CRR's immutable law of human nature: Songs with the word "human" in the title shall never rock. Examples include "Human" by the Killers, "The Human Song" by The Human League, and... um... look, I'm sure there are some more. The point is, musicians should not write songs about humans. And that's what I'll be remembered for prophesying.
(ed. -- "Only Human," by "K". Get a last name, pal!)
Monday, March 9, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Amateur Team East, Round 1
As usual, annotation will appear in the text box beneath the board as you play through the game.
Play chess online!
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Eastern Amateur Team Championships
Many congratulations to Paul MacIntyre, Brian Hulse, Libardo Rueda, and Alan Price, the winners of this year's Amateur Team East tournament! Out of the 250+ teams participating, theirs was the only team with a perfect 6-0 score, sealed by MacIntyre's clutch win (the game was actually agreed drawn in order to seal the match) over GM Kaufman in the last round. The Boston-based squad will play for the national championship in March, and we wish them well.
Your humble scribe also participated in the tournament, and over the next few days I will try to post some of my games, with analysis. In the meantime, I have to put down an insurrection from my cat, who apparently took my absence as a sign that she is the true master of the house, and is now stealth-biting me at every opportunity.
Your humble scribe also participated in the tournament, and over the next few days I will try to post some of my games, with analysis. In the meantime, I have to put down an insurrection from my cat, who apparently took my absence as a sign that she is the true master of the house, and is now stealth-biting me at every opportunity.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A Restaurant Review (?!)
I should really leave this sort of thing to G (who, unlike me, actually knows food), but I do have one recommendation: If you're ever at Tartufo in Newton Center, order the signature dessert. It's a scoop of coffee gelato in a thin shell of walnut shavings, with fruit and whipped cream. Delicious, and definitely the highlight of my evening there.
Monday, February 2, 2009
What not to do with a Drunken Sailor
This story is a bit old, but worth mentioning. Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts heard an interesting case that tests the limits of employer liability and civic duty. The facts were these: six men hired a limousine to go clubhopping, got roaring drunk in full view of the driver, and asked to be dropped off at a bar close to where their cars were parked. The driver did so, and one of the men promptly drove his car into an intersection, causing an accident that killed an off-duty police officer. The officer's family, along with others injured in the accident, sued the livery company on grounds of negligence.
The trial court dismissed the claim, asserting that the limo driver did not have a duty to the victims once his passengers left his vehicle. However, the SJC disagreed, holding that the limo driver "owed a duty" to the plaintiffs, since he could have known that his passengers were drunk and could thus have concluded that they would soon be driving while intoxicated.
The first thing to note is this: Contrary to the lead paragraph of the Globe article, the SJC did not rule that the livery company was liable in this case; they merely held that it could be liable, and that the case should be decided by a jury. Small consolation to the company -- I'm sure they'll settle so as not to risk a painfully expensive verdict -- but important nonetheless. From a theoretical perspective, there are really two issues involved here: first, the delineation of the driver's duty to the victims (how much would he have had to know in order to be liable -- would he actually have to see the passengers drink alcohol inside the limousine? What if he suspected they were going to drive home, but wasn't 100% sure? Would it make a difference if only some of the passengers were drunk?); second, the practical question of the driver's options in this situation. Should he have called the police? Driven around until the passengers sobered up? If he had done so, and the passengers attempted to leave (a likely scenario), would he have had a duty to restrain them?
For me, this second question is really the sticking point. I can understand wanting service drivers to keep an eye on their passengers (in the same way that we want bartenders to cut off a drunk patron), but I'm not sure that the real-life benefits would be that great -- sooner or later, you're either going to have to let your passenger go, unless you take draconian measures to detain him. The costs, by contrast, are readily apparent: it would be a lot harder for a limousines, cabs, etc. to do business in Massachusetts, because they would always have to err on the side of caution when dropping off someone who has visited a restaurant or bar. In addition, there's a little demon perched on my shoulder, whispering about the implicit abrogation of personal responsibility involved in this decision (and in all decisions that extend the scope of "civic duty," e.g. misprison of felony cases). That guy has some serious social issues, though, so I'm not sure whether to trust his judgment.
What do you think of the decision?
The trial court dismissed the claim, asserting that the limo driver did not have a duty to the victims once his passengers left his vehicle. However, the SJC disagreed, holding that the limo driver "owed a duty" to the plaintiffs, since he could have known that his passengers were drunk and could thus have concluded that they would soon be driving while intoxicated.
The first thing to note is this: Contrary to the lead paragraph of the Globe article, the SJC did not rule that the livery company was liable in this case; they merely held that it could be liable, and that the case should be decided by a jury. Small consolation to the company -- I'm sure they'll settle so as not to risk a painfully expensive verdict -- but important nonetheless. From a theoretical perspective, there are really two issues involved here: first, the delineation of the driver's duty to the victims (how much would he have had to know in order to be liable -- would he actually have to see the passengers drink alcohol inside the limousine? What if he suspected they were going to drive home, but wasn't 100% sure? Would it make a difference if only some of the passengers were drunk?); second, the practical question of the driver's options in this situation. Should he have called the police? Driven around until the passengers sobered up? If he had done so, and the passengers attempted to leave (a likely scenario), would he have had a duty to restrain them?
For me, this second question is really the sticking point. I can understand wanting service drivers to keep an eye on their passengers (in the same way that we want bartenders to cut off a drunk patron), but I'm not sure that the real-life benefits would be that great -- sooner or later, you're either going to have to let your passenger go, unless you take draconian measures to detain him. The costs, by contrast, are readily apparent: it would be a lot harder for a limousines, cabs, etc. to do business in Massachusetts, because they would always have to err on the side of caution when dropping off someone who has visited a restaurant or bar. In addition, there's a little demon perched on my shoulder, whispering about the implicit abrogation of personal responsibility involved in this decision (and in all decisions that extend the scope of "civic duty," e.g. misprison of felony cases). That guy has some serious social issues, though, so I'm not sure whether to trust his judgment.
What do you think of the decision?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Frustration in the English
I've been thinking of switching to the English opening from 1.d4, but one of the peculiar things about it is how difficult it is to get an advantage against the reversed Sicilian. Take the position after 1.c4 Nf6 (a sneaky way to force 2.Nc3, as 2.g3 c6! is harmless IMO) 2.Nc3 e5:
From here, White can try a few different moves, but each one has a drawback.
a) 3.g3 -- here, I think that Black's most accurate move is 3..c6! Now 4.d4 ed 5.Qxd4 d5 has been tried in many games and seems fine for Black (Kosten's excellent book on the English recommends delaying Nc3 in part because of this line). If White tries 4.Nf3, then Black can play 4..e4 5.Nd4 d5 6.cd Qb6!?
This is never played with colors reversed (1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.d4 cd 6.Qb3), presumably because ..e6 would be a good response. From the diagram, if White plays 7.e3, it is clear that the extra move g3 is actually detrimental. If instead 7.Nb3, then Black can gain the initiative with 7..a5!, threatening to trap the knight. This was recently played by Bacrot, and looks pretty strong. Therefore, instead of 3.g3, most people play 3.Nf3 Nc6, with another split:
a) 4.g3 Bb4 (4..d5 is also surprisingly hard to get an advantage against). White would love to play 5.Nd5, but Black responds with 5..e4, and the extra move Nf3 is suddenly a drawback. So most games continue with 5.Bg2 0-0, reaching a well-known position. I can't begin to do this line justice in the space I have here, but it does score well for black and I'm not particularly inclined to play it as White.
b) 4.e3 Bb4 5.Qc2 Bxc3!? 6.Qxc3 Qe7!.
I'm astounded at how annoying this move is -- my computer actually thinks that Black has a slight advantage here, and while I'm not sure about that, I think it is fair to see that equality has been achieved. Basically, Black will play ..d5, White's queen will get kicked around, and Black's lead in space and development will be enough to counter the bishop pair. So why can't White players try the same thing in reverse, as an anti-Taimanov line? Essentially, because the Black knight is still on g8, and thus 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bb5 can be met with either 4..Nge7 or the immediate 4..Nd4. If an enterprising White player tries to waste a tempo with something like 4.a3, then Black can simply respond with 4..a6, which is part of his plan in the Taimanov anyway. Speaking of a-pawn pushes:
c) 4.a3 d5 (4..g6 is also playable and roughly equal, because the a3 move becomes useless) 5.cd Nxd5, and we reach our final split:
i) 6.Qc2 Nxc3!? 7.bc Bd6 8.g3 Qe7(!) 9.d3 b6 has done pretty well for Black. White probably wishes the a-pawn was back on a2.
ii) 6.e3 Nxc3 7.bc Bd6 is similar. I always enjoyed playing White in these positions with colors reversed, and I would rather play Black here, although it's a matter of taste.
iii) 6.e4 Nf4!? 7.d4 ed 8.Bxf4 dc
Now 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.bc Ne6 is not what we want as White. With colors reversed, Black usually takes the pawn back immediately, but here, 9.bc gives Black the extra option of 9..Qxd1+, and all of a sudden recapturing with the rook leaves the a3 pawn en prise. Curse you, extra move! To be fair, White can recapture on c7, but the position isn't very inspiring.
So there you have it, a peripheral look at what everyone knows already: the reversed Sicilian seems fine for Black.
From here, White can try a few different moves, but each one has a drawback.
a) 3.g3 -- here, I think that Black's most accurate move is 3..c6! Now 4.d4 ed 5.Qxd4 d5 has been tried in many games and seems fine for Black (Kosten's excellent book on the English recommends delaying Nc3 in part because of this line). If White tries 4.Nf3, then Black can play 4..e4 5.Nd4 d5 6.cd Qb6!?
This is never played with colors reversed (1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.d4 cd 6.Qb3), presumably because ..e6 would be a good response. From the diagram, if White plays 7.e3, it is clear that the extra move g3 is actually detrimental. If instead 7.Nb3, then Black can gain the initiative with 7..a5!, threatening to trap the knight. This was recently played by Bacrot, and looks pretty strong. Therefore, instead of 3.g3, most people play 3.Nf3 Nc6, with another split:
a) 4.g3 Bb4 (4..d5 is also surprisingly hard to get an advantage against). White would love to play 5.Nd5, but Black responds with 5..e4, and the extra move Nf3 is suddenly a drawback. So most games continue with 5.Bg2 0-0, reaching a well-known position. I can't begin to do this line justice in the space I have here, but it does score well for black and I'm not particularly inclined to play it as White.
b) 4.e3 Bb4 5.Qc2 Bxc3!? 6.Qxc3 Qe7!.
I'm astounded at how annoying this move is -- my computer actually thinks that Black has a slight advantage here, and while I'm not sure about that, I think it is fair to see that equality has been achieved. Basically, Black will play ..d5, White's queen will get kicked around, and Black's lead in space and development will be enough to counter the bishop pair. So why can't White players try the same thing in reverse, as an anti-Taimanov line? Essentially, because the Black knight is still on g8, and thus 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bb5 can be met with either 4..Nge7 or the immediate 4..Nd4. If an enterprising White player tries to waste a tempo with something like 4.a3, then Black can simply respond with 4..a6, which is part of his plan in the Taimanov anyway. Speaking of a-pawn pushes:
c) 4.a3 d5 (4..g6 is also playable and roughly equal, because the a3 move becomes useless) 5.cd Nxd5, and we reach our final split:
i) 6.Qc2 Nxc3!? 7.bc Bd6 8.g3 Qe7(!) 9.d3 b6 has done pretty well for Black. White probably wishes the a-pawn was back on a2.
ii) 6.e3 Nxc3 7.bc Bd6 is similar. I always enjoyed playing White in these positions with colors reversed, and I would rather play Black here, although it's a matter of taste.
iii) 6.e4 Nf4!? 7.d4 ed 8.Bxf4 dc
Now 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.bc Ne6 is not what we want as White. With colors reversed, Black usually takes the pawn back immediately, but here, 9.bc gives Black the extra option of 9..Qxd1+, and all of a sudden recapturing with the rook leaves the a3 pawn en prise. Curse you, extra move! To be fair, White can recapture on c7, but the position isn't very inspiring.
So there you have it, a peripheral look at what everyone knows already: the reversed Sicilian seems fine for Black.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Invasion of the Pinniped People
An interesting story is developing on a small beach in La Jolla, California. The city has slated the beach for use as a children's pool. But recently, a vicious pod of harbor seals decided to claim it as their own, in clear violation of state and international law.
Avast, maties! The shore is ours!
(Photo by Marcel Burkhard)
The seals now lie on the beach all day with their layabout kids, thinking that their cuteness will save them from legal repercussions. For now, it looks like their daring raid will pay off: a federal judge has given the order to put a rope barrier around the beach for protection during pupping season.
My friends, such appeasement will only serve to embolden the seal horde! It is now only a matter of time before they make their way the East Coast. How can we defend ourselves?
UPDATE: Few people know that in addition to piracy, seals excel at running telemarketing scams. Sadly, the little fellow below forgot to use an untraceable number.
Avast, maties! The shore is ours!
(Photo by Marcel Burkhard)
The seals now lie on the beach all day with their layabout kids, thinking that their cuteness will save them from legal repercussions. For now, it looks like their daring raid will pay off: a federal judge has given the order to put a rope barrier around the beach for protection during pupping season.
My friends, such appeasement will only serve to embolden the seal horde! It is now only a matter of time before they make their way the East Coast. How can we defend ourselves?
UPDATE: Few people know that in addition to piracy, seals excel at running telemarketing scams. Sadly, the little fellow below forgot to use an untraceable number.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
