PDA

View Full Version : Howard-Downer Gambit



Kevin Bonham
14-02-2004, 12:11 AM
I love it when people use silly chess analogies in public life. Tonight following Howard's backflip on politicians' super in which he accepted ALP policy and hence let Latham look like the agenda-leader, Downer was on TV saying that sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to improve the position of your pieces. As the sacrifice was Howard's but Downer filled us in on the theory, I think this should be called the Howard-Downer Gambit. Probably a close cousin of the Cabbage Opening.

This raises many questions.

Is the HDG sound?
What pieces does Downer think the HDG improves the position of?
Is Downer himself a piece or a pawn? [Or do we all know he's a Queen?]
What about Howard?
Who is the real player controlling the Liberal pieces?
Should this player also sacrifice Howard, Downer or both?
Assuming that the HDG is actually fundamentally unsound and losing the next election by force, how many nanoseconds will it take the Rev Tim Sawyer to show that in political databases the HDG scores 97% and is therefore guaranteed to produce a crushing election triumph against players rated Australian Democrat or lower?

Garvinator
14-02-2004, 01:04 AM
how many nanoseconds will it take the Rev Tim Sawyer to show that in political databases the HDG scores 97% and is therefore guaranteed to produce a crushing election triumph against players rated Australian Democrat or lower?
can you plz tell me the source where these databases come from and also what is the margin of error please ;)

antichrist
14-02-2004, 07:53 AM
Who is the real player controlling the Liberal pieces?
Captains of big business and GWB

paulb
14-02-2004, 12:16 PM
Intriguing ... I'd always thought the Howard-Downer gambit consisted in the sacrifice of an indeterminate number of Iraqis/asylum seekers/people with dark skin who can't vote in Aussie elections/basic human decency etc in return for a piss-weak trade deal/George Bush photo opportunities/votes etc. The 97 per cent figure is about right though.

But this looks like an interesting new variation.

antichrist
14-02-2004, 01:19 PM
Intriguing ... I'd always thought the Howard-Downer gambit consisted in the sacrifice of an indeterminate number of Iraqis/asylum seekers/people with dark skin who can't vote in Aussie elections/basic human decency etc in return for a piss-weak trade deal/George Bush photo opportunities/votes etc. The 97 per cent figure is about right though.

But this looks like an interesting new variation.

You have confused this with the Howard/Ruddock Gambit, which transposes into a Howard/Downer endgame.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2004, 04:37 PM
Intriguing ... I'd always thought the Howard-Downer gambit consisted in the sacrifice of an indeterminate number of Iraqis/asylum seekers/people with dark skin who can't vote in Aussie elections/basic human decency etc in return for a piss-weak trade deal/George Bush photo opportunities/votes etc.

For Howard this would be a case of Tartakower's dictum of it being better to sacrifice the opponent's pieces.

Goughfather
15-02-2004, 12:05 PM
Hmm ... an interesting thread about wedge politics and the end of politics in politics.

In my opinion, Downer is an annoyingly weak and static positional defect - it was easier to establish such an incompetent person in what is an important portfolio than it will be to uproot him.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2009, 06:43 AM
Assuming that the HDG is actually fundamentally unsound and losing the next election by force, how many nanoseconds will it take the Rev Tim Sawyer to show that in political databases the HDG scores 97% and is therefore guaranteed to produce a crushing election triumph against players rated Australian Democrat or lower?
Psephological instincts not as finely tuned back in 2004? ;)

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2009, 08:54 PM
Psephological instincts not as finely tuned back in 2004? ;)

Well my prediction for that year was wrong by seven seats which by my standards is pretty ordinary! (I was out by two in 2001 and three in 2007).

I'm sure the intention of the post was not to argue that the HDG was losing the next election by force, but rather to take the mickey out of those chessplayers who I refer to as gambaholics.

All that said, at the time the post was written, I probably did think Latham actually had a good chance of beating Howard; it is hard to believe now but for a time early in Latham's leadership he looked very dangerous, before it became clear he was mainly so to himself. But when Crikey did a poll asking who was most likely to win if made Labor leader at the point Latham defeated Beazley, I (correctly) voted for Rudd.