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

Albert Einstein
Number of games in database: 1
Years covered: 1933

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Albert Einstein
Search Google for Albert Einstein

(born Mar-14-1879, died Apr-18-1955, 76 years old) Germany (federation/nationality United States of America)

[what is this?]
Albert Einstein, born March 14, 1879, was a theoretical physicist who is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century. He proposed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, which greatly advanced humankind's understanding of the universe. He also made major contributions to the development of quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and cosmology. He was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect.

Einstein had an interest in chess. In 1936, he told a reporter that he played chess as a boy. In 1927 Einstein met Emanuel Lasker in Berlin, and they became good friends. Einstein called Lasker "a Renaissance man."

In 1931 a pamphlet was written called "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein." One of the authors was Emanuel Lasker. Lasker thought Einstein's theory of relativity was wrong and that the speed of light was limited due to particles in space. Lasker did not think there was a perfect vacuum.

Einstein is quoted as saying: "Chess grips its exponent, shackling the mind and brain so that the inner freedom and independence of even the strongest character cannot remain unaffected."

See "Einstein and Chess" by Bill Wall

Wikipedia article: Albert Einstein

 page 1 of 1; one game  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Einstein vs Oppenheimer 1-024 1933 Princeton USAC70 Ruy Lopez

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 28 OF 28 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: <my recommendation steadfastly remains> I agree, that was a good video.

I *still* haven't quite gotten my head around this Bell experiment, but I get the feel for it's nature. What it comes down to is that if you suggest that the particles have definite spins (or "colors" in Mermin's metaphor) then you run into contradiction with empirical evidence.

Here are my takeaways so far:

1. The reason why the "hidden variable" explanation (e.g. my envelope metaphor, or Einstein's left/right glove metaphor) doesn't work is *very* subtle. It can't be explained concisely. You have to get into the guts of a rather complicated experiment and even then it's not obvious until you really reflect on what's going on.

2. Einstein was no dope for suggesting the hidden variable explanation; there was every reason to believe that. It's easy to see why hidden variables cannot explain the classic double-slit experiment, but it took some real ingenuity to show that it can't explain entanglement.

3. 99% of the people who discuss entanglement have only a vague idea of what they are talking about, if even that.

Dec-04-14  ughaibu: Hey Sneaky! Here you go:
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: Um, by "Bell experiment" I suppose I meant "Aspect experiment" Mermin wasn't entirely clear on that.

I am also curious as to what he means by "stuff left behind." Surely electrons don't leave skid marks?

And am I to understand that the experiment requires a three-way entanglement?

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: Thanks ughaibu.
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: Princeton have opened up the Einstein (eLibrary) papers!!! And it's Freeeeeeeee! Wheeeeee.

Dec-05-14  Jim Bartle: Sure it's not "relatively" free?
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <JB> You're going to the timeout room for that one.
Dec-05-14  Jim Bartle: Theoretically.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: OK, here's my updated envelope-analogy and the reason why it fails.

To restate the idea: suppose we have 6 playing cards: a red ace and a black ace, a red king and a black king, a red queen and a black queen. We have two envelopes with special three-way pouches, labelled "A Q K", so that each three-way envelope contains an ace, a king, and a queen. Randomly and without looking, I put an ace into the A-pouch on both envelopes, the queens into the Q-pouches, and a king into the K-pouches.

Furthermore, we have to accept the proposition that it's impossible to open one of the pouches without destroying the other two cards. It's booby trapped with incendiaries or something.

Now I mail one of the envelopes to my friend 5000 miles away, and at agree to peek at our ace-pouches at exactly the same time. Obviously, if he sees a red ace I will see a black one, and vice versa. Nothing mysterious is going on there. No reason to invoke "spooky action at a distance."

But here's the big wrinkle:

I look in any of three pouches at random, I have a 50/50 chance of getting a red card, right?

What if my confederate opened his A-pouch before I even received my package, and saw a black ace? Surely then it would be logical to assume that the odds of my finding a red card are more than 50/50, right? He knows that one of my choices must be red, and the other two could be anything, so it must be more than 50%. (If my mental math is right, the odds of getting a red card should be 2/3.)

But that's where my metaphor breaks down with reality. If these envelopes truly behaved in a quantum mechanical way, my chances of getting a red card would *still* be 50/50 even when my friend has discovered I am holding a red ace. This occurs because the odds of my finding a red card in the non-ace slots mysteriously goes down, so that the overall odds are still 50/50.

Could this be because there is some principle that makes a red ace imply less likeliness of a red queen or king? Perhaps the deck isn't very well shuffled, or like-colored cards repel one another, or some weird principle like that is in play?

But that doesn't make any sense, because it was entirely arbitrary which pouch my friend peeked into. He might have said, at the very last moment, "Forget this plan to look at our ace pouches. I'm going to look at my queen pouch on a whim." In that case the color of the queen would be known and the probability of the colors in the other two pouches would shift.

So at this point I have to tear my envelopes and cards to shreds as they are entirely insufficient to model what's going on here. Wow. It's like nature is trolling us.

Premium Chessgames Member
  technical draw: It took me a while to get a grip on Quantum uncertainty. But after a while I realized it was actually very simple and logical.
Jan-22-15  N0B0DY: <E=mc2> Rumor has it he also invented gravity, which we have been struggling against ever since.
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Y'all mean it wasn't Newton that invented that there gravity?
Mar-16-15  Marmot PFL: another failure to refute Einstein
Mar-16-15  Marmot PFL: <Sneaky> God does not play cards with the universe.
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: "The World is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

-- Albert Einstein

Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: <Chess holds its master in its own bonds, shackling the mind and brain so that the inner freedom of the very strongest must suffer> - Albert Einstein.
May-01-15  Jambow: Read the book <"In search of Schrodinger's cat"> several years ago.

I was quite impressed with the historical outline of science it contained and the logical flow of it. Then the author broached the subject of quantum mechanics, uncertainty principal etc... and of course the infamous feline analogy. Everything up until that point could be calculated with math, comprehended with logic, observed in nature and confirmed by experimentation etc... You know science.

Then he invoked some new mystery math that operated apart from the norm and gave no real explanation only that really smart people got it but no understanding was needed and we should just accept it? Even used chess and how the pieces move, not really as an example just an abstract statement. In the end things operate different and have faith?

What started out well reasoned and intelligent became convoluted and unintelligible in an instant. I guess we weren't supposed to notice that the Ferrari was suddenly replaced with a Pinto? I don't think the author even understood the uncertainty principal and thought it just meant he was uncertain?

I felt like I was following a great chess game and then they went no no now the pieces and the rules don't matter black just wins...


May-02-15  thegoodanarchist: No mention of the photoelectric effect in the bio. That is disappointing.
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: <thegoodanarchist: No mention of the photoelectric effect in the bio. ...>

<He was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. > from his bio above. Last sentence in the first paragraph.

Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: Why is there no mention of Orgone or Oahspe is his bio? And didn't he write a sequel to <The Story of the Vivian Girls>?
May-02-15  thegoodanarchist: <JB> wow, I totally missed that. No more late night reading for me.
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: <Once a journalist for the BBC came to Einstein to take an interview. He said, "Wait Wait ..." - he was solving some chess problem. And the journalist asks: "How, Professor, do you find time for chess?" Einstein looked at him and said, "Young man, do you find the time to train the muscles of the body, hands, feet, and do not find time to train the muscles of the head. The only way to train the muscles of the head - a game of chess.">

Caveat lector.

Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: You da man!!!

Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: Sir, I would like to know your theories about my relatives.

Happy birthday, Al.

Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: I have faith in you, big guy!!

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 28)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 28 OF 28 ·  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, 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 | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2016, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies