apologists" - just search for Mugabe's name on this thread, you'll see at least one or two earlier posters making arguments that qualify for the exact wording you used about mine - "despearate" and such. Trashing his country, imprisoning his opponents - it's not so bad after all, they say, he's only doing it to "white settlers" (a lie, the political opponents he imprisoned have been mostly black), and anyway it's really all justifiable because whites once ruled his country and they're to blame for him becoming ever more dictatorial, some 30 years after majority rule....(So the apologists assert.)
So I can't have an accurate barometer of African or Asian opinion? When it comes to opinion about Jews, I'd say Mahatir's views resonated pretty widely in Asia, and still do. Wouldn't you?
And while it was a long time ago, can you cite any evidence that mainstream African opinion about Jews has become any more enlightened since Idi Amin's days?
Maybe I'm being unfair. Perhaps the reason Africa and Asia over time switched from allies of Israel (which they were in the 1960s and into the '70s) to enemies, has naught to do with anti-Jewish sentiment, but stemmed simply from economic calculation (they need the Arabs' oil). Though the quality of sentiment here suggests otherwise.
"Hamas has quit the strategy of suicide bombings against civilians since some years."
According to Wikipedia, this is true since 2005. [General disclaimer: I consider Wiki rather reliable at least for factual information. As far as other sources are concerned, it is harder to evaluate which ones are "as neutral as possible" on controversial topics. Fox News is biased, so is Al-Jazeera ...]
However, other groups have taken over (Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Palestinian Islamic Jihad). From an Israeli point of view, that's the problem: even if you reach an agreement with one group, another more radical one will pop up.
The overall number of suicide attacks has decreased, but it is hard to say if this is
- a change of Palestinian strategy
- other attacks prevented by Israeli security forces, or
- the effect of closing the borders to Palestinian territories
One might say "Israel should give it a try and open the borders" - but if this is followed by a(nother) series of suicide attacks, hardliners will take over for good.
chesshire cat wrote:
"you cannot go back to the UN declaration without the Arab side acknowledging and admitting its past wrongs..and offering some measure of compensation."
Lord spare us. Black becomes white. Truth untruth. Israel deserves compensation. Orwell lives on!
Are you suggesting that UN resolutions are valid and should be abided by? Or just some of them?
No, what I am suggesting is that it is disingenuous of the losing side of four wars (the Arab side) to then point to UN declarations and say "let's go back to this -- to the letter."
The time for that was 1948. This is now 2009.
Here is what I believe:
1. Israel has a right to exist as a jewish state.
2. Israel has a right to its current geographical boundaries, including some territory from the west bank (won by war) and the Golan (won by war).
3. An Arab state can exist in Palestine tomorrow if the Arab leaders show statesmanship and allow it -- rather than insisting on the entire territory.
I also believe:
4. Taiwan should be independent -- without interference from the mainland.
5. Tibet should be free -- as it was in 1950 prior to the first invasion.
6. Zimbabwe is human rights mess, led by a dictator (Mugabe) who deserves scorn.
Taking acirce's view that occupying land is some type of on-going crime...then all of North American must be vacated. What absolute rubbish.
Look to the principles and culture of the people who live on the land. I will choose the West every time.
People who wear bombs and blow up probly would blow up all of planet earth is they could so to protect earth they must be stoped. Talking and talking to them does not stop them so they must all be killed before they push thier buttons. Too bad but otherwise we all die when they wear big atomic bombs.
And now on the Dragon: "does anyone agree that 'the dragon is not a serious opening'?"
Who says so, and what does this mean? I think Kasparov said so recently, and he meant the line is dubious - "not serious" could also mean "not ambitious enough", but that's clearly not the issue.
However, some current top players do or did play the Dragon with the black pieces: Radjabov, Carlsen (maybe no longer?), "rising star" Gashimov - I think they wouldn't if it was virtually losing by force.
Anyway, amateur level is another story. I guess even then you need to know quite some theory (or otherwise accept occasional "book losses"). For the rest, why abandon the Dragon
- if you have good results?
- or even if you get exciting games, but don't care too much about the result?
If it didn't fit your style, you would have found out many years ago ... on your own or with the help of a coach lower-rated than GK.
chesspride,
Can you not see that your 2nd point is a recipe for unending conflict? What's to stop each side seeking to regain territory lost through previous armed conflict(s), in a perpetual cycle of wars and low-level strife.
"According to Wikipedia, this is true since 2005."
Yes, I know. It also happens to be true according to reality.
I mentioned Hamas in particular since they are the legitimate Palestinian government and by far the leading resistance movement in terms of strength and influence.
Of course, the demand by the so-called "international community" - a neat euphemism for the USA and some of its allies - is that they renounce violence altogether. Only then, along with fully recognizing Israel and its "right to exist", would they be considered "good guys", with your terminology. These absurd demands would never for a moment even be considered. But suicide bombings against civilians is no longer a strategy they use.
In passing, a good primer on Hamas is "Hamas: A Beginner's Guide" by Khaled Hroub. I recommend it when you get tired of trying to understand the conflict by reading Wikipedia snippets.
"The overall number of suicide attacks has decreased, but it is hard to say if this is [...]"
Of course it's hard if Wikipedia doesn't tell you.
Thanks Thomas.
The problem is that the pragmatic need to accrue rating points trumps the earlier aim of pure entertainment. That's why I would refrain from playing openings like the Icelandic gambit, Baltic Defence, Blackmar-Diemar, Morra gambit etc against stronger opponents. Why risk going down in flames if you can just steal a pawn in the opening and nurse it to victory on move 60?
I believe Mikhail Tal did this often in his mature years.
As for antisemitic statements, one of the worst I have seen in recent years was in 2006 when Olmert said the war against Lebanon was waged "by all the Jews". You don't even see Nazis express themselves that bluntly very often.
Well said, acirce.
The term 'international community' is dishonestly and arrogantly used to mean the USA and a few friends- UK and a few others. It completely ignores the majority of the UN membership. The sad thing is that 'the will of the international community', as expressed by a few Western diplomats and journalists hardly represents majority opinion even in their own countries. It's really a travesty of democracy.
"Perhaps the sight of unpleasant terms such as those causes your brain to freeze up"
Exactly, flywall! You demanded that unpleasant cards be laid on the table at all times so that all will benefit from an accounting of cold hard truths -- yet the moment your advice was put into action, your baby feelings were hurt and your own brain froze! In a flash you duly informed us that the posters who followed your own dictum were "dimwitted" and "racist".
In fact, in order to convince others of your opponents' racist beliefs (which do not exist outside your own fearful brain), you just made it up as you went along:
"Thanks for informing us all of this dastardly false-flag operation by those scheming, conniving people who are so clever with money."
...delivering a clumsy imputation of anti-semitism where none existed. I figured the facts could be too intense for you, but you really could have found a more honest way of claiming hurt feelings, kiddo.
Then, in your response to Hardy, you outright admitted your tactic of smearing your opponents instead of debating them:
"I was explicitly acribing racist views such as "noble savages" and "Africans sold into slavery by their kinsmen" to people such as acirce and Clubfoot - without expressing any sympathy for such views myself."
So you give it all away quite easily. Whole cloth and pure straw. You're not serious, you can't tell the truth and you don't belong in any debate, not even here with your dimwitted chess kinsmen.
Clubfoot, I stated in my first post on this thread - which didn't even mention you - that it's racist for anyone to assert Israel shouldn't exist. So there's nothing deceptive or dishonest about my using analogies to help others understand why your views are racist later in the discussion.
I'd say "dim-witted" is pretty accurate - wouldn't you? - to anyone who can't understand the parallel between stating that Israeli Jews are not only to BLAME for Hamas terrorism but knowingly sponsored and propelled it (something you stated in your post I quoted from), and stating that Africans were the driving force behind the slave trade. Or stating that Jews concocted the Holocaust as an excuse to create Israel (a widely published viewpoint in certain circles these days - perhaps those are the circles you move in?)
Yes quite right, no point wasting any further breath with those who will argue black is white. Such blind fanaticism does sadden me though, and make me reflect on the many roots of this mode of thinking.
"Look to the principles and culture of the people who live on the land."
Such statements, really. Logically one can then, say, massacre the population of any country and move in some highly cultured, principled people and everyone would live happily ever after.
Save perhaps the ghosts of the original inhabitants. Who obviously weren't "cultured" enough to begin with.
Anyway. Enough. Arguing against such "logic" is futile.
Another disclaimer: I did not "start from scratch" browsing through Wikipedia, I just use it to brush up my memory and check some facts. I followed the conflict before, obviously from western media (both Dutch and German ones over the last ~10 years).
May I ask: Do you have an academic or professional background, or a very strong "hobby interest" in international politics? If so, of course you have more background knowledge, but still your opinions remain opinions.
"Of course it's hard if Wikipedia doesn't tell you."
This is obviously ironic, noone can answer hypothetical questions as "What had happened if Israel didn't close the borders?". Obviously the Israeli side prefers options 2) and 3) - successes of their security forces and effects of keeping the borders closed.
Maybe you can still play "just for fun" in non-rated games, e.g. blitz games - at least casual ones, in tournaments maybe potential prize money replaces rating considerations? Or would it be too hard to switch between different styles?
BTW, I would consider the Icelandic gambit (1.e4 d5 2.ed5: Nf6 3.c4 e6) less dubious than the other offbeat lines you mentioned - even GMs lost with black against untitled but well-prepared opponents. Of course white can avoid it with 3.d4 altogether. And the Scandinavian as a whole is nowadays a "semi-respectable opening", even Kramnik played it with black in a non-rated event (Zurich Jubilee rapid).
And I wonder: How do you _regularly_ (?) manage to "steal a pawn in the opening and nurse it to victory" against stronger opponents?
For anyone puzzled by the back-and-forth charges of racism here but disinclined to trace it post-by-post, here's a quick rundown:
After a few people posted that Israel shouldn't exist while denying they were anti-semites, I stated (in my first post here) that is a contradiction in terms: Jews have no less right to govern a country than any other people. Within that post I noted that anti-semitism - although crafted in Europe over many centuries - today is no less rife in Asia and Africa (taking the actions of various governments and public figures such as Mahatir as a proxy; and let's not forget the Durban conferences) than in Europe.
For that last point, acirce weighed in calling me "racist." Note that he didn't dispute my statement; he simply cited it as an example of "racism" on my part.
Thus, acirce was (perhaps unknowingly) expressing his belief that it's inherently racist to criticize Asians or Africans for anything at all - even for behaving in a racist (anti-semitic) manner toward other groups. To repeat: had acirce disagreed that anti-semitism is rife in the Third World, he could have demanded evidence from me, or argued otherwise (or even insulted me in some other fashion than hurling back the "racist" canard). That is NOT what he did, however.
That's where I came in and asked where he got that idea ... which after all reflects a pretty damn condescending attitude on his part toward Asians and Africans - claiming it's not simply inaccurate to talk about anti-semitism in those cultures, but is illegitimate (i.e. "racist") to even raise the possibility.
I didn't say anything like that at all. Stop rambling about like a madman already.
Now, as for what _you_ said...
"Asians and Africans may bear no guilt for what was done to the Jews historically. But they're doing their best to "catch up" with their European counterparts, in the anti-semitism department."
If somebody here had expressed an equally negative, generalizing statement about Jews, I'm sure you wouldn't react at all, right.
Rubbish, every word. Good night!
"May I ask: Do you have an academic or professional background, or a very strong "hobby interest" in international politics?"
Closer to the latter, but of course politics is not a hobby.
"but still your opinions remain opinions."
Yes, and from my perspective the issue isn't differing opinions, within reasonable bounds. I've had many interesting and constructive discussions with people whose opinions differ, even by far, from mine. When people haven't bothered to inform themselves properly and still feel compelled to join a discussion and share their brilliant insights, and/or use dishonest means to "win" the discussion or propagate a certain view...that's where I tend to lose patience.
I certainly wouldn't exaggerate my own knowledge (and understanding), but on THIS particular subject, I think I do know enough to state various things with confidence.
"Obviously the Israeli side prefers options 2) and 3) - successes of their security forces and effects of keeping the borders closed."
And now that Israel, in a shocking development, has allowed Hamas to start importing certain crucial terrorist technology again, we'll be able to compare the results to some extent. Read more about this at http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=233878
Some time I am confused because every one calls names and insults. How can every one be so wrong and bad? Time to make tea. I hope it stoped when I come back.
"I stated in my first post on this thread - which didn't even mention you - that it's racist for anyone to assert Israel shouldn't exist."
So you believe it's quite all right to argue dishonestly, just as long as you let us know well enough in advance? Note also here that you say "I stated it's racist.." and not "I stated my belief that it's racist...". You give yourself away by miles and miles. And the punchline? I never said Israel shouldn't exist. But that hardly matters to someone who doesn't let truth get in the way of a good hysterical episode.
"So there's nothing deceptive or dishonest about my using analogies to help others understand why your views are racist later in the discussion."
If I were expressing racist views on this forum, wouldn't other posters be able to detect such views without your help? Moreover if it was racism, would you really feel it necessary to ascribe racist ideas not present in my comments, and to use racist terminology not deployed in my comments? Is it not then possible that even you can see that it just doesn't exist outside your own peculiar belief? And that "helping others understand" is in fact an attempt to deceive? Because this is what you did.
"I'd say "dim-witted" is pretty accurate - wouldn't you? - to anyone who can't understand the parallel between stating that Israeli Jews are not only to BLAME for Hamas terrorism but knowingly sponsored and propelled it (something you stated in your post I quoted from)..."
Uh...no, I would not call it dimwitted, even if what you're saying right now were true. But it's not true. I did not say "Israeli Jews are to blame for Hamas terrorism", a rather transparent attempt to rework my comments into a Jew-hating attack. What I said was that in a special operation, the government of Israel provided support for Hamas as a divide and conquer strategy to break the back of Fatah. This information, delivered in the "face up to unpleasant truths" spirit you recommended earlier, was too much for you to absorb, hence your usage of the term "dimwitted" and your guilt-associative attempt to drag in the African slave trade where it did not belong -- just as you do not belong in anything close to rational debate.
"Or stating that Jews concocted the Holocaust as an excuse to create Israel (a widely published viewpoint in certain circles these days - perhaps those are the circles you move in?)"
Of course I never said that, which nonetheless did not prevent you from dropping it in there and conflating me with Holocaust deniers in a desperate frisson of invincible stupidity with sinister intent. But I'm going with Chesshire on this one and bow out of the non-debate: flywall, you hang yourself from your every contemptible and libelous word, yet in the end you're only more convinced of your own beliefs, dug deep down into the hole where you belong.
You're right Clubfoot - it's useless to argue with you. At least you're kind enough to make that fact obvious in your first sentence (pretty much each time you post, actually).
" 'I stated in my first post on this thread....(snip) ...
"So you believe it's quite all right to argue dishonestly, just as long as you let us know well enough in advance?"
There you go: Anyone who argues with you isn't just WRONG - but DISHONEST. No wonder you have to go to a chess board to find anyone willing to argue with you about politics. All the people whose interest in the subject is more serious (i.e. on global-politics sites) must have learned long ago tune you out.
Other readers will note the similarity between Clubfoot's rhetorical tactic right here, and that of acirce I exposed in my preceding post. To wit: don't refute, or even contradict, adversary's claim - just proclaim it "dishonest" (Clubfoot) or "racist" (acirce).
Nope , your first post mentioned me as a racist , i gave you the proper explanation of why i am not and you never retracted you statement.
Is that because you are a jew?
Or is it because you are plain stupid?
My guess is the later , of course.
But this is not the first accusation tossed like wedding rice that i read these days @ here, for idiots like you or Thomas or chesspride are not alone , always finding the needed company on this threads as long as they keep throwing dirt to the right persons.
No new ideas of any kind , not a thing to share about nothing , this threads are empty of anything with value .
seeu @
HardyBerger | November 3, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply
chesspride,
Can you not see that your 2nd point is a recipe for unending conflict? What's to stop each side seeking to regain territory lost through previous armed conflict(s), in a perpetual cycle of wars and low-level strife.
No, I don't see that...the losing side is the one that must move on.
Sweden doesn't keep trying to retake Norway and Finland.
Japan isn't seeking to regain Korea or Formosa.
Germany isn't retaking Pomerania.
Pakistan has acknowledged that Bangladesh is gone.
Mexico doesn't pine after Arizona.
Yet the Arab states can lose four wars...and then have the gall to say "let's go back to that 1947 UN declaration that would give us back what we lost by starting armed conflicts."
The loser in armed conflict usually only acquiesces after being convinced that there is no hope of regaining what has been lost.
On that score, the Arab states hope to regain through public opinion what they lost through decades of warfare.
Freud might also add that the Arab states project their own insecurities onto their small neighbor. Israel is prosperous. Outside of oil revenue, the neighbors are not. Israel is a democracy with human rights. The neighbors are totalitarian regimes (which are always a bit paranoid).
They bully their neighbor for a variety of reasons, including 1) internal political gain to keep power, 2) in earlier times, the Cold War brought benefits for playing one side off the other -- indeed, this mess might have been settled by Britain, France and Israel in 1956 if not for US fears of WW3.
In the post-cold war era, we have the profane al Qaeda and radical Islam to contend with. The neighboring states are both fearful of it and harbor it.
I'm sorry that some are so devoid of history that they view the conflict as one of "colonial encroachment" or such.
Let's take a hypothetical. Liberia is an African state founded by freed US slaves in the 1820s.
Suppose its neighbors warred against it and threatened to "drive them into the sea."
What would be the appropriate response -- to call them "colonizers" who were committing an "ongoing crime" by merely existing? And (as some on this forum apparently do) to rejoice as they were slaughtered?
I am shocked that people that I took for decent folks -- based on their chess postings -- turned out to be really dreadful folks after all.
I shouldn't be surprised -- just because people are good at chess or have an interest in it doesn't mean they are decent or educated.
I think we all are racest even me because there are many races in my family from long back. So why is that so bad. Who can say.
chesshire cat replied to comment from Clubfoot | November 3, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply
Yes quite right, no point wasting any further breath with those who will argue black is white. Such blind fanaticism does sadden me though, and make me reflect on the many roots of this mode of thinking.
"Look to the principles and culture of the people who live on the land."
Such statements, really. Logically one can then, say, massacre the population of any country and move in some highly cultured, principled people and everyone would live happily ever after.
Save perhaps the ghosts of the original inhabitants. Who obviously weren't "cultured" enough to begin with.
I happen to live in a country that did just that -- the USA.
And your point is?
If you objecting to my general point that some cultures and/or governments are more amendable to personal human rights and freedoms...than others...then you objecting to a fact of the world.
Do you analyze chess this way -- refusing to say "this position favors the first player" under some idea that all positions must be equal? They are not.
Some ideologies are good and should be retained. Some are not and should be discarded.
I happen to like and support the ideologies of the West -- therefore, I oppose those that run counter to ideas of personal liberty and innate human rights. In this debate, that means supporting Israel over its neighbors -- by history, ideology, and international political community.
Israel vs. Libya?
Israel vs. Egypt?
Israel vs. Syria?
Israel vs. Iran?
Israel vs. Saudi Arabia?
Come on -- is there even a debate here?
It may be useful to recall how this debate started -- i.e. why Israel plays sports in Europe rather than Asia.
Israel is European in identity.
Clubfoot said
What I said was that in a special operation, the government of Israel provided support for Hamas as a divide and conquer strategy to break the back of Fatah. This information, delivered in the "face up to unpleasant truths" spirit you recommended earlier, was too much for you
This takes the prize for paranoid conspiracy of the year.
But then...a player at our club seems to believe that WW2 was started by the Rockefellers to destroy the German currency...as it was a possible counterweight to the Federal Reserve conspiracy to destroy America.
That one might edge out the "Israel allied itself with (radical) Hamas..."
A post full of utter nonsense, as usual. Let me just make a brief note that I find it fascinating how you deny that Liberia was a colony. Of course it was. And of course the native population wasn't exactly overwhelmingly enthusiastic about colonist rule. And of course they had no reason to. Anyway, why bother. Good night.
A post full of utter nonsense, as usual. Let me just make a brief note that I find it fascinating how you deny that Liberia was a colony. Of course it was. And of course the native population wasn't exactly overwhelmingly enthusiastic about colonist rule. And of course they had no reason to. Anyway, why bother. Good night
So the very existence of Liberia is also an on-going crime?
OK...now it is clear. Clearly you are not on the side of the the founders of Liberia (as you are not on the side of the founders of Israel).
But that doesn't make their actions a crime. I suppose what it does is create a "side" that one may either favor or oppose.
What an interesting view of history you must have -- any time a people are on the move (Huns? Finns? Ottomans? Mongols?) their existence in new territory becomes an "on-going crime".
Greenland colony, anyone?
Sorry flywall, but you're beginning to babble now after your shell game was outed by several posters.
"Other readers will note the similarity between Clubfoot's rhetorical tactic right here, and that of acirce I exposed in my preceding post. To wit: don't refute, or even contradict, adversary's claim - just proclaim it "dishonest" (Clubfoot) or "racist" (acirce)"
You "exposed" nothing on either. Your post was an attempt to justify lying in order to brand other posters as Jew haters. Your claims were both contradicted and refuted, and you were only proclaimed "dishonest" after being found to be dishonest. Your own guilt-associative tactics were clearly delineated and your demonstrably untrue assertions were marked in turn. Your writing is spurious and your debating skills scant, but keep digging, by all means. Nothing should be beneath you.
If you guys think you're some kind of masters of intellectual debate and actually are able to "win" this dispute, then you're beyond help.
Wake up Mig, and delete the entire thread, including this comment.
Chesspride: "Israel has a right to its current geographical boundaries, including some territory from the west bank (won by war) and the Golan (won by war)."
"Won by war" doesn't imply a "right", unless you mean to say "might makes right." However, there's more to it. The West Bank and Golan Heights were used as staging grounds for Arab wars of aggression. It's hard to argue that Israel should simply allow those lands to be used similarly in the future by peoples that say that there intent and goal is to prepare and launch yet another war of aggression to wipe the Zionist entity off the map.
An analogy: A pathetic loser mugger points a gun at me, and screams, "I'm going to blow you away, you filthy pig-ape swine!" I knock the gun out his hand and pick it up. He screams again, "I'm going to kill you, you long-eared galoot!" I shrug, and say, "O.K. Here's your gun back. I only want peace."
Yeah, right.
I haven't bothered to read a single comment on this thread....but it strikes me that there are some very zealous people here.
I can help but wonder, how much could you have changed in your life and the lives of others, if you actually spent that time DOING something (even if its just pushing wood).
Never mind, please proceed to blow some air bubbles...
Some comments are ful of good information and some funny too so you miss if you don not read them. I do nto understand how you dont read but since you are here looking why do you do that if you dont read. Maybe it is you with nothing to do I mean that nicer of course so dont get mad with me.
A meaningful discussion is impossible when one of the sides is deliberately gravely distorting the other side's argument. Tellingly, this is what always happens from Israel's apologists when the subject comes up.
For the service of others, here is the post where I introduced "ongoing crime": http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2009/10/for-the-want-of-a-check.htm#comment-208407
I have repeatedly failed to access www.chess-results.com which recorded most team and swiss events nowadays. Anybody has any idea why, how to fix it? Thanks.
Why don't you go to a chess blog and ask?
This IS a chess blog, the discussion is - albeit remotely - related to the European Team Championship (where Israel was one of the participants) ... .
To answer Henry's question: no idea, I never had such problems. Maybe you were unlucky and the site was updated whenever you tried to visit (occasionally, but repeatedly I have the same - or a similar - problem with Chessvibes).
I can show you
http://chess-results.info/tnr26636.aspx?lan=4
"This IS a chess blog"
No? Really? Please tell me you understood I was joking.
Of course I understood your joke, as well as the previous (sour) one on Hamas importing terrorist technology - "details" (it's tea and coffee) were one mouse click away.
But I thought it couldn't hurt to point out - dozens of comments down the line - how and why the entire discussion started.
Please Mig, make a new heading!! Tal Memorial or anything!!
Mig just called and asked me to post the team up for 1st round in Moscow:
Carlsen - Kramnik
Morozevich - Leko
Ivanchuk - Anand
Gelfand - Ponomariov
Aronian - Svidler.
This tournament is embarrassing - every round's match-ups will be a thrill.
Every time (and that's a LOT of times) I access chess-results it will say "The connection has timed out". That's for the European Team Championship, The Junior World Championship, and various others that record their results in that system.
The quimbo-diatic trolling that is taking place on this rhubarbian subject angers me greatly. I will not tolerate the gulbilational scrollings of these orbolmic boys.
Let it be known that the birdlike way in which the racial pudding is being tampered with cannot be accepted easily.
I conclude that the descriptive notation methodology has an overwhelming affect on the fledgling yogurt mongers.
No idea, it never happened to me ... . While we are at such issues, does anyone else have trouble viewing the Europe Echecs videos? For me, quite often they are interrupted and start buffering - sometimes for a few seconds, sometimes for several minutes until I give up. This happens no matter where I (try to) watch them - at the original site (only place for the French versions!?) or embedded elsewhere. I do not have such problems, or at least much less frequently, with other videos on chess or other topics.
Rhubarbian? Wasn't he a reserve player for Armenia at the Euros last week?
No, you must be thinking of Barbarian. You know, Ripurgutski Barbarian, who is famous for recently ripping the arm off one of his defeated opponents and trying to eat it at the board. They were able to grab it away from him and reattach it to his opponent, who is doing well now and nearly recovered.
I heard that FIDE plans to reprimand Barbarian severely and I hope they do. He hasn't been allowed to play since it happened, which is why he didn't play for the Armenian team. Nevertheless, it was very disturbing to some of the other teams to see him in the playing hall, even though he was shackled in a cage. Something needs to be done about him and fast.
lol. this is probably the most painful threat on the internet.
threat=thread
stendec=sleepy from reading this thread
I never heard of this Barbarian and ripping arm off opponent. This can not be real. If yes then I agree he must be put away from hurting other players. Very bad for chess reputation.
I M -
I was just joking. There is no Barbarian ripping arms off opponents. I didn't think someone would believe that story was real, but I forgot about you. Go have your tea.
Every one acknowledges that humen's life seems to be high priced, but we require money for different things and not every man earns big sums cash. So to get some loans or just car loan should be good solution.
Oh you peoples are all the time bublink about money give away and never happen. You are not go awawy so why are you always. Go talk some where with all fake money. How come only happen since Karpov fun rasier happen in New York. I think Mr. Mig and Karpovs got hook up with slime peoples of world and now we infectd with slmeys.