|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1715 OF 1824 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-22-12 | | fisayo123: <Petrosianic> He also said major tournaments. He said the Karpov-Kasparov 1984 match was pre-arranged. But that doesn't seem to be the case as I analysed half of those games with HOudini and it doesn't seem pre-arranged. Nothing stands out from those games compared to other classics i've analysed. Initially when he said "pre-arranged" I thought he meant the unbelievable amount of opening preparation that goes into championship matches. But hearing the interview he gave again it seems he meant the ENTIRE game was pre-arranged which means he implies there was blatant cheating going on and the players were "actors". |
 |
| Jun-22-12 | | fisayo123: <Call Me TC> Which ones specifically?? |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Petrosianic: <He also said major tournaments. He said the Karpov-Kasparov 1984 match was pre-arranged. But that doesn't seem to be the case as I analysed half of those games with HOudini and it doesn't seem pre-arranged.>
His arguments made no sense. For example, you say you used Houdini. One of Fischer's arguments was to take a Karpov-Kasparov game, and observe that something like 20 moves in a row took place entirely on the white squares. That was supposed to prove that the game was pre-arranged. But is that what people do when they pre-arrange a game? Make a lot of white-square moves? That just comes totally out of left field. If I make 20 dark square moves in a row, would that prove the game was honest? We had a lot of fun with that one, coming up with other games that must have been pre-arranged, by Fischer's thinking. I nominated this one: E Cohn vs Rubinstein, 1909
As you can see, after Move 9, Black goes 20 straight moves without moving a pawn, then makes nothing BUT pawn moves for the rest of the game. Dead giveaway. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | diceman: <Petrosianic:
But is that what people do when they pre-arrange a game? Make a lot of white-square moves? That just comes totally out of left field.>Wouldn’t “not” doing what’s expected, be the perfect pre-arranged game? If its “unbelievable” that’s pretty good cover. |
|
Jun-22-12
 | | keypusher: <diceman: <Petrosianic:
But is that what people do when they pre-arrange a game? Make a lot of white-square moves? That just comes totally out of left field.>
Wouldn’t “not” doing what’s expected, be the perfect pre-arranged game? If its “unbelievable” that’s pretty good cover.> But of course. The fact that the game shows no sign of prearrangement proves it was fixed. An insight worthy of Fischer himself. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | King Death: With this kind of argument that's a non sequitur from one end to the other we can "prove" anything. Or disprove it. Fischer was one of the few geniuses at the board but away from it he could be a piece of work. At the moment I have this vision of <keypusher> or <FSR> arguing a case along these lines. They'd get laughed out of the courtroom and have to hide out on the midnight train to nowhere. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Jim Bartle: "They'd get laughed out of the courtroom and have to hide out on the midnight train to nowhere." But not necessarily in the court of public opinion. Today the NRA is arguing that Obama wants to take away everyone's guns in a second term, precisely because he hasn't done a thing about it during his first term. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Call Me TC: <Which ones specifically??> Game 6, 1984-85; Kasparov vs Karpov, 1984 Game 9, 1984-85; Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984 See: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/chess...
Game 24, 1984-85; Kasparov vs Karpov, 1984 Those are the ones that come immediately to mind but I think there are one or two others. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Petrosianic: <But not necessarily in the court of public opinion. Today the NRA is arguing that Obama wants to take away everyone's guns in a second term, precisely because he hasn't done a thing about it during his first term.> It's perfectly reasonable to believe that he wants to do that, and reasonable to believe that if he did, he would wait until he didn't have to answer to the voters. Where it breaks down is when we say that we not only believe it, but have proven it by our failure to prove it. A good example to think of would be those logic puzzles about the island of the Truth Tellers and the Liars. I've just proven that Charlie there is one of the Liars. How? Well, because he said he was a Truth-Teller, and all the Liars do that. (Yeah, but all the Truth-Tellers do it TOO!) So, it's not irrational to believe Charlie is a Liar, but it's very irrational to believe that this argument has proven it. You might as well say that the proof is that he's breathing, and all the Liars breathe. I'm trying to think what this fallacy would be called in logical terms. I suppose it's an Undistributed Middle Fallacy. For example: All Liars are people who claim to be Truth Tellers.
All People who are Charlie are people who claim to be Truth Tellers.
Therefore All People Who are Charlie are Liars.
...in which case, the middle term "People who claim to be Truth Tellers" is not distributed |
|
Jun-22-12
 | | harrylime: <Petrosianic: He could try contributing something himself for a change. If he ever does, I'll take him off Ignore long enough to read it.> I've come to the conclusion only numpties on this site place other users on 'ignore' . |
|
Jun-22-12
| | harrylime: <King Death: And then we get the LOL man himself <harrylime> trying to police this page. I have just one thing to say to that.... LOL> lol |
|
Jun-22-12
 | | HeMateMe: We now have a much lower crime rate in New York City than in years past. It's not easy to buy a gun here, or get a gun permit. More importantly, there is now a mandatory three year prison term here for being caught in public possessing a handgun. Three cheers for mayor Mike Bloomberg! Even tough guys aren't ready to do three years at an upstate New York prison. I'm all for Obama toughening gun possession laws, if he is reelected. That Congresswoman Gabriel Gifford wouldn't have been shot in the head and had her career ruined if Arizona had gun control laws. |
|
Jun-22-12
| | harrylime: <HeHateMe> Can you post Obama's biography on this page . And Chicago's crime records for 2011 ..
Thanks. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | diceman: <Q: How many people does it take to change a lightbulb for Bobby Fischer?> Four:
Geller, Tal, Janosevic, Turner.
Fischer figured since they were lucky enough to have the prestige and admiration that goes with a plus sore against Fischer.
(in at least two rated games)
…and could use it for personal gain/benefit.
They should at least be his maintenance workers as a debt of gratitude. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Jim Bartle: Petrosianic: "Where it breaks down is when we say that we not only believe it, but have proven it by our failure to prove it." My point.
Like the scene in "Life of Brian" where Brian says "I'm not the Messiah," and a woman among the followers says, "Only the true Messiah would deny being the Messiah." Starting at 2:00: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uMJ... |
|
Jun-22-12
| | harrylime: Since <Petrosianic> espouses his political opinions on these pages without any reference or relevence to the greatest chess player thats ever lived.. I'm ok to talk about cookery .
Garlic and chillies with fish in a stirfry .. then add ginger.. |
|
Jun-22-12
| | harrylime: This page is being graffitied.
Chess is cool . Fischer's chess is cool . And this is the place for that .. Anything else ? Take it to the relevent forums/pages. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | diceman: <Jim Bartle:
Today the NRA is arguing that Obama wants to take away everyone's guns in a second term, precisely because he hasn't done a thing about it during his first term.>Even the Fast and Furious guns?
What about the Black Panthers?
Heh, heh. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Petrosianic: I was thinking of that, but was afraid I use too many Python analogies as it is. It is the same fallacy, though. In fact, that's a big thing in logic, to be able to recognize that two apparently completely different arguments are actually the same one, if you break them down to their core level. Like, in the argument I gave about Liars, the basic argument is All A is B
All C is B
Therefore All C is A
It's fallacious because the middle term, B is not "distributed" (which is hard to explain quickly), and even if you plug totally different values in for A, B and C, the argument still still be fallacious as long as it has that form. There's no way to make it valid, it could only be true by sheer luck. To prove Obama wanted to take away your guns, you'd have to find a completely different argument. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Petrosianic: The easiest way to explain distribution is to imagine a 3 link chain. Such an argument tries to prove that the links on the end are connected to each other by showing that they're both connected to the link in the middle. When the middle term isn't distributed, it means we've failed to properly latch one or both of the end terms to the middle one. My only nitpick about that Python scene is where the lady says "ONLY the true Messiah denies his divinity". That's not right and nobody would say it. It's too forced. If I could tweak that scene, I'd change the line to "The True Messiah WOULD deny his divinity!" |
|
Jun-22-12
| | harrylime: This page is being graffitied.
END OF . |
|
Jun-22-12
| | harrylime: <Petrosianic> You are a closet Fischer fan. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | I play the Fred: Someone needs to make <harrylime> the moderator of the Fischer page. We're all too weak at chess, and too unaware of history, to pay the proper respect to Bobby. <harry>'ll fix everything. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Petrosianic: I don't know if Harry is fanatical enough. All he ever does is giggle. I'd nominate a more productive member, like Rookfile. A while back I think he was working on a database of excuses for all known Fischer defeats. That's doing an actual service to the faith. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | King Death: The <RookFile>/<AnalyzeThis> pair would be better I agree. They've demonstrated that they almost know something about chess. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1715 OF 1824 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
