< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·
|Apr-19-11|| ||Mozart72: <Jim Bartle> "A King is worth an infinite number of points, of course."|
So be it, King = Infinity/1 = 1/infinifity +1 = 1/infinity = 0 * 100 = 0% of being captured.
|Apr-19-11|| ||Jim Bartle: Right. Now what about the other pieces? And what does the percentage chance of a piece being captured have to do with winning or losing a game? How does the value of a piece (1,3,5, 9) affect its chance of being captured? It can always be exchanged by a piece or pieces of the same value, right? Or its value may have changed due to the position, right?|
|Apr-19-11|| ||Mozart72: <Jim Bartle> I already game <Once> the capturing probabilities of the other pieces. Look them up in this string (is that how you call it?)And an exchange is a personal decision it is subjective and has nothig to do with 1-3-3-5-9-Infinity.|
|Apr-19-11|| ||Jim Bartle: "I already game <Once> the capturing probabilities of the other pieces."|
According to you. You gave nothing to back up that theory. Just because you write something doesn't make it true.
|Apr-19-11|| ||Once: Okay, I'll take you at your word. You say you are an honest man and not trolling us all. So I will try to explain this as simply as I can.|
Roughly speaking, there are two kinds of probability - there are odds that can be calculated and there are ones that can only be estimated.
Let's start with the easy one first. If we have a system with outcomes that are equal likely, then we can calculate precise odds. If I throw a perfect dice, then there is a 1 in 6 chance of a six coming up.
That is calculated as the number of winning outcomes (1) divided by the number of possible outcomes (6). And that gives us the answer of 1/6.
We can make this a little more complicated. Throw 2 dice and the chance of a double six is 1 in 36. There is one result that wins (6-6) out of 36 possible outcomes (6x6).
But that's a perfect system where each dice roll is as likely as any other. We cannot apply the same logic to systems with uncertain outcomes.
Imagine we have a horse race with 6 horses in it. Does each horse have a 1/6 chance of winning? No, of course not. A lot will depend on how fit the horse is, whether it likes the course, the skill of the jockey and so on. Too many variables to calculate, so we have to estimate based on our knowledge of the horse's previous record. And that's why horse races have different odds for each horse.
And it's the same with chess. If you and I sat down to a game of chess, what is the chance that the queens will be exchanged? Well that depends on lots of things. If one of us is much better than the other, we may find that we lose in the opening or middlegame - and therefore that there is a high chance of the queens staying on. But if we make it to the endgame there is a much higher chance of the queens coming off. That can't be calculated like throwing a dice because there is a variable involved - our playing preferences - which does not generate equally likely outomces.
|Apr-19-11|| ||Once: BTW, we really must do something about your maths. You said|
"So be it, King = Infinity/1 = 1/infinifity +1 = 1/infinity = 0 * 100 = 0% of being captured."
When we express a fraction, as in x/y, what we are really saying is "x divided into y number of pieces". So 1/2 is one divided into two pieces. A half.
What this means is that <infinity/1> is "infinity divided into one piece". In other words, it is still infinity. In the same way, 2/1 is 2.
But when we express it the other way around we change the value entirely. <1/ infinity> is the same as saying "1 divided into an infinite number of pieces". This is as small a number as you can get.
But when you add 1 to this number you get ... 1! Zero plus 1 = 1.
So what your "calculation" is saying is that infinity = zero = 1 = zero.
Your other calculations don't make sense either. You pawn calculation is this:
<P = 1/1 = 1/1+1 = 1/2 = 0.5 * 100 = 50 %>
And if you express each section of this, what you are saying is that:
1 = 2 = 0.5
That's not maths. And there is no demonstrable link to chess either.
|Apr-19-11|| ||Shams: <Imagine we have a horse race with 6 horses in it. Does each horse have a 1/6 chance of winning? No, of course not.>|
But I covered this exact scenario, in this context, in another page. It all depends on how many legs each horse has.
|Apr-19-11|| ||ughaibu: Aren't all horses of a different colour and with an infinite number of legs?|
|Apr-19-11|| ||Mozart72: <Shams> You were going to host Saturday Night Live, remember? And <Once>, it's basic infinity arithmetics and gambling mathematics.|
|Apr-19-11|| ||Jim Bartle: Once, Shams: Seems he knows the terms. Can't explain them, but he can say them.|
Mozart reminds me a little of a neighbor when I was a sophomore in college. I said "linear algebra and matrix theory." And the neighbor said, "Yes, I studied linear algebra. ax + b = c, right?"
|Apr-19-11|| ||Mozart72: <Jim Bartle> When you say matrix theory do you mean a rectangular array of jokes or are you talking about Keanu Reeves?|
|Apr-19-11|| ||fab4: <ughaibu: That's amusing, after all, Tal himself offered an account of incorrect behaviour by Fischer in one of their 1959 candidates games.>|
what is amusing. Embarrassing actually. .. Is you, posting all kinds of silly s@it on this site regarding Fischer,but being unable to provide any UNTAINTED source..
If you post accusations such as you did, have the decency to back them up.
Or else you're just exposing you're own prejudices to ridicule.
|Apr-19-11|| ||Once: <Mozart72: it's basic infinity arithmetics and gambling mathematics.>|
|Apr-19-11|| ||fab4: And am I the only poster to actually comment on this game??! .. lol.. |
Moves 21.. f3 and 24.. h5 by Short won this.
|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.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·