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

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum
twinlark
Member since Nov-17-05
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My wrap of our Chessgames Challenge: The World vs A Nickel, 2006 against ICCF Grandmaster Arno Nickel is at User: World Team Tribute.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Click here to see twinlark's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   twinlark has kibitzed 17046 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Apr-22-15 Nigel Short (replies)
 
twinlark: (continued) More tellingly, the following article (found at http://www.dnalc.org/view/1084-Is-t... ) describes that hardwiring is more about the basic architecture of the brain rather than its conscious or cognitive faculties: <The question about the brain being hardwired lies ...
 
   Apr-19-15 Bangkok Chess Club Open (2015) (replies)
 
twinlark: Not quite: http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?... That might have been his national rating, but it certainly isn't his FIDE rating.
 
   Apr-14-15 Biographer Bistro (replies)
 
twinlark: Thanks. I need to mention I'm changing my bio writing routine. The main change is that I'll cease the monthly updates of ratings and rankings and replace it with information about players' highest ratings and rankings to date. Current info is naturally available at the click of a ...
 
   Apr-10-15 twinlark chessforum (replies)
 
twinlark: <Boomie> Interesting. I haven't had any response from Prentice, so I assume he's fed up with groupies. Based on his track record, I'll back Prentice's ideas depending upon the extent to which his predictions about Ceres and Pluto/Charon pan out.
 
   Apr-10-15 Natalia Pogonina (replies)
 
twinlark: <cro777> Thanks again. That manual is a doozy to work out.
 
   Mar-23-15 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
 
twinlark: <al wazir> The important fact was that no Western leader contradicted Yats' take on WWII. As for the rest of my post being tripe, put your money were you mouth is and point out where it's wrong, and stop being so damned precious.
 
   Mar-08-15 Evgeny Najer (replies)
 
twinlark: Congratulations to Najer winning (outright!) one of the toughest and most competitive events on the calendar. Extremely well done. Hope he fares better in the World Cup than the last time.
 
   Mar-06-15 Abdel Irada chessforum (replies)
 
...
 
   Mar-04-15 Ilia Iljiushenok (replies)
 
twinlark: Iljiushenok is, as of round 8, within the qualifying group of 23. It's interesting to note his playing history. He went from 2112-2426 in a couple of years ending 2009 without gaining an IM (or any other) title, and has basically remained in the low 2400s ever since. ...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 240 OF 240 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Mar-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <If he feels offended by my posts, he will let me know.> Not at all <boomie>. I enjoy discussing even politics with you. I know there's nothing personal about it, and we are both outsiders to Russian politics (I am presuming that you are American).

<The issue we have been discussing is Putin. I don't know what connection Kasparov's party line has here. His opinion of Putin is what I support.>

In real politics and political campaigns, opposing sides almost always smear each other, or at least try their best to make things difficult for their opponents. Kasparov and any Russian opposition leader will naturally be expected to play up to any bad accusation against Putin. Since MSM outlets are doing so nearly daily, then it's not surprising if GKK would play up to MSM. Politics goes to the personal level.

More important to me is the party line. What does the political party want? Politics goes to the state level.

Another way of putting it is:

I would support a party whose party line I agree with strongly even if I personally do not like some of the people or their personal habits in that party. I may like a person on a personal level, but I would not support him if his party line from my perspective is bad.

Here is a hypothetical example. I have an imaginary childhood friend of upright morals and an outstandingly productive life. He enters into politics joining a party that advocates fining elementary school students if ever they use a language other than the one deemed by the central government as the only official one. I would not hesitate to denounce such a policy, I definitely would not vote for my own friend, and I would tell others not to vote for him.

Mar-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Now if you look at Putin's political line, it's pretty consistent. He has always advocated a stronger Russia. Moreover, in the pursuit of this vision, he doesn't seem to be for sale. He could have just cooperated with the Yeltsin clique that pushed him into power, and the oligarchs that exerted power in post-cold War Russia, and Putin would have guaranteed himself a safe source of wealth from the kickbacks he would have received, and still remained President with the support of such groups. A wealthy but willing puppet. Instead, he took what I see as a calculated risk and fought to kick them out from power; and from his words and behavior it seems that his main motivation is that they were doing harm to the Russian economy and people. Doing harm to the Russian people seems to be a Putin red line, if he perceives anything like that, he acts against it. Very consistent all throughout his career.

I have even predicted to myself correctly at just how Putin will act at times, just based on this hypothetical red line. I thought for instance that Putin will start assassinating Caucasus Wahhabis, who he obviously thinks are a danger to Russia, and he did. I predict he will continue doing so.

In the case of the Syrian conflict, Putin (and the Chinese leadership) has repeatedly vetoed any resolution by the UN Security council that might justify an invasion of Syria ala Libya. I though he would do so and continue to do so. Recently Russia (and China) vetoed another resolution against Syria. Russia has a naval base in Syria, it's only military presence in the Mediterranean, aside from historic friendly ties to Syria dating more than a hundred years. (I have read for example that only Syria among Arab countries accepted Russian Orthodox missionaries way back in the Ottoman era. If true, the ties between Russia and Syria are older than the Cold war.)

I predicted to myself that he might openly strengthen the Russian military in response and warning to NATO encroachment to Russia's borders. I have recently read that Putin is upgrading Russia's military equipment by 2020, and quadrupling her airborne military service. MSM will expectedly slant this to accuse Putin of expansionist aims, while completely ignoring NATO expansion right to the borders of Russia (typical example of slanted journalism).

I thought that Putin might facilitate Crimea's reunification with Russia (something that MSM slants as annexation implying that it was forced and illegal), and he did. A hostile Kiev that would allow NATO to potentially take over Russia's ancient Black Sea Fleet naval base for Putin is a clear and present danger; and a person such as he would be expected to stop such a potential from ever happening. He did.

Putin on the other hand does not see Ukraine per se as danger. It's the Kiev leadership that is. He seems to regard ordinary Ukrainians as fraternal Slavs. That's precisely why he has not accepted Donsbass' overtures for reunification. For Putin a neutral or friendly Ukraine is far more beneficial to Russia than a permanently hostile one. If Russian friendly Donbass remains intact with Ukraine, it acts as a balance to a hostile Kiev administration. There is still hope for an over-all neutral or friendly Ukraine. I have posted on this above.

This could still change. The assumption is that Donbass as a society is intact. If Kiev tries a massive ethnic cleansing, Donbass society ceases to be intact. Putin will see forces hostile to Russia push further east. A danger. He will also see the slaughter of tens of thousands of Russian ethnic people in Ukraine, something that to a man of Putin's mentality is psychologically intolerable. I predict he will 'accept' the Donbass application for reunification, and enforce it with Russian troops.

Putin is quite a predictable fellow. Look at any big political-economic issue presented to Russia. Look at the possible solutions. Putin will invariably choose the one that is most beneficial to Russia.

Mar-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <heuristic: <msm> free press means freedom from _government_ censorship. that's an important nuance overlooked in your closing denunciation. (which was a weak sidebar to an otherwise thoughtful presentation)>

I thought that press freedom is not only confined to freedom from government censorship.

In any case, let us assume the press freedom means only freedom from government censorship.

Suppose the government via its intel agencies secretly pays off the owners of an MSM company. That MSM company then prints only whatever the government approves.

I would opine that it's still government censorship, notwithstanding its indirect reinforcement.

Mar-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Boomie: The assault of Kasparov occurred at a courtroom at the Pussy Riot trial, not at a protest.>

He seemed to have been with a group of people protesting the trial. I thought it was a protest demonstration of sorts. As I have mentioned, protesters run the risk of getting manhandled or beaten by the police in such activities. It happens here and it happens in the USA. It's not as if Putin personally ordered it. Likewise Obama or one of his high officials don't; personally order such police violence in the US. Perhaps the police had orders to break up any conglomerating group outside the courthouse. The simplest explanation is that the police just get carried away. Happens here and in the US, and anywhere all the time.

Mar-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Perhaps you think it was just a coincidence that no large hall could be found in a city of 12 million. It seems clear to me that the government put pressure to thwart Kasparov's candidacy.>

<On 12 December 2007, Kasparov announced that he had to withdraw his presidential candidacy due to inability to rent a meeting hall where at least 500 of his supporters could assemble to endorse his candidacy, as is legally required. With the deadline expiring on that date, he explained it was impossible for him to run. Kasparov's spokeswoman accused the government of using pressure to deter anyone from renting a hall for the gathering and said that the electoral commission had rejected a proposal that separate smaller gatherings be held at the same time instead of one large gathering at a meeting hall>

This Wikipedia article is based on Kasparov's own words. No other alternative perspective is presented. This makes it biased.

Some apparent facts (that can be gleaned from GKK's own words): It seems that in Russia one must rent a meeting hall that can house more than 500 people in order to run for Presidential Candidacy. Kasparov either did not or could not. He claims he could not because the government electoral commission effectively by omission (declining to enforce their own legal requirement of a 500 man meeting hall) barred him.

My thoughts: If I were in the electoral commission, I would uphold the old guidelines. You just can't change legal guidelines in the middle of an election campaign without incurring political repercussions. Other candidates will begin wondering, or worse complaining, why the sudden change?

Further thoughts: The simplest explanation is that Kasparov for any number of reasons chose not to rent such a meeting hall, as stipulated by the electoral commission. Then in a typical politician's move, he blames the electoral commission not himself. I do not know what his reasons are, but I can hypothesize. One, he may simply have lacked money to rent a 500 man meeting hall. Two, he may have had trouble looking for at least 500 hundred people who would certainly attend. Three, he knew he could not win the election anyway, and sought a reason justifiable to his supporters to quit.

Mar-24-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>

Thanks for your considered responses.

I guess that my interventions may irk you to some extent, as I know you are more than capable of defending your own ideas, and always with impeccable manners and grace. But I'm becoming somewhat crabby in my old age, and I felt the need remind an otherwise excellent interlocutor that intellectual laziness wasn't going to go unnoticed.

I'm limiting my time here at CG.com, as RL issues are becoming increasing intrusive and my own participation increasingly irrelevant. I'm a crap chess player and find that I'm having less desire to argue matters not related to chess, which no longer leaves me much I want to say.

I will however be leaving my forum open as long as I renew my premium membership, and will check in regularly. I'll always answer any posts you address to me.

Mar-24-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <I guess that my interventions may irk you to some extent>

Not at all!

In fact I am always looking forward to you joining in discussions.

<my own participation increasingly irrelevant>

I completely disagree.

I do hope you continue actively writing.

Mar-24-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_c...

What are your thoughts on the <Toba catastrophe>?

There are two main aspects to this theory.

One. The present Homo sapiens world population went through a population bottleneck in the past.

Two. The Toba catastrophe is the cause of this bottleneck.

Mar-24-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: If you are wondering why I don't join in the Roggof page discussions, it's because I lack the time and focus to do so. I will end up leaving my discussions incomplete all the time. There's just too many people and too many discussion threads going on all the time. I can't keep track of them all. However please feel free to quote me, or invite people to discuss thing here in your forum with me. (If you feel this is constructive.)
Mar-24-15  Boomie: <visayanbraindoctor: In real politics and political campaigns, opposing sides almost always smear each other...>

Another reason everybody hates politics. There doesn't appear to be any provable resources for Putin. We have plausible theories but that's just about it.

<Now if you look at Putin's political line, it's pretty consistent. He has always advocated a stronger Russia.>

This does seem to a reasonable explanation of his behavior.

<I thought that Putin might facilitate Crimea's reunification with Russia (something that MSM slants as annexation implying that it was forced and illegal), and he did.>

The Crimea has been a part of the Ukraine officially since 1954 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_t...).

The annexation of the Crimea was in violation of the Budapest Memorandum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...), which Russia signed. The Russian military played a major role in the takeover. The occupation of the Crimea makes Russia stronger. But it has to concern the other former Soviet republics. How long before the Russians grab some of their territory?

<visayanbraindoctor: <Boomie: The assault of Kasparov occurred at a courtroom at the Pussy Riot trial, not at a protest.>

He seemed to have been with a group of people protesting the trial.>

The story is Kasparov was outside the courtroom being interviewed by a radio station when he was arrested for...what? Yes, chaos can create appalling behavior by the police. But the arrest of a celebrity is not a random act. Kasparov was targeted. Surely you don't think this decision was taken by some beat cop?

Mar-24-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <The story is Kasparov was outside the courtroom being interviewed by a radio station when he was arrested for...what?>

The topic was the manhandling of Kasparov which you thought was an order that came from Putin. I replied no, Putin probably was not involved, the police got carried away. There is no evidence at all that Putin or one of his high official personally ordered GKK to be manhandled.

<chaos can create appalling behavior by the police>

If you are indicating that you can see no evidence that Putin issued orders to manhandle GKK, and you see my point that in general police manhandling protesters all the time all over the world is a common phenomenon not necessarily the doing of the chief executive or another high official of a country. That's good. We can leave this issue behind, and go to others. Such as why Kasparov was arrested and temporarily detained. You introduced this topic with:

<the arrest of a celebrity is not a random act. Kasparov was targeted. Surely you don't think this decision was taken by some beat cop?>

There is no evidence for Kasparov being specifically targeted. The simplest explanation for the arrest and temporary detention of GKK is that the Russian police had general orders to clear the front of the courthouse of public protesters. GKK happened to be in this group of people.

But you are now saying GKK was not protesting? I disagree. AFAIK he was protesting the way the government was handling Pussy Riot. In front of the courthouse and reporters, accompanied by like-minded fellows. It's not as if he went there to talk about the weather. His intention was to protest.

I am assuming that there was an order. Police don't just go to a certain place and remove people spontaneously from the street. The question is who issued the order? I don't know. Maybe you have sources that do. Perhaps it was the court itself or the local city government. Probably not the Federal government, but it's still a possibility.

Did whoever send the police there specifically target GKK? IMO no. The police would have forcibly removed anyone there, not just GKK. It's not as if his celebrity status makes him immune to police action.

Another question. Was the police action legal? My answer would be: whatever governmental body was that ordered the police action obviously thought it was a legal order.

<The Crimea has been a part of the Ukraine officially since 1954...

The annexation of the Crimea was in violation of the Budapest Memorandum which Russia signed.>

Before we go into this sticky topic, I would request you to read all the messages <twinlark> and I have posted above on Ukraine and Crimea and Russia, and think through them. You have made two statements from one perspective. I am assuming you know little of the other side.

Additional info. You might be interested to know that half of the world's countries may have begun as secessionist movements. Including your own if you are American. Secession and Independence are two faces of the same coin. What history books calls a movement depends on how the coin landed. This is the general rule: If the movement fails, the coin has effectively landed tails up, and books record it as a failed secessionist movement. If the movement succeeds, the coin has effectively landed heads up, and books record it as an Independence movement.

This is a very sticky matter if you are going into this discussion. I would not discuss this with you if you haven't read the said posts of <twinlark> and I above, because I could end up wasting a lot of my time rehashing the contents of those posts. Unfortunately, I don't have much leisure time.

Mar-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  heuristic: <my own participation increasingly irrelevant> if you find an outlet/forum when you write down your observations; please identify it. your writing is quite serious and is worth reading.
Mar-25-15  Boomie: <visayanbraindoctor: Before we go into this sticky topic, I would request you to read all the messages <twinlark> and I have posted above on Ukraine and Crimea and Russia, and think through them.>

I guess I'm not interested enough in this topic to go fishing through posts. There doesn't appear to be any definitive sources so anything we say here is speculation. And I'm not really that interested in politics. So I will wait for another topic before jumping in again.

Thanks for the discussion.

Mar-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>

<What are your thoughts on the <Toba catastrophe>?>

It's interesting. I hadn't actually heard about it before, although I was aware of the genetic pinches (better word that "bottlenecks" IMO) experienced by humans and cheetahs, hence the relative homogenity of their respective genomes. I hadn't thought they were connected by a single event.

At first blush, it seems plausible, although I notice there are some significant objections and uncertainties in the data. One aspect of this that interests me is that if the Toba catastrophe caused genetic pinches of the nature described in the wiki article, did it also cause a minor extinction event?

It would seem to follow that that was possible, although the survival of the apex predators does suggest that the lower and more prolific part of the food chain was less affected, at least in terms of a possible genetic pinch.

I'll get back to you in a few days once I've learned more. I might even get out to the National Library on this one. In any case, I can see whence the modern fetish with super-volcanos originated.

As an afternote, the term "Toba Catastrophe" had me thinking about the number of pivotal catastrophes that have affected the history of the Earth and the solar system, not the least being the Chixculub Event 65my ago.

Australian geologists from my home town have discovered a huge double impact crater in central Australia of an asteroid that broke into two pieces before impact. It'll probably be labeled the Warburton Impact/Event, as it was discovered in the Warburton Basin: http://www.sci-news.com/geology/sci..., although they can't seem to work out with any precision when it actually occurred (450my ago 150my). It seems it's the largest impact zone yet found on the planet.

Fred Hoyle sneeringly labeled the Big Bang, and the name stuck. I thought retaining the name - which sucks and is misleading - was more than a little disrespectful of the great scientist, and it's not like the BBT is a water tight theory.

Maybe a better name might have been the Original Catastrophe, or the Origin Catastrophe, or even stuff like the First Event. The destruction of the Void was a big deal, or to put tongue firmly in cheek:

"In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded."

Mar-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <heuristic>

Thanks, but anything I write will most likely be here. If that changes I'll let you know.

Mar-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <A 400 km-wide (250 mile-wide) impact basin>

That's stunning!

<There are two huge deep domes in the crust, formed by the Earth’s crust rebounding after the huge impacts, and bringing up rock from the mantle below>

The impact must have broken open the Earth's crust temporarily.

I speculate it occurred in the more distant past, before the Cambrian. Such an impact would have wiped out most of the multicellular eukaryote lifeforms of the Earth, I suspect, and it would show up in the fossil record as a massive extinction event.

If it occurred during pre-Cambrian times, it would have affected fewer multicellular Eukaryota.

One celled lifeforms in terms of extinction would not be much affected though. Bacteria would not even notice it much, except those in the immediate vicinity.

Going back to the hypothetical human genetic pinch, I was under the impression at first that human races evolved a long long time ago, given the obvious morphological differences. Not skin color because that can change in just a few generations, but in the bony structure. It's pretty much clear to any one with eyes that east Asians have a more 'petite' slender skeleton than Indo Europeans or Africans.

An interesting anecdote from my old master. He was trained in the US in Neurosurgery, and had operated on African Americans there. While we were perforating a thick portion of the skull of a patient in the OR, he remarked that negro American skulls were very thick. He said this in two other occasions at least. (In the Philippines, we usually use the Spanish word <negro> for sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants in general.)

If the population pinch theory is correct, then it indicates that evolution can work much faster than I thought on Homo sapiens. In just about 60,000 years, noticeable differences in the skeletal structure have evolved in populations in the East.

Mar-29-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>

<I speculate it occurred in the more distant past, before the Cambrian. Such an impact would have wiped out most of the multicellular eukaryote lifeforms of the Earth, I suspect, and it would show up in the fossil record as a massive extinction event.

If it occurred during pre-Cambrian times, it would have affected fewer multicellular Eukaryota.>

Yes, something that size would have had a profound impact on the animals that evolved during the Cambrian explosion, so it seems to be a reasonable supposition that the impact would have been before 550 million years ago. Underscoring this is that Wiki's list of major extinction events shows nothing before the Cambrian apart from the Great Oxygenation Event a few billion years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extin...

Events such as asteroid impacts were commonplace during the first 500 million years of Earth's existence (aka the Great Bombardment), and even if there was a sudden abatement around 4 billion years ago due to the reconfiguration of the orbital resonance between Jupiter and Saturn, there would still be enough residue flying around the inner solar system for significant events to occur for a very long time afterwards.

Many would have still happened after unicellular life formed, some after multi-celled eukaryotes evolved and a few after the Cambrian explosion. As you say the fossil record would probably be silent on pre-Cambrian events vis a vis the effect on life during the pre-Cambrian.

<If the population pinch theory is correct, then it indicates that evolution can work much faster than I thought on Homo sapiens. In just about 60,000 years, noticeable differences in the skeletal structure have evolved in populations in the East.>

It makes sense. Mitochondrial DNA analysis indicates that Aborigines separated from the rest of the human population between 60,000 and 75,000 years ago, which in conjunction with archaeological evidence, is a reasonable era in which to place the migration of Aborigines' ancestors to the Australian continent (which broadly coincides with the Toba Catastrophe; I wonder if mtDNA can show whether the genetic pinch occurred to Aborigines?, or whether they arrived safely before that event?)

That has been a sufficiently long period for the relatively distinct morphology of Aborigines to develop. Not only that, but the morphological differences between New Guineans and Australians has also become pronounced since the land bridge between the two islands was submerged about 10,000 years ago.

These are relatively minor changes. The ones noted by your mentor are probably less minor, but are still morphological changes that require no more than a few genes to activate. The internal body plans of earth's organisms doesn't seem to have changed in half a billion years.

As one biologist stated, internal body plans are governed by hundreds of genes and can't exist in intermediate stages like external shapes. Hence it's an either/or situation for such changes: they are not gradual. The analogy is that the probability of a 1000 dice coming up all sixes is about a quintillion to one, whereas the chances of sixes up with say a dozen or two dice is far greater and in fact likely in due course.

As you've indicated, physical evolution in humans is likely to be slower than in faster breeding animals, so I assume your surprise at your mentor's findings are based around that. I would surmise that thicker skulls would be a relatively simple change, although what the selection pressure would have been is interesting to surmise.

I believe Innuit have only inhabited the far north for a millennium or so, yet they have had time to evolve more blood vessels in their hands to cope with the cold, although in this case the selection pressure is seemingly obvious.

Perhaps the answer lies in epigenetics, which supposes that <physiological trait variations are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence; epigenetics describes the study of dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell.>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epige...

The active interaction between the organism and the environment can actually speed up evolution and allow adaptation at a faster rate than random selection allows. Darwinism tinged with Lamarckism.

Just a thought.

Apr-05-15  Boomie: ->

Re: Human population bottleneck

There doesn't seem to be any consensus concerning the cause of human genetic homogeneity. Although the Toba theory is compelling, the dates don't exactly line up with various genetic convergences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_c...

Still, the Toba eruption was so enormous that it must have had some effect at least on the Asian populations. However, they have found that a culture in India was not wiped out by the eruption as their tools remained unchanged before and after the ash layer. This would seem to indicate that the "genetic bottleneck" happened before the Toba event.

Apr-05-15  Boomie: <visayanbraindoctor: he remarked that negro American skulls were very thick...>

Most of the slaves taken to the Americas came from West Africa. Virtually all possible anatomies are represented in Africa at large. Apparently the vagaries of the slave trade selected from some stockier tribes.

Apr-05-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <Boomie>

<Apparently the vagaries of the slave trade selected from some stockier tribes.>

The question of why that morphology still remains to be answered, however.

Apr-05-15  Boomie: <twinlark: The question of why that morphology still remains to be answered, however.>

I could speculate a few reasons beyond that body type being prevalent in West Africa. Perhaps the robust types were favored for the strength and endurance required to survive the ocean trip. Maybe certain types fetched higher prices. I'm not sure where to look for documentation on this however. Plus it's rather depressing to think about it.

It just occurred to me that your question might be about how certain anatomies were selected in Africa. With so much time for mixing, I don't see how we could ever determine where each type started. Certain varieties, such as the robust type, are well suited for just about any environment. Others, such as the gracile types, seem adapted to more specific environments.

Apr-08-15  Boomie: More grist for the moon formation mill:

http://news.yahoo.com/moon-formed-v...

Apr-10-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <Boomie>

Interesting. I haven't had any response from Prentice, so I assume he's fed up with groupies.

Based on his track record, I'll back Prentice's ideas depending upon the extent to which his predictions about Ceres and Pluto/Charon pan out.

Apr-14-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  WinKing: Hi <twinlark>. <lostemperor> will hold his prediction contest for the Gashimov Memorial if enough members sign up. Just wanted to let you know. :)
Apr-15-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: ** Gashimov Memorial Moves Prediction Contest **

Conducted by the Legendary <chessmoron> and hosted at Graceland, home of Elvis. Click on Elvis for details.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 240)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 240 OF 240 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Take the Premium Membership Tour
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 users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
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 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies