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

al wazir
Member since Feb-20-05 · Last seen Jan-16-18
>> Click here to see al wazir's game collections. Full Member

   al wazir has kibitzed 21271 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Jan-16-18 M Vachier-Lagrave vs Anand, 2016 (replies)
al wazir: 36...Ke6 would have made more of a game of it.
   Jan-15-18 Kenneth S Rogoff (replies)
al wazir: <optimal play>: <I've been following this discussion in a desultory fashion ... I don't see how ... So I'm guessing ... If my guess is correct ...<<>>>>. You caught me. That's my fake humility ploy. <Even though I haven't researched that assertion and ...
   Jan-14-18 Shirov vs S Sevian, 2016 (replies)
al wazir: What was wrong with 23. Bc4+ Ne6 24. Qg4+ Kf7 (24...Bg6 25. Bxe6+) 25. Qg7+ Ke8 26. Qxh8+ Nf8 (26...Kd7 27. Qxb8) 27. Qxf8+ Qxf8 28. Bxf8 Bxf8 29. Nxe4 ? White is a piece up.
   Jan-12-18 Team White vs Team Black, 2017 (replies)
   Jan-12-18 C Van Buskirk vs D Gurevich, 1987 (replies)
al wazir: My move was 29...f5. If 30. hxg4 hxg4, black attacks with ♖ and ♕ on the open h-file. If 30. e6, then 30...h4+ 31. Kf3 Nh2+ 32. Ke2 Reb8 33. Ra2 Nf1 34. Q moves, and now black attacks with ♖ + ♖ along the first rank. I think 29...Kg7 also wins.
   Jan-10-18 Louis Stumpers (replies)
al wazir: <morfishine: Answer to the coffee cup stumper: Its in the microwave>. I thought that was a parody. I didn't realize that it was meant as a serious stumper. I'm trying to think of a way to rephrase it so that it's clear that it's a real puzzle.
   Jan-09-18 J Cori vs F Benediktsson, 2009
al wazir: <goodevans: 31.Nxg7 Nxe3 32.Qxc6.> Yes, that works in all variations. Thanks. It's hard for me to imagine that white saw ahead to that when he played 29. Nf6, but he must have,
   Jan-07-18 F Vallejo Pons vs Wynn Zaw Htun, 2016 (replies)
al wazir: The first move was easy. I think my idea for the continuation was pretty cute: 20. Rg8!, and if 20...Rxg8, then 21. f7+ Kd8/Ke7 22. fxg8=Q. Or 20...Rh7 21. Nd5 exd5 22. exd5+ Kd8 (22...Kf7 23. Qg3) 23. Qe4 Ne5 (23...Nxf6 24. Rxf8+ Kd7 25. Qe6#) 24. Rxf8+ Kd7 25. Qxh7+. But after ...
   Jan-06-18 R Loetscher vs M Bluebaum, 2016 (replies)
al wazir: <OhioChessFan: 28. Rg1 Rg6> 29. Nc2. Now what?
   Jan-04-18 B Kovacevic vs R Almond, 2006 (replies)
al wazir: Almond won with the black pieces against a player with a rating 400 points higher.
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

The Joy of LEX

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <OCF>: You're beginning to get the idea. <AgentRgent> and <SamAtoms1980>: You too.

I vote "no."

It is now 1:43 pm, EDT.

May-27-10  Shams: "No."

Wait, let me put a finer point on that:

May-27-10  SamAtoms1980: <OhioChessFan: Is it uncouth of me to ask what exactly is going on here? Does it amount to a game of Risk?>

Hey, the game has sold a jillion copies, this fundamental flaw and all.

Though my attempt was crude and very thinly veiled, I thought there was a slim chance that it just might work. However, the much larger chance that it would flop was the reality.

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: Who's next? <Shams>? Go for it.

It is now 1:04 am, EDT.

May-28-10  Shams: It is my opinion that nothing will happen unless circumstances force our cooperation. Let's not forget, among the exigencies that compelled the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was the fact that the Colonies couldn't even get their act together to raise money to fight the damn British. People are simply far more afraid of being taken advantage of than they are hopeful of attaining non-zero sum cooperation.

I therefore propose the following: We give ourselves one week to pass a <BILL OF URGENCIES> detailing: 1.) the calamities that threaten all of us, as well as all the cg members we represent, and 2.) the steps we need to take to create a viable state that can respond to those and other threats.

Rep. Shams

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Shams> (or should I address you as <Rep. Shams>?): Is that a rule you are proposing? If not, you have lost your turn and <AgentRgent> is coming up to bat.

These are the rules of LEX:

1. Any number can play.

2. Players take turns in alphabetical order.

3. On his or her turn, a player can propose a new rule or a change or repeal of an existing rule.

4. A proposal for a new rule or for change or repeal of an existing rule is adopted if and only if it is approved by a majority of the participants.

5: A player who fails to propose a new rule or rule change or repeal in accordance with rule #3 on his or her turn within 24 hours loses that turn; and a proposed new rule or rule change or repeal is ratified if and only if it is approved by a majority of the players voting within 24 hours after it is proposed.

6. [I]n the next world game with white pieces, all LEX players vow to vote 1. c4.

It is now 3:35 pm, EDT.

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: Whether what <Shams> has proposed is a rule or not, it conflicts with rule #5. If we were to adopt it, it would bring on a constitutional crisis. I'm afraid I have to vote "no."
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I find crises exciting, so I vote yes.
May-29-10  AgentRgent: I vote Yes
May-29-10  SamAtoms1980: I vote "no."
May-29-10  Shams: WA State Open this weekend. I'll probably just pop in here once or twice and vote yes on whatever absurdities you all are proposing.
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Shams>: Unless I have miscounted, it's a 2-2 tie. Your bill of urgencies will have to wait for another season.

<AgentRgent>: It's up to you now.

It is now 9:39 pm, EDT.

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: It is now 9:55 pm, EDT. Since we have heard nothing from <AgentRgent>, his turn is over and my turn has begun.

By now all of you must have at least a glimmering of what LEX is about. It's a model of the democratic legislative and political processes. Or if you wish, it is a model of the British constitution. As you probably know, the U.K. doesn't have a written constitution. Their constitution consists of the entire corpus of British law since Magna Carta. Thus, every time Parliament passes a law, it is in fact amending the constitution, but it must do so within the framework of previously existing law. They do have a sort of supreme court, the "Law Lords," but their role in ruling on the constitutionality of laws is much more circumscribed than that of our Supreme Court.

As I said a few days ago, this is the first time I've tried playing LEX online, so this has been in the nature of an experiment. The conclusion I've drawn from the experiment is that in this mode LEX doesn't work very well. In my experience the game works best when everyone meets in a single room to vote or propose new legislation. (I like to use a whiteboard to keep a written record of the current status of the "constitution" and of proposed changes.) But in order to mimic the real-life legislative process, the participants should be able to get together in private to make deals and to form caucuses and conspiracies. (In a sense it is the ultimate "party game.") Because all communication here has been open, we have not been able to do that. When players are able to meet privately and join in cabals, however, that introduces an element of competition that has been lacking in the present game, and the action becomes quite cutthroat. Some individuals can acquire more power than the rest and the democracy can be replaced by a tyranny. (I think you realized that.)

Another conclusion I have drawn is that the game is far too slow when played this way. That too was a consequence of the way we communicated, since the only way to find out if someone had done something was to log into this forum, and none of us stayed logged in continuously.

But to sum it up, I think it's time to end the experiment. I therefore propose the following new rule:

6. This game is now over.

All who vote in favor are winners. I vote "yes."

May-31-10  SamAtoms1980: I vote "Yes"

From very early on I could see two things:

(1) There would likely be "pork-barrel politics" involved and that would probably be needed to get anything done

(2) A good illustration of why, in our actual Congress, it is so hard to get things done

But on an open forum, where everybody can see everything that gets proposed, it keeps the "pork-barrel politics" and backroom deals from getting going

I also propose the amendment that all winners go out for a barbecue. But, please, let's stay away from the pork barrels...

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <SamAtoms1980: I vote "Yes"> Damn, I was hoping to be the only winner . . .

Aut Caesar aut nihil. (Maybe that should be "Et Caesar et nihil.")

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: It's 11:49 pm, EDT. Finitus est ludus.
Jun-01-10  AgentRgent: <al wazir: It is now 9:55 pm, EDT. Since we have heard nothing from <AgentRgent>, his turn is over and my turn has begun.> Was out of town for several days on vacation, hence why I voted against the silly 24hr rule... ;-P

As for ending the game.. I vote NO (mostly to be contrarian).

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Well, now that I know the point of the game......

I vote yes.

Jun-03-10  SamAtoms1980: <al wazir: Finitus est ludus.>

Ludus? Or iocus?

Dec-01-11  theodor: <<al wazir>: It's 11:49 pm, EDT. Finitus est ludus.> I think it's better to say: ''ora venientibus - ossa!''
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Gregor Samsa Mendel>: I don't know. It's not my field.

Yes, if the claims made here are true it could be important. But I'm suspicious of them, because every university has a press agent (usually called something like the Office of Scientific Information or the Dean of Research) responsible for publicizing advances and touting them as breakthroughs. They rarely live up to the boasts. Usually the hangup is in commercialization. This particular article claims that commercialization will be straightforward, but that doesn't mean it's true.

I also wonder about two things: speed and stability. One of the articles I looked at said that the NDR was observed when voltage pulses were of order ten microseconds, but not with shorter pulses. That doesn't seem especially fast. Existing transistors can be switched in times as short as a picosecond. The other question is how long the "dangling" bonds, mentioned in the same article, can last. Does oxygen bond to them? If so, exposure to air will cause devices to fail.

I don't normally use my forum, so I'd prefer not to extend this discussion.

Premium Chessgames Member
  johnlspouge: Hi, <al>. Rather than post about

exp( ix ) = cos( x ) + i sin( x )

on Rogoff, where the noise level is unusually high of late, I thought to respond here. I can see two ways of proving Euler's identity. One is the Taylor expansion (through which I discovered and proved the identity myself as a kid); the other is to note that the right side satisfies

f( x ) * f( y ) = f( x + y )

which has the sole (measurable and therefore) continuous solution

f( x ) = exp( cx )

The constant c = i is easy to find.

I believe that a mathematical proof of either solution requires something close to calculus, e.g., the second solution requires properties of continuous functions.

So, I am curious: what elementary solution were you proposing?

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <johnlspouge>: Answer is at your forum.
Premium Chessgames Member

I am sorry, but I cannot help but think this is a subtle "tell" to indicate that you are basically misrepresenting who you are, in order to prank the credulous for amusement.

And the dog avatar is a not-so-subtle tell.

And that any day now you will announce the winner of a $10K prize for some person on who proved all of this speculation of mine to be correct.

But I could be wrong, and the link is for the purpose of explaining your avatar.

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <thegoodanarchist: I cannot help but think this is a subtle "tell" to indicate that you are basically misrepresenting who you are, in order to prank the credulous for amusement.> A plausible guess, but wrong. The only valid conclusion you can infer from that cartoon is that I prefer not to disclose my identity.

I happen to like golden retrievers. My family used to have three of them. (So every night was a three-dog night)

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Daily puzzles, news, and more!
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 user 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.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:

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