Quora

This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by Ibtehal Noorwali, Saudi by law:

As a Meccan, I have to say that it does get hectic during Hajj and the month of Ramadan. For example, a 20-minute ride to a certain location on a normal day may easily become a two-hour drive during high season, especially if that location happens to be close to the Holy Mosque or a holy site. Doctors and hospital staff are given very long shifts, stores and supermarkets open past their regular working hours, city hygiene plummets, and of course, prices of almost everything skyrocket.

To answer the question, I can think of four different stands that people may take with regard to the annual influx of pilgrims. These observations are based on my interactions with many families and individuals in Mecca:

1. Joy.There are those people who are simply overjoyed by the multitudes of people and buzzing atmosphere. They prepare for these busy seasons beforehand, whether by preparing food, providing accommodation, or offering transportation, to name a few. I am not referring here to official, governmental preparations, which usually begin when Hajj of the current year is over, but preparations by the people and families of Mecca. My grandmother and uncle have been renting their building to pilgrims for many years now, and I believe they will continue to do so. They also provide dates for breakfast everyday during Ramadan for an entire section of the Holy Mosque. Even if no preparations are made, they go out to meet and interact with the pilgrims, help out those in need, and/or give rides and directions. They believe that these times are exciting and provide enriching experiences that should not be missed.
2. Indifference. These people do not hate the busy seasons, but they do not take any part of the seasonal activities or preparations and simply stay at home, restrict their outings to necessary errands, and wait until the crowds subside if they live in/close to one of the heavily crowded areas. If they live in one of the unaffected areas, they go about their lives as they usually do.
3. Aversion. Some people dislike the traffic, crowds, visitors, and all the changes that occur during Hajj and Ramadan in general. They either remain in the city, continue to complain and express their distaste, or leave the city altogether and come back when the season is over.
4. Participation. Finally, these are the people who remain in Mecca mainly to participate in the rituals by performing Hajj, praying Taraweeh in the Holy Mosque every night during Ramadan, performing Umrah, etc.

Personally, I enjoy the liveliness, diversity, and overall festive/holy atmosphere during Hajj and Ramadan. Receiving pilgrims is the main thing that distinguishes Mecca and gives it its reputation, and which we Meccans take pride in. Not to mention the relative ease with which we are able to participate in and perform the different rituals. A great blessing in our opinion!

More questions on Saudi Arabia:

• How is a person's Muslim faith verified before entering Mecca?
• What does it feel like to be a woman living in Saudi Arabia?
• Can Jews fly to Saudi Arabia?

This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by Cyndi Perlman Fink, Retired:

We never wanted children. Forty-one years ago, that was a very unusual decision to make for two young kids. Everyone got married to have children. It was "expected" of you. It's hard to imagine, but women had a lot fewer choices then. Honestly, my mother ironed my dad's boxer shorts. And all of our sheets and his handkerchiefs; it was expected of her. As her daughter, having two children was expected of me.

When my dad sent me to college, I was standing near him when he was talking to his friends about this, and he told them that he was sending me to school to get my "MRS" degree. A doctor, a dentist, a lawyer, or an accountant, two children, a membership in the temple, a teaching job so that I could spend the summers with my kids, that was what my world would look like; it was expected of me.

I finished college, moved 3,000 miles away from home to the West Coast and never looked back. I fell in love with a man who let me entertain the revolutionary idea in 1970 that I could have a career, a marriage, and no children. Fancy that.

Figuratively, my mom put black cloths on the mirrors and went into mourning. Every day, the long distance phone calls, and back then you had to pay by the minute, "So, already?" Mom, it's not going to happen. "You'll change your mind." No Mom, I won't. Thankfully, 10 years later, my brother stepped up to plate with two; the pressure was off.

What is it like not having children? In my 30s I had my tubes tied. Freedom. In my 40s, my career, traveling for business, his career, traveling for his business, a decade of rushes.

In my 50s, our friends' children started having life events. Weddings, bar mitzvahs, graduations. And I felt so happy for them. I had known these kids from birth, and on those days, I wondered if we had made a bad decision. But when I thought about what it took to get there, the diapers, the soccer games, the braces, the tantrums, the whole enchilada, I knew that it wasn't for me. I knew that I had made the right choice. I wasn't "made" to be a mother. I had spared a child from having to have me as one.

Still, I dreaded the moment when I met someone new. "Do you have kids?" I thought that I could read pity or something that closed them off from me. She's not one of us. Poor thing. No children. Is it her or him? I would always rush to fill in that space with "we never wanted any," and somehow that made it so much worse. Selfish, not doing her part. I'm not sure what my part was, but I had my MRS degree, and obviously I wasn't using it. At least according to them. The "them" that had children. Remember, this was another decade or so in the past.

Now, I get the question, "Do you have grandchildren?" No. Then we have to go though the "Your children aren't married?" Or "Your children are married but don't have children yet?" No, we don't have children. The reaction is worse in my 60s because now it's not, "oh, she was too selfish to have children," or "gee, if only there'd been IVF back then;" now it's "Oh, poor thing, who will look after her when she gets old?"

Six months ago, a friend asked me if I regretted not having children and it was like a great dam bursting from the bottom of my soul, and I said "yes, yes, it was the biggest mistake of my life!" There it was. The secret wrenched from my gut. Or so it seemed. I do regret it in some ways. We would have been good parents. We wouldn't have screwed up the kids as badly as we thought we would have. Maybe they only would have needed five years of therapy and not 10. I'll never know. But, after I had finally wrung these words from the depths of my being, I understood clearly that indeed it wasn't meant to be for me, and that my life was much better for having made this choice.

We've always had two or three dogs at a time, and they've had our love, attention, and affection. They're spoiled rotten. Better dogs than children. We have been able to go to a lot of interesting places, and we've gone with friends who have kids. I don't think these things are mutually exclusive.

I know that we've missed out on a lot. I just wasn't ready to take the good with the bad. By bad, for example, I mean the screaming kid in the restaurant. I have no patience for that. Oh, but when it's yours, you don't mind; oh, but I knew I would, and even today that noise drives me crazy, I just don't have patience for it. Or for kicking the table or for banging on it ... I would not have been the kind of nurturing mother who could deal with that.

OPC. Other People's Children. Rent not buy. I have the best of both worlds, a long-term care policy, a retirement fund, and a deal with a loving niece—you make sure that I'm in a nice place that doesn't rip me off and takes care of me if it comes to that, and you get the trust. Everyone wins. We love her. She loves us. We trust her.

That's what it's like for me to be married and not have children.

Answer by Neil Sanford, Amateur Writer:

It's awful.

You spend half your life chasing money and the things it can buy. You work tirelessly at your career, hate it, change careers, hate it again, find something you actually enjoy doing for a living only to become insanely bored with it decades before retirement. You spend half your life upgrading everything you think makes you happy: house, car, stereo, computer, bike, tools, wardrobe, relationships, and drug addictions. You amass useless collections of DVDs, games, gadgets, wine, exercise equipment, toys, music, art, shoes, watches, stamps, and words you play in Scrabble.

You spend half your life thinking you're free to get as rich as you want doing what you think you want to do. But all you do is spend half your life chasing away boredom. There comes a time in life when you ask yourself: What the hell am I doing this for? What is the point of it all? Surely it has nothing to do with how many horses I have under the hood, gigs in the PC, or zeroes in the bank. Surely it has nothing to do with how good I look, how good she looks, or how witty I am at parties. Surely it has nothing to do with anything I've ever thought, read, said, or written.

And then it dawns on you, your purpose in life: It's love. A life without love is a life without purpose and completely meaningless. And I'm not talking about the kind of love you feel for your soul mate. That love is not invincible. I'm talking about unconditional love. The kind of love only children have to give and would die inside without it. I swear my house and everything inside it could burn to black ash, and I wouldn't shed a single tear. I think at best I would shrug my shoulders and mutter "oh well, gotta find a hotel." In fact, it might even be a temporary relief from the crushing boredom, as I could start all over chasing the things I always thought meant happiness. But I know better. Burning my house to the ground is not the answer to this life crisis. Not that I care much about all my shit. It's just not the answer.

My greatest lesson in life is that personal and financial success is not the path to happiness and fulfillment. I could throw it all away and get it back again. Big whoop.

Family is everything, and it's time long overdue I started one of my own.

More questions on Family and Families:

• Is it bad if sometimes you don't want to talk with parents?
• Will I ever be happy again after the loss of my only child?
• What is the best way to learn about managing aging parents?

This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by Eric Stoltz, Deacon of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles:

There have been both reforms and intransigence.

Luckily, the reforms have taken root at the most local level where children are involved, and the intransigence remains at the top levels in Rome where curial officials are totally out of touch with anyone outside their own little world and irrelevant to your own experince.

At your local parish, you are likely to encounter many meaningful prevention measures that were put in place as a response to the abuse crisis. Chief among these are requirements that clergy and parishioners involved in ANY ministry that may involve any contact with a child, however fleeting (teachers, ushers, parents leading altar server groups, etc.), are likely to be fingerprinted, screened, and undergo training to recognize and report flags that indicate possible abusive situations. In parishes that comply with all the new guidelines, your children are now probably safer than in any other setting. To find out what your own parish has done to prevent abuse, ask about the program, generally called Safeguard Our Children or something similar.

The training programs offered by Catholic parishes now are so widespread and considered so helpful that non-Catholic churches frequently send their parishioners to the Catholic training programs. In most dioceses, clergy are required to repeat this training every so many years or face often severe punishment, such as the suspension of faculties (having permission to preach and celebrate the sacraments revoked by the bishop). Prevention measures by U.S. dioceses are tracked by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which conducts regular audits to ensure that all parishes are in compliance, and the audit results are published.

Many parishes have remodeled offices to prevent physical arrangements that can be conducive to abusive situations, such as making sure all meeting room doors have windows and that no parishioner involved in any ministry is ever alone with a minor; generally we insist that two adults are always present.

The reforms, however, have not included mindset changes in clericalist culture in the Vatican and other conservative enclaves such as the Diocese of Lincoln, Neb., the most conservative diocese in the United States, where the bishop has refused to implement any of these preventive measures. In such places, the abuse crisis is generally blamed on the media, or gay people, or society at large, or the 1960s, even the Second Vatican Council—anything but corrupt clerical culture.

More questions on Catholicism:

• Why do Catholics use the cross with the figure of Jesus crucified on it rather than just a plain cross?
• Why has the Catholic Church closed more than 1,000 parishes and declined in influence since 1995 in the United States?
• What would it take for a woman to break the glass ceiling with regards to being elected Pope?

This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by Mark Rogowsky, Internet Entrepreneur, @maxrogo:

For what? For having an opinion?

For having the temerity to express that opinion? For having an opinion you don't like? For telling Larry Pratt, director of Gun Owners of America, "You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?"

Or for tweeting, "Wanting America to ban assault weapons & high-capacity magazines isn't 'anti-constitutional'—it's called 'common sense.' "

I only ask because the petition to deport him seems to be based on his "anti-Bill of Rights" stand on guns. And it appears that the petition seems to fly in the face of that whole First Amendment freedom of speech thing.

Oh, and just to be clear, Morgan's ill-chosen words came after an exchange in which Pratt refused to acknowledge that the 12,000 gun murders in the U.S. is, in fact, more than 35 (both in absolute terms and per capita). And Pratt's response—aside from refusing to acknowledge this obvious truth was:

"We only have the problem in our cities and unhappily in our schools where people like you have been able to get laws put on the books that keep people from being able to defend themselves. I honestly don’t understand why you would rather have people be victims of a crime than be able to defend themselves. It’s incomprehensible."

That's when Morgan called him stupid.

Morgan didn't spell out the part about how Newton, Conn., isn't a city, but a town of fewer than 28,000. Nor that Columbine, Colo., is a "census designated place"—not even a town—that is smaller still at just over 24,000. Or that Virginia Tech is in the town of Blacksburg, population of less than 43,000—about the same size as Webster, N.Y., where a nut started shooting at firefighters the other day.

He might have spelled that out in response to the comment about cities, but I suppose Pratt would have explained, "that's why I brought up schools," as if Adam Lanza had anything to do with Sandy Hook Elementary School before he decided to massacre its precious students and its brave teachers.

So, while I'm not naive enough to believe that gun laws can solve America's problems with gun violence on their own—and I don't think Piers Morgan is either—I suspect that he's not alone in thinking that Mr. Pratt is an idiot, that his comments were idiotic, and that someone just needed to come out and say it.

In fact, I believe no one has been more persuasive in making the case for some restrictions on certain weapons, magazines, and ammunition than NRA head Wayne LaPierre has been. His arguments and proposals, so facile, so preposterous, so determined to turn us into a Third World country make the case better than any anti-gun zealot could hope to.

I have to confess I rarely watch Piers Morgan (really, really, really rarely) and don't care for his style when I do. I thought Larry King was utterly pointless, and I'm not particularly sure Piers Morgan has given that program a lot of reason to exist. But if he should be fired, it's because CNN could make more money in his time slot doing something else, not because he called some guy stupid. And if they dare make him apologize, he should be crystal clear that he's quite certain his guest is in fact stupid, but that he should have chosen far more delicate language to make the point.

More questions on CNN:

• Should CNN have more attractive debate moderators?
• How will CNN's acquisition of Zite affect its content?
• What is the future of CNN?

This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by David Cole, designer at Quora:

There are a number of different ways to think about consistency: external consistency (like to other products, or to platform conventions) and internal consistency. I think you're asking about internal consistency, so that's what I'll focus on here.

A central goal of designing interfaces is the expression of a coherent model. This is literally true, in the sense that software is built on a collection of abstractions that model the goals of the product. But it's also figuratively true for designers, as our job is to turn those abstractions into a crisp mental model for the user.

These aren't always the same. Take the typical volume slider as an example. The following is from iOS:

The software abstraction (I'm guessing) ties pixel position to a numerical value. However, the mental model offered by the interface presents the choice as a continuous band. This makes more sense to users as the human ear doesn't perceive volume in discrete steps. There's the volume level you want, and everything else is either too high or too low.

A good mental model is object-oriented. The user perceives the foundational "proper nouns" or "atoms" of the application, e.g., concepts like photo or song or like. Consistency plays a few parts here.

Consistent representation of these objects means the user recognizes them for what they are when encountered. Consider Twitter's developer display requirements:

Without consistent representation, a user will struggle to understand what they are looking at ("Is this a tweet, or a user and their bio?") and they won't know what to expect out of object-tied actions like Favorite.

To be more nuanced, consistency across classes of objects, in combination with intentional contrast, is a critical tool. For example, in a music application, albums and playlists probably should appear similarly in most cases (e.g. as a collection of songs), but the user should understand which one they are looking at.

Consistent behavior is also important. The available actions/verbs should obviously be consistent within a single object type (e.g., retweeting a tweet always works the same way) but they should also be consistent between objects of different types. For example, following a topic and following a user on Quora is a very similar experience: They are both sources of new content for your home feed.

These principles create an environment where, over time, the user will be able to anticipate what will happen before they perform an action. Consistency becomes something like a promise that you make to the user ("whenever you see the color blue then you can assume every time that it's a link"). Further, they will be able to bring these expectations into new features or aspects of the product that they haven't explored, speeding up the learning curve.

A predictable system seeps into your subconscious to the point where you don't even notice it. You're in the zone, even if it's just for a few seconds at a time. Conversely, if you learn that you can't trust a system to make good on its promises, then you'll always have a moment of cognitive pause which leads to stumbling, confusion, frustration. As Krug says, don't make 'em think.

 In fact, external consistency has many of the properties I describe here. Leaning on external convention is incredibly useful, but it's not uncommon to break away from what everyone else is doing. In general, internal consistency trumps external consistency.

More questions on design:

• How does a hiring manager identify the best UX professional?
• What are the best productivity tools for designers?
• Is there a science to picking the colors that work well together in a design, or is it just subjective?

This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by Matt Belenky, Homeland aficionado:

**SPOILER ALERT: Don't read if you haven't watched the finale and don't want to hear about what happened!**

The season finale undoubtedly saved an otherwise bumpy Season 2, where things were either way too slow or way too fast and inconceivable—like Nazir hiding in the abandoned plant living off Chewy bars and Cheez-Its (not really, but it could be true) with SWAT teams circling the area for two straight days. Perhaps, after a stellar Season 1, we expected this season to be even better. And frankly, who can blame us? Showtime isn't some run-of-the-mill cable channel, after all.

But, the best episodes—the ones we couldn't let go of in either season—were the ones that were the most ambiguous. Like when Saul was failing his polygraph test in Season 1 only to run out of the room minutes later (this ties into my "villain" theory, which I'll get into). And now, like at its best moments from Season 1, the finale was full of surprises and unanswered questions. Why did Saul choose to go to Nazir's burial at sea over Walden's memorial? Did he do this to get his wife back and become head of the CIA? Who moved Brody's car? Is Peter Quinn involved? Is Brody the bad guy? What did Brody and Nazir talk about during their one-on-one consultation? These questions that we are now asking ourselves and wrestling over are exactly what make showrunners Alex Gansa and Howard Gordon so goddamn good.

Unlike 24, where there was a mole hiding under nearly every desk among the "good guys," this show is playing with our minds as to what will happen next the way Brody and Carrie have played with each other's the majority of the past two seasons. From the preview for Episode 11, it seemed as though this episode would be about the hunter (Peter Quinn) and his prey (Brody). But after devouring a can of tuna, Quinn realized he "kills bad guys," not Brody. Like a good Dan Brown novel, Homeland loves cliffhangers. And best of all, these cliffhangers don't necessarily get answered, ever. Questions from Season 1 still loom, but Homeland's ability to completely crush our theories and predictions as to what will happen next is the show's greatest strength. The more content or confident you feel, the greater the chance something completely different will happen -- like someone moving Brody's car in the last 10 minutes of the finale only to interrupt some sexy time in an unknown office!

When things are unexpected, they suddenly become believable, at least some portion of the time. Moments that I really liked from the finale:

1. Estes finally giving in to Saul and admitting he was wrong.
2. Quinn threatening Estes, suddenly becoming a good guy instead of the pretentious boarding school snob we knew and loved.
3. The last scene with Saul looming over the bodies was both eerie and eloquent. The cringing look of happiness on his face when he saw Carrie was priceless.
4. Carrie saying goodbye to Brody in the creepiest forest since The Blair Witch Project was also masterful. It had to end, unfortunately.

Whether we see Dana Brody (Morgan Saylor) or not, she clearly has a bright future ahead of her. That Brody guy? I'm sure he'll be back. Only without the Rolling Rock grown-up time moments with Mike Faber. On the flip side, Saul can now down all the milk cartons he wants and even add a raisin or two to that peanut butter and celery manifestation. More importantly, I cannot wait for Peter Quinn and Dar Adul to get bigger roles in Season 3. My suspicions are that Saul is a bad guy. Heck, Brody could still be a bad guy, again. The writers have left enough clues where either option is legitimate. Homeland has thrived on ambiguity and the element of surprise, who's to say it should stop?

More questions on Homeland (TV Series):

• In the back story, what mistake did Carrie make before 9/11?
• Should we feel sorry for / sympathetic to Carrie?
• Why was Dana weirded out that her dad locked his bedroom door?

This question originally appeared on Quora. "Red Flag" excercises are advanced military training excercies that take place a few times a year.

Answer by Chris Kibble, former fighter pilot:

It's probably one of the most exhilarating and challenging training activities you attend as a pilot. Very demanding, but it can also become slightly repetitive and contrived over time due to some inherent Nellis airspace limitations. It's not really prestigious per se, because you attend as a squadron, not as an individual singled out to attend. It's more like something that you get to participate in by being assigned to the right squadron at the right time. Units rotate through based upon many factors such as deployment schedules, etc. The atmosphere is one of high expectations, high performance, and peer-led public debriefing focusing on mistakes and lessons learned.

Details: I attended multiple Red Flags and similar exercises at Nellis as both Blue Air (friendly) and Red Air (enemy). These were all between 1997 and 2007, so some portions of Red Flag may have changed.

Since you asked about the atmosphere, I'll focus on that. In general, it's like you're on a business trip with all your buddies (to Las Vegas!) in which the focus is learning a higher level of tactical execution. You are there to improve as a squadron, learn from your mistakes, and prove that you can perform at a higher level. Las Vegas provides a great backdrop for post-debrief shenanigans. But after being there for a week or two, most pilots are ready to get back to base. In all, it's usually a pretty busy trip.

Most of the actual atmosphere of the week (aside from the standard Vegas fun and games) comes from the mission-planning and debrief portions. These are the times when Red Flag participants are actually all working alongside each other in the main building instead of at their individual unit buildings. So, I'll focus on those areas.

During mission planning, there's not really a sense of prestige as you walk around, but rather the standard "Don't f--- it up" attitude that fighter pilots live by. You want to make sure your squadron proves it has its sh-- together. You're there among many of your peers in your career field. And you want to demonstrate you know your stuff, that you can execute at a high level as a wingman, flight lead, mission commander etc. So, you talk to the other units, develop the overall game plan, and try to anticipate how many ways it is going to fall apart because of adversary actions or your own errors. Keep in mind that most of the CAF (combat air forces - fighter, bomber, air battle managers) and some of the MAF (mobility air forces - tanker/transport) also participate in Red Flag. There are bomber and tanker aircrew planning alongside everyone else, focusing on the overall objectives. So, it's not just fighter pilots. Though it should be. (I kid, I kid!!!)

But the real atmosphere for any fighter exercise comes from the debrief. The best way I can describe the atmosphere during a Red Flag mass debrief is that of a scientific reconstruction of events set on a big, public stage. You are sitting in a fairly huge auditorium holding 300 or so fellow pilots with a large stage and projector screens in front. The mission commander (the pilot in charge of the whole Blue Air plan) is on stage leading the debrief, though at times it may be Red Air (enemy) leading the discussion. The mission commander attempts to reconstruct the overall events of the mission on stage with the help of an “instant replay” system that visually depicts individual aircraft locations in a god’s-eye view. The goal is to find out if Blue Air met their objectives. And if not, why. What actually happened compared with what should have happened. Emphasis is placed on getting the correct lessons learned out to all participants. Success is expected and mistakes are meticulously analyzed and deconstructed in minute detail for about an hour in the mass debrief. A longer, specialized debrief occurs afterwards at your own unit.

The mass debriefs are done in a very efficient way. Your job as a one-each Blue Air pilot sitting in the audience is to 1) learn, and 2) be ready to answer questions about any time you shot somebody (position, location relative to target, if you determined your shot killed the adversary, etc.). You do not speak unless spoken to. If you actually are spoken to, you answer in a clear, concise manner. Then you go back to shutting the f--- up. The debrief is not done in a ruthless manner, though it can feel ruthless when you're the dude who screwed up and it gets broadcast on a gigantic projection screen in front of more than 300 of your peers (been there!). Rather, it is intended to be an effective learning environment, and it mostly succeeds. If you ever get the chance to sit in on an (unclassified) fighter debrief, you should. It is an amazing model for learning where BS is chastised, you own up to your mistakes, performance trumps rank, and solving for root causes is both a science and an art. It really is something that separates Western-trained air forces from others around the world. And the Red Flag mass debrief follows that model for the most part, but at a larger and slightly less-detailed scale.

The actual flying during Red Flag is pretty amazing. I have some great memories from those sorties. I always thought that they should hook up brain-wave scanners to fighter pilots craniums during Red Flag sorties so we could visualize the insane amount of action going on. But that's another topic ...

More questions on fighter aircraft:

• What are the differences between F-15s supplied to Israel and F-15s supplied to Saudi Arabia?
• In fighter jets like the ones they use in Top Gun, what exactly is the purpose of the guy sitting in the back of the plane (e.g., Goose)?
• What does the pilot of a supersonic fighter feel when flying at Mach 3 at 40,000 feet?

This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by Gaurav Dutta, chess fan:

For me, the greatest sacrifice(s) would be from "The Polish Immortal Game" (Glucksberg, or Glinksberg, depending on your source, vs. Najdorf, Warsaw 1929). Now, the Polish Immortal is one of the most famous chess games of all time and there is a reason for that. It's got a brilliant series of sacrifices that Najdorf comes up with to finish the game in only 22 moves. It would have been interesting to have been inside Najdorf's head to see just when he realized what he had done!

Najdorf playing black opted for the Dutch Defence (f5) in response to White's Queen's pawn opening (d5). The game continued with the Stonewall Variation.

1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nf3 d5

From here, the game continued with both Black and White adding to the stonewall and developing their pieces.

5. e3 c6 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. 0-0 0-0

Now this is known as the Stonewall position, but here Glucksberg decided to bring his Knight to e2, possibly to strengthen his kingside and having more options against black's attack. Although not a common move, it definitely isn't a blunder. After this white continued with moving his Knight down to g5 attacking Black on his kingside.

8. Ne2 Nbd7 9. Ng5

Now when Najdorf saw this position, his tactical mind probably started buzzing. Although, while the Knight(g5) is attacking the pawn on e6, it also vacated the defense of the h2 pawn and allowed the bishop on d6 to attack it.

Najdorf saw this and went ahead and captured the pawn checking the King. The King moves to safety (h1) to avoid the check. Now, the knight moves to g4 to protect the bishop, and white plays the pawn to f4 to protect his knight.

9. Bxh2+! 10. Kh1 Ng4 11. f4

But now, Najdorf plays a very nice move Queen to e8, eying the h5 square. White quickly realizes this and plays pawn to g3, giving some room for his king to breathe because White really can do very little from stopping Black''s Queen because his Queen and both the bishops are locked. After this, like predicted, play continues with Queen to h5 an King to g2.

11. Qe8 12. g3 Qh5 13. Kg2

Now, White has surrounded Black's bishop and threatens to win it with Rh1, Nf3, and Nxh2. But the real question to be asked is how does Black continue its attack? From this position, Najdorf came up with a series of brilliant moves that truly defined him as a great tactical player.

Here Najdorf played Bg1, sacrificing the bishop in order to continue the attack on White's king. Now if White captures with his King (Kxg1), Black would checkmate with Qh2#. White cannot capture with his rook either(Rxg1), because of Qh2+ followed by Kf1 and Qf2# checkmate. So White is forced to capture with his Knight on e2.

13. Bg1!!14. Nxg1

Variation No. 1

14. Kxg1 Qh2 #

Variation No. 2

14. Rxg1 Qh2+ Kf1 Qf2#

Also, if the White King decides not to capture and moves to f3 (the only square), Black would then play Qh1# checkmate.

From here after, White captures the bishop with his knight, the game continues with the Queen moving to h2+, and the king is forced to move to f3.

Now, once again, Black is faced with the challenge of how to continue attacking.
Najdorf comes up with another good move. He played pawn to e5. After the pawn captures (dxe5), Najdorf comes up with another sacrifice! (Ndxe5+)

14.  Qh2+ 15. Kf3 e5! 16. dxe5 Ndxe5+

The King has absolutely no squares to go to, and hence, the knight must be taken (fxe5) and once the knight is taken, Najdorf lands check again with Ndxe5+

Now in this position, the King does have an escape square (f4) and so the king goes there, and the knight swings over to the other side to check White's King again, forcing the king back to f3.

17. fxe5 Nxe5+

18. Kf4 Ng6+

In this position, Najdorf offers another pawn by playing f4, giving white even more material. So, after white happily captures (exf4), Najdorf has to continue attacking or else he will surely lose the game because he is down in material (a Bishop, a knight).

In this position, Black came up an absolute killer move. Najdorf played Bg4+, sacrificing another bishop.

20. exf4 Bg4+

Again, White has no other option but to capture the Bishop (Kxg4), because if the King moves, White would lose his Queen.

After Kxg4, Najdorf continues his sacrifice by playing Ne5+, giving away even his Knight.

21. Kxg4 Ne5+!

White is forced to capture, as the White King has no squares left!

And once the pawn takes (fxe5), Najdorf comes up with a nice little pawn move to seal Victory!

22. fxe5 h5#

CHECKMATE.

What a game: Najdorf sacrificed all of his minor pieces to come up with a series of brilliant moves to impose a crushing defeat on White!

...

Answer by Md Arifuzzaman Arif, software engineer:

I would say the game between Edward Lasker vs. George Alan Thomas played in London on 1911 has one of the greatest chess sacrifices.

Opening:
1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Bxf6 Bxf6 6. e4 fxe4 7. Nxe4 b6 8. Ne5 O-O 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. Qh5 Qe7

After the first ten moves, the position looks equal. White to move, and a mate is almost invisible to the naked eye.

The sacrifice:
But Edward Lasker sacrificed the queen here:
11. Qxh7+!!

Forced moves:
A brilliant move. The rest of the game is a sequence of forced moves for Black side. The mate by driving the black king all the way to the other side is beautiful.

11 ... Kxh7 12. Nxf6+ Kh6 13. Neg4+ Kg5 14. h4+ Kf4 15. g3+ Kf3 16. Be2+ Kg2

The mate:
And then - 17. Rh2#

Another thing, which makes this sacrifice a great one, is the king was mate on the other side of the board seven moves after the sacrifice. This is really, really difficult to calculate that many moves upfront with that many squares involved.

You can view the full game here.

Answer by Ram Gupta, chess player:

I am a chess player, been playing this game since the age of 6. With all due respect, all of the other games already mentioned in this question are brilliant in their own regard, but none of them come even close to possessing the depth and beauty of the combination present in the game of which I am talking about. For instance, Lasker - Thomas, even though it contains a beautiful king hunt driving the king to the other side of the board, contrary to first impressions, is not very difficult to calculate for a good chess player at all since all the moves are forced.

The game I am talking about was the first ever full game my first coach showed me, and I remember it to this day. It has been analysed and praised by Kasparov in the Mega Database, which is the largest database of all chess games recorded. To quote Kasparov from the same -

"I think there is reason to nominate this game the most beautiful ever played in the history of chess."

Not many people remember Alekhine, but this game solidified him, in my opinion as one of the greatest chess players of all time. Let us not forget too that Alekhine was the only world champion in the history of chess who died holding the crown.

The combination in this game is the deepest I have seen in my whole career of more than 12 years. Here, Alekhine had to calculate 16(!) moves ahead when he pushed his rook en prise on the 26th move:

26. Re3!

to spot the final crowning jewel of a fork on the 42nd move:

42. Bd5!

which sparked Reti's resignation. Not all the moves were forced either. An amazingly deep combination which shows the long sight which Black possessed. A good chess player will appreciate how difficult it is to carry out such a combination.

I present to you:

Reti, Richard v/s Alekhine, Alexander; Baden-Baden, 1925.

Playthrough (analyzed):
Alexander Alekhine and his Two Greatest Games (chess.com)

In-depth analysis (without diagrams unfortunately):
A. Alekhine; (Baden-Baden, 1925) re-play page. (lifemasteraj.com)

Playthrough alternate (from http://chessgames.com ):
Richard Reti vs Alexander Alekhine (1925) "Roughin' Reti" (chessgames.com)

I apologize that I couldn't find a better version of the game which is more user friendly. I do hope that you will take two minutes of your time to walk through this marvel of a game. I am sure you won't be disappointed.

More questions on Chess:

• How much do the top chess grandmasters differ from each other?
• Why are men better at chess than women at the GM level and all other levels?
• What are good books to help me teach my young child chess?

This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by Gayle Laakmann McDowell, founder and CEO of CareerCup, and the author of Cracking the Coding Interview and The Google Resume:

There are roughly three types of people who hate feminism:

• those who actually hate it.
• those who think they do, but actually don't.
• those who say they do but really just find it somewhat problematic.

The second and third groups are where most people who say they hate feminism fall.

What is feminism?
Wikipedia has a good definition of Feminism:

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women".

That doesn't sound that bad, does it? I'll bet most of us here are on board with that. Don't you support equal rights for woman? Then you, too, are a feminist. Almost every single person I know is a feminist. At least, I sure hope they are!

That's not just what the definition says. That's really what it is. Read a feminist blog like Feministing.com and you'll see stories like this:

• The latest updates on a case about a girl who was raped by her religious leader
• An article responding to a NY Times editorial that expressed concern about the plunging birth rate
• An article about a "white student group" at a university
• A 13 year old's push for gender neutral advertising (Easy Bake Ovens only portraying girls, etc)
• An article about gun culture, in response to the murder-suicide involving a football player

Basically, if you read feminism websites, it's a mix of articles relating to "women's issues" (abortion rights, birth control rights, gender equality, rape / sexual assault, etc), and a number of others with related issues (racism, etc).

Sure, some of these issues may not be things that you are passionate about, and that's okay. But, you can hopefully understand why some rational, sane people do care.

Why some people think they hate feminism (but actually don't).
Unfortunately, feminism has a bad reputation among some people -- both women and men. Although feminism is really just about advocating for equality, some people think it's more than that.

Specifically, some people think that feminism involves:

• A belief that women's rights are more important than men's rights. (It doesn't. It does advocate more for women's rights, but that's largely because women in fact have fewer rights in most -- but not all -- things.)
• A belief that women are absolutely equal to men in all ways. (It doesn't. The vast majority of feminists believe, for example, that the average man is stronger than the average woman and that this is a genetic fact.)
• A belief that men are bad, evil, or out to harm women. (It doesn't. Period.)

Yes, there are "radical feminists" who may believe some of these things. I've never met any of them, but I'm sure they exist. This is not a reason to hate feminism though. Do you hate Islam because there are "radical muslims" who commit terrorist actions? You can't judge a group as a whole based on the views of the extremists.

There's a lot of people who think they hate feminism because they hear about the extremists. Interestingly, they rarely actually hear from the extremists. They just hear rumors about what these extremists believe.

Why some people actually hate feminism.
Again, recall the definition of feminism. It's just about supporting equal rights for men and women. That's it.

If you hate feminism -- as a belief set -- you're saying that you don't support equal rights. And there are people who don't support equal rights for women. These often include:

• Religious extremists, who believe that women are inherently inferior based on their religious texts.
• People who benefit from women being inferior to men. This includes both men and women. For example, this could include women who want to be financially supported, and men who want to feel valued because of their financial support.
• People who are opposed to abortion, sex before marriage, etc. You can be pro-life and a feminist. But, some people might be categorically opposed to feminism because the majority of feminist are pro-choice, pro-contraception, pro-sex worker rights, etc.

Why some people say they hate feminism, but really just find it problematic in certain ways.
I call myself a feminist, but I don't support everything that every feminist thinks and does in the name of feminism. Do you, as a member of the ________ religion / as an atheist / as an agnostic support everything that everyone else of that religious belief does in the name of it? Probably not.

It's okay to be a member of a group and not support everything that that group does. In fact, that's probably a sign of a healthy attitude and independent thinking.

The things that people find problematic about feminism include:

• They think it divides men and women more.
  My response: It probably does, in some ways. Does advocating for black right divide blacks from whites and other non-black groups? To the extent that it focuses on one group's rights and not the others, or creates hostile feelings, it might divide groups in some ways. But, if it makes progress towards achieving its goals, it might also bring people together. No doubt, black people and white people are more unified now as a result of the civil rights movement.
• They think it emphasizes women being victims.
  My response: It certainly does. It talks about specific times that women (and girls, and boys, and non-white people, etc) were victimized. There is cost to this, sure. But the benefits of talking about rape, abuse, sexual assault, abortion rights, conception rights, etc may outweigh the costs.
  
• They are opposed to certain issues that feminists actually advocate. My response: I'm also opposed to some issues that feminists advocate. That doesn't mean I don't identify, by and all large, with the issues of feminism. It's okay to be a feminists and not support every belief that's theoretically "part of" feminism! You can be pro-life and a feminist. You can be okay with very gendered advertising (only showing girls in commercials for dolls) and be a feminist. That's okay! Feminism does not have a set of required beliefs.
  
• They are frustrated that feminists don't advocate more for male rights.
  My response:
  (1) Yeah, this is partially valid. Feminists could probably do more to discuss issues like prison rape (which is a largely male issue). They do, however, discuss issues like men being discouraged from being stay at home parents. They could probably do this more though.
  (2) Feminists may not do it enough, but they may also do more than any other group to advocate for male rights.
  (3) Part of the reason, of course, why they don't do this more is that men do have more rights.
• They think that there are "bigger problems in the world, like war and famine."
  My response:
  (1) Empathy is not a finite thing. Having empathy for one cause doesn't make it less likely that you'll have empathy for another. It makes it more likely.
  (2) Roughly 50% of the people in the world are female. Thus, differential rights / treatment / etc affects, to some degree, 50% of the people in this world. If you throw in there the male consequences of women's rights / treatment (unexpected pregnancies, the obligation to financially provide, being effectively prohibit from being the primary caretaker, the expectation that men should be "strong and unemotional"), it affects virtually everyone in the world. Even if you think the impact is minor for many of these people, it's still seems like a pretty huge issue.
  
• They think that, in developed countries, women have it pretty good. So they think feminists need to "get over" the little issues.
  My response:
  (1) Feminism is also addressing the problems of women in Saudi Arabia, India, and other countries. It's not just concerned with the issues of Western women.
  (2) "Pretty good" compared to the past? Certainly. Things are getting better. But last I checked, a bunch of my friends have been raped or sexually assaulted, Mississippi's only abortion clinic is likely about to be shut down due to some anti-abortion legislation, large areas of the countries don't teach sex ed, and politicians are still advocating against the HPV vaccine that saves lives. So sure, things are good relative to the past. But they could still be a lot better.
  (3) Since when is "things are much better than they used to be" a reason to stop trying to make things even better? "Hey, Microsoft. Windows 7 is so much better than Windows ME. Why not just stop trying?"

Yes, there are valid reasons to think that feminism causes some problems. It does. Of course it does. So does religion -- and the lack of religion. So do democrats and republicans. So does everything. Every movement comes with benefits and costs.

One can find some parts problematic and still believe that the benefits of equal rights (and advocating / supporting this) outweighs the costs. That's all that it takes to be a feminist.

Notice how none of this response dealt with why women, specifically, hate feminism? Because there was no need to unnecessarily divide here. Women and men can hate feminism for the very same reasons!

More questions on Feminism:

• Is it anti-feminist not to be okay with women becoming homemakers?
• Is The Hunger Games a pro-girl / pro-woman story, the way Brave is?
• Which Jane Austen heroine most embodies feminist principles?

This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by Danielle Maurer, recent college grad and science-fiction fan:

In a sentence: The Silmarilliion is the Bible of Middle-earth. Like the Bible, it's so incredibly easy to get lost in the chains of "so-and-so begat so-and-so and so-and-so," etc., on and on and on. The stories in the Silmarillion are beautiful and complex, probably more so than the Lord of the Rings, but the writing is so dense that it is highly unlikely ever to reach the popularity of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

That being said, I personally like The Silmarillion, especially the story of Turin.

Answer by Caleb Woodbridge, writer and SEO consultant:

Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are broadly speaking novels: they're written in a modern genre that most readers are familiar with. The Silmarillion, however, is written in pre-modern genres, those of myth and family saga, such as the Norse Eddas and sagas, or some of the Old Testament narratives.

In the novel, the basic focus is on individual characters, and it has one main overarching plot (however large and intricate, as in Lord of the Rings). This is connected with the individualistic character of modern Western culture.

The Silmarillion on the other hand, is a collection or cycle of myths and stories: It doesn't form one big story, but is a lot of connected stories. Also, it takes as the focus of the storytelling the family or tribe, not the individual (though it may focus on individual stories as part of the larger pattern). Premodern Western culture tended to be much more collectivist, and this reflects that.

Understanding the stories in The Silmarillion involves paying attention not just to the individual characters, but remembering where they stand in relation to their family history, inter-familial feuds or friendships, and so on. It is usually these, rather than internal psychology and motivation, which explain the characters' actions.

If you want to really get the most out of reading The Silmarillion, it may help to draw your own family tree as you go along! Learning to read an unfamiliar genre is a bit like learning a new language: it always takes time and effort, but once you've learned it, it opens up whole new worlds to you.

More questions on J.R.R. Tolkien:

• Why is J.R.R. Tolkien more famous than Isaac Asimov?
• How does Sauron's power compare to those of Gandalf?
• What are the Christian references and themes in the Lord of the Rings series?