Mediaboss Marketing

WICKLOW County Council intends to install outdoor chess tables at locations in each Municipal District, with two tables already in place at Wicklow town and one in Greystones.

hess players have been enjoying playing alfresco at the Riverwalk and Bachelors Walk in Wicklow town and at Burnaby Parkin Greystones. Additional tables are also due to be installed in Bray, Blessington, Baltinglass and Arklow.

This latest initiative from the Council is designed to encourage more outdoor activity as we emerge from the COVID pandemic. Chess is an increasingly popular activity, heightened by the critically acclaimed Queen's Gambit series recently shown on Television. The chess tables have been specially designed to the Council's specification and are accessible to all.

Welcoming the installation of the chess tables, the Cathaoirleach of Wicklow County Council, Cllr Tommy Annesley, paid tribute to the Community Cultural and Social Development Directorate for coming up with the idea of the tables and added that this initiative, together with others such as the recently completed dog parks, will allow everyone to enjoy the outdoors.

Chief Executive Brian Gleeson acknowledged the funding from the Department of Rural and Community Development under their Community Enhancement Funding Scheme and added his congratulations to the Council staff in the CCSD Directorate. He encouraged existing chess players and those wishing to take up the sport, to make full use of the tables.

More here:
Council makes all the right moves with outdoor chess tables for each District - Independent.ie

Amateur players seldom defend well. Why? Well, the process of defending is often unpleasant, stressful, and exhausting. And amateurs mostly play for fun. So why would they concentrate on what is boring and stressful, instead of focusing on the cheerful aspects of the royal game? The result of such a mindset is logical: non-professionals are usually much more skilled in attacking than defending.

With professionals, things are rather different. They play chess for fun, but also to pay the bills. They simply need to achieve good results, and to get these, they need to master all the chess skills, even the unattractive ones.

So, let us in this article open the gate to the world of professional chess. I would like to show you four different defensive methods, and maybe also change your mind a bit. Perhaps we will find out together, that the art of defence is not entirely uninteresting.

.

This is the 14th game of the Kramnik-Kasparov London match, in which Kramnik became the World Champion. Just imagine being Kramnik here: You have a nice 2-0 lead in the match, and you are only inches away from the chess crown.

However, you misplayed the opening and are worse against one of the most dangerous players in the entire chess history. If he wins this one, the following day you will be Black and have to defend against Kasparov full of new energy and optimism.

So, what would you play? How would you defend yourself?

Kramnik-Kasparov, World Championship Match (14), London 2000, White to move:

Kramnik understood that Black has got a positional threat of Rc8-c5, with a long-term pressure against the weak c4-pawn. Defending such a position would be exhausting and difficult. Therefore, he decided to pull a handbrake, using the first method of defence: simplification.

He sacrificed a pawn with 29.c5!?, and after 29Rxc5 30.Rxc5 Bxf6 31.Qxf6 dxc5 the position has simplified into a bearable endgame:

Ok, Black is a pawn up. However, both White's heavy pieces are very active and there are several weaknesses in Kasparov's camp: the a-pawn, the c-pawn and most notably the king. Kramnik played a nice prophylactic move 32.Kh2!, preparing a rook lift, and drew the game without much effort.

Here's the complete game:

Another much used method of positional defence is creating a fortress. Fortresses do sometimes occur in closed middlegame positions, but they are much more common in endgames. Why? The reason is simple: with less pieces on the board, there are less attackers trying to get into the fortress, and therefore even shaky and thin walls might do the job.

In the following position, I had to solve a difficult problem: How should I stop the White king to enter my camp via the queenside while controlling the b-pawn?

Zilka-Markos, Slovak Team Championship 2020, Black to move:

Black's main difficulty lies in the fact, that his d6-knight is taking away an important square from its own king. The black monarch belongs to c6. But how to get there? Firstly, we need to find a new spot for the knight. I played 54Nb7!, and the game continued 55.Bc8 Nc5 56.b7 Na6!. At the first glance, a6 far away from the centre is a poor place for the knight. However, more important is that the way to c6 is now free. So after White's possible try 57.Kd3 Kd6 58.Kc4 Kc6 the fortress is impregnable (see the diagram below.)

Zilka-Markos, line

In the game, Zilka played 57.Kf3 and tried another forty moves to break my defences, but my minimalistic fortress withstood all his efforts.

Let us have a look at the third defensive method, perhaps the most enjoyable one: counterattack. Usually even inexperienced players do not have many problems with finding counterattacking possibilities. After all, a counterattack resembles a "normal" attack to some extend, and we all love to be active in chess, dont we?

However, sometimes counterattack might be organised in unexpected situations. Let us have a look at Aronian-Carlsen, Sinquefield Cup 2014, White to move:

White is a pawn down in an unpleasant rook endgame. I bet that most of the club players would put the rook behind the pawn and then simply wait. After all, what else could be done here, with so few pieces on the board?

Well, Aronian found a nice counterattacking possibility. He played 52.Kg2! with the plan of attacking the black pawns with a king march g2-h3-h4-g5-f6, as soon as the black king moves to the queenside.

Against lesser mortals this idea would easily hold the draw. However, Carlsen showed his miraculous technique again, confused his opponent later in the endgame and won.

Here is the complete game:

The last defensive method is almost unknown to majority of the club players. It does not even have a proper name yet. In our book Secret Ingredient, co-authored by David Navara, we named it sabotage.

Sabotage is not the same thing as counterattack. The defender is not trying to come up with his own activity. Rather, he tries slowing down the attacking pieces, usually by creating micro-problems. Sabotaging means pouring sand into the attacking mechanism of your opponent.

Let us have a look at a superb example:

Ding-Vachier Lagrave, Candidates tournament 2021, Black to move:

Vachier-Lagrave's position is rather unappealing. His king is very vulnerable and White's heavy pieces are well placed in the centre. The direct threat is Re5-e6, followed by a deadly queen check on g6.

However, there is a way hot to slow down White's attack. The Frenchman played the spirited 51Rf7!, attacking the vulnerable f3-pawn. Now 52.Re6?? is answered by a counterblow 52Rxf3+, and therefore White needs to find new, slower attacking ideas.

After fifteen more moves, the situation has almost repeated itself:

Again, Ding is threatening to invade the black camp. This time, the main threat is Qe4-b7+, followed either by a quick mate, or by major material gains. And again, Vachier-Lagrave comes up with an only move. This time, the Black monarch itself becomes the saboteur!

Black played the courageous 66Kf6!, disrupting the harmony of the white army. The rook is hanging, and after both 67.Qf5+ Kg7 and 67.Rf5+ Kg7 68.Qb7+ Kh8 there is no direct win. The game ended peacefully after 88 moves.

.

I know, defending is tough. Sometimes, it is boring and exhausting as well. But you might fall in love with it. After all, it is an important skill that will bring your game to an entirely new level.

I hope that after reading this article, you have a better idea about available defensive methods. I always advise my pupils to ask themselves: "Which method I should defend with in this position? Shall I simplify, build a fortress, go for a counterattack, or organize a sabotage?" Once you pick the correct method, it will be much easier to find the suitable moves as well.

Of course, these methods might (and often should!) be combined in a single game. Karpov was the one who was able to "change gears" in defence very skilfully: he mixed patient defensive play with unexpected counterattacks, and he especially loved to simplify into awful but holdable endgames.

However, even strong players sometimes lose the thread when it comes to picking up the correct defensive method. We will have a look at such "defensive mishaps" in the next part of The Winning Academy.

Read more from the original source:
The Winning Academy 11: The Most Important Skill of a Chess Professional - ChessBase

Bob Evans| Special to the Rockford Register Star

The wise philosopher Yogi Berra once advised, When you come to a fork in the road, take it.

Illinois Republicans just took that advice in a big way. Facing a choice between two profoundly different definitions of what it means to be a Republican, they chose the path that leads to the right.

As is always the case with such choices, there will be consequences.

The choice was represented by Darren Bailey and Richard Irvin. Bailey represented the populist, Trumpist, socially conservative, pro-life, pro-gun Republicans, concentrated in rural, central, and southern Illinois. Irvin represented urban and suburban, middle class and professional, more moderate Republicans.

Illinois Republicans constitute not only a minority party, but a deeply divided one. Can they hang together?

We must note, by the way, that this internecine struggle rages all around the country. Republicans everywhere contest the basic identity of their party .

As a footnote to these observations note the primary contest in southern Illinois between Miller and Davis in the gerrymandered 15th District.

The gravity of this dispute is measured in part by both the amount of money spent as well as by who spent it. A conservative donor contributed millions of dollars to support Bailey. A Chicago businessman contributed millions of dollars to support Irvin. Control of the party was clearly at stake.

Many more millions were contributed by Pritzker and the Democratic Governors Association to promote Bailey as ultimately the weaker candidate. This crossover intervention has, by the way, been rarer in the past. Everyone recognized the centrality, albeit for different reasons, of the definition of the Illinois Republican party.

What next? For now the Trumpist wing of the party holds sway.

Will the Irvinists lick their wounds and then rejoin the fray for the fall? A late primary compresses healing time. Bailey Republicans have won the battle. Can they win the war?

Robert Evans is an associate professor of economics, business and political science at Rockford University.

Go here to read the rest:
Bailey Republicans won the battle. Can they win the war? - Rockford Register Star

Lachlan Markay, reporting for Axios:

The Republican National Committee fired the latest shot onWednesday, when chairwoman Ronna McDaniel claimed in a statementto Axios that Google has systematically attacked its digitalprogram. The RNC claims Googles Gmail, the nations top emailclient, has been suppressing fundraising emails duringstrategically critical periods this year.

Google told Axios its spam filter is thoroughly apolitical, andthat its taking steps to ensure political messages arentinadvertently flagged. [...] Google did not address the RNCsspecific complaints, but stressed, we do not filter emails basedon political affiliation.

We recently asked the Federal Election Commission to advise us ona potential pilot for political bulk senders that would providemore transparency into email deliverability, while still lettingusers protect their inboxes by unsubscribing or labeling emails asspam, said Google spokesperson Jos Castaeda in an emailedstatement.

That pilot, first reported by Axios this week, wouldinitially exempt political senders from Gmails spam filter, whilegiving recipients more visible options to flag those messages asspam going forward.

For the sake of argument, lets concede that Gmail flags as spam more political emails from Republicans than Democrats. Id bet that this is in fact trueand if its not true, theres no basis for this controversy.

One possible explanation is that Google is doing this deliberately to hinder Republican fundraising. This is what the GOP is claiming.

Another possible explanation is that GOP fundraising emails really do tend to be more spammy, both in content and in frequency, and thus should be getting flagged as spam more frequently than those from Democrats by non-partisan filtering algorithms. I.e. that Gmails spam filtering algorithms are biased only against junky messages. I get a lot of email from Democrats based on my political donations. I also voluntarily signed up for emails from the Trump campaign in the 2020 election, just to see what they were like. In my experience, the scenario I describe in this paragraph is almost certainly the case: Republican political emails are spammier.

Fundraising emails from Democrats are very frequent, and often melodramatic in their ostensible urgency, but in my experience they are legit. Unsubscribe links are where you expect them at the bottom of the emails, and unsubscribing works.

Fundraising emails from Republicansespecially those from the Trump campaignlook and read like scams. And, apparently, often now are outright scamsthe Trump family has apparently raised over $250 million since the 2020 election for an Official Election Defense Fund that doesnt exist. Emails with subject lines claiming that you have one hour to claim your free gift, or that Trump himself has recorded a personal message just for you but he needs some dough before hell send it to you. All political fundraising solicitations are a bit greasy, but the Trumpy ones are so scammy theyre beyond parody.

The Republican argument is that Gmail (and all other email providersbut Gmail is the biggest in the U.S.) ought to flag Republican and Democratic emails as spam in equal measure, and if Republican emails are flagged more frequently, its prima facie evidence that Google is biased against Republicans. Its like a basketball team that plays rough and commits a lot more fouls than their opponent but yells and screams that the refs are biased against them because more fouls are called against them. The refs arent biased if the team they flag for more fouls actually commits more fouls. And a spam filter isnt biased if one partys emails are more spammy and thus more likely to be flagged as spam.

But it sounds like Google, eager to avoid being tagged as anti-conservative, is working on something to exempt political emails from their general spam filtering algorithms. I get it that this bullshit is a headache Google doesnt need, but Id like to see them stand firm that their spam filters are working as intendedflagging messages based on their junkiness, not their political slant.

Friday, 1 July 2022

Read more:
Republicans Working the Refs, Gmail Edition - Daring Fireball

The January 6 hearings have two basic functions. The first is to reveal, to the degree it is possible, as much as can be uncovered about Donald Trumps efforts to negate the 2020 election result and remain in office. The second is to expose the allies who are, in one way or another, complicit in his crime. On both counts, the committee is delivering.

Tuesdays hearings produced numerous revelations. Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to chief of staff Mark Meadows and a first- or secondhand witness to the coup attempt, deepened Trumps complicity in the insurrection. She testified that Trump instructed Meadows to call Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, two aides who were connected to the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, the main paramilitary organizations that directed the violence; that Trump, after being told his supporters were bringing weapons to his rally, told the Secret Service to remove the metal detectors because theyre not here to hurt me; and that Trump was so desperate to join the march on the Capitol that he actually assaulted a Secret Service agent when he was denied on security grounds.

At this point, even with the hearings in progress, it seems safe to rate this as the greatest political scandal in American history. This is true when measured by its depth (the lengths the perpetrators were willing to go extended to the violent overthrow of the U.S. government) as well as its breadth (the guilty parties included elected officials, lawyers, foot soldiers, and, of course, the president of the United States).

It is all the more striking, then, that the Republican Party stance was, and is, that none of this should be investigated. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell opposed the formation of the commission. (After careful consideration, Ive made the decision to oppose the House Democrats slanted and unbalanced proposal for another commission to study the events of January 6th, he announced on the Senate floor last year.) House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appointed a collection of Trump lackeys. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to seat two of them Jims Jordan and Banks on the grounds that they were personally implicated in the investigation, McCarthy ordered his entire caucus to boycott the hearings.

Republicans have responded to the stream of revelations by dismissing them as boring and partisan. Their party-controlled media have either ignored the hearings, engaged in frantic whataboutism, or supplied talking points to distract from the damning news. They have turned against the only members of their party willing to participate in the hearings, branding them as traitors.

This in turn has sent a message to every staffer privy to the coup who is contemplating the choice to share what they know or stick to the omert. The future in Republican politics belongs to those who do not betray Trump. They may not be required to pledge open obedience to him, but silence is far safer for their careers as Republicans than testifying against Trump is. Republicans could have made cooperating with the committee the safe choice. Instead, they have made it dangerous.

Republicans probably justify all this as simple partisan logic. If you are able to conceive of events only in terms of political benefit, then the function of the hearings is to hurt Republicans; therefore, the Republican task is to engage in damage control.

But this is precisely the kind of rank partisanship that carried most of the party along with Trump through, and past, his reelection campaign. It brought him within a fraction of a percent of the vote of winning a second term and let his postelection coup attempt come harrowingly close, at minimum, to provoking a violent crisis.

After Trump refused to accept the election outcome, a Republican aide infamously said, What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time? It was an astonishing quote even then. January 6 revealed how dangerous that mentality is. The partys response to the hearings reveals that this mentality has not changed.

Irregular musings from the center left.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

The rest is here:
Republicans Are Trying to Cover Up Greatest Political Scandal in U.S. History - New York Magazine