< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 8 ·
|Feb-11-08|| ||johnlspouge: I thought I should put one of my games here, before someone thinks I do not play chess at all. My opponent was the Jester computer program |
as White. Generally, I keep my total clock time per game under 60 minutes. I decided to play a Queen's Indian set-up for the first time, rather than the King's Indian.
[Event "Black Queen's Indian"]
[Black "John L Spouge"]
click for larger view
Out of ignorance, I omitted the usual Queen's Indian maneuver Ne4, but Jester's 7.Bc1-f4 is also an unusual strategy. As it turns out, 10.Rf1-d1 was definitely the wrong R. Jester now initiated a very nasty positional combination against me.
click for larger view
I debated about sacrificing the Pa6 by getting Ra8 into the game along the 8th rank. I decided my K-side attack did not have enough punch to win a P, if Jester could keep offering to exchange Qs. Toga's later evaluation supported my decision. Now, I had to push my K-side attack, because otherwise my crippled Ra7 would probably cost me the game. The position is about to show my tendency to push the Pf7 against the opposing K in the King's Indian.
click for larger view
Now came all the puzzle of the day practice, with a routine sacrifice. Toga II 1.3.1 later verified that the sacrifice of the Nd7 was the correct and winning move.
20.Qc6xd7 g3xf2+ (10.Rf1-d1 was the wrong R!)
|Feb-15-08|| ||dzechiel: Excellent analysis of today's position, John. Straightforward and concise, I like it!|
|Feb-18-08|| ||johnlspouge: A more recent cross-table for computer chess programs is found at|
|Feb-18-08|| ||whiteshark: <johnlspouge> fyi there are some new free engines @ http://superchessengine.com/
e.g. TOGA 1.4 Beta 5c and Glaurung 2.01 64bits
|Feb-18-08|| ||johnlspouge: A good place to find chess freeware is the URL
|Feb-26-08|| ||johnlspouge: Hi, <kellmano>. In response, you might be interested in the following quotation, which is also on the wall outside my office. |
To judge astronomy in this way [a narrow utilitarian point of view] demonstrates not only how poor we are, but also how small, narrow, and indolent our minds are; it shows a disposition always to calculate the payoff before the work, a cold heart and a lack of feeling for everything that is great and honors man. One can unfortunately not deny that such a mode of thinking is not uncommon in our age, and I am convinced that this is closely connected with the catastrophes which have befallen many countries in recent times; do not mistake me, I do not talk of the general lack of concern for science, but of the source from which all this has come, of the tendency to everywhere look out for one's advantage and to relate everything to ones physical well-being, of the indifference towards great ideas, of the aversion to any effort which derives from pure enthusiasm: I believe that such attitudes, if they prevail, can be decisive in catastrophes of the kind we have experienced. [Gauss, K.F.: Astronomische Antrittsvorlesung (cited from Buhler, W.K. (1981) Gauss: A Biographical Study, Springer, New York)].
Most of my mathematical work is socially useful, so I do not claim to take pride in the social utility it lacks. Social relevance is not the only type of relevance relevant to me, however. The Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spouge... (which contains minor errors, and which I did not write) describes my small piece of mathematical immortality, for anyone interested.
|Mar-09-08|| ||zb2cr: Hi John,
Responding here rather than in yesterday's game.
I suspect that a computer needs in the close order of 10**10 fingers to pass a simple Turing test. However, my own work leaves little time for me
to keep up with the developments in that field--right now, I'm a computer security specialist.
I'm not entirely sure that a Turing test is even the right test for AI, though.
Hofstadter, in "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid", points out that a human being is more likely to change the subject. Faced with, say, a chess question, a human is just as likely to say: "I'm bored with chess, let's talk about the concert last month." Obviously, of course, you can randomize responses from a program to mimic this behavior, but that brings its own problems in a formal Turing test environment.
OTOH, what do I know? I'm just a lowly physicist, who has been doing engineering work for many years instead of research.
|Mar-12-08|| ||johnlspouge: <<zb2cr> wrote: OTOH, what do I know? I'm just a lowly physicist, who has been doing engineering work for many years instead of research.>|
<zb2cr>, I regard George Polya as one of the greatest of the 20th century mathematicians, both for his clarity of thought and his ability to find beauty in practical problems. One of my favorite Polya quotes is about why he chose to be a mathematician (with apologies to philosophers, perhaps): "I came to mathematics indirectly.... It is a little shortened but not quite wrong to say: I thought I am not good enough for physics and I am too good for philosophy."
There is no such thing as a "lowly physicist"...
|Mar-12-08|| ||zb2cr: Hi <john>,
Thanks for the kind words. Physicists have a lively appreciation for mathematics of all kinds, even though we occasionally induce cringes on the part of real mathematicians by our tendency to
ignore mathematical rigor when it seems inconevient.
Relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics are two prime examples of ignoring questions of mathematical rigor, proceeding to a solution, and having the solution agree precisely with experiment.
|Mar-12-08|| ||UdayanOwen: Thanks <John> for your kind thoughts re your message on the Najdorf game board, and your <he must have peeked> section.|
|Mar-14-08|| ||UdayanOwen: Unfortunately as you can see from my attempts with the recent Friday puzzle Short vs whoever it was, I have a fair ways to go before I get into your <he must have peeked> list.|
|Mar-15-08|| ||johnlspouge: <<UdayanOwen> wrote: Unfortunately as you can see from my attempts with the recent Friday puzzle Short vs whoever it was, I have a fair ways to go before I get into your <he must have peeked> list.>|
The real sign of your abilities, <UdayanOwen>, is that even when you are completely wrong, you are completely wrong with <such depth> :)
More seriously, in Short vs Psakhis, 1985, I also missed the point of 34...Nxb2 and the necessity of replying 35.Bh6 (although you - and maybe I also - would see the moves OTB). From other fields of endeavor, I have learned that the less you write down, the fewer errors you make. You merely carried out your explicit analysis far enough to display your mistake, and I did not. Please continue to have the courage to make mistakes: I learn more from your mistakes (and from <dzechiel>'s) than from most "correct" analyses.
|Mar-15-08|| ||johnlspouge: <<zb2cr> wrote: [snip] Physicists have a lively appreciation for mathematics of all kinds, even though we occasionally induce cringes on the part of real mathematicians by our tendency to ignore mathematical rigor when it seems inconevient.> |
Actually, <zb2cr>, I often describe myself as a frustrated physicist (and I suspect many mathematicians would be happy to agree). I had two great mathematics teachers, but my university professors drove me out of honors physics at the end of my 2nd year by their uninspired teaching of an incredibly beautiful subject. I would rather get the right solution to a real problem than prove I was correct. A friend told me that I had defined myself as a physicist, not a mathematician (and I like to think it was a compliment :)
<Relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics are two prime examples of ignoring questions of mathematical rigor, proceeding to a solution, and having the solution agree precisely with experiment.<>>
The two fields you mention are just beyond my education in physics, although I appreciate the inspiration behind a Dirac delta. My own research has led to many interesting results, for which I still lack proofs. I would like to understand my results before I die, but even with lack of full understanding, I still am happy to have them.
|Mar-17-08|| ||UdayanOwen: <Johnlspouge: <UdayanOwen> Please continue to have the courage to make mistakes>|
I value making mistakes for my own development, and have no qualms about them being on display in public....
So don't worry, I will allways be posting without any assisted 'accuracy checks' whatsoever....
|Mar-17-08|| ||UdayanOwen: Thanks for putting my line in the Saturday game through the computer... I was hoping someone would.|
You responded with:
<johnlspouge: <<UdayanOwen> wrote: Presumably black plays 16...Bxg4 17.hxg4 Qxg4, with the plan to follow up with f5 opening lines for the rooks. [snip] I wonder how my plan would turn out with best play???>
Toga II 1.3.1 gives
[ply 15/38, time 00:15, value +1.05]
18.Qd1 Qxd1+ 19.Kxd1 f5 20.f3 b5 21.cxb5 axb5 22.Ke2 Rf7 23.Bb2 c5 24.a3 fxe4 25.fxe4 Raf8 26.Rh2 Rf3 27.Rc1 Re3+ 28.Kd2
The line is losing with best play, <UdayanOwen>.>
I did do some superficial analysis of the position, and if white played 18.Qxd1, I was planning to play 18...Qg2, expecting 19.Rg1 f5 with good play for black.
My argument about compensation for black was always based on the queens staying on the board, and at first when I looked at Toga's line, I thought, maybe it has just strategically misunderstood the necessity to keep the queens on.
But then I realised that if 18.Qd1 Qg2, white can defend AND counterattack with 19.Qh5, when black is forced to concede a queen trade after all with 19...Qg6 20.Qxg6 , since 19...h6 gets smashed by 20.Bxh6 gxh6 21.0-0-0, when white will win the queen.
To make matters worse for white, not only was I depending on the move 18...Qg2 to retain a forceful initiative, but now any move to avoid the queen trade will still be met by 19.Qh5, when black will have to be in position to swap queens, or else get carved for dinner.
I'll certainly continue to have the courage to post errors, but I think I'll refrain from taking such a superficial stab again in future :-)
|Mar-17-08|| ||UdayanOwen: Sorry, in my previous post, in the line 18...Qg2 I meant 19.Rf1 not Rg1.|
|Mar-17-08|| ||zb2cr: Hi <John>,
You wrote: "I would rather get the right solution to a real problem than prove I was correct. A friend told me that I had defined myself as a physicist, not a mathematician (and I like to think it was a compliment :)"
We'll seduce you over to the dark side yet! (spoken with tongue firmly in cheek!)
I'm glad to have encountered you here on chessgames.com. I like to think that despite years of doing engineering work I still have a physicist's viewpoint. I suspect from your description you also have that viewpoint.
Max Planck, on hearing a criticism of a hypothesis as "inelegant", is said to have snapped: "Elegance is the tailor's business, not the physicist's!"
|Mar-18-08|| ||johnlspouge: <<zb2cr> wrote: We'll seduce you over to the dark side yet! (spoken with tongue firmly in cheek!)>|
Thanks for the Planck and Vader quotes. A little culture is always appreciated here. If you will forgive me, there is some confusion about whose tongue is in whose cheek, however.
Check out the PowerPoint file for a talk I gave
"The Statistics of Gapped Sequence Alignment"
to the "SIAM Conference on Discrete Mathematics Victoria, Jun 2006"
Look for slide 53.
I lacked a proof for several key results, and, well, er, I said that I was going to sound like a physicist for the rest of the talk :)
|Mar-18-08|| ||zb2cr: Hi <john>,
That's a truly amusing admission. I think I am going to bring your paper to the attention of a colleague who is attempting to do some reliability engineering work; at first glance, it appears that it may help him solve one of the problems he's encountering in building a realistic model.
|Mar-18-08|| ||johnlspouge: <<zb2cr> wrote: [snip] I am going to bring your paper to the attention of a colleague who is attempting to do some reliability engineering work; at first glance, it appears that it may help him solve one of the problems he's encountering in building a realistic model.>|
The mathematical methods in the paper have their origins in queueing theory. If you need to be explicit about your friend's problem, you can always contact me from my professional web page. (I am from the US government, and I am here to help.)
|Mar-18-08|| ||hms123: <john> I somehow ended up at a discussion 27...b5 in this game Spiridonov vs Tal, 1969 and thought I would put in my 2 cents worth. It seems to me that the point of b5 was to deflect the Q off of the 4th rank so that the later e4 could only be captured by the N that was guarding the R at e2. I think the pin of the R against the Q was lagniapppe.|
|Mar-18-08|| ||johnlspouge: <<hms123> wrote: <john> I somehow ended up at a discussion 27...b5 in this game Spiridonov vs Tal, 1969 [snip]>|
I really have to come back to this game, to figure out what was going on. When I do, I will refer to your comments, <hms123>. Many thanks for the idea.
|Mar-19-08|| ||hms123: <john> You had indicated that b5 was too subtle and that you didn't fully understand it. I doubt that I do, but hope my comments prove helpful when you get to them. --a fellow statistician|
|Mar-20-08|| ||UdayanOwen: John, what is going on with your conference presentations? I checked out the most recent one on your website, and man, are you speaking another language or what? What is striking is that, intuitively to me, it seems that even for a person who has the mathematical grounding to read your stuff as though it means something to them, it seems super, SUPER advanced and mind-boggling.|
I did very well at undergraduate statistics as part of my psychology course, but the only sense I can make out of that conference presentation is that the <spewing pumpkin> image was hilariously funny.
|Mar-21-08|| ||Ziggurat: Hello John, nice to meet another bioinformatics person here. I am currently doing a post-doc in bioinformatics in Singapore. It's fun.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 8 ·
Hardinge Simpole Publishing