A game

US – “Frank Tweety” (elo: 2077)

3+0 blitz:

1.e4…c5,
2.Nf3…d6,
3.d4…cxd4,
4.Nxd4…Nf6,
5.Nd2…a6,
6.Bd3…e5,
7.N4f3…Bg4,
8.0-0…Nc6

9.h3…Bh5,
10.b3…Nd4,
11.c4…Be7,
12.Re1…Nd7,
13.Bb2…Nc5,
14.Bf1…Nce6,
15.g4…Nxf3+,
16.Nxf3…Bg6

17.Qe2…0-0,
18.Rad1…h5?!,
19.Nxe5…Qb6?,
20.Nxg6…fxg6 (better was 20.Nd7! followed by 21.Nxf8),
21.gxh5…Nf4,
22.Qe3…Qa5,

23.hxg6…Bg5,
24.Qg3…Bh6,
25.a3…Qc7,
26.e5…Rae8,
27.exd6…Rxe1,
28.Rxe1…Qxd6,

29.Be5…Qd2,
30.Re4…Qc1,
31.c5…Kh8,
32.Kh2?…Qxf1 (32.Kh2 is of course motivated by my desire to exchange pieces and simplify – I only have 10 seconds left at this time),
33.Bxf4…Bxf4,
34.Rxf4…Rxf4,
35.Qxf4

At this point black resigned.

Failblog

Whiteberg already linked to the properly named failblog, but it’s a really funny site, and in case you don’t read his blog or didn’t follow the link, now I give you a second chance to get to know about the blog.

Here’s one example (and let me tell you: it is very difficult to pick only one):

The Woolly-Thinker’s Guide to Rhetoric

You can find it here.

A few examples from the guide:

Develop sudden hearing loss

When your opponent makes a good point, a crushing argument, an incontrovertible case, simply fail to hear, and keep talking as if no one had spoken at all. Talk a bit louder. Lean toward your opponent with an intent, listening expression on your face, then continue to ignore what anyone else says.

…

Play the theory card

Talk about ‘theory’ a lot. Use the word ‘theory’ in every sentence. Say ‘theory’ with a special tone of hushed reverence. Ask people if they’re well up on ‘theory’. Everyone will be very impressed and very intimidated.

…

Repetition

If your ideas are weak, if you have neither logic nor evidence to back them up, simply keep asserting them over and over and over again. This will convince everyone that they must be true. If they were not true, surely we wouldn’t keep hearing about them all the time?

…

Say the methodology was flawed

When your opponent presents evidence (and it always happens, so be ready) that would undermine or completely contradict your argument, simply say everyone knows the methodology of that particular study was deeply flawed. Never mind if you know nothing about it, that this is the first you’ve heard of the study, just say they went about it in quite, quite the wrong way. If there’s another study with a different methodology that also proves you wrong, no matter, just say it again.

…

Translate

If your opponent talks of evidence, you talk of proof. If your opponent mentions probability, you turn that into certainty.

If your opponent disagrees with your facts, say your opponent is offended. If your opponent claims to know something about the topic under discussion, call your opponent an elitist.

…

The Fashionable Dictionary from the same site is quite fun too.

I krigens hus #(?)

Er nu i gang med at genlæse bogen. Lidt godt fra havet:

i) Omtrent 70 pct. af verdens flygtninge er muslimer.

ii) Ud af en samlet befolkning på knap 300 millioner er omtrent 65 millioner voksne analfabeter, heraf to tredjedele kvinder. – tallet stammer fra denne raport, kapitel 4; tallene relaterer til de lande, der er medlemmer af Den Arabiske Liga. Nyere rapporter er tilgængelige her, jeg tror dog ikke nogen af dem specifikt tager denne størrelse op igen (mon ikke Hedegaard i så fald havde brugt de nyere tal?).

iii) “At give islam æren for Averroes og så mange andre strålende tænkere, som tilbragte halvdelen af deres liv i fængsel, blev tvunget under jorden, måtte leve i vanære, hvis bøger blev brændt, og hvis skrifter næsten blev tilintetgjort af de teologiske myndigheder, er som at ville give inkvisitionen æren for Galileis opdagelser og for hele den videnskabelige udvikling, som den ikke var i stand til at forhindre.” (fra et citat af Joseph Ernest Renan bragt i bogen).

iv) Fra den allerførste begyndelse kom den militære rationalitet til at præge det nye religionsfællesskab. At svigte islam var – og er – derfor det samme som at desertere fra en hær, hvilket forklarer de drakoniske straffe, der anvendes mod frafaldne.

…

Jeg har, så vidt jeg kan se, kun meget overfladisk behandlet bogen her på bloggen (et citat og et indlæg om tørklæder er vist det eneste, det er blevet til indtil videre). Jeg synes bogen fortjener lidt mere end det, så der vil komme et par tekstnære posts mere, såvel som en mere dybdegående vurdering af bogens centrale tese, her på bloggen.

The latest project

Lectures on Macroeconomics

In case you didn’t know, at the moment Arnold Kling lectures on (his views on…) macroeconomics on his blog. Here’s the latest installment in the series – at the end of the post you will find links to all the previous lectures, in case you’ve missed them.

Here’s an appetizer:

Imagine yourself in the environment, which existed until about 300 years ago, in which the overwhelming challenge was to obtain food. Not many people can make a living in art, science, education, or software development, because people need to eat. So you have to be engaged in primary food production. That means you need land, and you can’t live close to a lot of people. There are not many people to trade with. There is very little surplus to trade. Maybe every six months or so you have a festival where you get together with people from miles around, get drunk, and swap a few bowls, to give future archaeologists something to get excited about.

If you’re really sophisticated and disciplined, maybe you organize an army that conquers lots of farmers. They pay taxes (in the form of food), you use the taxes to feed soldiers and slaves. The latter build cities. Some of the children of the elite soldiers, knowing that their parents will feed them, go into art, science, software development, and so on, which gets the future archaeologists even more pumped up.

I don’t think of pre-modern economies as market economies, in the sense of people voluntarily specializing in production for sale. Instead, I see individuals focused on subsistence, and organized groups focused on war, financed by plunder.

A standard textbook starts by assuming a market economy, explains how money makes such an economy more effective, and then incidentally introduces a role for government in regulating money and banking.

My skewed view is the opposite. For me, money and credit start out as tools of government, and they get incidentally adopted by the market.