Originally posted by Vargwas he best? - to my understanding morphy sought out the best opponents he could find by international reputation etc, travelling overseas, and demolished them with ease.
Well in that case Staunton was best in his day, but the World Championship didn't exist then.
later of course he performed an act repeated by numerous players - alekhine and fischer amongst them - we do not know if it was from cowardice, boredom, insanity or ....
but morphy seems to have performed his challenge to the world in a more convincing fashion than alekhine at least and perhaps also more so than fischer.
(alekhine refused rematches with capablanca )
The British were not the first people to invent chess. The game was around long before that under different names and different styles. I think the first concept of a the game chess was invented by a Chinese general to train his troops when they were not in battle. And the fact that american chess players will always rank lower then Britains and other players is ridiculous. There has been some great chess players from United States including Bobby Fischer. Only the reason there isn't as many great players as there are from other countries is because chess isn't as big in the US. Few kids even play chess and even fewer take it seriously. And nowadays if your not a grandmaster by age 14 you can just forget it.
Originally posted by Redmikesome Irish do - a friend of mine practically goes bezerk if she's called Irish. She's form the North & definatly conciders herself a citizen of Britain (even if the technical defenitio of the word doesn't include NI, but it's hard to call yourself UKish)
[b]Not wishing to be picky, but nobody who is Irish would want to be called British.
Isn't this topic a little futile for the chess forum? Someone just posted an obvious wind up, but everyone has jumped on the opertunity to get on their hobby horses and in particular, because of the initial claims of the wind-uper, bash the English. Anyone want to have a go at the Russians for taking over all the surrounding free states? China for Tibet? The US for taking, well, the US? The Aussies for taking Oz? The Dutch - they were the first in South Africa. Why stop there? The Italians and that damn Roman empire? The Mongolians? The French and that mauraudin Napolean? Colonialisation, conquest and empore building has been a part of our history since before there is recorded history. It got bigger and bigger until it was doomed to implode, but now that we have (hopefully) advanced our collective civilisations to a point that we don't need to do it any more we're all desperately trying to deny our pasts and point the finger at someone else.
Originally posted by belgianfreakFirstly, in the UK we're not citizens of anywhere. We're subjects of the queen.
some Irish do - a friend of mine practically goes bezerk if she's called Irish. She's form the North & definatly conciders herself a citizen of Britain (even if the technical defenitio of the word doesn't include NI, but it's hard to call yourself UKish)
I guess your friend can call herself what she likes, but she ain't British if she lives on the island of Ireland. She's an Irish person with a UK passport. There's about a million of them.
I guess it reflects that community's aspiration to be fully integrated with the rest of the UK, but it's wrong - politically, geographically.
I know the unionists have their 'Ulster is British' slogan, but that's nonsense. Northern Ireland isn't Ulster, and while they might be in the UK, they're not British.
I remember laughing at Ian Paisley (not difficult at the best of times) during the foot and mouth epidemic insisting that Ulster's people are British but Ulster's sheep are Irish.
Originally posted by RedmikeI think the difference etween what we're saying is that you are sticking to the exact defenitions of what is Britain, what is the UK, whether we are citizens or subjects. I'm not saying this is wrong, but I was trying to express that someone in NI (for example) might concider themselves British (if only because UKish doesn't have a good ring) whether or not his is technically correct. It is in my mind less to do with teh defenition of the word and more to do with personal and national identity. And why shouldn't they? They pay taxes to the same government with the same currency.
Firstly, in the UK we're not citizens of anywhere. We're subjects of the queen.
I guess your friend can call herself what she likes, but she ain't British if she lives on the island of Ireland. She's an Irish person with a UK passport. There's about a million of them.
I guess it reflects that community's aspiration to be fully integrated with the re ...[text shortened]... ot and mouth epidemic insisting that Ulster's people are British but Ulster's sheep are Irish.
Why is it wrong 'politically & geographically'? The isle of Wight is concidered a part of Britain, as is the Falkland Isles (aren't they, I may be wrong here?), so geography seems to have little to do with it. Political differences traditionally have very little to do with what ruling body a landmass is affiliated with (biggest guns usually decided this), but if it were the last I heard was that the majority of people in NI were quite happy to stay part of the UK.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI think the Falklands are a UK dependency, rather than part of the UK. I'm not sure what a dependency means, though....
I think the difference etween what we're saying is that you are sticking to the exact defenitions of what is Britain, what is the UK, whether we are citizens or subjects. I'm not saying this is wrong, but I was trying to express that someone in NI (for example) might concider themselves British (if only because UKish doesn't have a good ring) whether ...[text shortened]... the last I heard was that the majority of people in NI were quite happy to stay part of the UK.
I don't think we're really disagreeing here. People are often sloppy with their use of such terms - American when they mean from the US etc etc.
Of course people in Northern Ireland call themselves British, but that reflects an aspiration. Politically they're not British (their passport, like mine, says the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). I'm in the Great Britain bit, so I'm British. They're not, so they're not British. Geographically, they live on an island called Ireland. They pay taxes to a UK government and use a UK currency, not a British one (there's no such thing).
Yes, their cultural identity means they identify themselves strongly with all things to do with the UK, and Britishness is a shorthand for this.
The UK is made up of lots such groups, and there's plenty of people in Scotland (and Wales) who hate to be described as British. Doesn't mean they're not.
An aspiration to be British, or not to be British, is fine. It doesn't alter the facts though. I'm British, and I'd rather just be Scottish. Doesn't mean I'm not British, whether I like it or not. Other people (in NI, for example) want to be British, but the simple fact is that they're not.
The definition of the word has to be what counts - otherwise I could just declare an aspiration to be, say, Swiss, and demand a Swiss passport.
Originally posted by ShiningknightThis is a pretty funny comment coming from a country that coined the phrase "the Wimbledon Effect"... i.e We may not be able to rank in Tennis but we invite all the best players to come...
Before I start, I'm not a racist or anti-American, never have been, never will be. But I would just like to offer a topic for lively debate.
This is the fact that American players will never on the whole rank
higher than their British counterparts. The game is renowned to be
an English game, invented by an Englishman and relating to British fol ...[text shortened]... via cost benefit analysis and weighing up the chances of taking risks and getting away with it.
Most of the best scientists are British? Wow.... now that's a bold statement..... How's the Beagle doing?
Originally posted by GhornThe first known chess board and pieces (although very different style and I believe had 48 squares on the board) were uncovered in egypt. Many civilizations had a game very much in a similar mould to chess but I believe the origins of chess as we know it today started in Persia, chess being the persian word for king. Since this origin rules and pieces have developed along the way, including input from other civilizations. As to who input what i.e. castling, queens I am unaware.
Erm - mad argument this!
But wasn't Chess invented in India!? 🙄
Am I right in thinking that Persia is now known as Iraq?
-#Robbo
Originally posted by flexmoreI accept we are a small island.A small island off some continent somewhere unimportant..The continent is Europe.This little island went against our partners in Europe to form a co-alliciation with USA to talk like this is to betray those who stood side by side in that war.It is hurtfull for the families of those who did not return.
britain was the centre of the universe with their world rule stuff for a long time.
the brits often have a semipsychotic attitude to their place in the world now in relation to that. it is often masked as humor.
they are now just a small island off some continent somewhere unimportant.
you u.s.a. residents take note, your offspring will eventually suffer this fate.
You're correct about Persia. Iraq's borders were arbitrarily drawn by Britain early in the 20th Century (not sure exactly when), but Persia was were Iraq (and Kuwait etc) are now.
The arabic word for king is shah (as in the shah of Iran), and a word for dead is mat, hence shah-mat, which became checkmate.
Originally posted by missleadi am a little confused, you seem to accept most of what i posted. i don't understand which part you find uncomfortable.
I accept we are a small island.A small island off some continent somewhere unimportant..The continent is Europe.This little island went against our partners in Europe to form a co-alliciation with USA to talk like this is to betray those who stood side by side in that war.It is hurtfull for the families of those who did not return.
i am not arguing. i am simply not understanding - yet i am keen to.