But if everything goes pear-shaped here, I hope you'll play guitar (and camera, and backing vocals) on the last night party, Frogspawn's Last Gleaming, a million-dollar bash, with special guests. Plus Niels on keyboards and Jess on stainless steel gamelan.

- How did you find your steak, Mr Simpson?

- I looked under a pea, and there it was.

<Richard Taylor: I am a chess genius. But this game was a terrible travesty of Chess.>

Under normal circumstances, I have the opposite problem -- I'm pathologically balanced. I tend to see a bit of good and a bit of bad in most things, and I say things like 'on the other hand' or 'then again' to qualify my opinion.

Recent events seemed to cause a temporary suppression of this trait: for an atavistic moment there I was back on the savannah, trying to 'criticise' a jackal ... well, some kind of mammal, I think. Being bitten has that effect. Hope I don't get electronic rabies.

I don't know enough about Richard T's reasoning, in this case, to guess why he'd say travesty. I know some people would say that an opening with g3 is an ugly monstrosity, and I've been equally scathing about the wickedness of 1.e4 e5.

Might have been that. Might even have been a reference to the accelerated playing conditions and the difficult start, though I don't recall RT participating much in previous games. While not totally in the anti-engine brigade, he tends to disdain their use in play, I think.

It amazes me that some creationists and other godly types think it important to show that Darwin was wrong about something, or that Newton or Einstein believed in God. It seems whole websites bat different lines from Einstein back and forth, forever.

And it is utterly without meaning, because the opinions and characters of 'founders' have no bearing at all on science. What matters is evidence, and repeatable experiments and verifiable hypotheses.

Why would they do this? I know religious types make a cult of their founder - what Max Weber called the 'routinization of charisma' - but do they think everyone works like that?

Apparently, in some cases. For memetic survival, religion has an all-or-nothing device: buy into the creed, or opt out and be branded heretic.

To be fair, I've seen this all-or-nothing device show up in certain secular movements as well.

I'll have a go at it. FWIW, I am in agreement in general terms in a lot of this. Darwin was wrong about much. I think that's a given. I think the Newton was a believer is more a response to the affirmation of the unbeliever's side of something like "All great scientific minds understand the earth wasn't created 7000 years ago." I don't often see the appeal to Newton raised as an affirmative. Or as an opening salvo. Or something. I am not sure about the fascination with Einstein. I tend to avoid it. I'm not sure Einstein himself knew exactly what he thought about God/god/something so I don't spend much time trying to figure out what he thought either. Ultimately, it doesn't matter.

<And it is utterly without meaning, because the opinions and characters of 'founders' have no bearing at all on science. What matters is evidence, and repeatable experiments and verifiable hypotheses. >

I mostly agree, although again, I think they are usually raised in response to the typical opening shot "All great scientific minds are in agreement." I could produce 50 similar comments from that page.

<Why would they do this? I know religious types make a cult of their founder - what Max Weber called the 'routinization of charisma' - but do they think everyone works like that?>

I did say I'd noticed the all-or-nothing way of thought manifesting in secular places. That includes many scientists, sure, fallible humans that they are. It may just be a common human trait in various forms, wanting to look up to and impress the Alpha.

One interesting aspect of Newton, not often raised by either side in this debate, is that he was a heretic, in terms of the values of his time. Having studied the bible closely - and when Newton studied something he tended to be superhumanly thorough - he concluded that the Trinity was a fiction.

It's a reasonable conclusion, but the mainstream churches, Catholic and Protestant, were all trinitarian. Later, the Unitarian church was formed. I've known a few Unitarians, and if I ever decide to formally become a Christian that's where I'd go. Remarkably sane people, in my experience.

Of course one of the other denominations has a technical claim on me, based on some mumbo-jumbo ritual performed shortly after birth. Which allows people to say 'I was born an Xtian'. One day that sort of thing may be looked back on as a form of abuse.

I digress. Newton was intensely religious, but his beliefs were dangerous. England, during his lifetime, had a religious civil war, a succession of Protestant and Catholic Kings and Queens, and other ups and downs. Any public pronunciations on the topic have to be seen through a political lens.

Two questions in one, I think. For some, the decline in results - a series of wins followed by only draws - indicates some problem with play. Some unspecified problem, though various people have opinions.

This, I think, is distinct from the issues that arose in the Pogo game, like the argument about a move like Ng4.

To me, this seems straightforward, and almost entirely due to the 24-hour turnaround. There just wasn't time to reach agreement on some key moves. I think the whole plan with a white c5 was a positional error -- it's no coincidence that so few previous games had that precise pawn structure. But no engine can see those long-range structural problems.

If and when another game turns up, we can debate: optimal opening strategies, to include consideration of typical middlegame and endgame structures; dissemination of info via forums etc; maximal use of distributed processing, time, *and* the positional understanding of experienced high-level cc players. Which doesn't include me.

I think most of these ideas have already been batted around.

That <tends> to happen when one has color vision, <or at least> monochrome, not just Black and White (<although> that is good <enough> for chess). <Then again>, <some> readers - and designers (of <undetermined> intelligence) - find gray shades boring.

Tough. :p

<and if I ever decide to formally become a Christian>

Uh, plz to stop that, you're scaring me... :s

I completely agree with this. Still, it seems that some problems are deeper. What I have in mind are Turgut's suggestions how the team could improve his current playing style. He mentioned these weaknesses:

" 1)You are not taking enough risks with white; very safe play (sound and not risky enough)

2)Too much dependency on computers.

3)More positional plans needed.

Heh. That is an excellent position for you, dear, no doubt earned on merit. :)

Btw, just completed a game that can serve as a comic centerpiece for the day -

[Event "FICS rated blitz game"]
[Date "2011.02.10"]
[White "AnnieK"]
[Black "NN"]
[WhiteElo "1461"]
[BlackElo "1590"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[Mode "ICS"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. c3 d6 4. Bc4 e6 5. Qe2 Nc6 6. Bb3 Qc7 7. O-O Nf6 8. d4 cxd4 9. cxd4 Be7 10. Bg5 O-O 11. Rc1 Qd8 12. Nc3 Ne8 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. d5 Ne5 15. dxe6 Bxe6 16. Nd5 Bxd5 17. Bxd5 Nxf3+ 18. Qxf3 Rb8 19. Re1 Nf6 20. e5 Nxd5 21. Qxd5 dxe5 22. Rxe5 Qf6 23. b3 Rbd8 24. Qa5 b6 25. Qe1 b5 26. Rc1 Qf4 27. g3 Qf3 28. Re3 Qg4 29. Kg2 f5 30. Rec3 f4 31. Qe5 fxg3 32. Rxg3 Qd7 33. Rc7 Qd5+ 34. Qxd5+ Rxd5 35. Rgxg7+ Kh8 36. Rxh7+ Kg8 37. Rcg7# 1-0