"This House would not in any circumstances fight for King and Country".

Probably only a small number of British readers will recognise these words. This was the motion tabled at a famous debate of the Oxford Union early in 1933: it was passed. Notwithstanding which, many of the young men who voted in favour went on to serve in the armed forces during the Second World War. Some have credited this vote, which was widely reported, with encouraging Hitler in his territorial aggrandisement in later years. An early example, perhaps, of the power of publicity. Still, I have always been sceptically inclined when it comes to anything resulting from a public discussion, whether it be from a debate or a lecture. Demosthenes' Philippics didn't stop the rise of Macedon.

Recently, Garry Kasparov proposed at an Oxford Union debate that there has been a slowing down in the rate of technological change with concomitant effects upon world growth. A debate that is available online. He was supported by Peter Thiel, a billionaire and a well known investor, who co-founded Paypal. The opposition was led by Mark Shuttleworth, another billionaire, who is best known for funding Ubuntu Linux. Also speaking against Kasparov's thesis was Kenneth Rogoff.

I am one of those who regrets that Kasparov gave up playing chess professionally. Yes, he had nothing left to prove; yes, playing at his level was very strenuous indeed. Nonetheless, he could well have produced many fine games that will not now see the light of day. On the other hand, when it comes to politics, despite his opposition to Putin, possibly, indeed, because of it, he is not taken seriously by many Russians. Writing for the Wall Street Journal will not help him one whit domestically, rather the reverse.

In the debate Shuttleworth teased that Russia is not a democracy. Rogoff (In my opinion, far and away the best speaker, even though he was softly spoken. I presume he has more experience of public speaking than the other three.) later followed this theme by cracking that had Kasparov become president of Russia, he'd have become a billionaire. I was surprised when Rogoff indicated that chess playing computers have already passed the Turing test: he finds it difficult to distinguish a game played by a machine from that ventured by a human.

As so often, much of what was said was not new. I've lost count of the number of times I've read that living standards for most Americans have not risen since the 1970s. Shuttleworth rightly pointed out that what Thiel said of America was true for America; however, in Asia, for instance, many people are better off than they were. This reminded me of a quip about VI Kulik (another toady of Stalin's, one who greatly damaged the Red Army): Each snipe looks to its own marsh. This was a play upon Kulik, which can mean a marsh bird (i.e. a snipe).

One oddity in the debate was the use of the expression Hobson's choice. A way to remember its meaning is: any colour you like, so long as it's black. Hobson was an ostler who would offer his patrons only the one horse, it was that or nothing.

For myself, I was persuaded by Rogoff's arguments. Those of moderate circumstances in the West are finding it hard to obtain credit. Smaller companies and enterprises are suffering from the identical problem. He added that he wanted a stabler world and cared about the environment. He wasn't bothered whether his kids voyaged into space or not (a mild quip aimed at Shuttleworth). Thiel may be right that bubbles are more frequent now than they used to be; he mentioned the South Sea Bubble and America before the Wall Street Crash, but not the Tulip Mania in the United Provinces (i.e. the Netherlands) of the seventeenth century. However, it could be argued that the number of recent bubbles is due to poor decision making (for instance, during the Greenspan era at the Federal Reserve).

For further reading there are two articles that recently appeared in the Financial Times. The first was written jointly by Thiel and Kasparov, the second by Gillian Tett, a highly regarded award winning journalist, she has had a good crisis.

Chess in the news.

On Page B8 (i.e. the business section) of Wednesday's Daily Telegraph there are some paragraphs about chess. They are reproduced here.

A benevolent reiver.

In my salad days, when I was green, I was captive to a number of stories of the Covenanters (the death of Inchdarny I can still partly recall), fierce men of Presbyterian faith who lived and died for the Solemn League and Covenant. I was also exposed to tales of the borders, particularly about the reivers. Now both are just echoes from history, of whom few had heard. The Covenanters were done for by their divisions and the Battle of Bothwell Brig (1679); the reivers, rather earlier, by Jimmy the Sixth (the wisest fool in Christendom), who imposed order in the oft-wasted borderlands. Some prominent, highly respectable, families in today's Britain claim descent from the reivers.

It is alleged that history repeats itself, thus when Irish Home Rule dominated British politics a century ago, Ulster Protestants broadcast their opposition in 1912 by signing a Solemn League and Covenant.

Have we similarly witnessed a return to the ideals of the reivers? The reivers were ferocious riders, berserkers even, who would engage in cattle rustling and still more nefarious deeds, disdainful of allegiances owed to crown and country, men who cared not a whit for international borders. Some say the American West was like that, maybe they are right. But surely their ways are now just metaphorical?

In today's Russia and Ukraine there are many colourful figures in the world of business. Recently, the Ukraine born Vladimir Mironovich Palikhata, who heads the Moscow Chess Federation, issued an invitation to the Mayor of London to attend the London Grand Prix, a contest that is closed to ordinary members of the public. But who is Palikhata, to invite the Mayor of London to an event in London? Fortunately, it would appear that one of Palikhata's aides has provided an entry on Wikipedia, the first port of call for the ill-informed. Out of sheer laziness I shan't provide that link, I shall just note that it is gratifying that Palikhata was able to provide assistance to the children of needy families in the Republic of Kalmykia when FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, a close friend, was also president of that republic. There is a photograph of the two benefactors available here. Other, Russian language, pages of interest are to be found here, here, here and here.

Palikhata's plans for chess are expressed in a Russian language interview here, a further interview he gave shortly after his elevation can be found here. It is ineffably good news that he shares a platform with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich (speaking through the microphone on the first photo), whom we must thank for keeping Ilyumzhinov at FIDE. It is wonderful, too, that he has Archimandrite Tikhon, believed to be Russian President Vladimir Putin's spiritual advisor, as a trustee for his charitable foundation. Not for Palikhata is the path of conflict with FIDE, I gather that the First Vice-President of the Moscow chess Federation is Nikita Vladimirovich Kim, who used to work for Ilyumzhinov.

Chess in the mainstream press.

It's good to see that the first round of the FIDE Grand Prix currently being held in London is reported in my favourite quality newspaper, London's Financial Times. Page seven of today's edition boasts the headline US entrepreneur seeks to revive chess's popularity. The entrepreneur in question, Andrew Paulson, is a long time partner of the well connected Alexander Mamut, who owns Waterstones, a chain of bookshops in the UK. The article occupies quite a decent amount of space, together with a photograph of the chap I want to win, he's staring down at the board, not up at the ceiling.

There's no discussion of the differences between Andrew Paulson and Ilya Levitov,who runs the Russian chess federation; he was put there by Arkady Dvorkovich, a deputy prime minister of the Russian Federation (i.e. the Russian state, not the chess body). It was pressure from the Russian chess federation that resulted in the venue being shifted to London, a fascinating ripple, perhaps, from the stone throwing between the frondeurs and the Siloviki within the Kremlin.

For once, giving the Immortal Game as an example can't be faulted. It was played at Simpsons, where the contest is being held. Quite a good article for its intended audience, I suggest.

There are also a couple of paragraphs devoted to the competition in the Lex Column (page 26).