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

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum
Jonathan Sarfati
Member since Sep-27-06 · Last seen Dec-10-16
F.M., Ph.D. (physical chemistry), New Zealand Champion 1988, author of six books and co-author of three more. See also bio http://www.creation.com/sarfati.

I was club captain of the Wellington Chess Club in New Zealand and Logan City Chess Club in Queensland, Australia for over a decade each. I admire Capablanca and Karpov for the clarity and effectiveness of their styles.

I recognize only the "lineal" world champions as real ones, I.e. those who won their titles by winning a match with the incumbent where available, not the FIDE ones. This means Steinitz to Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Carlsen.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   Jonathan Sarfati has kibitzed 1252 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Dec-10-16 twinlark chessforum
 
Jonathan Sarfati: Indeed, it is United *States* not a unitary large state. Until the Civil War, it was always “The United States are …”, but now with the large federal government, it's “The United States is …”. similarly, Matt Ridley recently wrote an interesting article in the Times, ...
 
   Dec-08-16 visayanbraindoctor chessforum (replies)
 
Jonathan Sarfati: So would you always check pupils as a diagnostic for brain injury? I guess an alternative would be needed for that blind patient in March 2015. Had to google GCS to find that means Glasgow Coma Scale.
 
   Dec-06-16 OhioChessFan chessforum (replies)
 
Jonathan Sarfati: However I agree completely with what <Big Pawn> wrote under "<entertainment and emotions>".
 
   Dec-03-16 Taimanov vs Bronstein, 1958
 
Jonathan Sarfati: Definitely one that got away though. White should have won after winning that vital b-pawn for nothing.
 
   Dec-03-16 Reshevsky vs Bronstein, 1953
 
Jonathan Sarfati: Opposite-coloured Bs with Qs on is a Bronstein speciality. Compare Taimanov vs Bronstein, 1975
 
   Dec-03-16 Taimanov vs Bronstein, 1975
 
Jonathan Sarfati: Opposite-coloured Bs with Qs on is a Bronstein speciality. Compare Reshevsky vs Bronstein, 1953
 
   Dec-03-16 Taimanov vs Geller, 1953
 
Jonathan Sarfati: Taimanov excels in one of his specialities: the KID with white. He defeated KID afficionado Geller by blocking the centre, taking total control of an open file (the b-file)—taking control of an open file features in some of this best games, e.g. Stahlberg vs Taimanov, 1953 ...
 
   Dec-03-16 Taimanov vs Bronstein, 1952
 
Jonathan Sarfati: Taimanov was very strong in the white side of the KID, with his Q-side attacks. Taimanov even had Fischer in trouble when he had white in the King's Indian, despite eventual losses. Back in 1946, Bronstein had revitalized the KID for black in stunning victories Pachman vs ...
 
   Dec-03-16 Unzicker vs Taimanov, 1952
 
Jonathan Sarfati: A great demonstration of the dynamism of the ...e5 Sicilian despite the backward Pd6. Taimanov played his Rs to the c-file, kept an eye on the ‘weak’ d5 square, took control over all the other central squares then finally a decisive break with 24... d5. In the final ...
 
   Dec-03-16 Taimanov vs Lisitsin, 1949
 
Jonathan Sarfati: A collection of Taimanov's best games would be incomplete without his famous victory as black against the reigning world champion at the time, Anatoly Karpov, on the black side of a Sicilian. Again it was an ...e5 version, and it seems as if Karpov was getting one of his ...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-23-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <Richard Taylor>: well done. Yes, Solo is a good guy too. Ben Hague came after I left NZ so I've never met him, or Kulaskho for that matter. Watson has made a welcome return to chess after many years away, it seems.
Jul-24-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Jonathan Safarti> Watson has been playing consistently (he plays most weeks at the ACC) but plays in only a few tournaments as he mows lawns etc He is one of NZ's best players. He is a very good player. Kulashko has come back the last couple of years to our club. And Ben Hague is a new player who does well in the Grand Prix tournaments. He is still relatively young and is very good. Croad possibly should have done better and Smith played below his capacity.

Overall it was a good tournament though. I was not sure if I was going to play at all. But I forgot to withdraw and it was better than I thought it would be. Obviously I was annoyed at losing the last game but for my age it was a good challenge! But my rating suffers (well the FIDE rating at least) as I am sure my opponent was closer to my rating than her nominal 1649. However, that is the way of things.

I was lucky against Mukkattu who is quite good but doesn't study perhaps as much as he might...algthough given his result he seems to have put some work into this one.

Aug-11-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <Richard Taylor>, seems like a very strong club you're in, with Olypmians Kulashko and Hague, as well as other leading players Steadman and Watson.
Aug-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: Yes. Probably the strongest OTB is Ben Hague who is sharp and most consistent. He won the Waitakere with 6/6 and his per rating was 2900 but that said of course the isn't that. He is a nice fellow, quiet and plays active chess. I've played him twice. He beat me in both games but they were quite interesting struggles.

Kulashko I knew about. He is doing reasonably well but he has declined due perhaps to "rust" but he is good of course. I only played him once in a Rapid (or was it Blitz? Forget.) I played a weak move and it was all over!

I have beaten Watson twice, but he is very strong. My view is that he is much stronger than his results although I think Solomon, who has beaten him at least twice at the George, is obviously better...but Bruce is still up there and possibly better overall than Steadman.

Steadman is erratic and loves to attack a little like myself. I have beaten him twice also and played him over the years...but like Watson he beat me more times than I have him.

But some of the younger players are very good such as Daniel Gong and Alphaeus Ang who is a kind of prodigy of things and very sharp. He plays a lot of chess tournaments all over the world and seems fascinated by the game, and he is very good. Gino Thornton is there but he is also rather erratic. Gordon Morrell I drew with not too long ago, and was pleased to hold that game.

But overall my chess is declining so I am thinking of stopping official chess and just studying games of masters etc as my son and I do when we go for walks or for a coffee etc He's not good at chess but he is interested in the game likes to see what happens.

I also like trying to calculate problems (endings, combinations or composed studies etc of various kinds) when I have the time.

Cheers!

Nov-24-16  Jay60: Not sure if you make the creationist argument that life is too complex to have happened without a Creator.

It appears to be a contradiction to invoke the existence of something even more complex (the Creator) to explain the existence of life.

Nov-26-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <Jay60:> Seriously? Please don't post here unless you check whether I have already answered your claims. As it happens, I dealt with this puerile Dawkinsian claim in "The old ‘Who created God?’ canard revisited: Who designed the Designer?" http://creation.com/who-designed-th...
Nov-29-16  Jay60: Chill!

Lots of ad hominem attacks, always an indicator of lack of confidence in arguments.

Anyway, though you have a PhD in Chemistry, I don't think you have ever considered the number of galaxies in the universe, the number of stars per galaxy, the number of planets per star, the number of carbon atoms per planet, the number of incidences of chemical reactions per carbon atom etc. etc. before coming up with the claim that random reactions could have produced life.

Nov-29-16  Jay60: The basic contradiction about the article you cited is:

1) Based on a sort of scientific analysis, you reject the idea that random events could have produced something as complex as life.

2) For the existence of God, you however reject scientific analysis.

3) You are reduced to using scientific analysis (even though your use of it is probably wrong) when you like it, and discarding it when you don't.

Nov-29-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Jay60: Chill!

Lots of ad hominem attacks, always an indicator of lack of confidence in arguments.>

While you're checking if claims have been answered. You may want to look up the definition of:

<Lots of ad hominem attacks>

Unless you just lack confidence.

Nov-29-16  Jay60: <diceman> I am pretty sure I know the meaning of words and phrases I use. However your post makes no sense.
Nov-30-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Jay60:

However your post makes no sense.>

Thanks for the complement.

Dec-01-16  Jay60: <diceman> The word you are floundering about for is "compliment". To "complement" means to "add to" something.
Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Thoughts:

To <Jonathan Sarfati>, someone can dig through your various writings to find if you've addressed an issue, but that seems a bit much to expect a priori. I suspect I've asked <Ray Keene> questions he's already addressed in his books somewhere and would be surprised to see him react similarly. Your call, but I think you were a bit harsh.

To <Jay60> you misused the term ad hominem. And what scientific analysis of God would you expect? The proof of God is essentially based on historical and philosophical grounds.

<diceman> yes, it's "compliment".

Dec-01-16  Jay60: <OhioChessFan> I used "ad hominem"as the dictionary defines it "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining". The invective included "puerile" here, and "sounds cute from a 5-year-old in a Sunday school class, but it is ridiculous from grown adults" etc. in the link provided.

As for scientific analysis of God, my point was a bit different. If you look at my earlier post, the point is that (a sort of pseudo) scientific analysis is used to claim that life could not have originated without "intelligent design". However the existence of God is not subject to scientific analysis. This becomes a case of appealing to scientific analysis when it is convenient and ignoring it when it is not.

I said pseudo scientific analysis as the probability of the origin of life through randomness is the the multiple of two numbers, one very very large and the other very very small. The very very large number is the product of the number of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and other atoms in the universe multiplied by the age of the universe, the very very small number is the probability of conditions that these atoms find themselves in situations (rare earths) where they have the opportunity of forming life multiplied by the probability that these atoms interacting without intelligent design would actually end up combining in a way to form life per unit of time.

Any "scientific analysis" which claims to say that the probability of life appearing in universe approaches zero without actually estimating the above numbers is merely "pseudo scientific analysis".

"Historical grounds" is unconvincing to many. We hear of many miracles happening around the world, the face of Mother Mary appearing on rock faces etc. How are any miracles, historical or modern any different?

"Philosophical grounds" are just poor logic. Usually philosophical arguments for God, like most other philosophical (and liberal arts) arguments suffer from the use of imprecise language. Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. What do the following words mean? "being", "perfectly", "beautiful", "contemplating" etc. Appeal is made to our everyday understanding of these words, but that understanding is fuzzy and imprecise, and building on that understanding leads to unsustainable conclusions.

Pedantic arguments by philosophers like Aristotle, Aquinas etc. sound pretty to students and may even convince them, but are not sufficiently accurate to discover the nature of reality.

Having said all this, I would also think that God is very important for a good life. But God has to be based on ideas that are accurate and humanistic. Otherwise, God just becomes a way for the elites to justify and continues systems that oppress the masses and inevitably lead to wars.

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <<diceman>

yes, it's "compliment".OhioChessFan:>

I figured since I was making "no sense"
to <Jay60>, I was God like.

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <Jay: the point is that (a sort of pseudo) scientific analysis is used to claim that life could not have originated without "intelligent design". However the existence of God is not subject to scientific analysis. This becomes a case of appealing to scientific analysis when it is convenient and ignoring it when it is not.>

Not "convenient", but "appropriate".

<Any "scientific analysis" which claims to say that the probability of life appearing in universe approaches zero without actually estimating the above numbers is merely "pseudo scientific analysis".>

I am not persuaded we need parse out DNA numbers to the nth degree to know it ain't gonna happen.

<"Historical grounds" is unconvincing to many.>

If I happen to turn bad and commit a crime and the only evidence against me is 100 eyewitnesses, I hope to get a jury full of people who share that opinion.

< We hear of many miracles happening around the world, the face of Mother Mary appearing on rock faces etc. How are any miracles, historical or modern any different? >

The resurrection of Jesus is in a different world in that regard, in historicity, in the validity of the eyewitnesses, in the eyewitnesses willingness to die for what they claim, in the impossible task of suggesting an alternative explanation. I abhor the silly claims often proposed as miracles, faces in toast or on land formations or lights in the sky or what have you, and wish my side would stop them.

<"Philosophical grounds" are just poor logic. Usually philosophical arguments for God, like most other philosophical (and liberal arts) arguments suffer from the use of imprecise language. Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. What do the following words mean? "being", "perfectly", "beautiful", "contemplating" etc. Appeal is made to our everyday understanding of these words, but that understanding is fuzzy and imprecise, and building on that understanding leads to unsustainable conclusions.>

This isn't definitive enough to respond to, but I think some of the philosophical arguments are lacking, Pascal's Wager drives me crazy it's so weak, but some strike me as extremely strong.

<Pedantic arguments by philosophers like Aristotle, Aquinas etc. sound pretty to students and may even convince them, but are not sufficiently accurate to discover the nature of reality.>

If you want to call it a tie and say "Neither of us can know", fine. The problem is the Science Side with winks and nods and insinuations and implications puts on an act of really knowing their position is right without actually being that definitive. I think it's dishonest, although it works on the average college student.

<Having said all this, I would also think that God is very important for a good life. But God has to be based on ideas that are accurate and humanistic.>

I 100% agree our ideas of God need be accurate. I'm not sure what you mean by humanistic.

< Otherwise, God just becomes a way for the elites to justify and continues systems that oppress the masses and inevitably lead to wars.>

I see a lot of that in the world. False religion abounds.

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <OhioChessFan:> My page, my rules. If someone wants to engage me on my professional activities on a chess site, then the least they could do is study what I've written. The comparison with GM Keene is not quite right, since his books are all about chess, as is this site.
Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <Jay60:>

"Anyway, though you have a PhD in Chemistry, I don't think you have ever considered the number of galaxies in the universe, the number of stars per galaxy, the number of planets per star, the number of carbon atoms per planet, the number of incidences of chemical reactions per carbon atom etc. etc. before coming up with the claim that random reactions could have produced life."

That's exactly the sort of nonsense I won't tolerate on my chess page. As it happens, I've address all that in "Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller–Urey, probability" http://creation.com/answering-anoth...

Dec-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <Jonathan Sarfati> I find some articles on the Creation Ministries website to be interesting and thought-provoking, but I am perplexed by the apparent need to link Christianity with Young-Earth Creationism.

I wonder if you are familiar with the arguments put forward by the contributing Christian scientists on http://biologos.org/ who have no problem reconciling Christianity and Evolution?

May I ask if you have ever found any evidence in your scientific inquiries which appeared to contradict a literal reading of the Old Testament Book of Genesis?

May I also ask your opinion on what you consider to be the most accurate age of the universe? Would you estimate the universe to be only about 6,000 years old or could it be as old as 10,000 to 11,000 years?

Thanking you in advance for your response.

Dec-02-16  Jay60: <OhioChessFan> Thanks for your reply. I am currently traveling and will answer when I have time. I will post my answer to your OhioChessFan page rather than here. Be well.
Dec-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <optimal play> Once again, of course I am familiar with all the old-earth arguments. I wrote a whole book explaining why they are incompatible with Scripture http://creation.com/refuting-compro...

I also wrote a detailed article detailing the problems with theistic evolution http://creation.com/response-to-the...

Some colleagues have addressed BioLogos http://creation.com/biologos

Dec-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <Jay60> That's a better idea. I would prefer that my chess page isn't clogged by debates about my profession.
Dec-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <optimal play:> About the age, see http://creation.com/6000-years and http://creation.com/6000-years-qa
Dec-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <Jonathan Sarfati> Thank you for your response.

As per your request to <Jay60> not to clogg your chess page with debates about your profession, I won't pester you with any further questions.

However, may I suggest, in order to prevent any further unwanted intrusions of this nature, you might like to delete the link in your user profile to creation.com

At least then people won't get the wrong idea that you're open to discussions on that topic.

All the best.

Dec-03-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <optimal play:> I am semi-open to discussions, but would prefer that people use that link so that I don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 7)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·  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 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 2001-2016, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies