Lobowolf

And better a dogmatic pacifist theist than a self-righteous (believing himself to be) infallible atheist.

At which time we'll only be subject to modification from dogmatic atheists who think their position infallible.

Here's the edition: http://www.amazon.com/Zurich-International...469&sr=8-1#noop Happy to see it's still priced close to what I remember it as. The "Click to Look Inside" feature will show you some of Bronstein's annotations. He put a lot of work into that one. Always loved great tournament books.

I mentioned Keres...I left Tal off only because he didn't play in the Zurich '53 tournament. He was a little too young yet. He's definitely one of my all-time favorites, though.

Best value in a chess book ever is Bronstein's book on the Zurich 1953 Candidates' Tournament (I've even seen a BBO player with the handle Zurich1953). Double round robin between 15 players, including many world champions (Petrosian, Smyslov, Euwe) and some of the best non-champions (Keres, Reshevsky, Bronstein). And some of the best annotations ever, all by Bronstein, including openings, middlegame, endings, strategy, tactics, psychology, and personalities. How much, for these 210 games? $7.95!! Smyslov won the tournament with a score of, I believe, 18-10 (+9 =18 -1) - good place to find some of his great games.

Are you new around here?

What if you had to pay $10 a month to read Bacevich?

The oldest former world chess champion, Vasily Smyslov, died today, a few days after his 89th birthday. Smyslov rose to world-class status early, finishing 3rd in the Absolute Championship of the USSR in 1941, a very strong quadrupe round-robin. He was second in the 1948 match tournament for the world championship after Alekhine's death. In 1953, he won the Candidates tournament at Zurich, one of the strongest tournaments ever, losing just one game out of 28. He won the world championship from Botvinnik, and in 3 world championship matches (one won, one lost, and one drawn), he had a plus score against Botvinnik. In 1983, he reached the Candidates' final in his 60s - he was the last hurdle for Kasparov to win the right to challenge Karpov. He had a very long career, and was among the best players in the world during many decades. He had a deceptively simple style, and excelled in the endgame, and at positional and strategic themes.

I don't recall ever seeing a presidential candidate who wasn't in one.

Wow...bizarre philosophy. Tag her and watch her migration.

+1

Glitch

When I hear Finland, I immediately think of the metal band Sinergy, and Kimberly Goss.

This was, of course, long before Google told you everything you wanted to know in a fraction of a second, but some thoughts survived long enough to be transcribed to web pages...quick search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=...agan+antichrist

Reagan, too. I remember one of the pieces of evidence cited for Reagan's being the antichrist was that his first, middle, and last names each had 6 letters.

Why? Why? Why?

Well I'll be damned Here comes your ghost again But that's not unusual It's just that the moon is full And you happened to call And here I sit Hand on the telephone Hearing a voice I'd known A couple of light years ago Heading straight for a fall As I remember your eyes Were bluer than robin's eggs My poetry was lousy you said Where are you calling from? A booth in the midwest Ten years ago I bought you some cufflinks You brought me something We both know what memories can bring They bring diamonds and rust Well you burst on the scene Already a legend The unwashed phenomenon The original vagabond You strayed into my arms And there you stayed Temporarily lost at sea The Madonna was yours for free Yes the girl on the half-shell Would keep you unharmed Now I see you standing With brown leaves falling around And snow in your hair Now you're smiling out the window Of that crummy hotel Over Washington Square Our breath comes out white clouds Mingles and hangs in the air Speaking strictly for me We both could have died then and there Now you're telling me You're not nostalgic Then give me another word for it You who are so good with words And at keeping things vague Because I need some of that vagueness now It's all come back too clearly Yes I loved you dearly And if you're offering me diamonds and rust I've already paid -Diamonds and Rust Joan Baez © 1975 Chandos Music (ASCAP)

If you're suggesting that this is a less subjective metric, I'd be happy to change my wager offer. I'll take the over. See you in 20 years.

None taken, since I didn't make one.

ROFL

Taste.

I'd double; hate defending 2M at matchpoints when they have a fit, and the odds strongly favor them having one. I also prefer to take less unilateral actions; despite the 5-card major, I have support for 3 suits...I'll let partner in on the final decision.

I think this is unlikely enough that you could count the number of republicans trying to block reform for this reason on one hand, and pay down the national debt with 5 leftover fingers. Have you read Mitt Romney's suggestions for health care reform? http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-...s-the-rush.html It is hard to find a fundamental difference between his suggestions and Obama's compromise plan. Thanks for the link...I had not seen this. I'm very interested in seeing what ends up happening with this. In my case, it's more than a political/philosophical topic; my girlfriend has M.S. Thus far, it's been mostly well-behaved, with periodic flares that go away (i.e. the relapsing remitting version), but as pre-existing conditions go, it's an expensive one, and one that certainly limits her options.

I think it made for a very interesting sub-thread on semantics! On the other hand, I think I was one of two or three people who enjoyed the class "Statutory Interpretation."

Is it possible that you recast P.O.'s assertion that "this bill will clearly cut costs" as "a bill that is so obviously good" because this serves your argument better? I realize this conflicts with your expression of regret for misperceiving (misrepresenting?) the gist of P.O.'s post. I don't think I recast or mischaracterized it at all. I simply assumed (and still believe) that he included the words "Because anyone with a head for business can see that to" because they were relevant, i.e. they added non-redundant meaning to the sentence, and from the rest of the post I inferred what that meaning was. P.O. is intelligent, articulate, and well-organized in his thoughts and posts. I think that it would be insulting to assume that the phrase in question was meaningless. I also think that it's fairly obvious what the phrase referred to, i.e. what the entire preceding portion of the post was about - the substance of the bill. "Sorry for briefly..." was intended as irony, in the form of sarcasm. I don't think I misperceived the gist of his post. I think, as usual, that he expressed himself more than clearly enough; frankly, I'm surprised at many of the responses to my response. But you know what happens when you predict a unanimous poll!