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

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

al wazir
Member since Feb-20-05 · Last seen Sep-21-17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...
>> Click here to see al wazir's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   al wazir has kibitzed 20553 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Sep-21-17 Von Der Lasa vs Staunton, 1853 (replies)
 
al wazir: Black to play, but white won the game. Hmmm. I guess it you found any line but the one Staunton played, you solved it. I did.
 
   Sep-20-17 Louis Stumpers (replies)
 
al wazir: <john barleycorn>: I meant the proposition about how smart you are. You haven't proved it. I posted a *complete proof* that there are no nontrivial integer solutions of a^3 + b^3 = 2c^3. You haven't. QED.
 
   Sep-20-17 Kenneth S Rogoff (replies)
 
al wazir: <Bobsterman3000: A lot of illegal workers get paid with a check from petty cash or some other account, rather than payroll. No social security number is involved.> True, but that's why I specified "a real job" and "get paid in the normal way." Certainly some illegals have ...
 
   Sep-20-17 A Muzychuk vs S Brunello, 2014 (replies)
 
al wazir: <patzer2: Easy enough for today's Wednesday puzzle solution is 29. Nc6>. That is decidedly not enough. After 29...Qe8, white has to make a second key move, 30. Qh3+, and then after 30...Be6 a third one, 31. Rd8+, followed by 32. Qxe6+ and 33. Qxg8+. To solve the puzzle you ...
 
   Sep-17-17 F Zita vs Taimanov, 1950 (replies)
 
al wazir: Surely 23...dxe5 is a faster win. If, e.g., 24. Qxc8 (24. Qd2 Rd3), then 24...Bxc8 25. Rxd5 (25. Rd2 Qxg3+ 26. Kf1 Ba6+ 27. Kg1 Rf1#) Qxd3+ 26. Kf1 Re1+ 27. Rxe1 Qf2#.
 
   Sep-16-17 A Montalvo vs Blatny, 1997 (replies)
 
al wazir: <Whitehat1963: Why resign? What's the finish?> My question too. After 19...Rc2, the only move I considered was 20. Qa3. I figured that the continuation would be 20...Rxf2 21. Bxe2 Nxe2+, but I didn't have a plan after that. Maybe 20...Nxe2+ is bright. After 21. Bxe2 Rxe2 22. ...
 
   Sep-15-17 al wazir chessforum
 
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
 
   Sep-15-17 Morozevich vs E Alekseev, 2004 (replies)
 
al wazir: I don't understand why black played 26...Bf7 instead of 26...Rh8.
 
   Sep-15-17 NN vs R Crepeaux, 1923 (replies)
 
al wazir: Easy-peasy: 11...Ng4. Regardless of which ♘ white captures, black will play 12...Qxh3#. If 12. Re1, then 12...Qxh2+ 13. Kf1 Ng3#. If 12. h3, then 12...Bh2+ 13. Kh1 Ng3#.
 
   Sep-14-17 Kibitzer's Café (replies)
 
al wazir: Here's another trivia question in the entertainment category: Has any MLB team ever fielded an all-Latino lineup? (The Cleveland Indians are close to it. Maybe that's why they're winning. If they lose they get deported.)
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

The Joy of LEX

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-27-10  Shams: "No."

Wait, let me put a finer point on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbR...

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.

May-28-10
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

May-28-10
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.

May-28-10
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."
May-28-10
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.
May-29-10
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.

May-30-10
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...

May-31-10
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.")

May-31-10
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).

Jun-01-10
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!''
Jan-05-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gregor Samsa Mendel: You seem to know something about physics. Is this a major deal?

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_rele...

Jan-30-17
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.

Mar-12-17
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?

Mar-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <johnlspouge>: Answer is at your forum.
Sep-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_th...

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 cg.com 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.

Sep-15-17
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>

Bobby Fischer Tribute Shirt
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 Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
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 | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC