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

Louis Stumpers
L Stumpers 
 
Number of games in database: 56
Years covered: 1932 to 1969
Overall record: +13 -32 =11 (33.0%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
D94 Grunfeld (3 games)
D45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav (2 games)
D31 Queen's Gambit Declined (2 games)
E60 King's Indian Defense (2 games)
B59 Sicilian, Boleslavsky Variation, 7.Nb3 (2 games)
C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense (2 games)


Search Sacrifice Explorer for Louis Stumpers
Search Google for Louis Stumpers


LOUIS STUMPERS
(born Aug-30-1911, died Sep-27-2003, 92 years old) Netherlands

[what is this?]

Frans Louis Henri Marie Stumpers was born in Eindhoven, Netherlands, on 30 August 1911. (1) He was champion of the Eindhoven Chess Club in 1938, 1939, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1961 and 1963, (2) and champion of the North Brabant Chess Federation (Noord Brabantse Schaak Bond, NBSB) in 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1946, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967. (3) He participated in five Dutch Chess Championships, with a 4th place in 1948, (4) and represented his country at the 1st European Team Championship in Vienna in 1957 (two games, vs Josef Platt and Max Dorn). (5) From 1945 and until about 1956, he was first Secretary and then Chairman of the NBSB. (3)

Stumpers was a physicist, and worked for the Philips company as an assistant from 1928. During 1934-1937, he studied at the University of Utrecht, where he took the master's degree. (6) In 1938 he was again employed at Philips, (6) and at a tournament in 1942, he supplied the hungry chess players with food from his employer. (3) After the war, he made a career in physics, with patents and awards on information ("radio") technology. He received degrees from several universities and colleges, including in Poland and Japan. (1, 3, 6) He retired from Philips in 1972, but continued teaching, (6) partly as professor at the University of Utrecht (1977-1981). (7) He was also Vice President (1975-1981) and Honorary President (1990-2003) of URSI, the International Union of Radio Science. (8)

Louis Stumpers married Mieke Driessen in 1954. They had five children, three girls and two boys. (6)

1) Online Familieberichten 1.0 (2016), http://www.online-familieberichten...., Digitaal Tijdschrift, 5 (255), http://www.geneaservice.nl/ar/2003/...
2) Eindhovense Schaakvereniging (2016), http://www.eindhovenseschaakverenig...
3) Noord Brabantse Schaak Bond (2016), http://www.nbsb.nl/pkalgemeen/pk-er... Their main page: http://www.nbsb.nl.
4) Schaaksite.nl (2016), http://www.schaaksite.nl/2016/01/01...
5) Olimpbase, http://www.olimpbase.org/1957eq/195...
6) K. Teer, Levensbericht F. L. H. M. Stumpers, in: Levensberichten en herdenkingen, 2004, Amsterdam, pp. 90-97, http://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/levensber... Also available at http://www.hagenbeuk.nl/wp-content/...
7) Catalogus Professorum Academię Rheno-Traiectinę, https://profs.library.uu.nl/index.p...
8) URSI websites (2016), http://www.ursi.org/en/ursi_structu... and http://www.ursi.org/en/ursi_structu...

Suggested reading: Eindhovense Schaakvereniging 100 jaar 1915-2015, by Jules Welling. Stumpers' doctoral thesis Eenige onderzoekingen over trillingen met frequentiemodulatie (Studies on Vibration with Frequency Modulation) is found at http://repository.tudelft.nl/island...

This text by User: Tabanus. The photo was taken from http://www.dwc.knaw.nl.

Last updated: 2018-08-17 13:29:49

 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 56  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. L Stumpers vs J Lehr 1-0191932EindhovenD18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
2. Prins vs L Stumpers  1-0391936NED-ch prelimB20 Sicilian
3. E Sapira vs L Stumpers 0-1251938NBSB-FlandersD94 Grunfeld
4. L Stumpers vs E Spanjaard  1-0551938NED-ch prelimE02 Catalan, Open, 5.Qa4
5. A J Wijnans vs L Stumpers  1-0361939NED-chB05 Alekhine's Defense, Modern
6. J van den Bosch vs L Stumpers  ½-½581939NED-ch11A48 King's Indian
7. L Stumpers vs S Landau 0-1411939NED-ch11D33 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
8. H van Steenis vs L Stumpers  1-0251939NED-chB02 Alekhine's Defense
9. L Stumpers vs H Kramer  0-1361940HilversumE25 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch
10. L Stumpers vs S Landau  ½-½341940HilversumD31 Queen's Gambit Declined
11. A J van den Hoek vs L Stumpers  1-0271941BondswedstrijdenB10 Caro-Kann
12. T van Scheltinga vs L Stumpers 1-0351942NED-ch12D94 Grunfeld
13. W Wolthuis vs L Stumpers  ½-½521946NED-ch prelim IC58 Two Knights
14. L Stumpers vs J H Marwitz  1-0401946NED-ch prelim ID31 Queen's Gambit Declined
15. G Fontein vs L Stumpers  ½-½261946NED-ch prelim ID94 Grunfeld
16. L Stumpers vs H van Steenis 0-1241946NED-ch prelim ID28 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
17. C B van den Berg vs L Stumpers  1-0581946NED-ch prelim ID19 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
18. L Stumpers vs Euwe 0-1301946NED-ch prelim IE60 King's Indian Defense
19. L Stumpers vs Cortlever  ½-½501946NED-ch prelim IE60 King's Indian Defense
20. L Stumpers vs Grob 1-0601947Int BA55 Old Indian, Main line
21. L Stumpers vs H van Steenis  0-1331947Int BD23 Queen's Gambit Accepted
22. Tartakower vs L Stumpers 1-0241947Int BD74 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.cd Nxd5, 7.O-O
23. V Soultanbeieff vs L Stumpers  ½-½461947Int BD96 Grunfeld, Russian Variation
24. L Stumpers vs T van Scheltinga  1-0471948NED-ch14C97 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin
25. Prins vs L Stumpers  ½-½301948NED-chD02 Queen's Pawn Game
 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 56  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 49 OF 49 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Aug-01-18  john barleycorn: < beatgiant: Consider the following statement.

"This statement is alogical."

It's a contradiction to be both true and alogical, ...>

If it is a statement in classical logical it is either true or false. "Alogical" statements are no statements at all in classical logic.

You need 3 truth values to scrutinize them "true", "false", and "alogical" (neither "true" nor "false").

Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <john barleycorn> Then it says it is alogical, and it really is alogical, but it's not true? Now spend the next 5 pages arguing that with <ChessHigherCat> ;-)
Aug-01-18  john barleycorn: <beatgiant: <john barleycorn> Then it says it is alogical, ...>

Then it is not a statement at all (in classical logic). An "alogical" statement is a contradiction in itself there.

Aug-01-18  WorstPlayerEver: <This statement is alogical> is not a statement; a statement needs to point at something.
Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: < WorstPlayerEver: <This statement is alogical> is not a statement; a statement needs to point at something.> A self-referential statement points at something by definition, namely it points at itself.

This is all a lot of pointless obfuscation to hide the fact that <Al Wazir's> puzzle works perfectly well with the standard definition of truth, which is the applicable definition if no other is imposed. All this pointless and incredibly boring quibbling about the definition of truth in some ill-defined school of logic is irrelevant.

What is the standard definition of truth? It's the meaning of truth used in court: If the judge asks "Do you swear that what you say is true?" and the witness says "I swear that what I say is true", then we are entitled to take it as true without calling in the greybeards of symbolic logic.

We are therefore entitled to take "This statement is true" at face value. It is not my (and every other sane person's) definition of the truth that it is irrelevant, it's this quibbling about definitions in some academic school of logic that is irrelevant.

I know you people are too enamored of obfuscation to admit that the common meaning of a word can apply, but

"This statement is true"

means just that in common parlance, it is a true statement.

Time for another endorsement by Big Potato Head, the ultimate arbiter of truth for morons.

Aug-01-18  WorstPlayerEver: This sentence ends with a period
Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <WorstPlayerEver: This sentence ends with a period>

If you're trying to correct my punctuation, "This statement/sentence is true" doesn't end in a period when embedded in another sentence, as it is in my post. If it's supposed to be a joke, hahaha, how funny!

Aug-01-18  WorstPlayerEver: No, it was a self-referential statement.
Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <john barleycorn: <nok: You can always add "this statement is true" as an axiom and tell the naysayers to go fook themselves.>

There is no axiom like this nor is it even possible. Just think of adding "this statement is true" (if you consider it a statement) to "this statement is false". well, well.

If you add "this statement is true" to any other statement you add nothing to the truth value of the original statement.

Example: "3 is a prime" and "this is true" adds nothing to "3 is a prime"

"3 is not a prime" and "this is true" does not make the false statement true.

Adding "this statement is true" does not add anything. Saying "this statement is false" instead just converts the original into its negation.>

<JBC> is exposing the lightweight pretenders. It's obvious that <jbc> has been trained in philosophy and the opposition is just full of hot air. These people like <ChessHigherCat> are like <Abdel>. They are used to @#$%*&!#ting everyone into thinking they are so smart, but when they actually get in the ring with someone who has a highly trained mind, they are laid bare.

<ChessHigherCat> is basically <Abdel> without the turban.

Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <"BigPropaganda": rained in philosophy and the opposition is just full of hot air. These people like <ChessHigherCat> are like <Abdel>. They are used to @#$%*&!#ting everyone into thinking they are so smart, but when they actually get in the ring with someone who has a highly trained mind, they are laid bare.

<ChessHigherCat> is basically <Abdel> without the turban.>

Thanks again for proving I'm correct. You're an excellent reverse weather vane, everything you endorse is stupid and sickening.

<BigPawn> is basically <DonaldTrump> without a brain, which would have enabled him to put his vile policies into practice, just like his role model.

Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <ChessHigherCat> doesn't like coming in last or near last, and he's not used to it, but he's going to have to get used to it. The Elite Posters mow the weeds in the lawn regularly around here, and it's a wonderful thing to behold, amen.

Life is fair.
Life is good.

In life, you get what you deserve.

Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Big Pawn: <ChessHigherCat> doesn't like coming in last or near last, and he's not used to it, but he's going to have to get used to it. The Elite Posters mow the weeds in the lawn regularly around here, and it's a wonderful thing to behold, amen.>

Well you're certainly the living proof that "mala yerba nunca muere"!

Your "elite posters" are the only people who are stupid enough not to realize that somebody who calls himself "Big Pawn (of the establishment)" and "Archie Bunker" is just an anti-US propaganda tool.

He is just making fun of you by befriending you, morons!

<<ChessHigherCat> is basically <Abdel> without the turban.>

Yet another example of the unfathomable depths of your lies and delusion. If you look up Abdel's last posts, you (or a sentient being) would notice that his departure coincided precisely with my detailed refutations of his claims about Islam.

<In life, you get what you deserve.>

I don't know what I could possibly have done to deserve being slobbered on by the world's most repulsive groupie, but fortunately you're just a joke.

Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <CHC: Well you're certainly the living proof that "mala yerba nunca muere"!>

Sorry, this is not a @#$% hole country, so we speak English here.

(That's just the way it is)

<Your "elite posters" are the only people who are stupid enough not to realize that somebody who calls himself "Big Pawn (of the establishment)" and "Archie Bunker" is just an anti-US propaganda tool. >

Oh. Yawn. The old reverse psychology trick. I can't tell if you are really <WorstPlayerEver>, <LukeWarm> or a new version of <Abdel>, sans the turban.

<I don't know what I could possibly have done to deserve being slobbered on by the world's most repulsive groupie, but fortunately you're just a joke.>

Wow! Look at the HATE! You've got a lot of hate in you, <CHC>. I thought the godless, homosexual, anti-America left was all about tolerance?

Let the record stand for all to see. When you disagree with <CHC>, he flies into a hot rage! The hate really does come out.

This is a "mommy issues" thing.

Anyhow, I just wanted to congratulate <Count> and <JBC> on their lucid thinking and writing, as it was a pleasure to behold. I admire clear thinking and there was much to admire.

<CHC>, you could learn something from them.

Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Marmot PFL: 1. f

2. f

3. f

4. f

5. f

6. t.

7. f

8. f

9. f

10. t

Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Big Yawn> seems to have vomited on the screen again. Nothing a little ignore button can't cure.
Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Marmot PFL: Believe that 7, 8, and 9 can be T or F as long as they don't contradict each other but T for these three creates problem farther up the list.
Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: I called <CHC> out on his hate and intolerance, so what does he do?

<ChessHigherCat: <Big Yawn> seems to have vomited on the screen again. Nothing a little ignore button can't cure.>

He puts me on his <INTOLERANCE LIST>!

Well, he was embarrassed.

Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: I feel there is still room for more clarification of <Count Wedgemore>'s criterion. <Logic requires multiple statements. If only one statement is presented there must be at least one other statement implied (if statement no.8 referred to one of the other statements you listed, for example).>

Consider the following pair of purported statements.

"The following statement is true. The preceding statement is true."

Each on its own refers to something outside itself, namely the other one. But the set as a whole is still nothing but a circularity, no different than "This statement is true."

Are they two statements? Or are they alogical? If the latter, does this mean when there are cross-references among a set of purported statements, we have to track down the dependencies and make sure they ultimately refer to something outside themselves before declaring them to be statements?

Aug-01-18  WorstPlayerEver: A self-referential statement is not a statement. I stand corrected.
Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Marmot PFL: A bit of substitution might clarify things (or not)

7. The next statement is true is equivalent to <statement 8 is true>

8. This statement is true is equivalent to <statement 8 is true>

9. The preceding statement is true is equivalent to <statement 8 is true>

In the context of the problem we don't know if these statements are "true" or "false" but each implies the other.

Aug-02-18  john barleycorn: < Marmot PFL: A bit of substitution might clarify things (or not) ...

In the context of the problem we don't know if these statements are "true" or "false" but each implies the other.>

That's right as long as we concider "This statement is true" a statement. We are just lacking the "evidence" for it being a statement or more generally what a "statement" distinguishes from a mere lining up words in a syntactically correct manner.

Aug-02-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: < Marmot PFL: A bit of substitution might clarify things (or not) 7. The next statement is true is equivalent to <statement 8 is true>

8. This statement is true is equivalent to <statement 8 is true>

9. The preceding statement is true is equivalent to <statement 8 is true>

In the context of the problem we don't know if these statements are "true" or "false" but each implies the other.>

Speaking of clarification, why can't we take "This statement is true" at face value in the puzzle, since the question was "Which of the following statements are true or false?" This type of puzzle has certain well-established underlying conventions, namely that we are entitled to take the statements at face value and check for consistency unless some other criteria are proposed (by the asker, not by some quibbling critic). If you want to apply the nit-picking criteria of a certain school of logic, you might as well adopt the perspective of extreme skepticism that we don't really know whether anything is "true" or "false". It's ridiculous to apply such esoteric doctrines to this type of puzzle.

The proof is that Al Wazir made up the puzzle, I answered 7, 8 and 9, and he said, "Damn, you cooked it". Then a bunch of critics make him doubt his own senses with a lot of esoteric non-sense about purely self-referential statements not having "truth value" according to a certain school of logic. It's totally absurd.

Aug-05-18  john barleycorn: Second prize (shared) to <Overgod>, <nisjesram> and <al wazir> ...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/pete...

Aug-06-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: User: Marmot PFL

No.

Aug-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: Louis Stumpers (kibitz #8784)

No.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 49)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 49 OF 49 ·  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 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 | 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