< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 28 ·
|Mar-08-13|| ||achieve: <I often think it's exactly that ultra modern style that has on the one hand shaded jazz in a shroud of mystery, and yet on the two other hands separated it from the enjoyment of those who don't wish to become students or connoisseurs and also became the excuse for some imo really poor music for the sake of "exploration" or what not.> Well said, and as expected I FULLY agree. There arose a disconnect of some sorts, the experimental Jazz movement just took a complete left turn and all that was worked towards regarding taste, style, expression, harmonies that were both refined and newish, but still firmly rooted in those that laid the foundations, seemed to be totally abandoned. And indeed some very poor music as a result. |
Not many names may ring a bell, but Elvis Presley no doubt did, and at the age of 2-3 already, he was fascinated by the Gospel singing that he listened to while in Church, where he would sit on his moms lap, and when the choir started, he'd slide down and try and get closer to them, to try and sing along! Presley as I read was a walking Blues Encyclopedia, when he was 18-19, without having had formal musical schooling; all self-taught... Bernstein called Elvis the Biggest Influence in Music of the 20th Century.
But to get back to his Gospel, earliest, roots... I have a concert on DVD here, Elvis in the autumn of his career, when he was driving to a gig with his musicians, how incredibly deeply emotional he got when they would start a hymn, a capella in the car or at a soundcheck, and those were literally such a joyous and profound experience for Presley, that he had tears down his cheeks, and he gave unequaled vocal renderings in those moments, supposedly private moments, and clearly you could see where his musicality and love came from.
When I put that on I get goosebumps... Even now while writing this I get the goosebumps. Don't think that aside from my dearest Oscar, I have ever felt such profoundness and emotional pull by any musical artist, than that footage I just now described. That transcended music.
|Mar-22-13|| ||achieve: <Bobwhoosta> Hi - the post below speaks for itself, I reckon, so I copied and pasted it below - with the added note that since you and Daisuki seem to have good communication between you, I hoped that some clarity, not hostility or unwanted negativity, can come from a proper discussion, and I chose your forum, of course if you are OK with it.|
- - - -
Honouring one request to cease posting on this subject at the candidates page, I have placed this post also in <Bobwhoosta>'s forum, who posted yesterday on the subject, and no doubt a fruitful discussion, if one wishes, can be conducted there. I will not be participating, but will only post a few links to some of the many articles and google hits that will appear if you put "is chess a wargame?" or similar in the searchbox. I haven't asked his permission yet, but I think we'll know soon enough.
Let the evidence, other peoples opinions, studies, and historical fact speak, is my suggestion to those that have issue with the assertion that chess is a boardgame simulation of (pre-gunpowder) warfare between two armies. And then we of course can always agree to disagree.
<I have been noticing a disturbing trend amongst wargamers. Many of my brethren warriors seem to have completely forgotten their wargaming roots! How can one call himself a wargamer, a master of kriegsspiel, when you do not play the oldest of all wargames? A game of war that is as sublime as it is economical?
Of course I am referring to the royal game of chess.>
<[...] But that hasn't stopped the close relationship between chess and the military. In 2004, Swedish and Australian teams studied the game anew for any lessons it may be able to impart to our current understanding of warfare. While both research efforts differed in their approach, both found that chess offers a unique insight into warfare. Jan Kuylenstierna, one of the Swedish researchers, remarked that Chess "resembles real war in many respects. Chess involves a struggle of will, and it contains what has been termed the essentials of fighting---to strike, to move and to protect." Indeed, Jason Scholz of the Australian group even found the initial stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom to confirm the results they were receiving from their chess wargaming: [...]>
Two excerpts from a well-documented article, which can be found in its entirety here:
Some other links:
- - - -
|Mar-22-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: Ya'll are welcome here. I for one think it's simply a matter of semantics at this point, as how you choose to define your terms will determine your arguments in the debate. <Daisuki> prefers "war game" to refer to a number of games that have the specific characteristics of trying to simulate war in the most precise way possible, and while in the vernacular of the chess world chess is definitely considered a "war game", I would think that the technical definition doesn't apply.|
I do think that in an abstract way chess is and has always been attempting to replicate the symbolic nature of war, struggle, objectives, and the like.
|Mar-23-13|| ||achieve: <Bobwhoosta> Thanks. - allow me to paste the following three excerpts from the same article as above, and then let me ask you why the argument for a Semantics or "how you choose to define your terms" position is possibly untenable. It's a rather important point, and it touches on Philosophy of Language, Philology, and several other fields of thought that I will summarize under the umbrella Critical Thinking. It wasn't my intention to participate in a renewed discussion, and I do not expect any responses, but I found that the subject intrigues me, and as you can read from that article (there are many more), I'm not the only one intrigued, and there is an enormous amount under the surface, buried over the centuries, that is quite fascinating and revealing. Okay, my final two cents for now, researching this costs a lot of time, and best wishes for the weekend. Sunday is "D-day"? ;) |
1. <The name 'chess' is derived from the Sanskrit Chaturanga which can be translated as 'Four Arms' referring to the four arms (or divisions, if you prefer) of the Indian army--- elephants, cavalry, chariots, and infantry. In this regard, Chess is very much a wargame that simulates what we would now call the combined arms operations of the ancient world. It is because of this combined arms approach that both strategy and tactics can be taught by the game (unlike Checkers, which is entirely tactics, or Go, which is entirely strategy). In this regard, Chess is unique. As a result, it is a most remarkably balanced wargame.>
2. <So, you see, the pieces of chess all are derived and based upon actual military units. Even when chess was changed by the cultural conditions of medieval Europe, the alterations involved little more than a cosmetic change in focus---a shift from the tactical to the strategic elements of battle. James Dunnigan, noted military historian and wargame designer, has done the best job of summing-up the wargaming roots of chess:
"Chess is one of the oldest surviving ancient wargames. Games similar to chess go back thousands of years. Chess is also one of the more accurate wargames for the period it covers (the pre-gunpowder period). Chess is a highly stylized game. It is always set up the same way, the playing pieces and the playing board are always the same. The board is quite simple. Each of the pieces has clearly defined capabilities and starting positions, much like soldiers in ancient warfare. Given that ancient armies were so unwieldy and communication so poor, it is easy to see why each player in chess is allowed to move only one piece per turn. Because the armies were so hard to control, the battles were generally fought on relatively flat, featureless ground. Then, as now, the organization of the army represented the contemporary social classes. Thus the similarity between chess pieces and the composition of ancient armies.">
3. <Why else should wargamers be enthralled with this game of kings and queens? The mere fact that chess allows the players to plan and execute just about every classic military operation should be reason enough! Feints, flank attacks, frontal assaults, deep penetration raids, sieges, pincer attacks, blockades, and fighting withdrawals just to name a few! Talk about your options! It's all here! In fact, there are so many possible plans of offense and defense, that chess players have organized them in a large number of openings. Openings are best thought of as pre-made and carefully evaluated battle plans that a chess player can commit to memory so as to be prepared for any eventuality.>
|Mar-23-13|| ||achieve: This is a clip of Oscar as a guest with the Dick Cavett Show, very nice conversation, and Peterson explaining and showing several styles/players. For a while I've been meaning to share this, so here goes:|
Cavett acts so "cooool"
|Mar-23-13|| ||Thorski: <achieve> Great clip! Such scintillating ease. Thanks for posting it.|
Hey, you should reopen your forum.
|Mar-24-13|| ||achieve: <Thorski: <achieve> Great clip! Such scintillating ease. Thanks for posting it.> My pleasure - scintillating ease indeed; but developed with a work ethic close to what is humanly possible, after his father, Daniel Peterson, told him at age 16 that he wouldn't allow Oscar to leave school and play and practice full-time to "become just another jazz piano player" - but insisted that "if you want me to let you go, you have to become <the best>"... This rather unhealthy high demand in fact had Oscar study harder than before, and within 5 years of well planned study and performances in Canada, locally, he suddenly became the finished article, technically and harmonically, so that he could basically "say whatever he wanted to say, emotionally, musically, that he wanted", to use his own words. And literally at the snap of a finger; fluent in all keys and all styles, in the process of developing and delivering the famous "Peterson brand" - his debut in the US in 1949 in Carnegie Hall was insisted upon by Norman Granz himself, <the> Jazz Impressario for decades, and Oscar blew off the roof during that performance. Oscar was 24 at the time, so imagining what heights he would reach later is downright scary... Erm, yes - he is my idol, as you can probably tell by now. ;) When he died in 2007, I felt like a dearly loved granddad had passed.|
|Mar-24-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: <achieve>
My reference to semantics was based on <Daisuki>'s reference to an article defining "war games" in a more modern form than has been used historically. In fact this newer branch of games tries to replicate war to a higher level and degree than an abstract game like chess ever could. And yes, if you choose to define your terms to say that a "war game" MUST replicate war directly and not symbolically, then chess is indeed a very poor war game. But it then becomes a question of how you are using the language and defining your terms. And I think that <Daisuki> is using a very strict and restrictive definition of terms in choosing to define chess as a very un-warlike game. If you accept her definitions, the conclusion follows that chess is not a warlike game. However, I disagree on the definitions, and therefore must disagree on the conclusion.
Chess was built on war, to symbolize war, and contains elements of war. All are abstract and symbolic, and therefore cannot be likened to war beyond analogy, but once you enter the realm of analogy and symbolism chess indeed becomes a VERY warlike game, in fact the most warlike abstract strategy game that exists imo.
So if you want to say that an abstract strategy game cannot be warlike, that is up to you, and within that definition chess is trivially unwarlike, but otherwise once you get past that definition and allow for a little leeway you can easily see that it is very warlike indeed.
|Mar-24-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: I don't know where I saw that Oscar Peterson clip, but I think you either showed it to me before, or I ran a trek through youtube Peterson after viewing another clip you shared. Either way it was a pleasure to watch again, and will be when I see it again sometime in the future.|
|Mar-28-13|| ||Gypsy: <Bobwhoosta> Some time ago, I promised I would return here with some "Outliers" type of insight regarding development of young talent; and regarding the potential damage superficially imposed teaching/competition structures can make.|
I apologize that this again will be only a fly-by; I just do not yet have free cycles for more. Still I hope you will find this info interesting:
We all know that physical skills of youth rises partly from training, but partly simply from growing and maturing. An important technical question is: How steep is the age-dependent component of performance?
We have now quantified this age-dependency part of performance for youth soccer, boys between ages 11 and 18 years.
('We' being my significant other -- she does the lion's share of the work -- me, and a couple of most helpful volunteers that scraped the results of tens of thousands games by a couple thousand youth teams.)
Here is the for me most intuitive way to think quantitatively about our result:
Take any team of young players and produce two copies. Keep one frozen in time and instantly age the other by 8 months. (Assuming that we can do tricks like that.) The older team will be stronger, of course, but by how much?
Well, if in the original setting the two teams produced on average game results 2:2 per game, then the 8-month older team would on average clobber the younger copy of itself by the score of 4:1.
(That is a difference of a whole class. After the mere 8 months, games would not be competitive at all.)
|Mar-28-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: <Gypsy>
You refer to the book "Outliers"? I totally agree with that assessment, and it's sad that there have to be practical limitations for setting league age limits. The player who is 8 months older because of some predetermined age of entry will be a class better during all of the formative years, and this will by the nature of a "Well we've got a gem here" approach attract his coaches to give him more encouragement, training, and one-on-one attention. His parents will make sure he practices more, and that will make him better. The snowball effect is exponetial in that regard, as seen in the first case study done in Outliers (the book). Fantastic literature.
But I thought we were talking about whether greater population size of necessity produced more talent?? I wanted to do an "all other things being equal" thing, but as you mentioned within that paradigm there is no "all other things equal" as the entirety of society and socialogical interactions shift and jump based on population size and dynamics. In fact there was an interesting TED talk about that very thing wherein one of the presenters said you could determine a number of very important societal factors (such as crime, GDP and the like) simply as a function of population. He said( and I'm not sure if I agree with him, although he has the data and I do not) that the data suggest that in essence these things are ONLY a function of population, and that as the size of a city increases you see increases in things like crime as a percentage of the population and the like.
Anyway, when you return with drops of Jupiter in your hair perhaps you'd like to view it? I think they have it on netflix, and I'd be willing to try and track it down for you if you'd like.
|Mar-29-13|| ||rebjorn: How much per ticket?|
|Mar-29-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: <rebjorn>
|Feb-03-14|| ||Tiggler: Hello, Bobwoosta, how are the mattress sales, lately?|
I'm sure you are not lying down on the job. (Betcha never heard that one before).
Thanks for your message to my forum.
|Feb-04-14|| ||Bobwhoosta: <Tiggler>
Doing well my friend!!! Last month was a bit slow, but my main problem is I'm competing against myself as I've been in this store for two years and they base budget on previous store performance. After busting out 120%+ to budget for long enough, I am now competing just to make my numbers.
I DO lie down on the job, quite often actually. This is an important part of a sleep consultant's job, as you must know EVERYTHING about your mattresses if you expect to be able to explain them to someone who knows as close to nothing as makes no difference.
Mattress sales are interesting and unique in that they are extremely important products, selecting the right one is so important, and yet your client usually wants to be in the store for as little time as possible. Sometimes they take 8 minutes to make an 8 year decision!!
Thanks for checking up on me.
|Apr-28-14|| ||OhioChessFan: As for population size determining talent, there is some point of diminishing returns. If you think of the USA and the Olympics, the guy who is say, the third best pole vaulter in the country simply isn't going to get close to 1/3 the resources allocated to participants in that event. It only makes sense to pour out a disproportionate share of training and coaching dollars into the very best athletes. Since most countries work hard to showcase their very best athletes, it's not as hard as you might first think for the smaller population countries to be on a fairly equal basis with the larger countries.|
|Apr-28-14|| ||Bobwhoosta: <OhioChessFan>
I agree that it's overly simplistic to directly correlate talent ONLY to population size. There is the population size of the interested parties( meaning the people within a population who actually have interest in whatever you're looking at), training, and so on.
|May-06-14|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|May-07-14|| ||Bobwhoosta: <cormier>
Amen to that. Stephen boldy proclaimed the Word of God and was stoned to death for it.
I've noticed by some a slandering( or libeling) that is occuring in forums other than the one in which I was posting( the <Jambow> forum), but what I haven't noticed is a direct refutation of the Scripture that I posted there. I will repost it here, and challenge anyone who claims to submit to Scripture but denies a God who will Judge the world to explain why the Word of God contains these verses.
|May-07-14|| ||Bobwhoosta: Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Romans 12: 17-20
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
For behold, the Lord is coming out from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it, and will no more cover its slain.
Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.
|May-07-14|| ||Bobwhoosta: The slandering( or libeling) was to the effect that "angry so-called Christians are lambasting anyone who doesn't agree with them".(paraphrased)|
The key here is that I don't have to be angry with someone to call them wrong, nor do I have to be angry to defend Scripture.
Just because someone can't stand someone calling them out for not submitting to Scripture doesn't mean that the one calling them out isn't calling them out in love. In fact, beginning from the belief in a God who will Judge the world, it is loving to tell someone of that coming judgement, especially when that someone will often react negatively to that concept, and attack you personally for the mere mention of it.
|May-07-14|| ||OhioChessFan: <Bob> the passages about God's wrath are so plain the point isn't worthy of discussion. I have encountered 100's of people like <Optimal> and <moronovich> online. I won't chase them. As they both failed to answer the first challenge posed to them, I see no reason to continue in discussions with them.|
|May-07-14|| ||Bobwhoosta: <OhioChessFan>
You're definitely right, I sometimes pursue these things too much. It pains me most of all when those who quote Scripture then deny it in other places( and I'm sure you would affirm as I do the manifold places speaking of God's amazing Love), but the Bible does speak of false teachers and ear-tickling.
|May-08-14|| ||Bobwhoosta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD_...|
|May-12-14|| ||cormier: have a good day <Bobwhoosta> ... thx G|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 28 ·
Times Chess Twitter Feed