|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 30 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-23-09 | | drkodos: wikipedia is not a reliable source of anything. |
 |
Feb-23-09
 | | Sneaky: <drkodos: I wagered with a real bookie.> Did you really? Did your bookie know that Topalov would have White today? |
|
Feb-23-09
| | Sneaky: <technical draw: <PinnedPiece> The color switch cost me 1,100 cb's in lost revenue.> How do you figure? If you bet that Black would win, then you were wrong, because White won. If you bet that White (Kamsky) would win, then you were wrong, because Kamsky lost. And of course if you bet on the draw you were wrong as well. It's the bet you can't win. |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | kamalakanta: <drkodos: wikipedia is not a reliable source of anything.> True. I just put the link to provide some background info.
Again, for some people NOTHING is a reliable source. We still have people who deny the Holocaust ever happened, and the list goes on and on. I can't prove or disprove to you or anybody else; I know what I know, and that is all. |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | SmotheredKing: <Sneaky> well, he could have won the over/under and opening bets. |
|
Feb-23-09
 | | Thorski: <drkodos: wikipedia is not a reliable source of anything.> An annoyingly common and rather uninformed sentiment. The greatest strength of Wikipedia is its dynamic editorial profile, but this does not, as some people blithely assume, necessarily compromise the accuracy of its articles. First of all, the information provided is usually lifted from other, more reputable sources, which are, thoroughly and to an academically satisfying extent, referenced. Secondly, all mature articles have a discussion page, where the article is rated according to the standards of the project group it is part of, and where more contentious points may be argued freely. This information, together with the original sources of the information in the article, is all available to the reader, who is free to assure himself of the article's validity. I certainly don't trust published reference material much more than I do most Wikipedia articles. You should have a habit of double-checking any information before accepting it, regardless of the source. |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | drkodos: Thorski: I use and refer to wikipedia all the time, but it is hardly a reliable source as the info changes sometimes minute by minute. It is a wonderful site for settling bar disputes and for superficial info about about superficial issues. It is terrible entertaining. It is not a valid source of info for higher level discussions on serious subject matter. That does not mean it is incorrect about certain things. But, if one must continue to vet the info after going to wikipedia, which is what one MUST do if they desire actual facts, then it really is a superfluous step in that process. |
|
Feb-23-09
| | Thorski: <drkodos> Re. Wikipedia being superficial: Well, it is an encyclopedia; they are all superficial - though Wikipedia, due to its being edited by the Great Sticklers and Pedants of the World, is less superficial than some published ones - but serve well for an overview of most subjects. I was arguing whether the information provided can be trusted to be correct, and I think it can, mostly, for the reasons specified. If nothing else, it serves as a useful portal to more in-depth information on a subject, and in this capacity it is superb. I agree that it is a pretty poor source for research and academic material, but that was never its purpose. |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | ajile: who needs school when you got Google? |
|
Feb-23-09
| | Thorski: <ajile> Google School - The Harvard Edition is still in beta. :D Meanwhile, grab your Franklin planner and head over to http://scholar.google.com/ |
|
Feb-23-09
 | | Marmot PFL: The best thing about wiki (aside from continuous updating) is the ease of linking different articles on related topics for quick access to information. |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | drkodos: Thorski: I believe we have brokered an agreement.
My initial reaction is due to the large number of students that turn in work in a graduate program which includes multiple sourcing to wikipedia. Cultural standards for vetting info have dropped faster than the DOW. |
|
Feb-23-09
| | Thorski: <drkodos, Wikipedia in schools> Yeah, it's just too convenient for kids not to use it. They should have to work for their erudition, damn it! It must pose quite a challenge to teachers in lower education, high school, for instance, where superficiality of information comes with the territory. A friend of mine teaches high school English, and laments frequently that original thought perished with the advent of Wikipedia. |
|
Feb-23-09
 | | whiteshark: After all, well done, Topalov! |
|
Feb-23-09
 | | suenteus po 147: <drkodos> & <Thorski> As an instructor of English composition myself, I have to struggle with the "Information Age" like any other educator, and I have a long discussion with my students each semester about wikipedia and similar types of online sources. We always like to think that new innovations are going to ruin our culture and society in ways that weren't possible before, but the truth is that concise and expedient reference material threatening to ruin student originality and critical thinking is as old as print has been. Does anyone remember Cliff Notes? I tell my students that wikipedia, like anything else they consult for writing or research, is a tool. In this particular case, a specific kind of tool to generally familiarize oneself with the subject matter and to find avenues of more rigorous scholarship (usually cited in the wikipedia article) through which to further their investigations. To bring this back to chess, I find chess software to be a technology on par with wikipedia in that it's useful for reference when one is studying or familiarizing oneself with a position, an opening, a plan of development, but it should never by any means replace the hard, critical work that is required to make one an accomplished chess player. Read your GM books, play your own games without assistance, discuss theories and ideas and variations with peers and superiors. Otherwise you're just letting a machine think for you, whether it be chess or writing or anything else. |
|
Feb-23-09
 | | technical draw: <sneaky>. I wasn't betting on black or white I was betting Topalov to win. |
|
Feb-23-09
 | | Domdaniel: Now that machines do our thinking we can put our brains to a better use. |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | drkodos: suenteus po 147:
I believe the rate of change is the problem and this rate has not been encountered before and I respectfully disagree with SOME of your points while wholly agreeing with others! I wish we could hold nuanced discussion about this, but alas here? We would both be fools to do it be oversimplifying our own positions, or each other's, in trying to make salient point. Maybe one day, in another arena....
But for now: Hurrah Topalov! |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | drkodos: Domdaniel: "Now that machines do our thinking we can put our brains to a better use." Browsing Pron?
pwning?
prey tell what you have in store for us?
|
|
Feb-23-09
| | suenteus po 147: <drkodos: suenteus po 147:
I believe the rate of change is the problem and this rate has not been encountered before and I respectfully disagree with SOME of your points while wholly agreeing with others! I wish we could hold nuanced discussion about this, but alas here? We would both be fools to do it be oversimplifying our own positions, or each other's, in trying to make salient point. Maybe one day, in another arena....> I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I would certainly be interested in talking more on "the rate of change" as you put it as I have an inkling of what you're talking about, but would love to be more familiar with your explanation. If you're looking for another arena, my chessforum is open, although I recognize that it still suffers from most of the limitations found here. |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | popski: Man, that's CHESS!!! Whoever will win this match will be more than deserved to play with Anand! Thank you both for showing us how to walk at the edge!! |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | LIFE Master AJ: Hmmm. Fritz says it was equal until Kamsky played ...Nb4?? I wonder if he will explain to us how he made such a terrible blunder? |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | drkodos: "I wonder if he will explain to us how he made such a terrible blunder?" If he really knew the answer, had capabilities to know, he would not have done it. |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | percyblakeney: I didn't follow the webcam transmission of the game but one poster at Mig's message board writes that Topalov looked surprised when Kamsky played 35. ... Nb4. |
|
| Feb-23-09 | | theodor: dear friends, today I went to see the 5the game live (I live in about 300 meters away from NDK ). I took a couple of autographs(topa,(kamsky vanished),GM radulov, GM lukov, GM ermenkov, GM k.georgiev)
GM kamsky is very sympathetic, pity he was in a bad biorhythme!
today I am very happy not beeng ''bulgur'',''vulgarian'' or part of a rats comunity! thanks a lot! |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 30 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
