Surely Iraq isn’t a good example of Zugzwang, as then if the US forces did nothing for a while then they would get to a better position, whereas in fact whether they do anything or not the situation gets worse (maybe at different rates). In chess terms it would be as if the insurgents had moved to a successful endgame and declared ‘checkmate in n moves’ and the US has ignored that despite it being to everyone watching the game and played on so it could lose more pieces and prove to itself it really has lost.

In zugzwang, it’s all downside.

I think it means something more like ‘compulsion to move in a situation where it can only be to your disadvantage’. The first move of the game is a zugzwang situation: whatever you do will weaken your position.

Oh I get it – it’s a synonym for “troop surge”.

Well, sort of. It means “compulsion to move in a situation where all moves are disastrous”. You’re always compelled to move when it’s your turn – unless you wish to resign. But when zugzwang exists, you’re compelled to bring about your downfall.

This is an easy example to understand and the Sämisch-Nimzowitsch game given lower down is indeed the classic instance from master praxis.

Mini-Bush: PM Stephen Harper of Canada

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/221577

Merkel, who as chair of the G-8 has moved climate change to the top of the leaders’ agenda, told CBC TV yesterday she is disappointed with the Harper government’s rejection of the emissions-reduction targets Canada previously accepted under the Kyoto pact.

“Of course, we are not happy at this point that Canada has abandoned Kyoto’s goals,” she said.

My point is that focusing on Bush exclusively as the cause of the U.S. failure to sign on to Kyoto is a mistake and that if you automatically expect major changes in the U.S. global-warming position with a new administration in 2009, you’re likely to be disappointed.

Entirely fair? Really? I don’t see how. I think most of the blame attaches to the president for his middle east policy

As far as gas prices go, the recent problem hasn’t been the price of crude oil but the limited refining capacity. And refiners won’t build new plants because of NIMBYism and regulation and because of the enormous investments required. They’re even reluctant to expand existing plants because it doesn’t make economic sense—based on a (reasonable) belief that we’re transitioning into a post gasoline era and that demand will begin to decline fairly soon (soon meaning a few years rather than weeks or months).

Individual US states will probably be joining the EU carbon trading regime within the next year or so no matter who becomes President in 2008.

Not if this happens:

Dems drafting bill that could derail state warming law
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/05/MNG44Q7OS01.DTL

“The proposal was written by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat who represents a coal-producing district in southwest Virginia and chairs the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee charged with crafting climate change legislation. The full committee’s chairman, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime ally of the auto industry, also played a key role in putting together the new legislation.”

But true, and relevant. Setting aside the actual merits of the treaty, it still amazes me that not one single US Senator—not Kennedy, not Wellstone, nobody—was willing to stand up even for voting on it.

Not so amazing that you would fail to mention it.

it’s almost like he’s a paid corporate hack or something.

jq, i just don’t understand this. is the word “the” there by mistake? (in which case “to move” turns into an infinitive instead of a prep. phrase with a noun “the move”.)

in which case it is a nomimalisation of “A was compelled to move”, and i can make sense of it.

as it stands, it looks like maybe “the move” is a noun-phrase being characterised by saying that there is some compulsion in it??? e.g. “i added some compulsion to the move”??

or is this some chess jargon i don’t know? or what?

Fixed now. Sorry about that. JQ

And, to be clear it was a statement of opinion about what they would or would not agree to, not a vote on ratification.

I think the die was cast back in 1980 when Reagan was elected and Carter’s plan of producing 20% of US energy from renewables by 2000 was kiboshed pretty damn good. Reagan killed us.