What makes this all the more humorous is that I truly believe you are are trying to be serious. Boelcke was the first pilot to analyze aerial warfare tactics (the ACM you throw around and compare to chess strategy stands for 'air combat maneuvering' - I know I've explained that to you at least twice). Did you think you found a claim by Shaw that he invented ACM? He's an expert in the field but even he doesn't claim that. (And it's beginning to look like you can't claim even the former no matter how good you are at playing the game. But then, you claim that ACM is a gaming strategy.) 
You could explain the above to me 100 times over, it still wouldn't change that your are incorrect, or that you repeatedly try to portray your opinion as fact.
First, your statement here is false:
Boelcke was the first pilot to analyze aerial warfare tactics
He was not the first
to analyze tactics (as you falsely claim);
he was the first to develop a list of fundamentals that others could utilize. Fighter pilots of WWI were taught rudimentary tactics in the classroom, and they were analyzed with limited data. Let me guess - you quoted Wikipedia as saying he was the "first"? Here's Wikipedia's citation link:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/boelcke.htm (check it yourself), not even it claims he was the first (and he wasn't). He was simply the first to disseminate the information in a simple set of rules for others to use.
Secondly, another false statement:
the ACM you throw around and compare to chess strategy
Not once have I compared any combat maneuver to a chess strategy, nor have I once brought up chess strategy. "Game theory" has absolutely nothing to do with any particular medium, and is instead based on logical risk taking and strategy dominance, an abstract concept.
Another false statement:
Did you think you found a claim by Shaw that he invented ACM?
I never said Shaw "invented" ACM; what I said was he devised the concept of ACM. Now, in your defense, I left out the word "modern" - it should have read as "Shaw devised the concept of modern ACM." Shaw's research and clarification into the specifics of energy vs angles fights are what led directly to modern air combat maneuvering tactics. Combined with John Boyd's work on the E/M diagram, we know specifically how to fight enemy aircraft. There is a reason why
Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering is still used as a primary resource in fighter pilot classrooms.
In just one paragraph, you've managed to make numerous false claims and fail to correctly quote what was said, all while continuing to inject fallacies and attacks. Then again, that's par for the course here.
