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

  
Louis F Stumpers
Number of games in database: 46
Years covered: 1932 to 1969
Overall record: +12 -27 =7 (33.7%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
D94 Grunfeld (2 games)
E60 King's Indian Defense (2 games)
B59 Sicilian, Boleslavsky Variation, 7.Nb3 (2 games)

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Louis F Stumpers
Search Google for Louis F Stumpers


LOUIS F STUMPERS
(born Aug-30-1911, died Sep-27-2003) Netherlands

[what is this?]

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 46  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. L Stumpers vs J Lehr  1-019 1932 EindhovenD18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
2. L Stumpers vs E Spanjaard  1-055 1938 Dutch Ch prelimE02 Catalan, Open, 5.Qa4
3. H van Steenis vs L Stumpers  1-025 1939 NED-ch11B02 Alekhine's Defense
4. J van den Bosch vs L Stumpers  ½-½58 1939 NED-ch11A48 King's Indian
5. L Stumpers vs S Landau  0-141 1939 NED-ch11D33 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
6. A J van den Hoek vs L Stumpers  1-027 1941 BondswedstrijdenB10 Caro-Kann
7. T van Scheltinga vs L Stumpers 1-035 1942 NED-ch12D94 Grunfeld
8. L Stumpers vs J H Marwitz  1-040 1946 NED-ch prelim ID31 Queen's Gambit Declined
9. L Stumpers vs Euwe 0-130 1946 NED-ch prelim IE60 King's Indian Defense
10. W Wolthuis vs L Stumpers  ½-½52 1946 NED-ch prelim IC58 Two Knights
11. C B van den Berg vs L Stumpers  1-058 1946 NED-ch prelim ID19 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
12. L Stumpers vs H van Steenis 0-124 1946 NED-ch prelim ID28 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
13. G Fontein vs L Stumpers  ½-½26 1946 NED-ch prelim ID94 Grunfeld
14. L Stumpers vs Cortlever  ½-½50 1946 NED-ch prelim IE60 King's Indian Defense
15. V Soultanbeieff vs L Stumpers  ½-½46 1947 Int BD96 Grunfeld, Russian Variation
16. Tartakower vs L Stumpers 1-024 1947 Int BD74 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.cd Nxd5, 7.O-O
17. L Stumpers vs H van Steenis  0-133 1947 Int BD23 Queen's Gambit Accepted
18. L Stumpers vs Grob 1-060 1947 Int BA55 Old Indian, Main line
19. L Stumpers vs F Henneberke 1-043 1948 NED-ch14C92 Ruy Lopez, Closed
20. J T Barendregt vs L Stumpers  0-126 1948 NED-ch14C86 Ruy Lopez, Worrall Attack
21. L Stumpers vs A Vinken  0-133 1948 NED-ch14E21 Nimzo-Indian, Three Knights
22. L Stumpers vs C Vlagsma  0-145 1948 NED-ch14C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
23. L Stumpers vs T van Scheltinga  1-047 1948 NED-ch14C97 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin
24. L Stumpers vs H Kramer  0-140 1948 NED-ch14B92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation
25. J Baay vs L Stumpers  1-040 1948 NED-ch14E37 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 46  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Stumpers wins | Stumpers loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 235 OF 235 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  kellmano: There's a similar one about monks blushing. I'll dig it out when I have time (solves <al Wazir>'s complaint by use of a bell to signify a quanta of reasoning)
Jul-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <PinnedPiece: What did the engineer do?> He put up a single post, saying, "The whole planet is included in the space bounded by my fence." (This is really a *mathematician's* solution, but what the hey.)

<What would you expect to see happen to the droplet?> A surface layer, perhaps 1 mm thick, would ignite. If there were no air currents, the combustion products would enclose the blob and screen off the flame from the surrounding air, extinguishing it. But there is certainly air movement, and that would probably clear away the combustion products efficiently enough to admit more oxygen, with the result that the alcohol would all burn up.

Jul-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <PinnedPiece>: OK, I've viewed the flame video. Though the conditions are not exactly the same as in your question #2, I give my answer 0 points.
Jul-28-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  PinnedPiece: <al wazir: <PinnedPiece: What did the engineer do?> He put up a single post, saying, "The whole planet is included in the space bounded by my fence." (This is really a *mathematician's* solution, but what the hey.)>

Hmmm-mmm, that's good, but I prefer the following answer;

He set up the fence in a small circle around his body and proclaimed that he was on the OUTSIDE of the fence.

Heh.

.

Jul-28-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <PInnedPiece>: Yes, that's better. But you can think of my version as a limiting case of yours.
Jul-28-14  diceman: <johnlspouge:

@<diceman>: If it makes you feel better, the subjects killed their evil king and lived happily ever after.>

That's what happens when the cake runs out!

Jul-28-14  diceman: <Marmot PFL: <diceman> Obsess much?>

...not as much as some:

<as of 2013, it now takes 73,954 regular 8-1/2" x 11" sheets of paper to explain the complexity of the U.S. federal tax code!>

Jul-28-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: I've heard that one before no doubt, it's the mathematician who resorts to "definitions" to solve a problem, and the engineer who knows that a circular shape is the most efficient area. (Of course the mathematician would know that as well, but he's one step ahead.)
Jul-28-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: Has anybody here ever played a card game called "Bang!"?

It's a curious game where the players are dealt cards that identify their role in the game, and they keep these cards secret. In a full game there is a sheriff, two deputies, three outlaws, and a renegade. The goals are different depending on which role you are playing.

Once the Sheriff is killed, the game is over. If the only player left is a Renegade, the Renegade wins. However if even one outlaw is alive, all the outlaws win, even the dead ones. The Sheriff and deputies want to see dead outlaws and renegades.

The bizarre thing about the game play is that you have to deduce who is playing which role. The Sheriff is announced (his card is flipped face up) but all other roles are kept secret. The sheriff doesn't even know who his deputies are! Over the course of the game it becomes apparent.

The hat problem reminded me of it.

Jul-29-14  ughaibu: Looks complicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang!
Jul-29-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: No it's actually very simple to learn. I picked it up on my first game (although I lost horribly and had no idea what was going on.)

Games of that sort, like poker, where players have hidden information that you try to deduce, can be very interesting. I can't speak for Bang! but in poker, it's well known that a good player will make plays that are intentionally irrational in order to feed their opponents misleading information. However, the subtlety is that if you do that too much, you'll be playing so irrationally that you'll succeed both in confusing your opponents and losing all your money at the same time. There has to be a sweet-spot where you confuse them just enough to not be predictable, but not so much that you are giving your money away.

All of this brings to mind the puzzle of the "truel" (three-way duel) that was discussed about a year ago: Louis F Stumpers

Jul-30-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  PinnedPiece: Over drinks a guy I know related this story*:

<One time during my monthly charity visit to the state prison I talked to young man who was locked up for bombing a clinic (fortunately no one was injured). He was not easy to talk to, until I solved a riddle he posed to me. This is what he said:

"You guys think I'm stupid but I aint. I got skills you dont know. I had enough material of [Ingredient A]** to make a pretty good bomb, but I needed a certain amount of bleach, according to my recipe. I just had a liter of bleach, and two empty half-liter water bottles. Well, to make the most of [Ingredient A], I needed 3/8 of a liter of bleach. Which I figured out how to get, without nothin else, else I wouldn't be here now, you understand? It needed some thinking, so how did I do it?"

I thought for a couple minutes and told him how I would do it.

He laughed, and things thawed a bit and I was able to make progress with him after that.>

What was my friend's solution***?

-- - ---- - -- --- - --- -- --

*This is a fictitious account.

**I'm not about to actually reveal how to make a deadly bomb.

***It involves only the three bottles, and a body part.

.

Jul-30-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: 1. *This is a fictitious account.

So, what is the name of other name you sign in as?

2. **I'm not about to actually reveal how to make a deadly bomb.

Well, usually C4 works really well for me. I drive across the bridge to Oakland pick them up by the truck-loads.

3. ***It involves only the three bottles, and a body part.

Okay, prison, bomb, and body part(??) I am not going anywhere close to this one.

Jul-31-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <PinnedPiece: Rev up your Imagination:

You are in the space station. A smallish drop of methyl alcohol (about 1 ml) gets loose and is floating free. You decide to light it on fire as an experiment using an electric sparker.>

I have not seen the video yet. I expect it to show the droplet jetting about (actually rocketing about) until all the alcohol has burned or it hits the wall. This is because the point of ignition can hardy be uniformly distributed over the surface.

Now I'll look ....

Jul-31-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: Well after watching for 4:17, I still don't know the answer.

<On the ISS they have done something similar. If you want to check your imagination with fact:>

<something similar> indeed, but not what you proposed.

Jul-31-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Abdel Irada: <A googolplex is so ridiculously huge that the entire universe is not even big enough to construct a computer that would theoretically count up to it, given indefinite time. At least, that's my thesis. If somebody could explain how it could be done, I'm all ears.>

The universe, by definition*, is infinite.

Have you counted to infinity lately?

(*Note that I am not merely referring to the universe as we are presently equipped to detect it. My definition includes currently "empty" space, as well as the "dark" matter and energy we can now detect but not yet describe. It also leaves room for additional dimensions that we *aren't* yet able to detect, as posited by string theory.)

Jul-31-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <PinnedPiece: What was my friend's solution***?> I don't know. But here's mine.

1. Fill one of the half-liter water bottles with bleach.

2. Distribute the bleach in that water bottle between it and the other water bottle so that each contains the same amount, one quarter liter.

3. Pour enough bleach from the original container into one of the water bottles to completely fill it.

4. Distribute the bleach in that water bottle between it and the other water bottle so that each contains the same amount, three eighths of a liter.

5. Now you have the right amount of bleach to make *two* bombs.

I have no idea what "body part" you referred to. Hands? Eyes? I used both.

Jul-31-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: 1215095
Jul-31-14  diceman: <A googolplex is so ridiculously huge that the entire universe is not even big enough to construct a computer that would theoretically count up to it>

A simple 555 timer chip could do it.
(all you need is a digital pulse)

Depending on what you would want to see, the
"display" is the problem.
...and how you would power it.

Fortunately, our "human" limitations
create simplification.
(if I built a sequence of 7 segment displays large enough, would you want to go check the numbers?)

Its the same reason odometers don't measure distance traveled in microns.

Aug-01-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: <diceman> When you start to talk about specific earthly hardware that may accomplish the task you must have lost appreciation for the point of the query. I have to assume you are mixing up the numbers googol and googolplex. If you read the discussion I think I laid out a pretty airtight case that it's beyond the realm of our finite universe.
Aug-01-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: <You are in the space station. A smallish drop of methyl alcohol (about 1 ml) gets loose and is floating free. You decide to light it on fire as an experiment using an electric sparker.

What would you expect to see happen to the droplet? >

I haven't seen the video but I have seen videos of a candle burning in zero G. The flame turns into a perfect sphere.

So that's my guess here. The alcohol will turn into a "miniature sun", perfectly spherical and bright, and quickly grows smaller until it's gone.

Now I'll watch the video.

Aug-01-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: <The universe, by definition*, is infinite.> The word "universe" has actually several definitions, even in the realm of science.

There is first the "observable universe" (i.e. our "light cone") which is the only universe we'll ever get to see. We have really good estimates on the size of this.

Then there is "the Universe" which includes our light cone and whatever else is beyond that. We have no idea how big that is--but we believe it is finite, because we know roughly how old it is. How can something be finite in age, but infinite in size?

Finally there is a the string theory / M-theory concept of a "multiverse" of which our universe is just one bubble in a giant cosmic soda pop. This might be finite, or infinite. Either way, it's all conjecture, and some contend it's not even science and will never be more than conjecture.

Aug-01-14  diceman: <Sneaky: <diceman> When you start to talk about specific earthly hardware that may accomplish the task you must have lost appreciation for the point of the query >

Well do you have to store everything?

Look at how in a small space large numbers can be displayed.

<al wazir: There are roughly 3x10^7 seconds in a year, so this computer can perform about 10^24 operations per year. To do a googol (10^100, abbreviated GG) would thus take around 10^76 years. The age of the universe is only about 1.3x10^10 years, but who knows, it could last a lot longer than that. >

On a small scale:
If I had memory for about 1000 bits,
counted the 1000 bits, then incremented
a display and reset the memory I could use the same memory over and over again.

It would seem like scientific notation
displays with larger memories would allow for large numbers. (memory would be reused)

...as far as knowing when it got there.
The computer wouldn't store the number.
(it only exists in the display)

Something like a camera and pattern recognition would tell the computer when the display hit the proper number.

Aug-01-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Sneaky: Either way, it's all conjecture, and some contend it's not even science and will never be more than conjecture.>

This might be a metaphor for the universe of scientific knowledge. Some facts are so well established and so thoroughly understood that we use the term "laws" for them. They are like our solar system and the stars in the immediate neighborhood of our local galaxy. But as we look farther away from this familiar core of solid fact, phenomena become less certain and our understanding of them more imperfect; and at the farthest reaches of human knowledge ideas are so vague and theories are so dubious that they can barely be regarded as part of it. Research at the frontiers of science is always highly conjectural.

There is another parallel between the physical universe and the universe of knowledge. The farther we look into the imperfectly known and the unknown, the bigger the volume encompassed. The quantity of knowledge we totally lack and will never acquire might really be infinite.

Aug-01-14  diceman: <Sneaky: <diceman> When you start to talk about specific earthly hardware that may accomplish the task you must have lost appreciation for the point of the query >

I thought the point was its a %#$#@#$ large number!

I'm not even sure you have to "count" anything.

You can represent the number in units of memory.

You simply fill your memory.
When full you increment a second memory
and reset and reuse the first.

When the second is full you have memory*memory.
Just keep that going.

You're basically doing an electronic version the wheat/rice on the chess board problem.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 235)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 235 OF 235 ·  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 users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
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 player 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 suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


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 | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies