< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 225 OF 225 ·
|Jun-02-14|| ||twinlark: <The Last Straw>
There is this: Biographer Bistro
Not a real substitute for all the information about one player, however.
|Jun-04-14|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Doggimus>
Very nice job, and timely too: Dragoljub Velimirovic.
You have them really well organized these days. You can either read the whole bio, or use the handy headlines to navigate to what you might be most interested in.
He has the same nickname as <Bruce Springsteen> eh?
I didn't know his mother was a chess champion! Why isn't she in our database? You know I bet she is in out database under her maiden name. I wonder how we could find out her maiden name? It's not in the <Wiki> article either, which of course you know.
But did you know that a GOBBLE SEARCH ranks your bio ahead of the <Wiki> page in the search result? YOU ARE NUMBER ONE and I can prove it too:
<Dragoljub+Velimirovic+chess> puts you on top, where you belong: https://www.google.com/search?q=Dra...
I do have a suggestion-
I would re-write this
<Velimirovićís aggressive Attack variation of the Sicilian Defence>
so that it actually refers to the <Velimirović Attack>. This is the one thing most chess fans know about him, so I think it should be referred to as such. The way you have it now, that's a very long "noun phrase" serving as the subject of a sentence- and the actual name of the opening gets a little lost in it.
Also, I think the "identifying move" in this opening is usually thought of as the "g4" thrust at the end of
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qe2 a6 9. O-O-O Qc7 10. Bb3 O-O 11. g4
I could be wrong about this.
I'm far from an expert in the confusing field of "variation names."
Anyways it's a great job mate. I enjoyed learning about a player I knew next to nothing about before.
|Jun-04-14|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Doggimus, Tim>
Interesting discussion on which posts to "leave" and which should be "deleted"!
Especially given two facts:
<Doggimus> You have a habit of deleting your own posts, especially from your forum. Usually these posts are informative and apt, often useful and funny too. I know I've asked you about this before, but I still don't really understand why you do it. It's up to you of course.
<Tim> Do you remember years ago when you used to routinely delete your entire forum?
AHHH I remember that like it was yesterday, complaining about that.
|Jun-04-14|| ||jessicafischerqueen: |
I love you guys.
|Jun-04-14|| ||twinlark: <jessica>
Thanks for the lovely posts. I've rephrased the offending noun clause. I wanted to avoid saying Velimirović twice in three words, but on reflection it doesn't hurt too much. Dragoljub Velimirovic
<Also, I think the "identifying move" in this opening is usually thought of as the "g4" thrust at the end of 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qe2 a6 9. O-O-O Qc7 10. Bb3 O-O 11. g4 >
I'm simply unsure. What I saw was that it was identified as <"1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qe2 with a view to 9.0-0-0">. I assume that Black's 8th move makes a significant difference here, and that further moves were therefore even more contingent.
I thought I was fudging the issue a bit anyway.
Maybe an expert on the this opening could offer some advice.
<I love you guys.>
Here's looking at you, kid.
|Jun-04-14|| ||WCC Editing Project: <Doggimus>
I've changed clothes! I thought this outfit might be more fetching.
I just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm in process of rewriting the Vasily Smyslov and Mikhail Tal bios.
I'm using "dummy" games collections to stash the research.
Here is an audiovisual aid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDa0...
|Jun-04-14|| ||WCC Editing Project: |
Oh yes and I emailed the <Grand Piano> to make sure he takes a look at your latest merciless sweep across Western Europe: Dragoljub Velimirovic
|Jun-04-14|| ||Domdaniel: <I love you guys>
I, also, um, *like* you guys.
As a male person, I lack Jessica's freedom to throw the 'love' word around, y'know? Especially when talking to Australians.
But cheers, mate. I enjoyed the math stuff too.
|Jun-04-14|| ||twinlark: G'day <Dom>!
Yer pretty fair dinkum yerself, ya know?
|Jun-06-14|| ||Boomie: <Jessie: <Tim> Do you remember years ago when you used to routinely delete your entire forum?>|
Yes, I do recall that sad chapter in my forum administration. Fortunately, I came to my senses. Otherwise I would have lost some of our hilarious discussions.
I was reading The Cirque 2008 and was impressed by the skill of our writing. I feel I have lost a step or two since then. Or I'm not smoking as much boo.
|Jun-06-14|| ||Boomie: <Domdaniel: <I love you guys>>|
I'm a hippie so you can be generous with your hugs without risking bromance. I'm all about peace, love, and the other stuff.
|Jun-06-14|| ||WCC Editing Project: What's all this then?
I was lured to a "second location" by <Tim>!
|Jun-06-14|| ||Boomie: <WCC Editing Project: I was lured to a "second location" by <Tim>!>|
You are toast, sister!
I must say I admire your sartorial splendor with all those curves showing through that flimsy burnouse.
|Jun-06-14|| ||Annie K.: <twinlark> are you still using the netspace address? I have some audio files to send on.|
|Jun-06-14|| ||twinlark: <Annie K.>
Yes, it's working again.
|Jun-07-14|| ||Annie K.: Sent, plz confirm receipt?|
|Jun-07-14|| ||twinlark: Received, thanks.|
|Jun-19-14|| ||OhioChessFan: <Wesley So was the youngest player ever to cross the 2600 rating mark, 9 days short of his 15th birthday, until 2013 when Chinese prodigy Wei Yi achieved the mark while he was still 14. >|
I can't quite explain my objection, but clearly So was still 14 when he reached 2600, so the Yi reference is either redundant or unclear or something or another. If it said ".......Yi achieved the mark while _______ days short of his 15th birthday" or something similar that at least clarified how much younger than 15, it would be okay.
|Jun-20-14|| ||twinlark: <Ohio> Thanks. done.|
|Jul-26-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-...|
I think this is a fascinating solution to the black hole information paradox, and the mathematical infinities (eg, infinite density) in a black hole singularity. There is no real 'black hole'. (Nevertheless I shall continue to use the term for expediency.)
The basic concepts are quite intuitively comprehensible, unlike some quantum phenomena.
1. The quantum nature of reality disallows the permanent existence of points in space-time. Nothing can be compressed to a space smaller than the Planck length. We have already discussed this before, that such an assumption would outright disprove the existence of a single point singularity.
2. In a core collapse supernova, the inner core reaches atomic nucleus density. The strong force takes over to prevent further collapse. Falling inrushing matter finds the inner core too rigid to collapse further. The falling matter then bounces of the inner core, and reverses outwardly to explode in a supernova. It leaves behind the inner core which transforms into a neutron star, with atomic nuclear densities held up by the strong nuclear force.
3. In a more massive star, the strong force cannot hold back the inrushing falling matter. All the falling matter collapses to a volume approaching the Planck length. At this point the quantum nature of space time takes over, preventing further collapse. This quantum 'force' would translate to an uncompressable rigid sphere. When all the infalling matter hits this sphere, of Planck length diameter, it bounces back. We can comprehend this intuitively because it would exactly be the same mechanism by which a rubber ball bounces off the floor, or the way the outer layers of a collapsing star bounces off the inner core and explodes in a supernova.
4. The whole super massive star then explodes out of this Planck-length sphere, in an explosion more energetic than any supernova.
5. Wait a minute. A star takes only seconds to collapse and explode in a supernova. So why are black holes still around for a long time? The answer is they are not... in their time frame. From the collapsing star's perspective, the whole phenomenon of collapse and explosion should take seconds, as with a regular supernova. The catch is that we are looking at the phenomenon from an outsider's point of view. Time dilation kicks in. Recall that a falling object as it approaches the event horizon of a black hole moves slower and slower and seems to freeze in time as it hits the horizon's boundary. The same happens to all the matter in a collapsing star. The resulting black hole seems to last forever. In our time frame that would be billions or trillions of years or even longer. That's almost forever even in the time frame of our Sun, which has a life span of only about 10 billion years before it becomes a white dwarf.
If this theory is correct, it might explain some of the quasar-like massive explosions in distant galaxies. It's as though whole galaxies are exploding. In actuality they might be exploding 'black holes'.
An implication if this theory is correct: our own galaxy's central black hole will eventually also explode in a quasar-like phenomenon. In fact, the central black hole would be in the act of exploding right now. Such a massive explosion would wipe out our galaxy. But thanks to time dilation, that event would be slowed down so much that our galaxy's central black hole explosion is (nearly) frozen in time from our perspective. The end would come in the far future probably at least trillions of years from now in our time frame.
|Jul-27-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Correction. What actually is (nearly) frozen in time is the collapse, not the explosion. From what I understand, a 'black hole' from our point of view is the final stages of a collapsing super-massive star, at the point when an 'event horizon' is formed.|
I have always had difficulty in comprehending the falling astronaut paradox. As the astronaut approaches the event horizon, his movement keeps on slowing down until he freezes like a fly caught in amber when he reaches the event horizon. Classically he freezes forever in time from our outsider's perspective. The paradox then maintains that the astronaut from his perspective continues falling past the event horizon in a normal manner.
The paradox begs the question: What is reality, the astronaut frozen in time or the astronaut in an accelerating fall toward the black hole's singularity? The paradox blithely announces that both are true, just a matter of perspective. I don't get it at all. This is still classical albeit relativistic physics (without quantum smeared-out cat-in-the-box-effects), and I keep thinking, there must therefore be only one reality. Either the astronaut is frozen in time forever at the edge of the black hole, or he is falling down into the black hole.
The theory above 'solves' this paradox conveniently. The only reality is that the astronaut is falling into the 'black hole'. There is no time freeze. It's just that from our point of view, he is falling very very slowly. From his point of view he is falling down normally. Trillions or quadrillions or zintillions of years from now from our perspective, the two time frames will join once again as the 'black hole' explodes.
|Jul-27-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Another implication of the above theory:
If the Universe has enough matter to effect a Big Crunch, the Big Crunch will immediately be followed by a Big Bang. All the matter in our Universe would bounce off the incompressible Planck 'sphere' (with diameter equal to the Planck length 1.616 19997 ◊ 10−35 m) at the end of time, and explode out.
|Jul-28-14|| ||twinlark: Hi <visayanbraindoctor>|
I'm wondering why there would be an inevitable Big Bang after a Big Crunch? The BBT doesn't postulate a prior "Bang and Crunch" to the existing universe as far as I know.
The idea of "bouncing" back off a Planck length object back into expansion is intriguing. Clearly, its no more a bounce than the Bang was an explosion, but is the closest analogous word to describe a process which otherwise lacks plain English descriptors.
I recently read a paper titled <The Inflation Debate> published by Princeton and argued by Paul Steinhardt, who studied that aspect of the BBT for many years. He now seems to think that the inflation theory doesn't hold water. His precis is as follows:
<Inflation was supposed to occur no matter what the initial conditions of the universe were. Further analysis suggests otherwise. Of all the ways the universe could have begun, only a tiny fraction would lead to the uniform, flat state observed today. An overwhelming fraction of these would reach this state without significant inflation; only an infinitesimal fraction would do so by going through a long period of inflation.>
The relevance of this to the scenario you're describing is that if inflation theory is useless in making firm predictions, then cosmologists would be better off returning to the cyclic theory of the universe:
<In the end, the case will be decided by data. The forthcoming
observations of the microwave background radiation will be telling. Experiments to search for a gravitational-wave imprint are
already being conducted on mountaintops, in high-altitude balloons and onboard satellites, and results should emerge within the next two to three years. Detecting a gravitational-wave imprint would support inflation; failure to detect it would be a major setback. For inflation to make sense despite a null result, cosmologists would need to suppose that the inflaton field had a very peculiar potential with just the right shape to suppress gravitational waves, which seems contrived. Many researchers would gravitate to alternatives, like the cyclic universe theory, that naturally predict an unobservably small gravitational-wave signal.>
|Jul-28-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <the cyclic theory of the universe>|
If the whole Universe would collapse and then bounce off a Planck 'sphere' thus expanding again, and then eventually repeat the same collapse and bounce phenomenon, would this not be a 'cyclic theory' of the Universe?
|Jul-28-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Regarding 'inflation', I have never have had a firm grasp on this concept. What would cause the tiny expanding Universe to suddenly accelerate its expansion? In spite of quantum theory muddling cause and effect on the nanoscopic level, I still tend to look for a cause for any effect.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 225 OF 225 ·