Still, what does this have to do with computerchess????

Nick skrev:
"Raithmir" wrote in message ...

Have you not seen Enigma or U571?


Actually, I have watched the 2001 British film, 'Enigma', directed by Michael
Apted, with its screenplay by Tom Stoppard, which was based on the novel by
Robert Harris. But I doubt that was what you really meant in your question.


The Americans practically won the war single handedly don't you know


I know that evidently many, if not most, Americans prefer to continue believing
that's an 'indisputable historical fact', and some of them also like to keep
saying it in public (whenever they are not too busy worshipping their flag).

"The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War One" by
John Mosier, an American professor of English (not history), is a popular
history (2001) that attempts to prove that the United States "practically
won the war (yes, the First World War) single-handedly". As far as I know,
the reviews from professional military historians have been quite unfavourable
(e.g. "This is the worst type of military history." --John Childs, University
of Leeds), but most reviews by non-historians in the United States have been
favourable. I have little doubt that, notwithstanding the historical evidence
and the well-considered views of better historians, many Americans will prefer
to believe Mosier's conclusions.


(funny, I thought us brits had some hand in it somewhere.


And which Hollywood films could you cite as compelling 'historical evidence'
on behalf of your conjecture? :-)


Perhaps making the tea?)


Someone used to tell me that most Americans fail to appreciate the value
of tea. And evidently many Americans don't quite understand the value of
'sharing the credit' with their 'allies'.

A Russian (whose brother was working for the BBC) once told me that one
American had beem boasting to him that the *United States alone* had "saved
Russia" from being conquered by Hitler. That American seemed to believe that
the Soviet Union had done little, if any, fighting against Germany in the war.
The Russian (who had grown up in Volgograd, formerly Stalingrad) asked the
American if he had ever heard of the decisive Soviet victory in the Battle
of Stalingrad. The American immediately replied that the United States must
deserve *full credit* (presumably on account of supplying Lend-Lease ordnance,
which actually was a minor factor at most in Stalingrad) for the Allied
(at least, he did not say 'American') victory in the Battle of Stalingrad.
When the Russian disagreed, the American promptly accused him of having been
'brainwashed by anti-American propaganda'. Perhaps that American could write
a 'popular history' article with the title, "Stalingrad: Why the Battle Must
be Remembered as a Great American Victory".


Nick wrote:

The liberation of France in 1944 was an *Allied* victory, not just an
American victory. Yes, I doubt that the British, Canadians, Poles, and
Free French could have won without the support of the United States forces.
And I doubt that the United States forces could have won without the
support of the British, Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces.
Why not share the credit?


'Victory in Burma came, not from the work of any one man, or even of a few
men, but from the sum of many men's efforts. We all, even those among us who
may have seemed to fail, did our best. Luckily, that combined best proved
good enough.'
--Field Marshal William Slim (Defeat into Victory, preface)

--Nick

Nothing, hence the OT. But it did stem from a post which started off about
chess, I think! LOL. Good post Nick

Cup of tea anyone?


"HD" wrote in message
news
Still, what does this have to do with computerchess????

"Raithmir" wrote in
message ...
"HD" wrote:
Still, what does this have to do with computerchess?

Nothing, hence the OT. But it did stem from a post which started
off about chess, I think! LOL.

Dear Raithmir,

Actually, this declared off-topic thread, 'OT Core Values', was created and
widely cross-posted by Don Mihokovich (an American lawyer) evidently in order
to make a political attack on Noah Roberts, who had criticised the United
States in response to Scott's originating post in the RGCP thread, "I voted
for Sam Sloan AND Tim Hanke" (created by Scott).

In his "I voted for Sam Sloan AND Tim Hanke" (21 July 2003), Scott wrote:
"...this can be accomplished by promoting chess in the schools--chess should
be given equal importance as English, Math, Science, etc. Wouldn't it be
great if chess puzzles were on the SAT (a standard test for admission to
universities in the United States)? What is so important about chess?
Chess is the universe encapsulated...In my opinion the USCF survival IS the
survival of chess...The USCF...representing the culture and values of the
strongest and richest nation in the world. What will the future hold for
chess and humanity? My predictions: ...Europe will continue to be split by
culture and language--but the United States will prosper--spreading our
culture and values throughout the world. It should be noted that while chess
originated elsewhere in the world--like many other things--the United States
has the unique ability to diffuse this knowledge and promote learning,
understanding, democracy and peace--we are the apex of the evolution of social
and political organizations and as such--if chess is to have a future--the
United States represented by the Unites States Chess Federation will have the
essential role of preserving and promoting the greatest creation of humanity--
Chess."

Was that supposed to be Scott's version of the 'Gettysburg Address'? :-)

Note to FIDE: "'If chess is to have a future', you may depend on the USCF to
arrive to save 'the greatest creation of humanity.' So don't worry about it."

Note to Scott: "'If the USCF survival IS the survival of chess', then how did
chess ever survive *before* the USCF existed?"

Good post Nick Cup of tea anyone?

Thanks. If we were in Boston, then we could have a party. :-)

"I've seen a lot of damage done by tea and sympathy."
--Anthony Storr (quoted in 'The Times', 22 October 1992)

--Nick