Happily, Brasil is leading the fight against global warming with the development and adoption of alternative energy resources! The whole world will benefit from these efforts, and hopefully other nations (including my own) will be inspired to do the same.

(My workplace is also trying to contribute to this great challenge: http://www.lbl.gov/msd/helios_site/... A nice recent breakthrough: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles... The journal Nature, in its news summary of this advance, stated, ""Knowing how plants and bacteria harvest light for photosynthesis so efficiently could provide a clean solution to mankind's energy requirements. The secret, it seems, may be the coherent application of quantum principles...." Not too often that quantum mechanics proves to be so useful! (if indeed it does, in the final analysis))

Cheers!

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

Average Annual Rainfall: 64 inches of rain
Average Annual Rainy Days: 56 rainy days

Only [#1] Mobile, Alabama and [#2] Pensacola, Florida were ahead of New Orleans in the list.

Four of the top ten "rainiest cities" in the U.S. were in Louisiana: [#3] New Orleans, [#5] Lafayette, [#6] Baton Rouge, [#10] Lake Charles.

Sources [in PDF format]:

http://www.weatherbill.com/static/c...

http://www.weatherbill.com/reports/...

I suspect New Orleans was a rainy place in Paul Morphy's time as well.

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

The Wikipedia entry on "Phrenology" might help set these passages in context:

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

"Phrenology (from Greek: φρήν, phrēn, "mind"; and λόγος, logos, "knowledge") is a theory which claims to be able to determine character, personality traits, and criminality on the basis of the shape of the head (reading "bumps"). Developed by German physician Franz Joseph Gall around 1800, and very popular in the 19th century, it is now discredited as a pseudoscience. Phrenology has however received credit as a protoscience for having contributed to medical science the ideas that the brain is the organ of the mind and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions (see in particular, Brodmann's areas)...."

(I think there are still a few stalwarts out there who believe phrenology to be a legitimate science, but I know of no one in the mainstream scientific or medical communities who believes this.)

Also, just a quick word about the word "nervous" as used above ("...evidence of a fine nervous organization...") In the 19th century in the U.S. (at least) the word "nervous" was often used to mean something like "alert": there is no negative connotation to the word "nervous" when it is so used. Today, the meaning of the word is different (for the most part). If we say that someone has a "nervous disposition", it usually means that that person is a "bundle of nerves", and that you have to be a bit cautious around them.

Thanks again for these passages!

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

From the 1921 book, "The Life of Whitelaw Reid" by Royal Cortissoz, page 121 [ http://tinyurl.com/3x66vk ], subject to the vagaries of my limited transcription skills:

=====

At New Orleans he [presumably Mr. Reid] met Sheridan, "a compact, little, big-chested, crop-headed, fiery-faced officer, flushing redder than ever when a lady addressed him." Another acquaintance was Paul Morphy, the renowned chess-player, "a modest-looking little gentleman, of retiring manners, and with apparently very little to say, though the keen eyes and well-shaped head sufficiently showed the silence to be no mask for poverty of intellect." His fellow lawyers were dubious about his fame. "If he were only as good in his profession as he is at chess playing!" they exclaimed, with portentous shrugs of the shoulders....

=====

More about Whitelaw Reid:

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

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

Germany is now spearheading this technology by implementing solar panels along highways and farm acreage to great monetary and environmental advantage for it's populace.

Of course, the Holy Grail of alternative power is hydrogen fusion -- the power of the sun brought down to earth. With the international ITER experimental facility coming online in France, the future is hopeful:

http://www.iter.org/

Though the process is a nuclear process, the threat of meltdowns and other disasters one has with fission plants does not exist. (When a fusion process goes unstable, it simply stops.)

Exciting though it is, practical hydrogen fusion power of any significant magnitude is surely decades away...

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

I came upon this delightful account of that experience from an amateur player, a certain Moncure Daniel Conway, of his experience in July, 1858:

Source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gi...

or

http://tinyurl.com/2eqxny

From "Autobiography: Memories and Experiences of Moncure Daniel Conway," 1904, p. 291-2 (subject to the vagaries of my limited transcription skills):

=== begin quoted passage ===

Despite all my freedom there was a curious survival in me up to my twenty-seventh year of the Methodist dread of card-playing. The only indoor game I knew was chess. There was a flourishing Chess Club in Cincinnati, and I entered into the matches with keen interest. For a time I edited a weekly chess column in the "Cincinnati Commercial," and wrote an article on Chess which Lowell published in the "Atlantic Monthly." Whenever in New York I hastened to the Chess Club there, and watched the play of Lichtenstein, Thompson, Perrin, Marache, Fiske (editor of the "Chess Monthly"), and Colonel Mead, president of the club. This was at a time when the wonderful Paul Morphy was exciting the world. In July, 1858, I called on hm at the Brevoort House, New York. He was a rather small man, with a beardless face that would have been boyish had it not been for the melancholy eyes. He was gentlemanly and spoke in low tones. It had long been out of the question to play with him on even terms; the first-class players generally received the advantage of a knight, but being a second-class player I was given a rook. In some letter written at the time, I find mention of five games in which I was beaten with these odds, but managed (or was permitted) to draw the sixth. In the same letter I find the following: --

[continued below]

When one plays with Morphy the sensation is as queer as the first electric shock, or first love, or chloroform, or any entirely novel experience. As you sit down at the board opposite him, a certain sheepishness steals over you, and you cannot rid yourself of an old fable in which a lion's skin plays a part. Then you are sure you have the advantage; you seem to be secure -- you get a rook -- you are ahead two pieces! three!! Gently as if wafted by a zephyr the pieces glide about the board; and presently as you are about to win the game a soft voice in your ear kindly insinuates, Mate! You are speechless. Again and again you try; again and again you are sure you must win; again and again your prodigal antagonist leaves his pieces at your mercy; but his moves are as the steps of Fate. Then you are charmed all along -- so bewitchingly are you beheaded: one had rather be run through by Bayard, you know, than spared by a pretender. On the whole I could only remember the oriental anecdote of one who was taken to the banks of the Euphrates, where by a princely host he was led about the magnificent gardens and bowers, then asked if anything could be more beautiful. "Yes," he replied, "the chess-play of El-Zuli." So having lately sailed, as I wrote you, down the Hudson, having explored Staten Island, Hoboken, Fort Hamilton, and all the glorious retreats about New York, I shall say forever that one thing is more beautiful than them all, -- the chess-play of Paul Morphy....

=== end quoted passage ===

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

One sometimes hears that exceptional Chessplayers (as a group) are more paranoid and/or more superstitious than the general population. I don't know if this is true.

But if it is true, perhaps this has something to do with it...

Much has been said about whether "Chess intelligence" is "generalizable" into general intelligence. (If it is, at least in my experience, it certainly isn't obvious.) But (based on my own anecdotal experience) Chess intelligence also does not seem to be "vastly narrow," that is, restricted ONLY to the domain of Chess.

Abstract pattern recognition is a significant component of general intelligence. It is but one component, but it is a significant one. So, if a person excels at abstract pattern recognition yet is in the very center of the average range with respect to all other components of general intelligence, he or she will likely be somewhat "more intelligent" that the average member of the general population by virtue of that singular strength.

Now, truly great Chessplayers are accustomed to seeing abstract patterns that very few others (or maybe NO others) can see. Paul Morphy is perhaps the superlative example of this.

(I remember reading a piece by celebrated physicist Richard Feynman in which he described the experience of realizing that -- at a given moment of time -- you are the only person on earth who knows a certain very important specific truth. I believe this was the situation of Paul Morphy with respect to Chess. He was the very first among the strongest Chessplayers of his time to see certain extremely intricate and subtle patterns -- and no one else in his time could see them.)

Now, great Chessplayers have learned that when their instincts suggest an abstract pattern to them that no one else seems to see, they should trust that pattern -- it is what puts them ahead of everyone else. They have lots of reinforcement that this is a smart thing to do.

But could it be that those who are especially gifted at abstract pattern recognition sometimes think they see patterns that REALLY DON'T EXIST?!?

Unless one has a strong counter-balancing component of intelligence -- unusually strong logical thinking, along with training in or intuitive awareness of the distinction between causal and pseudo-causal connections (often in the form of the classic *post hoc* fallacy) -- and one is unusually good at seeing patterns, one may think one sees patterns that have no foundation in reality.

Many people believe in astrology, palmistry, mind-reading, and such. Critics of these practices have labelled them "pseudo-sciences". Typically, these critics maintain that the apparent patterns that people find between (say) the arrangement of the stars and the events in their lives are actually pseudo-patterns that disappear upon rigorous analysis.

Suppose we were to use a video projector to stream a series of random numbers across the wall in front of an audience. The sharpest pattern-recongnizers might immediately start generating imaginary algorithms that (they might think) would enable them to predict the NEXT number in the series. But if the numbers were truly random, this would be impossible. (As in the case of Bingo.)

Life appears to throw MANY seemingly random events at us. Many of us would prefer to believe that these event are not random, but that they have a meaning we may not yet see: perhaps Karma or Destiny or Fate. Perhaps this is so. When Shakespeare's Hamlet says, "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough-hew them how we will" ( http://www.shakespeare-literature.c... ) is he seeing a sublime truth, or a hopeful a pseudo-pattern?

And when a great Chessplayer thinks that performing this-or-that seemingly superstitious ritual will help him or her, or when he or she imagines that this or that group is "out to get him (or her)," might this not be the action of unusually nimble pattern-seeking that is not duly counter-balanced with strict logical thinking?

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

The best case I can find is blitz chess. In blitz chess seeing patterns that aren't there or don't work take alot of time. You have to have that counterbalance or intuition to quickly dismiss those patterns. Fischer is extremely delusional, yet he was an exceptional blitz player meaning he had to dismiss patterns that didn't exist at least in a chess sense.

"The [Cincinnati] 'Commercial Gazette' states that 'while in New Orleans, Dr. Zukertort met Paul Morphy on Canal Street, and Mr. Morphy, who had known Dr. Z. in Paris years ago, came up and saluted him in French. Mr. Morphy said that urgent business had compelled his retirement from chess. The two met again on the same street, and Mr. Morphy spoke of imagined personal grievances, that showed plainly the condition of his mind. Dr. Zukertort is not hopeful that Mr. Morphy can be restored to mental health.'"

The same column later published a rebuttal to a very negative obituary of Morphy that appeared in a local newspaper. Reacting to the newspaper's claim that it was mainly too much chess that had driven Morphy 'helplessly insane', the columnist writes: "The editor concludes his outburst with the statement that Morphy, even in his madness, looked upon chess-playing with the greatest horror. Remarkable is it not that he should have played a game within the last three weeks of his life? Strange, indeed, that he should have followed Zukertort's published games during his visit to New Orleans, and criticized them."(from "The Week" July 24th, 1884, pg.542)

I think abstract pattern-dismissal is a part of abstract pattern-recognition. When human players outperform the best computers, I think it's because they have an excellent intutive "sifting algorithm" that says to them (in effect) "no point in investigating those 100,000,000,000,000,000 possibilities"! (Whereas the poor little silicon workhorse has to sift through so many blind alleys -- though they are getting much better at this.)

Your point is a good one, though -- the counterbalancing patterns that need to be recognized to balance those of the purely abstract kind are somewhat different creatures (in my opinion).

For example, it is well known that married people (as a group) live longer than unmarried people (as a group) by a small but significant number of years. Therefore, some people have concluded that getting married is good for your health.

But is this so? People who are *already healthy* probably have an easier time than *already unhealthy* people finding marriage partners (other things being equal). So it may not be the married-status of a person that leads to a longer life, but their better general overall health.

This is an example of what may be a "post hoc" fallacy -- that I may mistake a mere *correlation* for a *causal relationship*. When the rooster thinks his crowing causes the sun to rise (if roosters ever think such things!), he is committing a post hoc fallacy.

To be sure, recognizing such informal fallacies is, to a degree, a species of abstract pattern recognition. But I think it is 1) a good deal less abstract -- much more a qualitative thing than a purely quantitative thing, and 2) quite different from Chess-type patterns.

Your thoughts on this are very interesting.

As an aside, on the subject of religion and spirituality, my disposition is clearly spiritual/mystical, and I've never seen any logical problem with this. The philosopher William James spoke of "overbeliefs" -- beliefs that each of us has (typically) that we cannot strictly justify on purely philosophical grounds. Intuitions and hunches would be found among such "overbeliefs". (If philosopher David Hume was to be believed, even science is based on a certain overbelief that cannot -- in the strictest sense -- be justified.)

In the main, I've found that my life flows better when I trust my overbeliefs, but there have been a few times when they've taken me down the wrong path!

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

A side note about married couples. The notion of just being married wouldn't allow them to live longer, but since marriage is also a tool for motivation to live would have an effect. For example, if you have read When the Red Fern Grows how one dog dies and his/her lover dies shortly after because they have lost the will to live or something.

It gives humans an advantage over computers (at least so far), but it is not an absolute talent.

Even the most amazing talents like Morphy misappraised some positions, as can now be demonstrated by computer calculation.

But it wasn't apparent to Morphy's opponents. His ability to see ahead shocked Anderssen, and affected his equanamity after a few games.

To Morphy too, his ability possibly seemed limitless, as no one could demonstrate his errors over the board.

Determining randomness in a string of numbers may sound easy, but it is not trivial! To quote the Mathworld article "Random Number" ( http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Random... ), "It is impossible to produce an arbitrarily long string of random digits and prove it is random. Strangely, it is also very difficult for humans to produce a string of random digits, and computer programs can be written which, on average, actually predict some of the digits humans will write down based on previous ones." [I'm not sure I agree with the last part of that statement, at least not for all human beings. The Mathworld article is worthwhile, as are most Mathworld articles -- it is a very well done website.]

I once posted a message on one of these boards about finding one's phone number in the number Pi (the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter). According to this search tool, http://www.angio.net/pi/piquery , my 7-digit phone number "occurs at position 738,143 counting from the first digit after the decimal point. The 3. is not counted."

This webpage (hosted by my workplace) shows the probability of finding a 5, 6, 7, digit string (etc.) in the first 4 billion digits of Pi:

http://pisearch.lbl.gov/

So one tool we can use is a statistical analysis. (Though this can more readily cast a question on the randomness of a string of digits than confirm that randomness.)

<tamar> Thank you for these observations. It is very interesting to reflect that Paul Morphy's *mistakes* were often more effective at winning Chess games than his opponents' "sound" play (sound insofar as it went). In referring to Morphy as "the greatest chessplayer that ever lived", Dr. Emanuel Lasker 's Chess Magazine also noates that not all his games were perfect: http://www.100bestwebsites.org/lcm-...

The unidentified writer "Caissa" (possibly Sam Loyd ) writes in the same magazine that "Morphy was a 'Sui Generis.' I don't believe he was ever taxed to his full strength. If he met a a new player, stronger than any thus far, it would only tax his apparently inexhaustible reserve strength, or knowledge of the game, and over and down would go his new antagonist, like all the others before him. I don't believe he was ever 'put to his trumps' to know what to do. I don't believe he was ever worried in playing, or had any doubt about the result of any game he ever played...."

Thanks, both....

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

<WilhelmThe2nd>

Lawson was pretty sure that Morphy never met Zukertort:

"Zukertort did *not* meet Morphy in 1882 as Buck states he did, nor is it likely that they ever met. Zukertort first visited New Orleans in 1884."

But that doesn't mean they didn't meet.

<Remarkable is it not that he should have played a game within the last three weeks of his life?>

I never heard that before. However...

The underestimated <DrKurtPhart> in earlier pages here pasted an excerpt from Kendall's History of New Orleans (which can be read at http://sbchess.sinfree.net/NOchessc...) and which states that Morphy was a member of the N.O. Chess, Checkers and Whist Club (founded in 1880) and frequented the place up to his death.

An article entitled "Paul Morphy, The Chess Player" by Dr. I. E. Nagle was published in "Forest and Stream; A Journal of Outdoor Life, Travel, Nature Study, Shooting..." on Nov. 3, 1881; (Vol. 17, No,14, pg. 266) in which Nagle, writing from New Orleans, claims:

"The series of plays that have taken place in this city latterly, between the experts of the local club and eminent players of other places indicate a vast increasing interest, as well as improvement in this classical and elegant game....

...In this connection it is apropos to mention the condition and peculiarities of Paul Morphy, in whose name and career the world of chess players will always take a lively and intense interest. During the days of the tournament, Morphy occasionally passed under the gallery of the club, or on the opposite side of the street, staring up towards the open window, the while talking rapidly to himself - sometimes in a quarrelsome way, anon as if demonstrating some rare problem in his mind, but usually smiling and then walking rapidly away, shaking his head as if desirous of evading temptation....

...The mere proposition to him to play sets him wild with transports of anger. He, however, retains the most wonderful memory of great events and plays in the past, and, if referred to for an opinion or authority, seems to take pride and pleasure in recounting the incidents and features of any famous game that he or others have played." (http://sbchess.sinfree.net/Nagle.html)

Dr. Meredith, who visited N. O. in 1879 wrote an epistle about Morphy in which he claimed, "I learned from undeniable authority that he utterly repudiates chess; that when addressed on the subject he either flies into a passion or denies that he knows or ever did know anything of the game. Occasionally, I hear, he admits that he used to play chess some, but not enough to justify persons in attaching notoriety to him." - http://sbchess.sinfree.net/Meredith...

In a letter to the NY Sun in 1877, Maurian wrote, "As to chess, he is unquestionably to-day the best player in the world, although he does not play often enough to keep himself in thorough practice. He gives odds of a knight to our strongest players, and is seldom beaten, perhaps never when he cares to win." So, Morphy was undoubtedly playing chess as late as 1877. - http://sbchess.sinfree.net/Maurian_...

I really think, if the answers are to be found, they will ultimately come indirectly via researching James DeBeneville Seguin, one of the original founders of the Chess, Checkers and Whist Club and co-editor of the chess column in the Times-Democrat for its first 8 years.

Zukertort did have an extended engagement at the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club in the second half of April, 1884. I have four of his games vs. Maurian (+2=1-1 for Dr. Z.). I submitted the three decisive games (with annotations by the players) to cg.com but they have yet to upload them.(I may have formatted them incorrectly.)

From what I could tell in my research, the players in New Orleans put up a good resistance to Zukertort. I would find it strange if Zukertort did not try to contact Morphy while visiting the city. Particularly since he was in daily contact with people who knew Morphy intimately. In his 'N.Y. Tribune' interview, Steinitz mentions discussing with the N.O. club players about how to get Morphy back to the board. I would not be surprised if it was those same people who arranged for both Steinitz & Zukertort to meet Morphy as he was strolling along Canal Street during their respective visits to New Orleans.