I hope you like my edited image - I created it by using Fireworks - Have a great Valentine's day!
On my WP-blog on this link you can find lots of beautiful pics about Valentine's day. Enjoy!
leukespreuk.nl
31 Jan 2010
Valentine Chess
I hope you like my edited image - I created it by using Fireworks - Have a great Valentine's day!
On my WP-blog on this link you can find lots of beautiful pics about Valentine's day. Enjoy!
leukespreuk.nl
30 Jan 2010
Corus Round 12
Round 12 - Corus 2010 - Anand vs Kramnik. This image shows the position of the board after move 21 was made by Anand. Click on images for a larger view.
In this game you can see the position of the board after move 19 - This is Leko vs Carlsen.
Smeets vs Van Wely - position of the board after move 18.Jean_Claude.Borelly-Dolannes.Melody
Jean-Claude Borelly - Dolannes Melodie
Standings after round 12 - Grandmaster Group A
Chess and Hess
This news article is from the Chronicle-Live. On the image you can see Maurice Williams.
ONE was a notorious Nazi war criminal, the other a young Tyneside soldier.
They came from different countries and from different backgrounds, but they forged a friendship of sorts and ended up playing chess together.
This is the remarkable real life story of Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess and Maurice Williams of the Durham Light Infantry.
Charged with guarding Hess in Berlin’s Spandau Prison, Maurice the pair ended up playing a game of chess.
“It was 1951 and our Battalion was taking up guard duty at Spandau Prison,” said Maurice, who lives at Ovington in the Tyne Valley.
“There were a number of Nazi war criminals there and I was curious about the place.
“I decided to take a tour of the prison and it certainly was a grim place. On my travels I came upon this guy in the prison garden, reading a paper.
“It turned out to be Rudolf Hess. We weren’t supposed to talk to either him or the other Nazi prisoners and, if caught, I would have been on a charge, but I was curious about him.
“He had a chess board and I asked him about it. He asked if I played chess and, luckily, I did.”
Hess challenged Maurice to a game and Maurice said: “In the end, he beat me easily. I said to him that I only thought two moves ahead and that he must be thinking about 10 moves ahead. He laughed and said: ‘Maybe a few more than that’. We played a second time and this time I gave him a much better game but, again, lost out.”
Maurice said Hess was unlike the picture he painted in the Nuremberg Trials of a man on the edge of sanity, adding: “He was a perfect gentleman and asked such things as ‘are you married?’ He spoke perfect English, better than myself!
“I told him I was single and he asked about my family, it was just like talking to the man next door. I really wanted to ask him how he felt about the Jews but the opportunity didn’t arise.
“He said he liked the British and American guards, but wasn’t too keen on the Russians.
“I’m not surprised about that as I found them a funny lot, especially when they were on the vodka, which was made out of diesel oil. If they gave it to us we had to drink it with black pepper.”
Nobody was more shocked than Maurice at what had gone on in Nazi Germany, but he didn’t class Hess as one of the hard-liners who were hanged after the war crimes trial.
“I don’t know why they didn’t let Hess go in the 1950s. Spandau was a harsh place and Hess had a room the size of a normal living room with table chair and bed and also a wireless.
“I believe that later he was given much more room.”
Apparently Britain and the USA wanted to release Hess, but the Russians wouldn’t allow it. Many think it was because it gave them a foothold in West Berlin.
Hess is said to have committed suicide in 1987.
It was not the first time Maurice had been to Germany.
He had joined the Durham Light Infantry at the end of the Second World War and witnessed the devastation as he travelled through France and Belgium toward Germany.
“In Germany we had to hammer on the doors of the civilians and tell them to get their valuables packed up within an hour and stored into the lofts or such place.
“We then took their homes over as billets as there was no army camp. They were put into a displaced persons camp.
“All the time we were there I never knew of any soldier touching the belongings of the German civilians.
“They were lovely middle class houses with lovely gardens. You know what Geordies were like for gardening, so enjoyed keeping them in shape. They could come back to their homes undamaged with nothing missing. In 1946 we were sent out to Egypt. It was later in 1951 when we were posted to Berlin and Spandau.”
This music file is the music by Haydn and it is "The Clock" part 3 "Rondo"...do enjoy! One of my big favourites. Unfortunately, it's only a taster ....now you can get the music if you like it...You need to turn the volume up to hear the clock in the start of the track.
Corus Round 10
It was the day of the world champions Wednesday in Corus Group A with India’s Viswanathan Anand, the reigning title holder, notching up his first victory in tenth-round action, after an unbroken series of draws, and former world champ Vladimir Kramnik of Russia taking the sole lead in the standings of the annual chess tournament at Wijk-aan-Zee.
The Spaniard, who had been on top of the A-Group standings from round one, played a brilliant game from a Ruy-Lopez Archangelsk variation with black to reach a vastly superior position against Anand. Pressed for time, however, he missed the winning 39. …Ng3!! wasting his advantage and, in fact, the whole game, when he blundered with 39. …Rxe6?? instead. He fought on but never got back into the game and surrendered sixteen moves later.
“I’m not playing all that well,” Anand admitted, commenting on his victory at a press conference. “It’s not that I’m unwilling to show my hand in advance of the title match I’ll be playing against Veselin Topalov in Sophia, Bulgaria, next April. I’m really trying to win but it just doesn’t work. Today, for example, I got nervous in an already worse position. I don’t know what came over me; I was dreaming.” Even a world champion is only human, it seems.
Three other games were drawn in a more or less orderly fashion –although Hikaru Nakamura had to work hard for his half point against Leinier Dominguez- but in the final encounter of the round, Sergei Tiviakov defeated fellow Dutchman Jan Smeets with white in 34 moves from a Petroff Defence.
Dimitri Reinderman earned the 250-euro prize for the best game of the day in Group B with another lucky win. Playing white in an English game against India’s Pentala Harikrishna, the Dutchman obtained a winning position only to waste his advantage in time trouble towards the 40th. What followed was a virtually balanced endgame with two white rooks, one black queen and an equal number of pawns on both sides. Reinderman’s win came when Harikrishna committed a fatal blunder on the 58th.
Sounya Swaminathan of India defeated Sweden’s Nils Grandelius with white in 36 moves from a Sicilian Defence. It was the Indian’s first victory and earned her the daily prize of 100 euro’s. Holland’s Benjamin Bok defeated Dutch women’s champion Zhaoqin Peng with black in an English game to reach his second IM norm.
Images: Corus Chess 2010
29 Jan 2010
Chess game
In this game I played black. My opponent resigned the game. I will start blogging more chess-stuff on this blogger-blog as I'm a bit frustrated with Wordpress.
The following song is an Afrikaans song. Read on the link more. This song is sung by one of my teachers from Secondary School. It is a beautiful song. The above image is a collage which I put together in Fireworks.
Read here about Sypaadjie Mense - translated into English too.[Sidewalk people]
24 Jan 2010
22 Jan 2010
SA Juniors 2009
Hierdie verslaggie is saamgestel deur Connie, een van my mede-skaakspelers op chess.com. Connie se twee dogtertjies speel skaak - sien hulle op die foto met Melissa Greeff, Suid-Afrika se eie Woman Grandmaster. Melissa het onlangs - soos in Junie 2009, haar titel gekry. Die Junior Skaakkampioenskappe het Desember plaasgevind en Connie se tweeling het deelgeneem en hy het die volgende verslag saamgestel en die foto's geneem. Dankie, Connie, jy's 'n ou doring! 'n Staatmaker, want soos jyself se, dit was ook nie eens in die koerante nie...ai, ai, ai, Suid-Afrika! Baie geluk aan Connie en die twee dogters met hulle puik prestasie!
Ja, waar sal ek begin. Dit was in die 1ste plek glad nie ‘n vakansie by die see nie. Voel eerder of ek terug by die huis is om te rus. Dit was baie oorweldigend vir my, so ek kan net dink hoe dit vir die kleintjies moes voel. Daar was by die span kampioenskappe +- 1800 spelers en by die individuals 900-1000. Die eerste 3 dae met die spanne was ‘n nagmerrie. Dit was eens te veel vir diekleintjies en vir die pa.. Baie van die o/8’s van die verskillende unies het meer gehuil as skaak gespeel want die druk was net te veel. My 2 het in die onmoontlikste drakies verander wat net wou huil en baklei. Die kompetisie was baie sterk en die deel van die toernooi het uit 5 rondes bestaan. Marelize het 4 van haar 5 en Bernize 3 van haar 5 gewen. Ek weet nie presies waar die span geeindig het nie maar vermoed dit was maar hier by 15/20. Eerste was Noordwes A en 2de Gauteng Wes A.
By die prys uitdeling was daar ‘n paar grootname in SA skaak. Laura Irwin het nou in Januarie glo 2de gekom in Egipte in ‘n Toernooi. David Gluckman, IM van Westelike provinsie. Sy kinders speel ook skaak en ek was nogal heel trots toe Bernize sy seun , Paul, (Bord 1 van WP o/8 A span ) gewen het in die span toernooi. Nicholas van der Nat van Gauteng South. Hy is tans SA geslote Kampioen. Op die onderste foto ontvang Melissa 'n trofee van Advocate Lyndon Bouah, Visie president van Chessa. Die trofee was vir die beste prestasie nasionaal en Internasionaal. Ongelukkig was daar nie eens iets in die media oor die hele toernooi nie. Nie eens ‘n koerantberig nie. Om vir Melissa te ontmoet was natuurlik die hoogtepunt veral toe sy ingestem het vir ‘n foto saam met my 2 en hulle maatjie Jessica. Nou wag ons net om te hoor wie word uitgenooi na die geslote kampioenskappe waaruit die Springbokspan gekies word.
Follow THIS LINK to see more pics of tournaments played on the site of the Northern Cape Province.
3 Jan 2010
Children who are smacked when young are more likely to be successful, study finds
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:21 PM on 03rd January 2010
Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than those who have not, research has found.
The study concluded that children who had been physically disciplined when they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing better as teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into consideration than those who had never been smacked.
It was only in cases where it continued beyond the age of 12 that the children were found to be affected negatively, resulting in a dip on performance indicators.
The results of the US-based study undermines the efforts of various campaigners who have been trying to have physical punishment outlawed in the UK, who have claimed that it causes long-term damage to the children.
Currently, UK law allows parents to chastise their children as long as it does not leave a physical mark such as a bruise - the government has said it is reluctant to criminalise parents purely for disciplining their children with the best of intentions.
'The claims made for not spanking children failed to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,' Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told the Sunday Times.
'I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool - you just don't use it for all your jobs,' she added.
Gunnoe, who lead the research, said 2,600 people were reviewed, of whom about a quarter had never been smacked.
It also included detailed interviews of about 179 teenagers who were asked how old they were when they were last smacked and how often they were smacked as a child.
She then looked at many outcomes parents generally night want for their teenage children such as academic rank, volunteer work, college aspirations, hope for the future, and confidence in their ability to earn a living when they grow up.
It emerged that those who had been spanked just when they were young were doing a little better as teenagers than those who’d never been spanked on almost every measure.
Research of this kind is rare, given that physical punishment was not viewed as taboo until fairly recently.
However, in a recent poll, more than 70% of Britons would support a ban on smacking.
Source HERE
The above article was slightly adjusted when I read through it again, so here in green, I've copied the adjusted article from the original source - again.
Last updated at 8:55 AM on 04th January 2010
Young children who are smacked by their parents grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, research claims.It found that children who are smacked before the age of six perform better at school when they are teenagers.They are also more likely to do voluntary work and to want to go to university than those who have never been physically disciplined.
But the study also revealed that children who are smacked after the age of six were more likely to exhibit behavioural problems, such as being involved in fights. Smacking is currently banned in 20 European countries, including Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. In Britain 'reasonable chastisement' in the home is allowed unless it leaves a mark.
But the study, by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of Psychology at Calvin College in the U.S. state of Michigan, found there was not enough evidence to prove that smacking harmed most children. She said: 'The claims that are made for not spanking children fail to hold up. 'I think of spanking as a dangerous-tool, but then there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You don't use it for all your jobs.'
Professor Gunnoe questioned 2,600 people about being smacked, of whom a quarter had never been physically chastised. The participants' answers then were compared with their behaviour, such as academic success, optimism about the future, antisocial behaviour, violence and bouts of depression.
Teenagers in the survey who had been smacked only between the ages of two and six performed best on all the positive measures. Those who had been smacked between seven and 11 fared worse on negative behaviour but were more likely to be academically successful. Teenagers who were still smacked fared worst on all counts. Parenting guru Penelope Leach disagreed with the findings.
'No good can come from hitting a child,' she said. 'I do not buy this idea that children will learn positive behaviour from being smacked. 'The law says adults hitting adults is wrong and children should be protected in the same way. Children are people too.' But psychologist Aric Sigman said: 'The idea smacking and violence are on a continuum is a bizarre and fetished view of what punishment is for most parents.
'If it's done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about that. Parents should be taught to distinguish this from a punch in the face.'
Two years ago, Britain was criticised by the UN for failing to ban smacking in the home, after experts said it was a form of abuse.
And growing numbers of the public seem to agree: A recent poll found 71 per cent of parents would support a ban on smacking.
Last updated at 10:21 PM on 03rd January 2010
Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than those who have not, research has found.
The study concluded that children who had been physically disciplined when they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing better as teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into consideration than those who had never been smacked.
It was only in cases where it continued beyond the age of 12 that the children were found to be affected negatively, resulting in a dip on performance indicators.
The results of the US-based study undermines the efforts of various campaigners who have been trying to have physical punishment outlawed in the UK, who have claimed that it causes long-term damage to the children.
Currently, UK law allows parents to chastise their children as long as it does not leave a physical mark such as a bruise - the government has said it is reluctant to criminalise parents purely for disciplining their children with the best of intentions.
'The claims made for not spanking children failed to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,' Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told the Sunday Times.
'I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool - you just don't use it for all your jobs,' she added.
Gunnoe, who lead the research, said 2,600 people were reviewed, of whom about a quarter had never been smacked.
It also included detailed interviews of about 179 teenagers who were asked how old they were when they were last smacked and how often they were smacked as a child.
She then looked at many outcomes parents generally night want for their teenage children such as academic rank, volunteer work, college aspirations, hope for the future, and confidence in their ability to earn a living when they grow up.
It emerged that those who had been spanked just when they were young were doing a little better as teenagers than those who’d never been spanked on almost every measure.
Research of this kind is rare, given that physical punishment was not viewed as taboo until fairly recently.
However, in a recent poll, more than 70% of Britons would support a ban on smacking.
Source HERE
The above article was slightly adjusted when I read through it again, so here in green, I've copied the adjusted article from the original source - again.
Last updated at 8:55 AM on 04th January 2010
Young children who are smacked by their parents grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, research claims.It found that children who are smacked before the age of six perform better at school when they are teenagers.They are also more likely to do voluntary work and to want to go to university than those who have never been physically disciplined.
But the study also revealed that children who are smacked after the age of six were more likely to exhibit behavioural problems, such as being involved in fights. Smacking is currently banned in 20 European countries, including Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. In Britain 'reasonable chastisement' in the home is allowed unless it leaves a mark.
But the study, by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of Psychology at Calvin College in the U.S. state of Michigan, found there was not enough evidence to prove that smacking harmed most children. She said: 'The claims that are made for not spanking children fail to hold up. 'I think of spanking as a dangerous-tool, but then there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You don't use it for all your jobs.'
Professor Gunnoe questioned 2,600 people about being smacked, of whom a quarter had never been physically chastised. The participants' answers then were compared with their behaviour, such as academic success, optimism about the future, antisocial behaviour, violence and bouts of depression.
Teenagers in the survey who had been smacked only between the ages of two and six performed best on all the positive measures. Those who had been smacked between seven and 11 fared worse on negative behaviour but were more likely to be academically successful. Teenagers who were still smacked fared worst on all counts. Parenting guru Penelope Leach disagreed with the findings.
'No good can come from hitting a child,' she said. 'I do not buy this idea that children will learn positive behaviour from being smacked. 'The law says adults hitting adults is wrong and children should be protected in the same way. Children are people too.' But psychologist Aric Sigman said: 'The idea smacking and violence are on a continuum is a bizarre and fetished view of what punishment is for most parents.
'If it's done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about that. Parents should be taught to distinguish this from a punch in the face.'
Two years ago, Britain was criticised by the UN for failing to ban smacking in the home, after experts said it was a form of abuse.
And growing numbers of the public seem to agree: A recent poll found 71 per cent of parents would support a ban on smacking.
Under-sevens 'too young to learn to read'
The Guardian
Children should not start formal learning until they are seven, according to a world expert in nursery education who will suggest today that teaching reading and writing earlier can put them off for life.
Teaching children at five to read and write can dent their interest in books later on, according to Lilian Katz, a professor of education at Illinois University, who will today address an international conference on nursery schooling at Oxford University.
"It can be seriously damaging for children who see themselves as inept at reading too early," she told the Guardian. Boys were particularly vulnerable when rushed into reading too soon, she said.
Her comments come amid mounting concern over reading skills. In England, a quarter of all 14-year-olds now fail to reach the expected standards, and boys are struggling even more. Earlier this month a Cambridge University report strongly criticised Labour's £500m national literacy strategy for having a "relatively small impact". It concluded that children's reading skills had not improved in 50 years.
Moves in England to introduce more structured learning for three- and four-year-olds could store up problems in the long term, Katz suggests.
English schools start formal teaching at five but there are plans to introduce a foundation stage for three- and four-year-olds which will set new learning goals, including one which specifies that by the time children start school at five they should be able to at least "use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words". Katz, a former president of the National Association for the Education of Young Children and a respected authority on early years education, said: "Teaching younger children can look OK in the short term but in the long term children who are taught early are not better off. For a lot of children five will be too early.
"That has a more negative impact for boys. For most boys they are growing up in cultures where they are expected to be assertive and active. In instruction they are passive and receptive and reactive, and in the long term that accounts for the negative effects. In most cultures girls tend to put up with instruction earlier and better."
The conference will examine the case for starting formal teaching at a later age. In Sweden children do not start formal instruction until six or seven. Professor Ingrid Pramling-Samuelsson, from the University of Goteborg, who is president-elect of the World Organisation of Preschool Education, will tell the conference that academics in Sweden have been "surprised" to hear that England is moving towards earlier formal instruction.
The children's minister Beverley Hughes will also address the conference about the early years foundation stage, which has been interpreted by some as the extension of the national curriculum to toddlers. The government is adamant that despite setting goals for children to reach they are not targets and it is not a formal curriculum.
A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "The formal school starting age of five has served children well for decades and standards in our primary schools have never been higher. The curriculum is age-appropriate and we actively support teachers to adapt their teaching to the needs of children. We want all children to make progress in literacy and numeracy at an early age, as these skills are critical to their ability to get the most out of learning later on."
Source HERE
Children should not start formal learning until they are seven, according to a world expert in nursery education who will suggest today that teaching reading and writing earlier can put them off for life.
Teaching children at five to read and write can dent their interest in books later on, according to Lilian Katz, a professor of education at Illinois University, who will today address an international conference on nursery schooling at Oxford University.
"It can be seriously damaging for children who see themselves as inept at reading too early," she told the Guardian. Boys were particularly vulnerable when rushed into reading too soon, she said.
Her comments come amid mounting concern over reading skills. In England, a quarter of all 14-year-olds now fail to reach the expected standards, and boys are struggling even more. Earlier this month a Cambridge University report strongly criticised Labour's £500m national literacy strategy for having a "relatively small impact". It concluded that children's reading skills had not improved in 50 years.
Moves in England to introduce more structured learning for three- and four-year-olds could store up problems in the long term, Katz suggests.
English schools start formal teaching at five but there are plans to introduce a foundation stage for three- and four-year-olds which will set new learning goals, including one which specifies that by the time children start school at five they should be able to at least "use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words". Katz, a former president of the National Association for the Education of Young Children and a respected authority on early years education, said: "Teaching younger children can look OK in the short term but in the long term children who are taught early are not better off. For a lot of children five will be too early.
"That has a more negative impact for boys. For most boys they are growing up in cultures where they are expected to be assertive and active. In instruction they are passive and receptive and reactive, and in the long term that accounts for the negative effects. In most cultures girls tend to put up with instruction earlier and better."
The conference will examine the case for starting formal teaching at a later age. In Sweden children do not start formal instruction until six or seven. Professor Ingrid Pramling-Samuelsson, from the University of Goteborg, who is president-elect of the World Organisation of Preschool Education, will tell the conference that academics in Sweden have been "surprised" to hear that England is moving towards earlier formal instruction.
The children's minister Beverley Hughes will also address the conference about the early years foundation stage, which has been interpreted by some as the extension of the national curriculum to toddlers. The government is adamant that despite setting goals for children to reach they are not targets and it is not a formal curriculum.
A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "The formal school starting age of five has served children well for decades and standards in our primary schools have never been higher. The curriculum is age-appropriate and we actively support teachers to adapt their teaching to the needs of children. We want all children to make progress in literacy and numeracy at an early age, as these skills are critical to their ability to get the most out of learning later on."
Source HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)