< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Apr-19-11|| ||ughaibu: What the hell is an "untainted source"? Are Spassky and Tal inadmissible by virtue of their nationality? How about Pachman? Okay, assuming that you have some morbid inability to believe East Europeans and citizens of the Soviet Union, how about Bisguier? Surely you can believe him, and the incident of Fischer falling asleep at the board, during their game, occurred in 1963, so the "Fischer was a baby" crap won't wash.|
|Apr-22-11|| ||hedgeh0g: This page has some potential. I shall be keeping an eye out for further developments in the next couple of days.|
|Apr-22-11|| ||Mozart72: Russian Game: Damiano Variation (C42) derived from the Ware (Meadow Hay) opening (A00):|
1. a4 e5
2. e4 Nf6
3. Nf3 d5
4. Nxe5 Bd6
5. d4 O-O
6. Be2 Qe7
7. O-O Nxe4
|Jul-09-11|| ||Petrosianic: <Seriously, do you think all the stories are fabrications? Petrosianic says that Spassky retold this in an interview in 1977, I assume in whatever was the leading US chess magazine.>|
It was February 1978, in <Chess Life and Review>, in an interview between Spassky and Mednis, on the eve of the second Korchnoi-Spassky match.
<1972 Fischer Match
Spassky says that the most important factor in a match is the condition of a player's nerves, since without good nerves it is impossible to properly concentrate. For chess and personal reasons, his nerves both before and during his 1972 Fischer match were in extremely poor condition. (His polite, reserved behavior during the match effectively concealed the condition of his nerves — EM.) The real breaking point came as early as Game 3 (which at Fischer's insistence was played in a small, essentially private room — EM). When early in the game Bobby shouted "Shut up" at the chief referee, GM Lothar Schmid, Boris's nerves came completely unglued. He now feels that the only way to steady his composure would have been to say at that moment, "I resign the game, as it is obviously impossible to play for the world championship under such conditions." This action, Boris feels, would have steadied him for the rest of the match.>
I'm surprised this is controversial, I thought it was fairly well known that Fischer and Schmid had had a little set-to early on in that game. The story is only barely referenced in this interview, precisely because it was fairly well known and didn't need any great explanation.
But most of the time, I believe that Fischer was very well behaved at the board.
|Jul-09-11|| ||JoergWalter: <mozart72> for the beginning I recommend to you the reading of "the theory of gambling and statistical logic" by Richard Epstein. An old book covering the basic math and a good start on probability.|
|Jul-09-11|| ||JoergWalter: Where is the mistake?
I claim that I am as rich Bill Gates.
Let's say Gates has x $ und I have y $. If Bill has more than me (x>y)then the difference d=x-y is greater than zero.
d=x-y (multiply both sides by (x-y))
d*x-d*y=x^2-2*x*y+y^2 (arrange items)
x*(d+y-x)=y*(d-x+y) (cancel (d+y-x))
This contradicts our assumption x>y. QED?
|Jul-09-11|| ||shivasuri4: The penultimate step is incorrect.By cancelling 'd+y-x',you are dividing by zero.|
Here's another case,supposedly from Ramanujam's diary.
9-15 = 4-10
9-15+(25/4) = 4-10+(25/4 )
9+(25/4)-15 = 4+(25/4)-10
(this is just like : a square + b square - two a b = (a-b)square. )
Here a = 3, b=5/2 for L.H.S and a =2, b=5/2 for R.H.S.
So it can be expressed as follows:
(3-5/2)(3-5/ 2) = (2-5/2)(2-5/ 2)
Taking positive square root on both sides:
3 - 5/2 = 2 - 5/2
3 = 2
|Jul-09-11|| ||JoergWalter: <shivasuri4> right, however dividing by zero seems to have some followers on this page. R.H.S. positive square root is 5/2 - 2 not 2-5/2 in your puzzle. However, that was in Ramanujan's diary??? I mean "the Ramanujan" not just somebody with the same name.|
|Jul-10-11|| ||shivasuri4: Yes,it was 'that Ramanujam'.Note however that he was probably just having fun with numbers and didn't mean the sequence to have any sense.The diary's contents were supposedly unpublished during his lifetime,but found after his death.|
|Jul-10-11|| ||ughaibu: Petrosianic: thanks.|
|Jul-10-11|| ||JoergWalter: <shivasuri4> Ramanujan was a mathematical super genius with an unfortunate short life. I remember that G.H. Hardy was once ranking the top mathematicians of his time on a scale 0 - 100.
Hardy gave himself a 25, Littlewood got 30 and Hilbert the leading mathematician of his time got 80.
Ramanujan got 100.
Those were the days when "greatest ever issues" were resolved by renowned experts.
|Jul-10-11|| ||shivasuri4: <JoergWalter>,do read the following,if you haven't already.Very interesting.|
|Jul-10-11|| ||Akavall: <I remember that G.H. Hardy was once ranking the top mathematicians of his time on a scale 0 - 100. Hardy gave himself a 25, Littlewood got 30 and Hilbert the leading mathematician of his time got 80. Ramanujan got 100.>|
Interesting, but Hardy was extremely modest about his achievements and contribution. In the above example he ranks Littlewood above himself.
However, I think it is generally accepted that Hardy had a greater contribution than Littlewood. May this story serve as evidence.
<There is a story (related in the Miscellany) that at a conference Littlewood met a German mathematician who said he was most interested to discover that Littlewood really existed, as he had always assumed that Littlewood was a name used by Hardy for lesser work which he did not want to put out under his own name; Littlewood apparently roared with laughter. There are versions of this story involving both Norbert Wiener and Edmund Landau, who, it is claimed, "so doubted the existence of Littlewood that he made a special trip to Great Britain to see the man with his own eyes".>
|Jul-10-11|| ||JoergWalter: <Akavall> Hardy was quite a character - very likeable. Did you read his "a mathematicians apology"? a pdf version is here. www.math.ualberta.ca/~mss/misc/A%20Mathematician-|
That brings me to a point that is always stressed when discussing "the greatest ever" chessplayer. Time span of dominance.
Ramanujan, Abel, Galois had very short lifes but they left a legacy that has put generations of mathematicians to work.
|Jul-10-11|| ||ughaibu: Your link doesn't work (for me).|
|Jul-10-11|| ||JoergWalter: <ughaibu> just type in the book title in google search.
that worked for me|
|Jul-10-11|| ||ughaibu: Okay, thanks.|
|Jul-10-11|| ||Shams: Interesting. From Page 18 of the Hardy essay:
<The proof is by reductio ad absurdum, and reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician’s finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers <the game.>> (Italics in original).
I suppose from one way of looking at it, sure, but it's not much of a gambit when nothing can be lost.
|Jul-10-11|| ||JoergWalter: <shams>
in a gambit when sacrificing a pawn or piece you expect something in return for example faster development to reach an attacking position. The game is not necessarily lost when making a sacrifice. It is not a kind of all in as it is in mathematics. If you fail you fail totally - no compensation.
I do not remember where I read it. Steinitz saying (about his match with Chigorin I believe) something like:
the young master of the old school sacrificed pawns and pieces - the old master of the young school was sacrificing games.
|Jul-10-11|| ||Akavall: <JoergWalter><That brings me to a point that is always stressed when discussing "the greatest ever" chessplayer. Time span of dominance. Ramanujan, Abel, Galois had very short lifes but they left a legacy that has put generations of mathematicians to work.>|
All "the greatest ever" discussions are rather silly, and cannot be take very seriously; even though, they can be interesting from debating/logic point of view or educational from information point of view. Unfortunately, trolls love to feed of those discussion, so they often don't get far.
In any case, I do think that there is a difference between longevity in mathematics and chess. In chess Longevity is a valid argument for 'greatest ever' because it reduces the probability that previous results were due to chance.
As an extreme example, A guessed B's opening preparation exactly, and thanks to that won their match. Now if A was beating everyone for 20 years, than the likelihood of A's wins being due to guessing is extremely small.
But in mathematics the luck factor seems very small; it is hard to imagine how someone could just stumble upon a great idea out pure luck.
|Jul-10-11|| ||haydn20: Ramanujan was like a Tal of math. He had an uncanny ability to "see" regularities in (for instance) infinite sums and thereby to find the values of the sums. His ideas were deeply intitive and often seemed utterly rash, but would almost always prove valid upon examination by other mathematicians (sort of like Tal's combinations).|
|Jul-11-11|| ||JoergWalter: <akavall> most certainly, you have a point there. the longer a series of games is the lesser the impact of "luck factor" as to all statistical law. the better player will (should) win in the long run. However, how long is the "long run"?
(Famous quote: in the long run we are all dead)
Then I think of Morphy, short period of dominance in fact but an immense contribution to our understanding of the (open) game. his games will be still discussed in 100 years from now, I guess.
Anyway, these silly debates on "the greatest ever" are lacking a proper consideration and weighing of decision factors.
|Jul-11-11|| ||nolanryan: i get this pun! monday puns are the easiest though|
|Jul-11-11|| ||Akavall: <JoergWalter> "In the long run we are all dead". That's a quote by Keynes. I believe it was in response to an argument similar to: 'markets will adjust in the long run, no need for policy'. Quite a good response :).|
Anyway, in Economics long run is not associated with a specific time, and I don't think we need a specific time length for chess discussions.
You are spot on right about Morphy. His games were enough to change chess as we see it today, and I am sure every beginner will always be first pointed to Morphy games because they are very instructive. However, in terms of achievements, in sense of winning tournaments his results are not that impressive, as for most part he played weaker opposition. If Morphy stayed around kept dominating, people like Steinitz, that would've added him plus points in the "greatest ever discussions".
In chess when considering one's greatness, there are two parts: 1. There results: tournaments, WC matches, and 2) Contribution to out chess understanding or theory. For mathematics there is only 2), for this part longevity doesn't matter. However, for 1) it matters quite a lot.
|Jul-11-11|| ||JoergWalter: <akavall> a side-note: G.H. Hardy once said, a mathematician's reputation depends on the amount of bad proofs he has given. (Pioneer work is clumsy).|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·