Shamkir Chess 2019 was a 10player single roundrobin held in memory of ... [more]


Player: Magnus Carlsen
page 1 of 1; 9 games 




< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 21 ·
Later Kibitzing> 
Apr1619
  moronovich: Hi <Sokrates> ! Yup,we are going for the big numbers ;)
Or perhaps you mean classic celebrating with a lot of family and friends,music early in the morning !?… No,it is just a quite and joyfull one to one celebration. 

Apr1619
  Sokrates: Hi again, <moronovich>, Ah, I see you are a bit like us re. celebration. We had a wonderful evening at Aamanns 1921, in central Cph. Had the all inclusive menu  super food and wine, highly recommendable. 

Apr1619
  Sokrates: <ChessHigherCat: The worst part is you can never ask your wife! I usually have it narrowed down to the 8th or the 18th.> LOL. Just give us your wife's emailaddress, and <moronovich> and I shall ask her discretely! 

Apr1619
  Sally Simpson: ***
Celebrating (perhaps not the correct word) our 42nd anniversary this year. You may forget it once but believe me on this, you never will forget it again. *** 

Apr1619
  AylerKupp: <<Sokrates> LA? I thought you were situated in Cuba. > No, I was born in Cuba. But I came to the USA when I was 11 and my family moved to LA when I was 13. So I have been in LA for a long time. 

Apr1619
  AylerKupp: <<Pedro Fernandez> But my family and friends tell me that I'm a good barbecue.> People are different. In spite of my skills in the kitchen I have absolutely no talent for barbequing. My wife on the other hand, does. So she does all the barbequing in our family. A reversal of the usual stereotyping. 

Apr1619
  AylerKupp: <ChessHigherCat> If you have a problem remembering the day of your anniversary you might appreciate this true story: My wife and I were at a party long ago and someone asked us how long we had been married. I miscounted and said "Eight years of wedded bliss." My wife hit me on the ribs and said "We've been married nine years!" In what was probably my best recovery ever I quickly said "I know we've been married nine years, but eight of wedded bliss." Phew! So now every year on our anniversary she smiles and says "Well, at least our ratio is getting better." 

Apr1619
  AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> I was at a wedding reception some years ago and the best man (the groom's brother) gave the toast and advised his brother that "If you want to make sure that you remember your wedding anniversary each year, just forget one of them." How true. Then again, our wedding anniversary is the day after Christmas, so it's hard to forget. But as a good omen I remember that it rained for a solid week (very rare in Los Angeles) before the day of our wedding. On our wedding day the weather cleared up and was bright, sunny, and cloudless all day. The day after our wedding it began to rain again and rained for another solid week. So, to keep this post somewhat ontopic, planning the date for your wedding is like playing a chess combination, you need to be able to see many moves ahead. 

Apr1619
  Check It Out: <AylerKupp> your wedding weather was very similar to mine. I got married in Guam in August, the rainy season in the S Pacific, and sure enough, it had been raining heavily for days leading up to the wedding. I'm talking rain where you are soaked to the bone in a matter of seconds. But on the day of the wedding the clouds and rain broke and the sun came out for a beautiful 80 F day. The ceremony and reception were great. Later that day, it started to pour again. We were very happy with sky gods omen. 

Apr1619
  Sokrates: Thanks for the info, <AylerKupp>. I can't tell exactly why, but it somehow didn't feel right that you were in Cuba. You don't happen to know a minor city called Gold Beach north of LA? An internet friend of mine is mayor there. Know him from a site about mechanical watches (a former but not gone passion of mine). 

Apr1619
  MrMelad: <Pedro Fernandez> I didn’t mean discussing those issues would be off topic anywhere on CG, my forum can be a good place for that. I don’t blame you if you aren’t interested though. In any case thanks again for your comments :) 

Apr1619   ReneDescartes: @<Pedro Fernandez> The continuum hypothesis doesn't prove anything, and the reason is that it's not necessarily true! To certain standard axioms of arithmetic it could be added, but also its negation could be added, without producing a contradiction. You can't prove it or disprove it; you can merely decide to stipulate it or not if you wish. Many mathematicians do not wish to do so. The reason the rationals are denumerably infinite is a lot simpler than that. Each rational number except zero can be given a "height," for example the sum of the absolute values of the numerator and denominator; and the number of fractions with each height is finite. Using this, you can just list the nonzero reduced fractions in orderfirst those whose numerator and denominator add to a "height" of 2 (1/1 and 1/1), then to 3 (1/2 and 2/1 and their negatives), then to 4 (1/3,3/1, 1/3, 3/1), then to 5 (1/4, 2/3, 3/2, 4/1, etc.), and so on. Any infinite set where you can give to all the elements (or all but a finite number of them) such a height, and where no height belongs to infinitely many elements, is always countablefor you can construct a 11 correspondence between its elements and [1,2,3,...]. Pretty sure Frogbert likes rationals. 

Apr1619
  Gypsy: <ReneDescartes: .... The continuum hypothesis doesn't prove anything, and the reason is that it's not necessarily true! To certain standard axioms of arithmetic it could be added, but also its negation could be added, without producing a contradiction. You can't prove it or disprove it; you can merely decide to stipulate it or not if you wish. Many mathematicians do not wish to do so.> The continuum hypothesis is a hypothesis, not an axiom, right? All mathematicians I have ever talked to about this believe CH to be true, though the proof is elusive. The situation is similar to that of the Riemann Hypothesis:
No proof, but also no counterexample. Yet it would be weird to claim Riemann Hypothesis to be an axiom and choose it to be false. In contrast, the situation is different from that of the Axiom of Choice, for instance, which is believed to be a bona fide axiom. There you can chose for it not to hold and, by the way, a bunch of intuitively weird results in topology (associated with certain nonmeasurable sets) thus disappear. 

Apr1719   ReneDescartes: No, the Riemann Hypothesis could be proved, as far as we knowit just hasn't been. It's like Fermat's Last Theorem was before Wiles. The continuum "hypothesis" is in a stranger case: it can neither be proved nor disproved*that* has been proved. 

Apr1719   john barleycorn: of course, there was hope to prove the Continuum hypothesis, as well as there was hope to solve Fermat's last theorem. Just the solutions look different. Fermat was proven. The continuum hypothesis (in fact the consistency of it with ZFC set theory)was "solved" in an unexpected way, saying it does not matter as it is independent from the axioms of ZFC and either assumption of it (accept or refuse) does not lead to contradictions in ZFC if ZFC is free from contradictions. A whole different animal. Whether Riemann's hypothesis can be proven in the one or other way is an open question. It may turn out to be of the Fermat type or not. 

Apr1719   nok: As I see it the continuum hypothesis is a kind of Occam razor, saying some strange intermediate sets don't exist. I haven't seen any use for them anyway. 

Apr1719   john barleycorn: <nok> in fact, I think it classifies as a "pseudo problem" in Wittgenstein's (?) terminology. 

Apr1819
  Sokrates: I wonder when the Grenke will appear on Chessgames. Only four days to go before the tournament begins. Here we are stuck with turkeys, razors, axioms, hypothesises and marriage anniversaries! :) 

Apr1819
  Gypsy: <The continuum "hypothesis" is in a stranger case: it can neither be proved nor disproved*that* has been proved.> But the continuum "hypothesis" can certainly be disproved! It would suffice to show one instance of a set with cardinality between countable and continuum. What are we missing? 

Apr1819   john barleycorn: <Gypsy: ... What are we missing?> The counterexample? 

Apr1819
  Gypsy: <john barleycorn: <Gypsy: ... What are we missing?> The counterexample?>
Hmm, that is the hard direction of these conjectures/hypotheses  the <"there is <no> instance such that ...."> direction. It is the hard direction such as, to give another notorious example, this time from computational complexity field, in the P/NP conjecture. The hard direction is P \not= NP
"... there is no polynomial time algorithm that solves NP hard problems". The 'easy' direction of settling the 'P/NP conjecture' would be, P = NP
where you could just present an algorithm that solves, say, integer linear programs (or 3SAT) in polynomial time O(n^k). Then the P/NP hypothesis would be settled. But since all 'smart money' really is on P \not= NP being true, we do not really expect to see such an example any time soon. In the 'hard direction', there may be a proof and we just have not found it yet; or there may not even be a proof and we are running into an example of a Kurt Goedel type of result. (Kurt Goedel paraphrased: Within any axiomatic system will exist easily stated true 'theorems' that do not have finite proofs.) 

Apr1819   nok: <<<But the continuum "hypothesis" can certainly be disproved! (...) What are we missing?> The counterexample?> Hmm, that is the hard direction>
Not just hard, you need a new axiom for that. But what's the point? 

Apr1819   john barleycorn: The findings of Gödel and Cohen showed that the continuum hypothesis is independent of ZFC and thus whether it is right or wrong it is of no importance to the foundation of mathematics. In ZFC and IF (thats the important part) ZFC is free of contradictions. In that way Gödel's later results showed there is no guarantee for that. You may have "true" theorems that be formulated in a formal language like ZFC but cannot be proven in there. That killed Hilbert's "Formalism" as a basis for mathematics. 

Apr1919
  Sokrates: Grenke commencing within 24 hours.
Chessgames in deep coma. Knockknock!
As much as the learned and erudite mathematicians have the undivided admiration of my ignorance, I am a bit more anxious to experience the strong Grenke tournament, in particular, of course, to see how the world champion will fare with Caruana, MVL and Aronian on the battle field. 

Apr1919
  keypusher: <Sokrates> There is a page open, though they have the start date wrong. Grenke Chess Classic (2019) 



< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 21 ·
Later Kibitzing> 



NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:
 No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
 No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
 No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous namecalling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
 Nothing in violation of United States law.
 No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
 NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
 Any offtopic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
 The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
 The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
 All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
 Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times. 
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
home 
about 
login 
logout 
F.A.Q. 
your profile 
preferences 
Premium Membership 
Kibitzer's Café 
Biographer's Bistro 
new kibitzing 
chessforums 
Tournament Index 
Player Directory 
Notable Games 
World Chess Championships 
Opening Explorer 
Guess the Move 
Game Collections 
ChessBookie Game 
Chessgames Challenge 
Store 
privacy notice 
contact us
Copyright 20012019, Chessgames Services LLC
