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

Louis Stumpers
L Stumpers 
 
Number of games in database: 56
Years covered: 1932 to 1969
Overall record: +13 -32 =11 (33.0%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
D94 Grunfeld (3 games)
E60 King's Indian Defense (2 games)
B59 Sicilian, Boleslavsky Variation, 7.Nb3 (2 games)
C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense (2 games)
D45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav (2 games)
D31 Queen's Gambit Declined (2 games)


Search Sacrifice Explorer for Louis Stumpers
Search Google for Louis Stumpers


LOUIS STUMPERS
(born Aug-30-1911, died Sep-27-2003, 92 years old) Netherlands

[what is this?]

Frans Louis Henri Marie Stumpers was born in Eindhoven, Netherlands, on 30 August 1911. (1) He was champion of the Eindhoven Chess Club in 1938, 1939, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1961 and 1963, (2) and champion of the North Brabant Chess Federation (Noord Brabantse Schaak Bond, NBSB) in 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1946, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967. (3) He participated in five Dutch Chess Championships, with a 4th place in 1948, (4) and represented his country at the 1st European Team Championship in Vienna in 1957 (two games, vs Josef Platt and Max Dorn). (5) From 1945 and until about 1956, he was first Secretary and then Chairman of the NBSB. (3)

Stumpers was a physicist, and worked for the Philips company as an assistant from 1928. During 1934-1937, he studied at the University of Utrecht, where he took the master's degree. (6) In 1938 he was again employed at Philips, (6) and at a tournament in 1942, he supplied the hungry chess players with food from his employer. (3) After the war, he made a career in physics, with patents and awards on information ("radio") technology. He received degrees from several universities and colleges, including in Poland and Japan. (1, 3, 6) He retired from Philips in 1972, but continued teaching, (6) partly as professor at the University of Utrecht (1977-1981). (7) He was also Vice President (1975-1981) and Honorary President (1990-2003) of URSI, the International Union of Radio Science. (8)

Louis Stumpers married Mieke Driessen in 1954. They had five children, three girls and two boys. (6)

1) Online Familieberichten 1.0 (2016), http://www.online-familieberichten...., Digitaal Tijdschrift, 5 (255), http://www.geneaservice.nl/ar/2003/...
2) Eindhovense Schaakvereniging (2016), http://www.eindhovenseschaakverenig...
3) Noord Brabantse Schaak Bond (2016), http://www.nbsb.nl/pkalgemeen/pk-er... Their main page: http://www.nbsb.nl.
4) Schaaksite.nl (2016), http://www.schaaksite.nl/2016/01/01...
5) Olimpbase, http://www.olimpbase.org/1957eq/195...
6) K. Teer, Levensbericht F. L. H. M. Stumpers, in: Levensberichten en herdenkingen, 2004, Amsterdam, pp. 90-97, http://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/levensber... Also available at http://www.hagenbeuk.nl/wp-content/...
7) Catalogus Professorum Academię Rheno-Traiectinę, https://profs.library.uu.nl/index.p...
8) URSI websites (2016), http://www.ursi.org/en/ursi_structu... and http://www.ursi.org/en/ursi_structu...

Suggested reading: Eindhovense Schaakvereniging 100 jaar 1915-2015, by Jules Welling. Stumpers' doctoral thesis Eenige onderzoekingen over trillingen met frequentiemodulatie (Studies on Vibration with Frequency Modulation) is found at http://repository.tudelft.nl/island...

This text by User: Tabanus. The photo was taken from http://www.dwc.knaw.nl.

Last updated: 2018-08-17 13:29:49

 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 56  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. L Stumpers vs J Lehr 1-0191932EindhovenD18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
2. Prins vs L Stumpers  1-0391936NED-ch prelimB20 Sicilian
3. E Sapira vs L Stumpers 0-1251938NBSB-FlandersD94 Grunfeld
4. L Stumpers vs E Spanjaard  1-0551938NED-ch prelimE02 Catalan, Open, 5.Qa4
5. A J Wijnans vs L Stumpers  1-0361939NED-chB05 Alekhine's Defense, Modern
6. J van den Bosch vs L Stumpers  ½-½581939NED-chA48 King's Indian
7. L Stumpers vs S Landau 0-1411939NED-chD33 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
8. H van Steenis vs L Stumpers  1-0251939NED-chB02 Alekhine's Defense
9. L Stumpers vs S Landau  ½-½341940HilversumD31 Queen's Gambit Declined
10. L Stumpers vs H Kramer  0-1361940HilversumE25 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch
11. A J van den Hoek vs L Stumpers  1-0271941BondswedstrijdenB10 Caro-Kann
12. T van Scheltinga vs L Stumpers 1-0351942NED-ch12D94 Grunfeld
13. W Wolthuis vs L Stumpers  ½-½521946NED-ch prelim IC58 Two Knights
14. L Stumpers vs J H Marwitz  1-0401946NED-ch prelim ID31 Queen's Gambit Declined
15. G Fontein vs L Stumpers  ½-½261946NED-ch prelim ID94 Grunfeld
16. L Stumpers vs H van Steenis 0-1241946NED-ch prelim ID28 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
17. C B van den Berg vs L Stumpers  1-0581946NED-ch prelim ID19 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
18. L Stumpers vs Euwe 0-1301946NED-ch prelim IE60 King's Indian Defense
19. L Stumpers vs Cortlever  ½-½501946NED-ch prelim IE60 King's Indian Defense
20. L Stumpers vs Grob 1-0601947Int BA55 Old Indian, Main line
21. L Stumpers vs H van Steenis  0-1331947Int BD23 Queen's Gambit Accepted
22. Tartakower vs L Stumpers 1-0241947Int BD74 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.cd Nxd5, 7.O-O
23. V Soultanbeieff vs L Stumpers  ½-½461947Int BD96 Grunfeld, Russian Variation
24. L Stumpers vs F Henneberke 1-0431948NED-ch14C92 Ruy Lopez, Closed
25. J T Barendregt vs L Stumpers  0-1261948NED-ch14C86 Ruy Lopez, Worrall Attack
 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 56  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Stumpers wins | Stumpers loses  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 84 OF 84 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-03-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: No one else seems to be working on this problem, so I'll report the results of my researches.

I took an experimental approach. I used three cubes immersed in containers filled with water.

The first was a hollow plastic cube about 1.25 inches on a side, left over from a game called Instant Insanity. While not uniform, strictly speaking, it differs very little from a cubical volume of air. It weighs about a tenth of what a similar volume of water would weigh.

The second was a similarly sized piece cut from a rectilinear block of margarine. Its density is very close to that of water; it floats, but roughly nine-tenths submerged.

The third was a cubical block of wood 3.5 inches on a side, which I sawed off from the end of a (misnamed) 4x4 beam. Its density is around half that of water.

The plastic toy is quite precisely cubical. The other two are close to, but not perfect, cubes.

To sum up my observations, the margarine cube floated face up. It seemed to have no preference for one face over another, maintaining its orientation no matter which face was uppermost, as one would expect with an (almost) perfectly symmetric cube. The other two floated corner up, and they likewise seemed to have no preference for one corner over another.

These observations suggest that cubes of high specific gravity float face up, while those of low specific gravity float corner up. But two samples are not enough to conclude this with certainty. It's possible that in some range of densities cubes float edge up. Ideally I would like to test ten or more cubes with densities equally distributed between those of my first and second samples, but I don't have objects made of appropriate materials.

The theory described in the articles I linked to predicts that the cube will assume an orientation in which it is most stable, namely that in which the distance from its center of buoyancy to its center of mass is an extremum and the gravitational potential energy is a minimum. The center of buoyancy is the centroid of the submerged portion of the object. By Archimedes' Principle, the fraction of the total volume that is submerged just equals the ratio of the density of the cube to that of water. Determining the position of the center of buoyancy as a function of the fraction under water is trivial for a cube floating face up and straightforward for one floating corner up or edge up. For an irregular or nonuniform object it is far from trivial.

Jan-03-20  walter007: <al wazir: No one else seems to be working on this problem, so I'll report the results of my researches. ...>

That is ok as long as you spare us from your math.

Jan-04-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <al wazir>

I read here https://orca3d.com/wp-content/uploa... where it makes the claim that a cube with half the density of water can float with one of the faces up, but "none of these flotation conditions are actually stable...if the cube was disturbed, it would rotate to the following condition, which maximizes the waterplane inertia," showing a corner up position.

Why would you expect it ever to float in an edge up position?

Jan-04-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: At this point, I wouldn't.

Based on my (very scanty) tests, I would say that cubes with high specific gravity float with a face uppermost and cubes of low specific gravity float with a corner uppermost. I don't know where the dividing line is. I would guess that it's at 0.5.

But two data points isn't a lot.

Jan-05-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <al wazir>
<two data points isn't a lot>

Do you not trust the simulator shown on the article you linked, http://datagenetics.com/blog/june22... where you can step through the density ratio rho and it shows how the cube will float?

This shows that the cube floats face up below rho = about 0.20, it floats corner up at a 45 degree angle above rho = about 0.29, and between those values it floats at an angle between 0 and 45.

For example at rho = 0.25, it looks like the face makes an angle of about 30 degrees with the water surface.

Jan-05-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <beatgiant: Do you not trust the simulator shown on the article you linked, http://datagenetics.com/blog/june22... where you can step through the density ratio rho and it shows how the cube will float?> I don't distrust it. But I haven't redone the math or the coding, so my confidence in its correctness is guarded.

<This shows that the cube floats face up below rho = about 0.20, it floats corner up at a 45 degree angle above rho = about 0.29, and between those values it floats at an angle between 0 and 45.

For example at rho = 0.25, it looks like the face makes an angle of about 30 degrees with the water surface.>

The block of wood I tested looked as if it might be a few degrees off from exactly corner up. But as I said, it wasn't a perfectly cubical body, so I couldn't draw any conclusion from that.

I have a weakness for theory, and in my professional career my research has been entirely theoretical. This problem, however, seems to me to be exceptionally accessible to experiment.

Jan-06-20  walter007: I guess a "weakness for theory" is not "weak in theory". anyway, my friend earned a habilitation in mathematics on scrutinizing ship stability. what we looked at were cake tins of different shapes and sizes in a filled bath tub and what happened when the plug was pulled. then we added clothspins to the the forms and started the experiments again.
Jan-07-20  Nisjesram: <tiggler><Get over yourself <johnbarleycorn>, mest of us at not nearly as impressed with you as you evidently are with yourself.>

Hear , hear !

<John barleycorn> is a racist , abusive troll.

He does not know much of maths - no depth. Perhaps some breadth of knowledge but no depth.

.

Jan-07-20  Nisjesram: <Tiggler: <Formerly <John Barleycorn>. It is only guest performance. In about a month or so CG owner&mgmt will have figured it out as well and apply draconic measures and suspend me again hahaha Actually, I came back when I ask CG admins to forward an email to <Tiggler> regarding the problem he put on the <Louis Stumpers> page which was addressed by our resident "pretentious Princetonian" in a completely unsatisfactory and mathematically unaesthetical way. Since I got no response from CG, I handled it by creating the <walter007> account. And once it worked I commented on some other issues as well. you know, I am a sarcastic SOB.> Well that was an unexpected ... what? I can't say pleasure, but at least a surprise. Flame wars return to the Louis Stumpers page>

Yes , that is what <John barleycorn> is about - flame wars. A racist , abusive troll.

.

Jan-07-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Nisjesram: He does not know much of maths - no depth.>

No, I respect his mathematical ability. His problem is emotional illness: <A psychological disorder characterized by irrational and uncontrollable fears, persistent anxiety, or extreme hostility.> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/e....

Oh well, John Nash was severely disturbed too. But he eventually recovered. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/....

Jan-10-20  Nisjesram: <al wazir><His problem is emotional illness: <A psychological disorder characterized by irrational and uncontrollable fears, persistent anxiety, or extreme hostility.> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/e....

Oh well, John Nash was severely disturbed too. But he eventually recovered. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/..>

Hopefully , <John barleycorn> will recover too and instead of engaging in flame wars non stop engage in productive conversations in a harmonious way.

.

Jan-10-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: <Nisjesram> Good to see you! I hope your new year is going good!
Jan-11-20  Nisjesram: <morfishine: <Nisjesram> Good to see you! I hope your new year is going good>

Thank you , <morfishine > . You too :)

Jan-13-20  Tiggler: I have a weakness for puzzles. Anything new to offer, anyone?
Jan-13-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Tiggler: I have a weakness for puzzles. Anything new to offer, anyone?>

https://www.chessproblem.net/viewto...

You'll be sorry that you asked.

Jan-14-20  Tiggler: <al wazir> Interesting thing about that "flat torus". It makes no distinction between the cases: 1. The top is curled round to join the bottom, then the left end is curled round to join the right, and 2. the two operations are performed in the reverse order.

Is there actually any way to know the difference, if you reside on the real torus?

(I am not sorry I asked).

Jan-14-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <Tiggler>

<Is there actually any way to know the difference, if you reside on the real torus?>

I think so. The set of possible moves for a king on a1 is different under your cases, for example. But I confess I would need to look at a physical model to make absolutely sure of that.

Jan-14-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <beatgiant: The set of possible moves for a king on a1 is different under your cases, for example.> I disagree.

Imagine that a chessboard is adjacent to four more on the north, south, east, and west sides, and imagine that they in turn are similarly surrounded, and that this pattern is replicated an infinite number of times, thereby tiling the whole infinite plane. On each board the same position is set up, and whenever a move is made the same move is made on all the replicas. If the move carries a piece across a boundary of a particular board onto an adjacent board, the corresponding piece on all the other boards executes the same maneuver, and one of them re-enters that first board.

This situation is isomorphic to what we have in the problem. If you focus on one single board, those boundary-crossing moves will look as if they are re-entrant. Another way to express it is to say that the board's boundary conditions are doubly periodic.

It's also isomorphic to the surface of a solid torus. Take a physical torus (say, a hollow plastic quoit -- a doughnut would be messier) and cut it across the minor diameter. Straighten out the resulting tube and slit it longitudinally. You now have a flat piece of plastic which is rectangular, approximately square. Color it with 64 squares.

That is the chessboard in the problem.

A toroidal surface is really two-dimensional. (That's how it can be isomorphic to a rectangle.) Only two-dimensional beings can live in a two-dimensional world. They can't tell whether they're on the inside or the outside of the torus, because there is only one surface.

Suppose you draw a line on (for a true two-dimensional surface it would be more proper to say "in") between the d file and the e file of a chessboard.

If you join the first and eighth ranks first, that line becomes a minor circumference; if you join the a and h files first it becomes a major circumference.

Could those two-dimensional beings tell a minor circumference from a major one? I can't think of any way they could.

Jan-15-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <al wazir>
My assumed model is different.

If you first join the first rank with the eight, then a1 is joined to a8, b1 to b8,... h1 to h8. Then you have to join the sides. It seems to me that a2 is joined to a7, a3 to a6, and a4 to a5.

If you first join the a-file with the h-file, then a1 is joined to h1, a2 to h2,... a8 to h8. Then you have to join the top and bottom. It seems to me that b1 is joined to g1, c1 to f1, and d1 to e1.

Those models give two different sets of available moves that can be observed by the chess pieces.

Jan-15-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <beatgiant: My assumed model is different. If you first join the first rank with the eight, then a1 is joined to a8, b1 to b8,... h1 to h8. Then you have to join the sides. It seems to me that a2 is joined to a7, a3 to a6, and a4 to a5.>

I flat-out don't understand that.

The second join should connect the a-file with the h-file. Thus a1 will abut h1, a2 will abut h2, and so on. But you don't mention the h-file at all.

<If you first join the a-file with the h-file, then a1 is joined to h1, a2 to h2,... a8 to h8. Then you have to join the top and bottom. It seems to me that b1 is joined to g1, c1 to f1, and d1 to e1.>

Now your first join puts the a-file next to the h-file, so the second join should put the first rank next to the eighth. But you are talking only about *first-rank* squares (b1, c1, ..., g1).

Did you mistype, or am I missing something?

Jan-15-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <al wazir>
I did not mistype, but my model closes the figure by creating a flattened tube, not a torus. It means probably you were right and I was wrong.
Jan-16-20  Tiggler: <Could those two-dimensional beings tell a minor circumference from a major one? I can't think of any way they could.>

I suspect, by intuition only - no maths, that the "flat torus" corresponds to the case where the minor and major circumference are the same. Is this philosophy, sophistry, or science? You tell me.

Jan-16-20  Tiggler: To explain my previous comment a little, I think the reason that the chessboard case you mentioned is true is that there is no difference in distance between one move to the left or right, and one to the front or to the back. In such a case the two circumferences are the same. It comes down to a question of measure, and isomorphism.

Sophistry? I suppose so.

Jan-16-20  Tiggler: It is easy to imagine a 2-D torus in 3-D space, except when the major and minor axes are equal. Then it becomes a mind bender. What if we give the rectangle a twist though 180 degrees, before joining the opposite edges. Then we get a Mobius strip. And if we then try to join up opposite edges (what does that mean?- there is only one edge), then do we get a Klein bottle? Pheeuw, I don't have the least idea. Help, anyone?
Jan-17-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Tiggler: I think the reason that the chessboard case you mentioned is true is that there is no difference in distance between one move to the left or right, and one to the front or to the back. In such a case the two circumferences are the same.>

The ratio between the minor and major circumferences is variable. A torus has major circumferences of different lengths. A major circumference can be drawn along the doughnut hole or around the part of the surface farthest from the hole. And of course the doughnut can be skinny in some places and fat in others, so the minor diameter need not be the same all the way around.

Not only that, but the minor/major ratio can be any number between 0 and infinity. Imagine a torus with ripples in the surface. If the ripples are all parallel to the major circumference, that makes the distance around minor circumferences greater. And if the ripples are parallel to minor circumferences, that makes the distance around major circumferences greater. With enough ripples, either distance can be made arbitrarily great.

Two-dimensional beings living in the surface would never see the ripples, but they would be able to tell that something was funny. Their geometry wouldn't obey the triangle inequality.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 84)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 84 OF 84 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is 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, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any gratuitous name-calling of any members—including Admin and Owners—or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


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 | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us


Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC