Good evening fellow chess nerds. Here it is once again, the Saturday Nite AoSHQ Chess Thread.

(Applause)

More on the Reti position

Last week, I posted a link to a video by Igor and Gleb wherein they talked about the famous study by Reti. This sparked some discussion in the comments, particularly this:

50 Igor and Gleb are wrong about the optical delusion. White wins by
making G3 its first move, then running with the pawn.Try it. Only take
the black pawn if it tries to advance. Black king can't catch the white
pawn.

Posted by: Alec Rawls at May 05, 2012 08:55 PM (kTTUz)

Alec claims he has found a cook in Reti's study. In a subsequent comment, he clarified his remarks further: 'I'm assuming that black moves first and goes to b2, as in the video. THEN white makes g3 its first move.'

So let's take a look.

Igor and Gleb confused things a bit by reversing the colors of the original study. I'm not sure why they thought that was necessary, but I am going to confuse things even more by reversing their reversal:

This is how the original study appeared. The White King starts out on h8 and the idea is for White to centralize by marching down along the diagonal and from the central squares, the King is in a position to either run down the fleeing pawn or to support his own pawn.

However, Alec says no, this falls short, Black can win by first moving his King to b6 and then running the pawn. White does not have time to catch it. But isn't this idea what Igor and Gleb ran through in the second part of their video? Let's see how this works out:

1. Kg7 Kb6
2. Kf6 h4

This is, I think, the position that Alec was looking at when he determined that White was busted. Of course, if 2... Kxc6, then 3. Kg5, the pawn can't escape, and it's a draw. So

3. Ke5

Now Alec says Black should advance the pawn. But, as we will see, White can neutralize this.

3........h3
4. Kd6 h2
5. c7 h1=Q
6. c8=Q

So there you are. Both sides promote their pawns simultaneously, and Black has no tactical trick up his sleeve to force a quick win. The position is drawn.

Ke5 is the key move for White. White's King has to stay centralized until Black chooses to commit himself to either pushing the pawn or capturing the White pawn.
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:46 PM | Comments (39)
Post contains 743 words, total size 5 kb.

Anna Puma linked this in the morning post, and I was intrigued so I checked it out.

A WWII bomber and crew crashed in the Libyan desert following a bombing mission in 1943. Separated from their bomb group, the 514th Bomb Squadron, 376th Bomb Group, they attempted to complete their bombing mission to Naples, Italy, but bad weather hampered them from the mission, and also making it home. There is no certainty as to the cause when they became lost, but it seems they overflew their base on the way home, and ditched in the desert after most of the crew bailed out.

In 1958, her wreckage was discovered by an oil exploration team in the Sahara, and a mission to find the remains of the crew was initiated.

As in the story this morning about the lost P-40, the wreckage was intact, but in this case there were clues about what happened.

more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 12:29 PM | Comments (62)
Post contains 351 words, total size 3 kb.

Hmmm. Probably not. I'll call it "more Saturday Stupid."

As leader of the free world President Obama will be used to making speeches to millions of people around the globe.

So he might have felt the occasion was a little beneath him yesterday when he stopped off in Reno, Nevada, to deliver an address outside a couple's garage.

In what could be a disastrous photo opportunity for the President's campaign, Mr Obama spoke to a handful of people in the crucial swing state.

The president's 15 minute address outside the home of Paul and Val Keller on Friday afternoon, drew a small audience of neighbours and supporters - though even his hosts said they were not sure if they would vote for him in the coming election.

It would depend I suppose on the timing, and the pre-announcing or something. If it were completely spontaneous I can sort of understand the low numbers.. it's a neighborhood after all.

Still, it sure looks lame, doesn't it?

Which is all that actually counts, how it looks. Also Obama ate a f'n dog and shoved a little girl.

via TiFW over at H2

I'M GOING to overanalyze this a little more. I think Obama and his team are working to try to connect him with "real Americans." Ok, here's a couple. A retired electrician and his wife, a simple, nice home in a small neighborhood. Out in front of the garage with a nice looking flag hanging over it.

I have one of those myself. It looks nice.

It's just, sheesh. Who's going to see this as "connecting with ordinary Americans?" And is that even a good objective. He looks "small", and looking small doesn't really help him right now. He's got all the advantages of an incumbent president. Power. Bully pulpit. Air Force One. The lapdog media.

So standing behind a teensy podium, with a Presidential Seal smaller than the headlights on that Jeep behind him, it just seems to diminish him.

I don't think he can connect with Americans. He can connect with George Clooney, and Hollywood, and $15 million dollar bigshot lefty donors.

But Paul and Val Keller?

He [Paul Keller]said he voted for the president in 2008 and plans to once again this year. His wife remains uncertain.

'I don't know yet,' she [Val] answered when asked how she'll vote. 'I want to wait and see what happens in the economy,' she told MyNews4.

Remember the time he connected with real Americans in Ohio? more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 10:22 AM | Comments (424)
Post contains 447 words, total size 3 kb.

OMG THIS IS SO AWESOME.

I'M GOING TO CLEAN MY WHOLE HOUSE TODAY THEN MAKE SEVEN DOZEN COOKIES, RE-DIG THE FRONT FLOWERBEDS, PATCH THE ROOF, AND POWERWASH THE SHUTTERS. THEN MAKE LUNCH.

SO AWESOME.

WAIT-
THERE'S SOMETHING ON THE WING!
THERE'S SOMETHING ON THE WING!

Link thanks to Skinbad, of the Utah Skinbads.

Posted by: LauraW at 07:49 AM | Comments (259)
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's some more heap big trouble for Fauxcahontas and the Harvard tribe to get the day going.

UPDATE [DiT]: A Polish oil company worker discovers an incredibly preserved WWII fighter in the Sahara desert. [video at the link]

Posted by: andy at 03:12 AM | Comments (251)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm thinking this is kabuki theater. Spy Chief Orders Review Of Bomb Plot Leaks. Well, it shouldn't be that hard of an investigation judging by this. Leak about UK involvement described as despicable by CIA as anger turns to Obama administration for compromising mission. Something tells me that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's investigation won't come anywhere near Pennyslvania Avenue. So the most honest and open administration leaks out classified stuff but won't open up about Fast and Furious? more...

Posted by: CDR M at 05:48 PM | Comments (659)
Post contains 327 words, total size 4 kb.

Videoblogger, E.T. Williams. "The doctor of common sense." Funny, frank video essays. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 01:41 PM | Comments (342)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

"You're kind of in my house now."

She also expresses her view that by refusing to agree with her premise that that local reporter's questions about medical marijuana (which I just linked below) were "important" to that state's voters, @tpcarney was "demeaning" her and "insulting [her] network."

This clip is illuminating, somewhat. After Carney's kicked off due to his refusal to play the left's Reindeer Games, a Democratic strategist opines it's a "red herring" that we must talk about the GDP and jobs, and argues that George Bush won in 2004 by talking about "gay marriage, gay marriage all day long."

Thus, he argues, turnabout is fair play.

If you were wondering whether that Examiner piece below -- that Obama and the Democrats are going to run solely on cultural issues, and attempt to squash any mention of the economy -- those doubts may now be safely laid to rest.

What elephant in the room?

I don't see an elephant.
Are you sure you mean this room?

There is no elephant in the room.
What are you talking about?

Posted by: Ace at 12:19 PM | Comments (367)
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

The "shiny objects" strategy-- attempt to create distractions two or three times a week so that people don't talk about things like, say, the 11-18% unemployment rate.

What issues are most important to voters this presidential election year? If you said the economy, jobs and the budget deficit, congratulations, you are like the rest of America. But if you said gay marriage, birth control and pranks Mitt Romney pulled in high school in 1965, then you either already are, or may have a future in the liberal media.

...

If voters decide the 2012 election based on Obama's economic record, he will lose. And so the liberal media, as in love with him as ever, is helping him parade shiny objects to distract voters from that record. The wall-to-wall coverage of Obama's sudden evolution in his personal position on same-sex marriage follows in the tradition of the Republican War on Women; the Buffett Rule; tax breaks for private jets; Romney's supposed soft-spot for Osama bin Laden; a student loan bill that would save the average borrower all of $7 per month; and endless 30-year-old stories about Romney's dog.

I'm not sure this strategy will work. Yes, they're definitely trying it. But will it work?

Say you've suffered a major loss-- oh, for this example, let's say you lost your job.

Now, your friends and family will try to hearten you by distracting you from it. "You have your health." "Now you have time to finish that deck you've been wanting to build for years." "It was a bad job anyway." "Sometimes it's good to have a pause in life."

And you'll be distracted, a bit.

But your mind will keep coming back to that one thing, won't it?

Distraction is a temporary fix, and it barely lasts a minute or two. And even in that moment of distraction, your mind isn't far from the thing it's trying to be distracted from.

The editorial cautions Romney not to take the bait; but, actually, he seems to already know that, and commendably scolds the press for being interested in every issue except The Issue.

Asked about the issue, repeatedly, he first gives his standard positions, calmly. But when the reporter just won't let up on her idee fixe -- and other social issues like tuition for immigrants and medical marijuana -- he begins challenging her: "Aren't there issues of significance you want to ask me about?"

What's hilarious is that when he finally does get her to ask an economic question, she then asks him... if he's "in the tank" for Big Oil.

That's her one question on the economy.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:51 AM | Comments (123)
Post contains 486 words, total size 4 kb.

This should be a hoot.

The Washington Post originally claimed:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and has long been bothered by the Lauber incident.

Emphasis added. But that's not true. Stu White has not "long been bothered" by the incident -- he was not present for it at the time, and in fact did not even hear of it until this year -- several weeks ago --when the Washington Post asked him about it.

So this is an intentional misrepresentation.

When called out on this, the Washington Post stealth-edited, without acknowledging the correction, so the piece now reads:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and said he has been “disturbed” by the Lauber incident since hearing about it several weeks ago, before being contacted by The Washington Post.

So now the Washington Post says he's been disturbed about it for a matter of weeks. They are claiming that he did hear about the story, before the Washington Post contacted him; but this is contradicted by the man himself.

White, in an interview with ABC News, said that he is “still debating” whether he will help the campaign, remarking, “It’s been a long time since we’ve been pals.” While the Post reports White as having “long been bothered” by the haircutting incident,” he told ABC News he was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.

Now let's take a minute to examine this.

Yesterday on The Five, Greg Gutfeld said he started not to like Romney a little while reading this article. (He then realized he wouldn't like himself if he read a news article on his high school behavior.)

So should Greg Gutfeld have been quoted as an eyewitness in this report, too?

See, Greg Gutfeld has the exact same knowledge of the incident as Stu White -- they both heard of the incident from the Washington Post.

So why shouldn't Greg Gutfeld be reported as an eyewitness, too? That's what they did with Stu White.

The Washington Post was so determined to frame up Romney they misrepresent people who only heard of the story from they themselves as witnesses.

This deliberate attempt to juice up additional "disturbed" witnesses exposes that they were, in fact, Out To Get Romney here.

I suppose this was also obvious from how they subtly suggested that Romney engineered a Suicide by Natural Causes, and how a very silly and harmless prank -- rousting fellow students while dressed as a cop -- is cast as a "terrifying" incident.

But this cinches it. The story is overwritten and hyped up beyond all reason -- silly pranks cast as "terrifying," the word "terror" and "terrified" appearing multiple times -- and then, needing some justification for their overwrought hype, they start inventing other witnesses who, in their telling, have "long been bothered" by the horrors they witness, their every night's sleep haunted by Romney's psychotic... um, pranks.

Now that they've been exposed, they say they'll add an update "explaining" things.

Explain it? You deliberately misrepresented a man has having known of the incident and having been "long bothered" by it despite the fact that he heard about it, from you, three or four weeks ago.

You're going to "explain" that, Washington Post?

How? With another lie? "Mistakes were made"? An "inadvertent editing error," perhaps, like we saw three times (each time even more inadvertently!) at NBC in the Zimmerman matter?

Posted by: Ace at 11:07 AM | Comments (219)
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.