d_l_leonine

So I actually finished my most recent read "He Came to Set the Captives Free" in an insanely short 3 days. I managed to knock out half of it at work Thursday night (slow night before anyone asks). I still need to go back and do some scripture validation on it, but on the surface, most everything I read in that book lines up with other things I've studied. Once again though, I'm left with quite a few questions in regards to the actual mechanics of spiritual warfare. On that subject, at least I do have an overall better grasp on the subject and I am diving straight into my next 2 books, one of which deals directly with that topic.

To some, the question may arise, why spiritual warfare? No, I have no plans to start laying hands on people at Wal-Mart (BTW, I have SEEN members of my church do this, LOL). My interest lies mostly with the protection of myself and my family. Personally, my spiritual growth really started 5 years ago when I found Church on the Rise. The early stages of the changes in my life were slow and tough, but I've reached a point where things are beginning to change at an exponential rate. Both in my own understanding and in what I feel to be the scope of my responsibility. It hasn't been long since I've ceased pacifying those who are resisting the truth (FTR, that started in earnest with my rebuke of Christian Wolf and his call to boycott the Salvation Army). In doing so, I have seen myself become less and less popular and more susceptible to attack. Just the fear of this sort of thing causes many Christians to give in. Let's face it...no one wants to be rejected. But I count myself lucky in the sense that I have never felt the pull of peer pressure on that level (my fA page is NOT defined by its pageviews). As I've looked back on the conversations that caused some to unwatch me and even more to wish or desire physical violence on me and analyzed their arguments against me, it has become crystal clear to me that these people are advocating for the world. A world which hates and rejects the true gospel and everything it represents. A world that will more openly reject me the more open I become in espousing the truth. And as those of the world reject me, my only hope is that I can stand as a light in the darkness and with any hope, can provide help and support for the few who also desire the narrow path.

I got a good enough dose of this rejection in the political realm as I argued the case for true liberty and rejected the notion that government, ultimately, knows better than I what is best for me. And where most people would simply point and laugh when it came to political discourse, once the topic turned to God and religion, the frivolity turned into venom. The laughter changed to seething hatred. The Amendment One debate was a prime example of that. As I was so eager to point out, those with whom I was voting WITH were attacking me with more zeal than those who were voting 'yes'. It further validated that; even though I openly recognized that legislation cannot change the heart and was not the best way, allowing the activity was not enough...I had to condone it. And the fact of the matter is that, as I become more and more outspoken, the threat of retaliation continues to grow, both in the physical and the spiritual realm. And with that, I feel there is nothing else I can do but be prepared for it...and I plan to be.

Over the past several weeks, most of my online discussions have centered around debates over Amendment 1. My hopes in those discussions was to demonstrate, what I believe to be, the position and attitude those of us in the evangelical community should take on these issues. Interestingly enough, I seem to have gained some support from people who normally wouldn't associate with me. We'll see if that lasts as I continue to opine. I was unfriended by one facebook "friend" over the issue. Now...I say friend, but most of those who I've had flame out on me over petty disagreements like this are those who would add me just because of a vague common interest (almost always fandom related). Also interesting that almost all of those who took this course of action, at some point in our debate, refereed to me as intolerant. Anyway...this issue has been a lot of fun for me to discuss because it is a perfect opportunity to display what I refer to as Evangelical Libertarianism. The concept that, while I disagree with a particular behavior on a moral level, since that behavior is strictly an issue of free will and does not directly impact another individual's life, liberty or property, I will not use legal means to restrict it.

Well the dust has cleared and the Amendment has passed and even though I disagree with it, it IS the right of the people of this state to pass it and it is Constitutional. So the question for those who really wanted this thing to fail is "Now what?" Well, in the most extreme cases, you can take advantage of one of the best characteristics of this nation, Federalism. That is, if you don't like the fact that Amendment 1 is now law in North Carolina, move to another state. That may seem disingenuous to some, but that is the beauty of how this nation was originally set up (and despite attempts by progressives, still does work in most cases). Local regulations and tax rates play a LARGE role in how business people chose where to live and where to set up shop. Just look at the last census as evidence of that. Anyway...don't get me wrong. I'm not demanding that you leave the state, what I'm saying is that one of your options as an American is the ability to vote with your feet and if this issue was truly that important to you, you'd do just that.

So I'm meandering through facebook tonight, watching all the fireworks over the coming vote on Amendment 1. I came across this post from a, now former, friend of mine. I say former friend because of the conversation that ensued. That conversation was deleted after I called them out on my facebook, but luckily, I save my emails. My original post was "...both are wrong and subject to judgement." Of course, I only have their end of the conversation, but I think this one post by her pretty accurately summed up her end of the discussion...

Aysu wrote: "but theres also the "if you dont like it, dont look at it". so unfriend me or not, deal with it. its there. and i will continue posting equality for all because this is america, the land of the free, where we shouldnt make it illegal for one person to do the exact same thing another person can. everybody is equal"

My reply here was rather lengthy, but I reasserted my position that, while sodomy is a sin, I refused to codify restrictions on any behavior that did not directly infringe upon another persons right to life, liberty and property. I also quipped that, for me to unfriend someone just because I disagreed with them would be rather intolerant and I am capable of not allowing minor disagreements to restrict my ability to socialize with people or from treating them with respect.

Not long after...another former friend, Marbles (Bee Kay) jumps in:

Bee wrote: "Dude, don't even bother with this dude, I blocked him on FA a looong time ago for being a gay-basher. You cannot be logical with Christians because they are taught to never be logical, thats the whole basis of the religion *facepalm* Also, true christians do not point out sin, because they have no right to, because they sin themselves."

I had left the house and never had a chance to continue the conversation. By the time I got home, I'd been unfriended and banned. I still posted a reply, but did so on my own page and, as stated above, her response was to delete the entire conversation. Here is my response:

The ensuing conversation on the original post demonstrates the problem with militant sodomites. It is not enough for me to be on their side on issues like Amendment 1 and support an individuals right to exercise their own free will as God intended, IMO unimpeded by the law, but in their eyes, I have to renounce my own religious beliefs and somehow affirm to them that somehow, despite what is stated in both the OT and NT, their behavior somehow pleases God. I also find it interesting that I was the one unfriended and banned but Aysu would insist that *I* am the intolerant one. Yes, I will still vote against A1 despite your animosity toward me, but should you ever attempt to use the law to stifle my own speech or religious expression, I will fight against you with the same passion.

I've been pretty quite lately from a political stand point. It was a great time to take a break though. The primaries have been decided for some time and all the news items from the past few months have all been pure garbage and not worth my time.

We are; however, now less than one month from our primary so I'll take a moment to list my planned votes.

Since I'm unaffiliated, I have the power to vote in any primary. Since there typically isn't a Libertarian party primary (and normally not even a recognized Libertarian party...hence my status as "unaffiliated") and since I wouldn't vote for a Democrat if you put a gun to my head, I will vote in the Republican primary.

As I stated a few months ago, I will be voting for Ron Paul in the presidential primary. I caught MAJOR grief for this from the Herman Cain supporters, but I find it funny that, if I'd blindly followed Cain and his endorsement, I would be voting for the very individual who caused me to realize the Republican party was just as full of crap as the Democrats...Newt. Even funnier now are rumors that Newt will be endorsing Romney once he finally drops out. So all those who blindly followed Cain and the ensuing chain of endorsements, instead of sticking to their principles, will be doing the very thing that they swore not to do...voting for the big tent candidate!

No, I do not agree completely with Paul, but economically, he is 100% right and the only true remaining small government conservative/libertarian, and because of that, I will default to him.

While I'm on that side of the ballot, I'll go ahead and give McCrory a vote for governor. I think it's hysterical that Bev Purdue ended up falling so far out of public favor after all of her hissy fits over congress that her only options were to get absolutely embarrassed in November (and likely take a bunch of other Dems with her), or drop out. I don't think it will happen, but I think it will be a blast if Ethridge ends up getting the Dem nomination. I couldn't get enough of that video of him attacking those students during the '10 election.

Of course, I'll also be voting straight no's for any bond referendums. Government, at all levels has proven irresponsible with my money, so no I will never give them permission to borrow.

That leaves one final issue, and yes, I saved this for last on purpose...the "Marriage Amendment". Of course, both side are in full attack mode on this particular issue and I disagree with both. On one side, you have the Evangelical Republicans insisting that we need to "protect" the traditional family. On the other side, Democrats are claiming that this is an attempt to write "discrimination" into the constitution while others are citing separation of church and state.

So how is it possible to disagree with both sides? I'll have to address each argument separately.

As an Evangelical, I can speak to the right with some authority and they are completely missing the point of all this. The question should not be "What is the definition of marriage?" but "Who is qualified to sanction marriage and what is the proper role of government?". I actually do not see my marriage license as anything more than a civil contract and I see it that way because the State lacks the authority to sanctify marriage. Even religious figures do not have that power. When a pastor performs a marriage ceremony, he himself is not sanctifying the marriage, he is presenting the couple to God, who blesses and sanctifies the union (which, btw, will never happen in a sodomite relationship). I would not lobby for a constitutional amendment defining marriage, I would push for legislation eliminating the "marriage license". It should be none of the government's business who I decide to live with and I should not be punished or benefit from the law based on the status of my relationship. This goes back to the fundamental Libertarian stance of every individual being equal in the eyes of the law.

So while I'm voting against this amendment, it is for far different reasons than what the Democrats are saying. The State does have the Constitutional authority to institute this amendment, even though I disagree with it. If someone would like to claim that they don't, then explain to me how the founders were OK with all those local and state laws from the 1600's and 1700's dealing with all sorts of morality issues, from alcohol and gambling to sodomy (many of which are actually still on the books today). While my primary objection to the marriage license in general stems from unequal treatment under the law, this law is not discrimination as defined by the left. From a legal perspective, it is impossible to discriminate against what is ultimately, a lifestyle.

For me, what this ultimately comes down to is the right for consenting adults to freely enter into contractual living arrangements and nothing to do with religion. So while I disagree with choices another person may make, it is their choice and I refuse to use the police power of the state as a morality bludgeon. This applies equally to both issues of economic liberty (I am opposed to so called "sin" taxes as an example) or personal liberty. In previous discussions on this particular topic, I am frequently called "intolerant", but isn't the epitome of tolerance the ability to allow someone the freedom to live in a manner I strongly disagree with. God gave you free will and I am disinclined to interfere with it, so long as you are not infringing on the life, liberty or property of another.

Well...there are still 2 games left, but I have completed and won Round 1 of the 2012 Net-chess open. Scores and analysis for all 10 games below.


9.5 +9 =1 -0 2380 leonine
8.0 +7 =2 -1 2269 gstevenson
5.5 +5 =1 -4 2257 acaudron
3.0 +3 =0 -6 1597 ramesis
2.0 +2 =0 -6 1730 mmelchiorre
0.0 +0 =0 -10 2228 bkpfitzner


(mmelchiorre-ramesis and mmelchiorre-acaudron still in progress)

---

Net chess open : Round 1 (6 player DRR, 60d + 0d)
leonine (2380) vs bkpfitzner (2228)

1.e4 e5
I actually didn't get my 1st moves in for 3-4 days after the match started. The site will forfiet players if they don't make their 1st move within 10 days. This opponent had already dropped his other 9 games, but my tardyness allowed him additional time to make that 1st move and he did that with just over 1 day left. So, to some extent, I was looking at having to earn a win that all my other opponents had simply backed into...
2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e5 Ng4 5.d4 Bb4+ 6.c3 Ba5 7.Bxf4 d6 8.Qa4 Nc6? 9.d5 Bb6 10.dxc6 (Black timed out) 1-0

10... Bf2+ wasn't much of a threat since after Ke2 he has to worry about both 11.cxb7+ (11...Bd7 12.bxa8=Q wins Rook) and 11.h3 winning a piece.

---

bkpfitzner (2228) - leonine (2380)
white timed out 0-1
...not much to say when your opponent doesn't show up, LOL

---

leonine (2362) - ramesis (1597)
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 e6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Bh6?
At first, my impression was that Bh6 was only going to cost him a tempo, but then again, in this type of game, a tempo can cost you the game.
6.d3 Nge7 7.h4 d5 8.Bb3 0-0 9.h5 a6??
9... Bg7 was a must here IMO...and even with that, I think black is very ill prepared to ward off this attack!
10.hxg6 d4?
Perhaps trying to counter attack, or just complicate the position. Either way, I'm sure he overlooked the check.
11.gxh7+ Kxh7 12.Ng5+ Kg7 13.Qh5 Ng8 14.f5!
if 14...dxc3 15.Nxe6+!! followed by 16.Bxh6+ wins
14...exf5?
14...Qf6 is the only move that keeps him in the game.
15.Nxf7 Rxf7 16.Qxf7+ {black resigned.} 1-0
16.Bxh6+ was unstoppable if black attempts to move the queen to safety.

---

ramesis (1597) - leonine (2362)
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bd3 e5 4.c3 Be7
I decided early on to just focus on keeping his bishop bad and seeing if I could exploit it later.
5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Nbd7 8.Be3 0-0 9.Nbd2 c5 10.0-0 Qc7 11.Rac1 a6 12.d5 b5 13.a3 c4 14.Bc2 Nc5 15.Bxc5 Qxc5 16.Qf5 a5 17.Nf3?
Closes off the white queen's escape route...
17...g6 18.Qg5 Nxd5 19.Qh6
he was better off retreating to g3.
19...Nf4 20.Rce1 Ne6 21.Nh2?
Allowing me to trap the queen!
21...Bg5 22.Qxg5 Nxg5
Up a queen now, just a matter of not getting careless...
23.Re3 Ne6 24.Rg3 b4 25.axb4 axb4 26.Ng4 Kg7 27.h4 Nf4 28.Ne3 Ne2+ 29.Kh2 Nxg3 30.Kxg3 b3 31.Bd1 Ra2 32.Be2 Rxb2 33.Bxc4 Rfa8 34.Bd5 Raa2 35.Nd1 Rb1 36.f3 Rxd1 37.Rxd1 Qf2+ 38.Kh3 Qxg2#
{Checkmate} 0-1

---

leonine (2362) - mmelchiorre (1730)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.c4 Nb4?!
5...Nb6 would have nearly transposed to the Alekhine Defence, 4 pawns attack
6.a3 Nb4c6 7.d4 d5 8.Bxf4 Bg4 9.Be3 Nd7? 10.cxd5 Na5 11.b4
Compounds the mistake of hanging the pawn by allowing the knight to become trapped
11...Qh4+ 12.Bf2
12.Nxh4 doesn't really do anything more than trade queens and allow me to win the bishop instead of the knight
12...Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Be7??
Just hangs the queen. It's pretty much acedemic from here...
14.Bxh4 Bxh4+ 15.g3 Bg5 16.bxa5 a6 17.Bh3 b5 18.Bxd7+ Kxd7 19.Qxf7+ Kc8 20.Qf5+ Kb7 21.Qxg5 h6 22.Qg6 {black resigned.} 1-0

---

mmelchiorre (1730) - leonine (2362)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bd3 e5
just like in my game with ramsis, I decided to close the center and try to exploit the poorly placed bishop
4.d5 Nbd7 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Be3 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Nc3 cxd5 9.Nxd5 Nxd5 10.exd5 Nf6
Pressuring d5 and threatening 11...e4
11.Bc4 Bg4 12.Be2 Ne4 13.Qd3 f5 14.Rac1 Nf6 15.Ng5 Bxe2 16.Qxe2 Qd7 17.Rfd1?!
17.c3 might have been better...
17...f4 18.Bd2 Nxd5 19.Qh5? Qf5 20.Qxh7+
20.Qf3 saves the piece
20...Qxh7 21.Nxh7 Kxh7 22.Bc3 Nxc3 23.bxc3 Rac8 24.Rd3 g5 25.a4 Rc4 26.a5 Rfc8 27.Rb1 R8c7 28.Rh3+ Kg6 29.g4 e4 30.Rb5 R4c5 31.Rxc5 Rxc5 32.Kf1 Bf6
Not only attacks c3 again, but also completely locks the white rook on a3
33.Ke2 Rxc3 34.Rxc3 Bxc3 35.f3 e3 36.Kd3 Bxa5 37.c4 a6 38.h3 b5 39.cxb5 axb5 40.Ke2 b4 {white resigned.} 0-1

---

leonine (2362) - acaudron (2257)

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 Be7 6.hxg5 Bxg5 7.Nxg5 Qxg5 8.Qf3 Qg3 9.Qxg3 fxg3 10.Bf4 d6 11.Bxg3
I was looking for a way to contine to exploit my lead in development, but just didn't see it. In the current position, I have a slight positional edge with him having 2 isolated pawns on simi-open files.
11...Nc6 12.Bb5 Bd7 13.c3 Nf6 14.Nd2 0-0-0?
Perhaps Rg8 first preparing to castle long
15.Bh4 Nxe4 16.Bxd8 Ng3 17.Bh4
Knowing the knight will be hopelessly trapped after taking the rook. Better though, was Bf6 attacking the other rook.
17...Nxh1 18.0-0-0 a6 19.Ba4 Na5 20.Bxd7+ Kxd7 21.Rxh1 Rg8 22.g3 Re8 23.Rf1 Rf8 24.d5 f5? 25.b4
OK...so 24.d5 was just damned sneaky. Of course, 24...b6 (or b5) was required to save the knight.
Nc6 26.dxc6 Kxc6 27.Nb3 Kd7 28.Nd4 c5 29.Rxf5 {black resigned.} 1-0

---

acaudron (2257) - leonine (2362)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nf3!? Nxe4
This is one of those unpleasent moves that, in over-the-board play, can cause players to have absolute fits. In e-mail/correspondance chess however, there is no such thing as "surprise value". After a quick trip to the database and google search, I had all the information I needed to play Nxe4 with confidence. BTW, this little Theoretical Novelty is refered to as the Roscher Gambit...
4.d5 g6 5.Qd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Bb5+ c6 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Ba4 0-0 10.0-0 Nd5 11.Qc4?
I really question weather 5.Qd4 was a good idea. The queen was going to have to move soon after Bg7 to avoid the discovered attack. White may still have been decent after 11.Qb4, but there is still the matter of his split queenside pawns after 11...Nxc3 anyway.
11...Nxc3 12.bxc3 Ba6 13.Qb3 Bxf1 14.Kxf1 Qb6 15.Bb2 Qxb3
Probably not accurate, but I figured I had a winning endgame here and decided to get the queens off the board despite improving his pawns
16.cxb3 Rc8 17.Re1 e6 18.Re2 c5 19.c4 Bxb2 20.Rxb2 Nc6 21.Rd2 d5 22.cxd5 exd5 23.Rxd5 Nb4 24.Rd7 Rd8 25.Ne5 Nxa2 26.Rc7 Nc3
Sneaky...threatening Rd1#
27.g3 Nxa4 28.bxa4 Rdc8 29.Rxc8 Rxc8 30.Nc4 Rd8 31.Ke2 Rd4 32.Nb2 c4 33.Ke3 c3! 34.Nd3 Rxa4 35.Ne1 Ra2 36.Kd3 c2 37.Nxc2 Rxc2
Simply trading to a solidly won endgame
38.Kxc2 Kg7 39.Kb3 Kf6 40.Kb4 Ke5 41.Ka5 Ke4 42.Ka6 Kf3 43.Kxa7 Kxf2 44.Kb6 f5 45.Kc5 Kg2 46.Kd4 Kxh2 {white resigned.} 0-1

---

leonine (2362) - gstevenson (2269)

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Bc4 d6 5.0-0 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bg4 7.d4 0-0 8.Bxf4 h6 9.h3 Bh5 10.Qd2 Nh7 11.Nd5 c6 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.e5 d5 14.Bd3 f5 15.exf6
It was tempting to keep the passed pawn, but with a lead in development, I wanted the kingside opened
15...Nxf6 16.Rae1 Qd8 17.Ne5 Nbd7 18.g4 Be8 19.Bxh6!?
...was begging to be played at this point.
19...gxh6 20.Qxh6 Ne4? 21.Rxf8+ Nxf8 22.Rxe4!! dxe4 23.Bc4+ {black resigned.} 1-0

---

...and saving the best for last
gstevenson (2269) - leonine (2362)

1.e4 d6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 Bg7 5.Be3 0-0 6.Bd3 Bg4 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nbd7 9.0-0 Ne8
I really piddled around too much with my knights in this game, I was better off just playing a more direct 9...e5 here I think
10.Ne2 e5 11.d5 c5 12.c4 Nc7 13.Nc3 Na6
Qh4 would have been better
14.a3 Qf6 15.Qxf6 Nxf6 16.f4 Nh5 17.Ne2 Rae8?
I actually missed 17...exf4 followed by 18...Bxb2
18.fxe5 Bxe5 19.Rab1 b6 20.g4 Ng7 21.Bd2 h5 22.g5 f6 23.h4 Re7 24.Rf3 Ref7 25.gxf6 Rxf6 26.Rxf6 Bxf6 27.Bf4 Ne8 28.Bg3 Nb8 29.Kg2 Nd7 30.b3 Ne5 31.Bxe5 Bxe5 32.Ng1 Rf4 33.Nf3 Bf6?!
Nf6 was better
34.Kg3 Rg4+ 35.Kh3 g5 36.hxg5 Bxg5 37.Rg1 Rxg1 38.Nxg1 Kf7 39.a4 Nc7 40.Nf3 Kf6 41.Be2 Na6 42.Nh4 Bxh4 43.Kxh4 Nb4 44.Kxh5 Nc2
I didn't mind loosing the outside passer too much since I knew my knight would be much better once I got it to d4. Turns out, both sides required very precise play from this point on to ensure the draw...
45.Kg4 Nd4 46.Bd1 a6 47.Kf4 a5 48.e5+ dxe5 49.Ke4 Nf5
Here's where things got really tricky! I had to keep his king out of c6 at all costs.
50.d6 Nd4 51.Kd5
51.Bg4 was the best try, but it still ends in a draw...
51...e4 52.Kxe4 {Draw.}
1/2-1/2

Easily, the one big thing I take from this tournament is the fact that I absolutely HAVE to get my game together from the white side. I found myself in trouble in all three of those games and was just plain lucky to steal wins in 2 of them. I'll need to seek out some thematic matches on slowchess and find some good books. On a positive note, my 4th round game confirmed that my most comfortable play against the English IS 1... e5.

A quick addendum to my 3rd round game from last weekend. Jeff brought up an excellent point asking if I'd considered 31.Rb8 instead of 31.Rc8+. I did look at that and wasn't sure exactly how black would respond, but I was seeing d5 followed by c4, not only making more room for the king, but creating a passed pawn since my b-pawn is overworked defending the knight. I got concerned about getting the queen back and went with Rc8+ which lead to the fairly simple endgame win for my opponent.

When you look at rounds 1 and 5, I ended up doing exactly what Jeff suggested here. Complicating a lost position or setting traps out of desperation and forcing my lower rated opponents to try and navigate the maze. It should be noted that my 4th round opponent did the same thing to me while my 2nd round opponent simply folded at the first sign of adversity (yes, he was down a piece, but I think he still could have tried to fight). IMO, both of my opponents in those other games should not have fallen for the traps I set, but it goes to show that it pays (literally) to force your opponent to prove that he can carry out the win. Especially in the Class sections where there is always the possibility of a botched combination! Some would call these reversals luck, and that could be true except that I've managed this in 3 of my last 8 tournament games. Rounds 1 and 5 of this one and round 2 of the last TACO where I was in big trouble against another low 1600 only to watch him blunder in the late middle-game/early endgame.

Of course, about 6 months ago I ended up drawing a won game when I overlooked a forced stalemate against FM Ron Simpson. Yes, I was in time pressure, but I really still should have seen that. Of course, just as I find myself squirming out of these near misses capitalizing on the inconsistency of lower rated opponents, an FM would do exactly the same thing to me. This is one of those intangible qualities that separates the good players from the average players.

So while I don't think Rb8 would have generated a different result, I agree that it might have been the best try in this situation. It shouldn't have been any more difficult for my opponent than the endgame we wound up in, but it was more complex and might have caused him to stumble like my other opponents did. Despite the blood lust for precise play in the age of computers, sometimes, the best move is the one your opponent doesn't expect.

I don't rant much anymore, but when I do, you bet I'm going to make it count.

This occurred to me a few weeks ago, I just haven't had a chance to throw it out there. I've almost always recognized that there is such a thing as Biblical servitude (or slavery if you prefer). Examples of both correct and incorrect servitude are provided in the OT. Proper servitude centers around indebtedness. As Hayek stated, "To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything." Many people don't realize that they have willingly surrendered their liberty through their economic pursuits (big houses, new cars, etc.). Many more fail to realize that we have surrendered most of our liberty to the government via the tax code. Even those who benefit from the government's wealth transfer schemes find themselves subservient to their so-called representatives (just watch this year's election adds). The concept of economic liberty is one of the biggest reasons I've always been so fiercely Libertarian. And yea, I know this paragraph alone is too much for some liberals to wrap their brains around...but it's about to get worse.

Going back to the Biblical angle, if indebtedness is slavery (and it is!) and since modern society is built on a debt mentality, then there are not many who can make a claim to be truly free. Having a mortgage (among other things), I certainly can't. There are plenty of speakers within the Christian community who lecture and teach debt free living, but one morning, I was in my car listening to someone on the radio (secular station, btw) talk about using debt as a hedge against inflation and sadly, most of what he was saying was sound. It was then that I had this realization...

Speaking from a strictly strategical standpoint, it makes absolutely no since to remain debt free. If you look at a payment for a fully matured 30 year mortgage, it is, on average probably around $300-400/month. A comparable house today would go for probably $800-1000/month (if not more). The money that the older mortgage is paying back is worth far, far less than what it was worth 30 years ago. Yes, the bank does make a long term profit, but it's hindered somewhat by the reduction in the value of the currency. It really begs the question, with our national debt and money supply almost doubled under the current administration, is it really worthwhile to work harder now on paying off debt, or to throttle back a bit and allow the almost certain inflationary cycles to hit and take full effect. A good case can be made for it...

The bottom line is, like many other things now in our society, the world has set itself up to actually reward the irresponsible and unbiblical approach.

I was set up nicely going into the last round. Turns out there were, once again, a lot of draws on the higher boards which left only 2 players ahead of me going into the last round. A win would guarentee 2nd place money, the only question would be how many players would I tie with should I win. One thing I knew was that I HAD to win this game. Drawing was not going to pull down any substantial money. Little did I know that this would be one of the stranger final rounds I would be involved in (and witness)...

The Big Enchilada - 4/1/2012
Round 5
Whittington, Evan (1763) - Haith, Claude (1660)
ECO=B23g, Sicilian Def, Grand Prix

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.f4 d5 4.e5 Nc6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.Bxc6 Bxc6
{While I usually go for the Bc4 lines, I think I'm starting to prefer Bb5 more. I felt more comfortable not having to deal with the sticky problem of that bishop being driven back into the corner.}
8.d4
{I'm not 100% sure, but that move might have transposed to a French Defense. If not, it's pretty darn close.}
8... Nh6 9.Be3 Nf5 10.Bf2 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 O-O 13.Qd3 a6 14.O-O-O
{I went the wrong way here. Despite the fact that I'm absolutely going to pawnstorm the kingside, I still should have castled kingside. I didn't think he was going to be able to mobilize as fast as he did.}
14... b5 15.g4 b4 16.Nb1 Bb5 17.Qf3 Rc8 18.f5?
{Rd2, then h4 needed to be played first. I know I'm good at calculating the actual combinations, but where I find myself consistantly failing is in setting up the attack. Either I'm too cautious and don't attack soon enough, or I don't make that last move needed to solidify my position. In this case, it was the latter. I think that's my biggest problem with the Grand Prix and as soon as I can fix that, I'll get much better results with this opening.}
18... Bg5+ 19.Nd2 Qc7 20.c3 bxc3 21.bxc3 Ba4 22.h4 Bxd1 23.Qxd1
{Kxd1 was better}
23... Bxd2+ 24.Qxd2 f6 25.exf6
{25.Re1 was a better try}
25... e5 26.fxg7 Rf7 27.Be3 Qc3+ 28.Qxc3 Rxc3+ 29.Kd2 Ra3 30.Rc1 Rxa2+ 31.Kd1 Kxg7
{Just as that hopeless feeling that you're going to lose sets in, an interesting deux ex machina* presents itself. Well...if my opponent insists on giving me a chance to threaten mate in 3, who am I to resist. Especially when I'm already lost.}
32.Rc6 d4?? 33.Bh6+
{33... Kg8 (or h8) 34.Rc8+ Rf8 35.Rf8#}
Black resigns 1-0

*duex ex machina - Latin: "god out of the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.

In my game, 32... d4?? ended up being a $313 blunder, but that's nothing compared to what happened on the top board. Henry Wactor, the guy that beat me in round 3 was alone in 1st place with 4 points. His opponent had 3.5. I had a feeling that Henry would be playing for a draw since that was all he needed for clear first (none of us can catch him at 4.5 and his opponent would remain a half point back). I heard his opponent make him a draw offer about 25 moves in and fully expected him to quickly accept it and go claim his $900 for clear first. I was simply shocked to hear him decline. Only a few moves later I heard him plead, "you don't still want that draw do you?". I glanced at the board and saw that he was in a clearly lost position. Of course, he eneded up losing eventually and as it turned out, declining that draw ended up costing him almost $600. At least he had a good sense of humor about it and I didn't have the nerve to mention it to him at that time. I'm sure he realized it later. I've never been in that position myself, but I am always aware of my position in a tournament and I would have pounced on that draw offer in nothing flat!

Chess truely IS a game of blunder and counter blunder, LOL!

I found myself in the exact same position as last year, losing round 3 and needing 2 points on Sunday to win any money. There was hope though and it turns out I still controled my own destiny moreso than normal. It turns out that ALL the other games in my point group ended up as draws, so there was a logjam of 2.5's with my previous opponent being the only 3. This is one of those times were being the highest rated player in your point group pays off. With an odd number of 3's and 2.5's the lowest 2.5 must play the highest 2. And since I was the highest rated 2, that meant I not only get a chance to play my way back in, but I also get to bump off a player that is ahead of me! That means one less potential threat to tie me at 4 points and ultimately, more money for me. The only downside is that I'm playing the lowest rated 2.5. That means I get a 1400 who has already upset 2 players in the 1600's and is bascially frerolling a chance at an upset prize against me. It's actually a situation where I have nothing to gain and EVERYTHING to lose. Not only is my tournament life on the line, but also a substantial number of rating points. No pressure, eh?

The Big Enchilada - 4/1/12
Round 4
Greene, Kevin (1424) - Whittington, Evan (1763)
ECO=A20, English, Sicilian Reversed
1.c4 e5
{My 1st tournament game with this opening. I played this in a G/20 at Via Cappuchino a few months ago and loved the way the game played out.}
2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 f5
{I didn't know how well this was going to work, but I figured this would be best since I'm most familiar with the Grand Prix from the white side.}
4.Nc3 Nf6 5.e4 d6 6.Nge2 Be7 7.d4 fxe4 8.O-O
{I knew I had a positional edge on him after 7.d4, but I didn't think it was worth a whole pawn. I was very surprised that he didn't take back, but Toga prefers d5, but seems to support castling to some extent too.}
8... Bf5
{I wasn't going to go all out to defend e4, but as long as I can make natural developing moves that help fortify the pawn I see no harm in it.}
9.a3 Qd7 10.dxe5 Nxe5
{That actually helps me out tremendously. 9.a3 was a wasted tempo and my knight is now immediately pressuring f3 and d3! I was starting to feel like this might end up being another very short game from the black side...}
11.f3 exf3 12.Bxf3 Nxf3 13.Rxf3
{Both trading my extra, yet weak, pawn AND getting rid of his fianchetoed bishop!}
13... O-O
{Nothing fancy here, just finish development with Rae8 and start pushing forward. He's still severely underdeveloped and liable to run into problems with his open king.}
14.Nd5 Be4 15.Re3 Rae8 16.Nec3 Nxd5!?
{Seeing an opprotunity to consolodate a bit, and possibly weaken his position further}
17.Rxe4?!
{I think cxd5 was more accurate}
17... Nxc3 18.bxc3 d5?!
{My original plan was just a simple Bf6, but as I was looking at this position, getting the bishop to c5 to pressure the king seemed more appealing. Sure, he can't take the pawn, but this move really didn't accomplish anything for me either and just ended up being a waste of time.}
19.Kg2 c6 20.cxd5 Qxd5
{Undoubles the pawns, but allows me to force the queens off the board. My only concern now is that somehow I end up in a drawish RvR endgame.}
21.Qxd5+ cxd5 22.Re2 Bf6 23.Rc2 Rc8 24.Be3?! d4 25.Bd2 dxc3 26.Bf4
{I wondered, why not return to e3 and pressure the a-pawn again}
26... b5 27.Rb1 a6 28.Rb3 fRd8 29.Be3 Kf7
{I am eventually planning to post my rooks at d5 and c4 with the idea of either pushing a5/b4 or swinging over to the kingside and pressuring the h-pawn, but I have extra time and figured now was as good a time as any to go ahead and centralize my king.}
30.Kf2 Ke6 31.Ke2 Rc4 32.Bb6
{Wisely hoping to blockade and prevent a5}
32... Rd5 33.Rb4?!
{I'm not really sure what he can do here, but allowing me to simplify is not a good option.}
33... Rxb4 34.axb4 Rd2+!? 35.Rxd2 cxd2 36.Kxd2
{Yes, I gave back one of the 2 extra pawns, but I know I can win this endgame!}
36... Be7 37.Ba5
{Kc3 would have been slightly better, but it's only going to be a matter of time.}
37... Kd5 38.Kd3 Bd6!
{Despite having a piece and space for the pawns to advance, white is zugzwanged}
39.Kc3 Ke4 40.Bb6 Kf3 41.Bc5
{A last desperate attempt to win. I don't blame him for trying and would have done the same myself...}
41... Bc7 42.Kd3 a6 43.bxa5 Bxa5 44.Bd4 g5 45.Be5 g4 White resigns 0-1

The Big Enchilada - 3/31/12
Round 3
Whittington, Evan (1763) - Wactor, Henry (1674)
ECO=B23a, Sicilian Def, Grand Prix
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 a6
{This was the 1st time I'd run into a6 this early. I figured I wouldn't be playing Bc4 this time around.}
3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 d6 5.d3 Bg4 6.Be2 Bxf3 7.Bxf3
{I'm actually really comfortable with the position I'm getting out of this.}
7... e6 8.Be3 g6 9.f5 Bg7 10.Qd2 b5?! 11.O-O
{I thought about e5 and should have played it. For some reason, I wasn't comfortable with the Queen being on my, now abandoned long diagonal and the loss of my e and f-pawns after 11.e5 Nxe5 12.Bxa8 Qxa8 13.fxe6 fxe6. Of course, the computers were saying 11.e5 d5 12.f6 += so I was basically miscalculated slightly.}
11... Nd4 12.fxe6 fxe6
{hoping to keep the king in the center, hinder his king side piece deveolpment and secure control of the open f-file.}
13.Bg5 Ne7 14.Bg4 h6 15.Bh4 h5 16.Be2?!
{I chose the wrong retreat square. 16.Bh3 and I still have an edge. This was the move that ultimately cost me the game.}
16... Bh6 17.Bg5? Bxg5 18.Qxg5 b4!
{Just wins a piece and I'd overlooked it when I played Be2 AND Bg5}
19.Qf6 Rb8 20.Bxh5 gxh5 21.Na4 Nxc2 22.Rac1 Nd4 23.Rf2 Kd7
{I had refused to play Qf7+ because I knew Kd7 would benifit him and he would just play it on his own eventually.}
24.Rcf1 Qa5 25.b3 Rg6?!
{I had expected one of the rooks to hit f8. Since I'm already down a piece, trading the queen for 2 rooks wouldn't really have worked out for me and I'm probably forced to just play Qh4 and hope for the best. The strange thing is that after seeing this move, I immediately saw a potential checkmate and went for it!}
26.Qxe7+! Kxe7 27.Rf7+ Kd8 28.Rf8+ Kc7 29.R1f7+ Kc6 30.Rxa8
{Had there been no rook on a8 this would have been a beautiful queen sacrifice for mate in 9 to 11 depending on spite checks! (30.Rc8+ Kb5 31.Rb7+ Qb6 32.Rxb6+ Ka5 33.Ra8 Ne2+ 34.Kh1 Ng3+ 35.hxg3 and 36.Raxa6# cannot be stopped). The only question I had was weather or not black could stop mate after 30.Rxa8 and had this been an even game, I would have looked harder for an out. Turns out he could, but at some cost and I went from being a piece down to just down an exchange. Had there been more pieces on the board, this would have, once again, been a game.}
30... Nb5! 31.Rc8+ Nc7 32.Rfxc7+ Qxc7 33.Rxc7+ Kxc7
{The attck fizzles, and although I won back material, I'd traded myself into a losing endgame. Eventually, the rook is going to overwhelm my knight and I'll be unable to hold my pawns. Even though, thematically, it turns out I really needed to decline the sacrifice, I'm very happy to have gone out this way. We had to submit a game for publication when we picked up our prizes. I was actually going to submit this one, but Henry and I were getting out checks at the same time and he told me he was submitting this game, so I was able to pick another. Even though it just fell short, I still thought this combination was beautiful and deserved to be seen. If it had worked, it would have been a definite candidate for Mike William's brilliancy prize.}
34.Kf2 Kc6 35.Nb2 d5 36.g3 Kd6 37.Nd1 Ke5 38.Ke3 Rf6 39.Nf2 Rg6 40.Nh3 h4 41.Nf4 Rh6 42.g4 d4+
White resigns 0-1