In chess, a stalemate is preferred over being checkmated.

[alberg]

You play your opponent to a draw – then you start a new game where your objective is to win. Bad chess strategy is to let your opponent checkmate you, just so “you can move on, put it behind you and get it over with”.

Of course, this strategy only applies to 2 dimensional chess. Higher dimensional chess may have different rules and strategies. I wouldn’t know about that since I’ve never played in those kind of games.

[wtmusic]

1. Pulling off a draw with a formidable opponent is an achievement

and demonstrates not only fortitude but a solid endgame.

And every once in a while your opponent makes a stupid mistake, and you get lucky.

[alberg]

5. That's how I learned - maybe they teach chess differently now days?

[somone]

You time travel through a wormhole in 11-D chess

so when you're losing you're actually winning - or vice versa - so you have to treat your enemy like your friend, and all that good stuff

[wtmusic]

3. Or when you're losing, you've already lost.

Always have a plan for the past.

[Uben]

2. As a seasoned chess player.......

......I say, "Crown me!"


Wait.......


....must be the wrong season!

[Lucky 13]

4. And that is EXACTLY what Obama has done...

... only the only piece he has left is the Queen...
... and the Republicans still have their Queen, King, Bishops, Knights Rooks, and most of their pawns. (Only pawn taken was the one named "13 month UI exention")

... but YEA!!!! STALEMATE!!!!

[alberg]

7. Hard to win with such a disparity of pieces.

[Lucky 13]

9. I know! He had nothing going for him.

I mean, he only had the Presidency and majority in both the House and Senate. Meanwhile they have the Weeping Boehner, a lunatic on Fox News, a dingbat from Alaska with her own reality tv show, and TEABAGGERS!!! My god, don't forget about the Teabaggers!

[wtmusic]

8. In an actual game, checkmate would follow shortly

and similarly, we will get our ass kicked.

[Lucky 13]

11. I agree with you! See my post above.

At the beginning of this game of chess he had nothing going for him... just the Presidency and a majority in the House and Senate. It's hard to win with that kind of handicap.

[JoePhilly]

12. Imposible ...

Even when you lose, your king does not leave the board. The king is never actually captured. The game ends when, no matter what the king does, he will be taken on the next move.

So you see, there is no way would fpr Obama to have only his queen remaining.

If we are going to play the chess analogy game, let's at least get the basics right.

[Lucky 13]

16. LOL! You are so right. I've just destroyed my entire point.

I meant to say he has his King remaining, not Queen. God. I couldn't have been more stupid. I should just re-post my entire point for clarity.

[treestar]

6. It's really becoming all about winning and losing, isn't it?

Who plays the "game" the best, who is "toughest" and the best "fighter."

No chance of a representative government.

[alberg]

13. In Chess, winning is the objective of the game.

Two armies oppose each other, both trying to control the board, assert their will on the opponent, dominate in battle, protect their king and ultimately triumph with victory.

In life, there are winners and losers, haves and have nots, the powerful and the weak, the exploiters and the exploited. Human history is the story of a battle to build societies in which wealth is fairly shared and the quality of life is optimized for the maximum number of citizens. Societies that have achieved this are sustainable. Societies that do not achieve this collapse. What direction do you think we're moving in?

[treestar]

20. Name a "collapsed society"

The most successful one, to date, appears to be the ones based no representative government. It is not so simple as winning and losing a game. A chess game is over in a few hours. Governing goes on for centuries.

[alberg]

29. Greece, Rome, France before the revolution etc.

[LanternWaste]

28. I guess I play it incorrectly then...

"winning is the objective of the game..."

I guess I play it incorrectly then, as my objective is to have fun.

[alberg]

35. How seriously I take any game I'm playing has a'lot to do with the stakes

involved. If it's real peoples lives and happiness that I'm playing for, then yes, for me "winning" that game is important.

[bushisanidiot]

21. +1

people seem to forget that the government is supposed to be working TOGETHER to do the work of the people. this means COMPROMISE.


no one voted for stalemates. if they did, they obviously don't 'give two shits about anything but "winning" to boost their pitiful egos.

[mmonk]

10. So when do we try for a stalemate?

[alberg]

15. My fear is that it is too late.

[The Straight Story]

46. When your opponent has a winning position

Otherwise you play for the win.

[jimlup]

14. Obama's opening move as white was f3

The republican response (black) was e5, Obama followed with g4...

It certainly isn't a good opening in 2-D chess that's for sure.
:yoiks:

[thereismore]

40. Haha, I know what the black did after that! nt

[Recursion]

41. Actually Barnes' opening is a good analogy for his political style

It's an incredibly frustrating opening to play against as black; an offense-as-defense sort of worldview.

[Still a Democrat]

17. 13.5% of the package is for the wealthy - how did we lose? n/t

[TheKentuckian]

33. The percentage grows a whole damn lot as you include the rest of the top 20% in the count

The pie shrinks as you get down toward where the vast majority of Americans live.

What percentage of the tax package if for folks making 75k and under? How about 65k? How about under 50k?

The Bush tax cuts always have looked out for the top earners and gave token benefit to most Americans.

We also certainly lost because we are wasting a rather large amount of money on tax cuts when we have a severe infrastructure deficit, lots of people out of work, a growing homeless population, cratering education system, failing states, and no substantial investment in modernization in generations while this expenditure restricts the ability of the government to act in any other way to promote our welfare in spite of pressing needs.

In order to call this a win, the Republican ideology of government has to be accepted and I think we should all understand that there is no purchase for the American people in that arid soil.

[Poboy]

18. recommend

[bushisanidiot]

19. And while you're dicking around with your stalemate strategy, your kids are starving

your bills are going unpaid, and grandma is dying without money to pay for her pills.

but hey, at least you're good at stalemating so the other side doesn't win.. cuz that's what's most important. right?

[alberg]

24. Based on the fact that your checkmated, all those bad things are going to happen anyway,

it just might take a little longer. And since you're checkmated, you won't be able to do anything to stop it. And once the game is concluded, in 2012, since you were checkmated you won't be able to sit at the table any longer - the loser has to leave the table.

[bushisanidiot]

32. So the "loser" leaves the damned table to go take care of the sick and the poor

. You don't actually "win" when the poor are suffering and you do JACK SHIT to help them because you don't want to "cave".

[alberg]

36. I agree with you, this is about helping real people - the sick and the poor,

both now and in the future. I believe we will have more of a chance to help the sick and the poor - both now and in the future - if we let the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

This compromise, by increasing the deficit, will destroy our ability to sustain necessary social programs and will pave the way for the destruction of Social Security as well as Unemployment Insurance.

It's a bad bargain precisely because it hurts the sick, the poor and the old.

In our Chess analogy, we've bargained for a few pieces now, in exchange for losing the entire game and being Checkmated in the near future.

[lame54]

22. meanwhile the repugs are playing Battleship

[valerief]

23. So leadership is now a chess game? ~sigh~ nt

[alberg]

25. What leadership?

[valerief]

27. Exactly. They're off playing board games. nt

[alberg]

34. That's right.

What we need is a leader who is committed to the traditional principles of the Democratic Party and who understands how to implement those principles in the real world. Simply being a good orator is not enough.

[valerief]

37. I'd prefer a leader committed to progressives principles. I have no clue

what the Democratic Party's principles are today.

[alberg]

45. Agreed.

[JoePhilly]

26. In high level chess, often, the most important moves are called ..

... "quiet moves".

The game isn't won with a 4 move check mate. And its usually not won with a royal or grand fork (wonder how many here on DU know what those are).

Sure, in some games, a player recognizes a critical material or positional advantage, from which an overwhelming attack can devastate the opponent. And while stunning, those are relatively rare.

More often, in some of the most famous games, the ultimate winning move, the move which changed the game, was a "quiet move". The simple push of a pawn on the far side of the board, far away from where the current action appears to be taking place.

When players are equally matched, you don't expect to see quick victories. What you get are slow, slogs. Games that turn on quiet moves.

And in the end, you have a victory of a King and two pawns over a king and one pawn.

[valerief]

30. In every chess game, the pawns lose. Just like US politics. nt

[JoePhilly]

43. Actually, not true.

In high level chess, pawns and pawn structure are vitally important.

Pawns are ORGANIZED to create not only walls of defense, but also to create PAWN CHAINS which can push into enemy territory.

Pawns are often positioned to support a strong knight in the center of the board, or a strong bishop on a long diagonal. Increasing the value of themselves and the pieces they support.

Pawns can become a liability, for instance when they become doubled or tripped (stacked on one path). Similarly, if your pawn formation includes numerous "pawn islands" (separate groups of pawns) your position is weakened because of the gaps in support (sounds like the Democratic party to me btw, lots of pawn islands).

Most chess novices know that a pawn start off with a relative value of 1 point. What they usually don't know is that the value of a pawn INCREASES as it crosses the board. Most tend to give a pawn that reaches the 7th rank the same value as a rook (5 points). And while one might not trade their rook for the pawn every time in that situation, if that pawn makes one more move forward, most would trade a rook for it, or even a queen.

Like in chess, the pawns lose when they splinter into little groups (islands)which can't push into enemy positions on their own because they've isolated themselves, and they get picked off.

[alberg]

31. I would like to believe that our "quite" strategy is a winning one

The events of the last 2 years have convinced me that it is not.

[happyslug]

38. Clausewitz attack this concept, Politics and War is more like a game of Cards then Chess

His point was they were things you knew (your hand), things you knew your opponents had (Cards they let you see), things you can suspect (By what the cards they discarded) and things unknown to anyone (the cards still in the stack).

Furthermore, cards tend to be 3-4 players NOT two players, you may want to give a "Winning" hand to one of the other players, for it benefits you in the long run (For example in 500 rummy, you may "feed" cards to a person who is behind you in points, even leaving him win the hand, knowing it hurts you less then it hurts someone who is ahead of you in points or near you in points).

One of the old Joke about Vietnam was the US went into US with a Football game plan. The Center gave the ball to the Quarterback, the Quarterback throw a forward pass for a Touchdown, the Viet Cong then got up, set up the tables and started to deal from the bottom of the deck. US went into Vietnam to win a Football game, and found themselves in an all night Poker game, and you wonder why the US lost.

Obama feels like a Basketball/Football player, win the game you are playing and everything will come out all right. The problem is the GOP is NOT playing that game, they are playing baseball and are taking the Ball, bat and Glove home unless Obama agrees to play by they rules (rules written so he will lose). Obama does not seem to understand that he has to be able to wave them goodbye and rule without them. Obama had his chance to do so when he had the Senate and the House. If the GOP did filibuster he had to tell Reid to leave them Filibuster, but make it a proper filibuster one where they have to speak or otherwise keep up the "Debate" (Technically a Filibuster is a refusal of 60 Senators to end debate on an issue). Right now, under the Senate Rules adopted in the 1970s all the GOP has to do is hold a vote every so often on that item showing less then 60 votes for ending the Filibuster and the Senate goes on to other issues. Under the old rules (Which to my knowledge still exists) the Senate leadership can refused to go on to other business and force the GOP to actual "debate" what they are filibustering. Sooner or later they will give out (in 1964 LBJ and the Democratic Leadership of the Senate did that for over three months, the longest Filibuster in History, for that was the only way to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act Passed).

Sorry, Reid and Obama needed to do what LBJ did in 1964, force the issue. Tell the GOP they could NOT Filibuster without doing actual talking about what was in front of them. In many ways it is to late now, the House is going to be GOP dominated. The Senate barely Democratic. What Obama needs to do is what Truman did with a GOP house in 1946-1948, asking the GOP to pass what they say they want to pass and is acceptable to the Democrats (and watch the GOP refused to do so) but veto anything that the Democratic Party opposes (and depending on the fact that the house is still more then 1/3 Democratic and thus capable of upholding any Presidential vetoes. In 2012, run like Truman in 1948, against the "do nothing" GOP Congress as opposed to whoever the GOP makes their Presidential Candidate that year.

That is called playing hard ball, pushing the other side to the limit. Showing them your strengths and leaving them see that you see how strong they are but are willing to fight them, but your fight not their.

I do not think Obama is capable of such a fight. He is Ivy league and Ivy league Actually think and act like they know what is best, as opposed to being willing to fight for what is right. Group think is as bad in the Ivy League as in Corporate Japan. We need someone who can tell people he works with every day to go to hell, and go back to them the next day and work with that person on things you agree. Obama (like Clinton) does not look like he thinks or acts in that way, both of them want to appear to represent everyone, not just the people who voted them in. We need someone who will fight for the people who voted them in, not someone who wants to represent people who oppose what the people who voted for him opposes.

[valerief]

39. Ah, the known knowns and the unknown knowns. And you even mentioned rummy! nt

[toddwv]

42. We've traded a queen for a rook

and now they are marching two pawns up the board to promote.

[JoePhilly]

44. If the rook was protecting those pawns, it might have been a very good trade ...

Trades are not isolated events. Its not simply the basic "point value" that makes a trade good or bad.

Ask if a novice chess player if trading a queen for a rook is a good trade, and most will say no. Ask some one who knows the game better, and they will say, "it depends".