chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

There are 2 clues unsolved right now on the Holiday Contest Clues Page!   [Official Contest Rules]
(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Magnus Carlsen vs Fabiano Caruana
Carlsen - Caruana World Championship Match (2018), London ENG, rd 13, Nov-28
English Opening: King's English. Two Knights' Variation Smyslov System (A22)  ·  1-0
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 70 more Carlsen/Caruana games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Diademas: <OhioChessFan: See you next year....>

I'm making no guarantees. :)

Dec-01-18  john barleycorn: < Diademas: ...

A clever piece of sophism there, that I will take under consideration once I sober up...>

hahaha until then have a drink and get to the state of "white logic". But no kidding. Logic doesn't care about the assumptions as long as they can be assigned a "truth value" ("true" or "false" in classical logic). Truth of the assumptions is an epistemologically issue left to the particular science. No sophistry here as logic was developed to fight sophistry

Dec-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Diademas: From one thing to another <john barleycorn>, and still somehow being on topic:

How did you enjoy the Championship

Dec-01-18  john barleycorn: <Diademas: ...
How did you enjoy the Championship>

Not much. I guess it was more of a gamble then a display of superiority in classical format.

Dec-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Diademas: <john barleycorn: <Diademas: ... How did you enjoy the Championship>
Not much. I guess it was more of a gamble then a display of superiority>

Ah, that German positivity shining through. ;)

Dec-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <john barleycorn> - yes, the notion of 'logic' is widely misused. I actually studied logic in college, but I won't pretend that means much now.

<Ohio> is quite correct about the secondary meaning of 'prove', ie 'test'.

To return to the matter at hand: I think rapid chess is a valid form of the game (even though it is one I'm not very good at). And as a method for deciding a world championship tiebreak, it is better than anything else.

Dec-01-18  john barleycorn: <Diademas: ...

Ah, that German positivity shining through. ;)>

always, we Germans may not always be right but we are never wrong. And definitely we are positive thinkers - the glass is always half full.

<Domdaniel> From a "logical" point of view it doesn't matter whether Rapid games are or are not a "valid" form of the game. We had a WCC with rules accepted by both players and FIDE was not asking for a vote by chessfans. It is the way it is. Anyone here bitching about this should find sponsors and set up a different way. (Ask Kasparov and Short if in doubt) Up to then it is all smart and cheap talk. But that is where all the talking stopps. When being challenged. Do or don't.

Dec-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Count Wedgemore: <jbc: <An assumption can be logic> cannot be. Assumptions can be plausible, widely agreed upon, a matter of belief, economical etc. pp. but never be logical.>

This is true about an assumption standing on its own. However, if combined with another assumption as part of a logical argument, they are definitely part of 'logic'. Only that in logic we call them 'premises'.

A premise is an assumption that something is true. In Aristotelian logic, an argument requires at least two such premisses along with a third proposition: the conclusion. In a classic deductive argument this is the basic argumentative structure.

So when looked at from this point of view, assumptions are part of logic.

Dec-01-18  john barleycorn: < Count Wedgemore: ...

A premise is an assumption that something is true. ...>

No, that's a hypothesis then. Logic also considers the possibity what happens if the assumption is wrong.

"true" and "false" in classical logic are undefined terms. In Aristolenian logic nothing asserts you of the "truth" of your assumptions. it only says "if the assumptions are "true" the conclusion is".

Dec-01-18  nok: We've got JBC and Harry back !?

Great, but please take the Peano-nsense to the Stumpovian marsh.

Dec-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Count Wedgemore: <jbc> I looked up what wikipedia says about it (not that they can't be wrong, of course) and here is their definition of 'premise' in logic:

<A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words, a premise is an assumption that something is true.> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

Which is, exactly what I wrote: "a premise is an assumption that something is true."

So at least wikipedia agrees with me..

But of course, if a logical deductive argument is validated, the premisses, (say, if A is True, and B is True, then C is True) cease to be assumptions and become truisms.

Dec-01-18  john barleycorn: <nok> with regret or relief, I am back here for today hahaha but you are right. it is more appropriate to litter the Stumpers page with this
Dec-01-18  john barleycorn: <Count Wedgemore> in your forum if you don't mind.
Dec-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Count Wedgemore: <john barleycorn: <Count Wedgemore> in your forum if you don't mind.>

Yes, you're right. You are very welcome to continue this in my forum if you like! I will be busy for the next couple of hours, though.

Dec-02-18  BOSTER: Rapid chess for deciding a world championship in Classical games. My opinion this is wrong. The solution for this dilemma will be find with the same format (time control) as classical games very soon.
Dec-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: Logic and philosophy have to underpin or in fact to be a part of science: or science is meaningless. And logic fails to do so as has been shown so in fact it can be shown that no one can know anything in an absolute sense. Hence no unified field theorems or proofs or disproofs of God etc. No nothing.

The only recourse for knowledge is a lower level of test. But that means we are still always in a state of uncertainty about anything. So we go, as we mostly do, by common sense. A kind of reasoned "bush logic"...something like that. All logic reduces to tautology if we need certainty. Hence we are never certain of anything. Error rules. We require error.

But then the world is dying as they say, or so it seems, so we all need to practice kissing our rear-ends good-bye. This is the most important act we can do.

As to chess, I think that if a match such as this one is drawn, it would be interesting to then have possibly a 6 month break. Then a series of games. About 6 either Fischer Random and say 6 with proscribed openings decided by a computer.

There are other creative things they could do. But as it is now these players in the Classical time control are too equally matched. And chess at any time control is (at this level) starting to become played out. Capablanca and Fischer thought so.

Even some combination of these things and perhaps random reversals of colours so players have to change sides.

This all aided by the use of super computers to decide random moments in the game to change things.

Maybe a couple of rounds of bug house and a few other things as long as the players get some time to get ready for it. Perhaps pepper pot it with some bullet chess with only points added not win or loss as such. This kind of creative and fun chess might mean players and spectators would enjoy watching the games much longer. Even perhaps allow players to consult computers in some games or to insult each other etc...Something jolly though. A few games while they are drunk and so on. Keep it all jolly.

Chess as played with players sitting staring at each other or a board has degenerated. It is becoming very very dull. I notice that Peter Svidler takes more interest in cricket than chess...which seems to show that chess is indeed, dying. In fact annotating he seems very depressed, almost lifeless, referring to repeated ideas, and saying 'the machine thinks' and so on. The GMs are running on empty...Grischuk is keen to see more Fischer Random. Lets get away from this dry miserable game we play and have some fun. Forget about who is a world champion. Who cares? I don't. It is boring and irrelevant unless something amusing is taking place...

Dec-05-18  Muttley101: < Richard Taylor: Logic and philosophy have to underpin or in fact to be a part of science: or science is meaningless. And logic fails to do so as has been shown>

Do you have a reference showing where it has been shown where logic fails to underpin or be a part of science? That's a pretty sweeping statement. If you've published somewhere I'd like to read it.

2. Clarify what you mean by "logic"?

<"The only recourse for knowledge is a lower level of test.">

3. For example? What does "lower level" mean?

<"All logic reduces to tautology if we need certainty.">

4. Again, clarify what you mean by logic?

I'm curious what your basis is for writing this stuff. No worries if you can't explain/don't have time/don't want to.

Dec-05-18  john barleycorn: <Richard Taylor: Logic and philosophy have to underpin or in fact to be a part of science: or science is meaningless. And logic fails to do so as has been shown so in fact it can be shown that no one can know anything in an absolute sense. ...>

But <Richard Taylor> can underpin absolute nonsense.

It was a great discovery in philosophy that we are not allknowing Gods except <Richard Taylor>.

Dec-06-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <john barleycorn: <Richard Taylor: Logic and philosophy have to underpin or in fact to be a part of science: or science is meaningless. And logic fails to do so as has been shown so in fact it can be shown that no one can know anything in an absolute sense. ...> But <Richard Taylor> can underpin absolute nonsense.

It was a great discovery in philosophy that we are not allknowing Gods except <Richard Taylor>.>

But have you ever fought The Ant in Bahrein? 'There was something about Squatter, he had that indefinable quality: I,I,I should call it stupidity'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMd...

Dec-06-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Muttley101: < Richard Taylor: Logic and philosophy have to underpin or in fact to be a part of science: or science is meaningless. And logic fails to do so as has been shown> Do you have a reference showing where it has been shown where logic fails to underpin or be a part of science? That's a pretty sweeping statement. If you've published somewhere I'd like to read it.>

I have my own system of logic or philosophy which involves the basic tests for knowledge. But I am referring to Russell and Whitehead, Frege,Wittgenstein and also the various other problems such as the continuum, logical positivism, free will, the problem of knowledge, the Cogito (and refutations or contestations starting with Hobbes et al): Berkley and Hume's default to "common sense" and so on.

By the way as it happens there was a philosopher called Richard Taylor who wrote on Free Will. That was contested by various and also by David Foster Wallace, the author of 'Infinite Jest'.. He did a PhD in Philosophy as well as literature. He felt he had refuted my namesake's thesis. (I quoted Richard Taylor in an essay I did -- I think it was about the Cogito). Of course no matter what one argues on these things there is always a negation or there are holes.

2. Clarify what you mean by "logic"?

Logic as studied in University courses for Philosophy but also for computer people. I know about logic circuits and so on, thus truth tables, but the logic I mean is that of Russell and so on. Or it is a way of thinking that tries to eliminate contradiction (an impossibility in my view).

<"The only recourse for knowledge is a lower level of test.">

<3. For example? What does "lower level" mean?

I have a way of dealing with what I call 'essential or "high" questions' which seem impossible to prove or disprove, such as the existence of God, whether the universal constants could change in the future at any time [for no reason we know of as the Universe and consciousness is / are essentially ineffable in my view].

So I imagined an infinite stack of logic spaces (not quite alternate universes), ranging from zero test of the (knowledge-truth) to an infinitely astringent test. More realistially a transfinite test. So, for example, even though it can easily be shown that the odd numbers are infinite and so on, I require at say Ln (where n is the "level of test criteria") or is close to infinity, L is a logic space); that the only way to know, key word know, such a thing, or to verify to know, would be to count to an actual infinity. An artist called Opalka did this, perhaps not for my reasons here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman...

<"All logic reduces to tautology if we need certainty.">

4. Again, clarify what you mean by logic?

I'm curious what your basis is for writing this stuff. No worries if you can't explain/don't have time/don't want to.

Some answers. I realise that mostly we stay in a "middle region" but I think this idea of cascading logic spaces means someone could accept say, as I postulate, that God simultaneously does and does not exist as it is our state of knowledge and limitations thus. Something like that.

It is a kind of hobby horse of mine. Most will think me insane or full of cobblers but, well, there you are...

I haven't got to science yet, but we have to be wary of putting science as some separate, holy thing. Where say Richard Dawkins can say: "I know the mystery of existence" (preface I think to 'The Selfish Gene"). I think that we need religion as much as we need those who don't believe as much as we need those who doubt.

Dec-06-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: I meant that one can move up and down the levels. I know it means putting a bob each way...nevertheless...such is life...or something such. There is also the problem of how Archimedes derived his formula for a sphere, as another example.

Of course science can be used as well as calculus. But...

Dec-06-18  john barleycorn: <Richard Taylor: ...

But have you ever fought The Ant in Bahrein? 'There was something about Squatter, he had that indefinable quality: I,I,I should call it stupidity'...>

sounds like the guys had a drink to less to reach your level of contemplation...

Dec-08-18  Muttley101: <Richard Taylor> Just logged back in and saw your reply. Thank you for taking the time to reply- I appreciate it. It's quite full, so I shall return to it again when I have more time :) A lot of interesting stuff. David Foster Wallace was an amazing author.
Dec-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <john barleycorn> I think that in terms of intellect, both were ahead of me by a long shot...but they were often boozed on Derek and Clive shows...
Dec-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Muttley101: <Richard Taylor> Just logged back in and saw your reply. Thank you for taking the time to reply- I appreciate it. It's quite full, so I shall return to it again when I have more time :) A lot of interesting stuff. David Foster Wallace was an amazing author.>

He was, I have his big book but I have to say I haven't read it. I read the book about his challenge to the other Taylor, which is interesting, and his good afterword to 'Wittgenstein's Mistress': both that discussion and the book by David Markson are worth a read.

I need to give Infinite Jest a go.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 16)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, 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:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
000 The Unbearable Lightness of rook endgames 6
by whiteshark
Rapid Game 1
from Carlsen in World Championships: the 2018 match by alexmagnus
Tie Breaker: 25 minutes plus 10 second increment
from 1 Emoved some D games from this collection. by fredthebear
Part 1/3 of a video
from Chess Network Videos: Part 3 by Penguincw
Game 13, Carlsen leads 7-6 (1-0)
from 2018 World Chess Championship by Penguincw


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 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC