My dflation argument was based on an assumption that all players perform according to the table. Then the K=15 group loses mo points than K=10 group gains.

<in addition, we have sonas' empirical data about "true" (and i say "true") scoring percentages between higher and lower rated players>

if you have anything worth reading to say, then i suggest that you say it here instead. if you insist on posting in your forum, then let me remind you that guideline #3 is in effect there to.

<btw, why you playing webmaster/moderator of carlsen page again , froggy? >

you are posting links to forums where <you> attack and ridicule <me>, angslo. i'm not moderating the carlsen page, i'm telling you to stop your campaign against me on the carlsen page (and elsewhere).

how so?

let's create a single player of all the 2300s and similarly of all the 2500s. the 2300 player then scores in total

a) 0,2% more than

b) exactly

according to the tables. why does <any> player in case b lose or gain rating points?

yawn...

what time is it in norway?

i am sleepy but perhaps i will respond here or in my forum . check both places.

however, your posts here, on the carlsen page, your profile and your forum all say quite clearly that you aren't interested in talking with me. if you consider me such a fool, then be wise and stay out of discussions where i participate. and note, if you clean your forum and your profile, then it becomes even easier for me to completely ignore you.

http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/exhibi...

And here's a link to a documentary (in five parts) based on the book in which the theory that we choose where we are to be reborn is mentioned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdnS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Thp...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me9w...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUrO...

No, but I don't like to speculate about topics, which can be settled by analyzing data.

The effects of the suggested K changes by FIDE, can at least for historical data be very much calculated, so why should I discuss it (more)?

<seriously, what's most far out - from a rational viewpoint - "scientific" debate about time travel, or spiritual/supernatural dream interpretation?>

The problem is

<"in fields such as quantum physics and relativity theory, existing assumptions about reality have been shown to break down, this has usually been dealt with by <changing our understanding of reality> to a new one which remains self-consistent in the presence of the new evidence"<<>>>

so no matter how much we hate breaking causality, we can't simply rule out such a possibility by arguing <common sense>, that has failed us big time in the past.

<Didn't u say that this causality paradox means that alex could never go back in time like that? And doesn't that mean that there is something wrong with all those wormhole time travel assumptions?>

We consider it a paradox because time-machine back in time, appears to be a contradiction, a logical impossibility by the way we view the Universe to day. Paradoxes can be resolved in a number of ways, one example is that the thought experiment is invalid, yes.

One big problem in this case, is that it isn't just the wormhole solution that trigger this paradox, there are several such geometries/initial conditions that gives these closed-timelike curves.

the interesting part of the discussion (in my opinion) can't be settled simply by analysing data - like i pointed out in my letter to chessbase, it's not obvious that "maximum predictive power" is the most important or most desired quality of a rating system.

<The effects of the suggested K changes by FIDE, can at least for historical data be very much calculated, so why should I discuss it (more)? >

true, at least more or less - we can't really simulate a potentially changed behaviour by people that are too obsessed with their own rating.

however, i certainly didn't mean to say that you (or anybody else) should discuss it. as i said initially, i don't understand "fancy" physics (old-fashioned mechanics was mostly what i learned in school), and i consider it too much work to get up to the required speed even to follow a discussion about these things, but that's ok, of course.

<Sorry, but such scientific paradoxes are an order of magnitude more interesting to me, than the current K-factor discussion.>

i must admit that the part about it that i find "interesting", probably has more to do with chess politics than anything else.

Then mathematics/statistics/computer analyse under some set of assumptions (k-values,behaviour,..) will probably help a lot (historical data).

The first part of this process is - I think - more about opinions and peoples subjectiv thougths. But it should be ended (the result) in a well formulated textual description, so the math/stat people could start their work.

Yes you all know what I mean. Sorry (again) for bad english.

<k is a constant> Short question (to <frogbert>?): Has it been discussed the idea of having a k-value, which is decreasing with the "stability" of a players rating and also with his total rating? I mean a more <personal> k-value which may start with "a high number" (say 40 (or what you want)) and then this k-value is slowly decreasing (to some small positive integer) when the player is getting better and stabilize his rating.

Or probably "better" (more practically): Let k be a (monoton decreasing) function of the number of games from a player. (Not the absolute best from a mathematical perspective, but..).

A personal k-value means of course that it will be a lot of games with opponents with different k-values. But among the experienced super GM's, the k-values should probably be (very) near each other. Of course that depends on what we want from the rating system. If we want to do a good prediction about the up coming tournament, we want a more heave wheight to recent results, hence a higher k-value. Suddenly I've got an idea of <two different rating systems>. The "first" could be the one which is good to estimate "real strength" (during a longer period of time, whith a lower k-value). The "second" rating system could be better to predict a future result (in a nearby tournament), more accurate to estimate "temporary strength", using higher k-values.

what the bleep do we know - time travel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eL3...

what the bleep do we know (dvd and book)

http://www.amazon.com/What-Bleep-Do...

what the bleep ? down the rabbit hole (dvd and book)

http://www.amazon.com/What-Bleep-QU...

-------*-----

electron interference

<
This movie is a perfect example of what Nobel Prize Winner Murray Gell-Mann calls "Quantum Flapdoodle", i.e. an attempt to use Quantum Theory to support a metaphysical, even mystical, view of the world. This is often the result of confusing Quantum Theory with the interpretation of Quantum Theory. The premise of the movie seems to be to prove that we create our own reality through the observation of it. What follows is a lengthy pseudo-scientific explanation of specific elements of Quantum Theory placed in a light that supports a distorted mystical view.

One of the first and most glaringly aggravating points about this movie is the editing. Many of the physicists in this movie were filmed for hours explaining Quantum Theory and the mechanics behind it, but only select pieces of the footage were used out of context to make it seem as if these experts were supporting a mystical world view, when in fact they almost universally scoff at it. Coupled with that is the fact that many of these "experts" actually have no physics credentials, Quantum or otherwise.

But what about the science, you ask. Unfortunately, the science in this movie is abysmal. First, as mentioned before, they confuse the theory with the interpretation. This is simply because they advocate the "observation is reality" idea, which isn't part of the theory. For a theory to be considered science it must be disprovable. Observation creating reality cannot be disproven simply because it would require an observer to validate, which would then invalidate the "theory". So from the beginning we have a faulty basis for science.

[...]
>

The only author I would recommend from my limited reading of such books, would be by Hawking. 10 years ago, I read his "A Brief History of Time" and was very impressed by the accuracy, within a layman language. However, the topics he discuss are hard, and I am not sure they make that much sense without having studied some physics.

Hawking let his strong opinions shine through, and I don't think he would spend time on time-machine issues in some other books of his, since he is a strong advocate against it.

I haven't read it myself, but I could check if my brother has finished it now and what he thought about it.

Everything I have come across and read by Feynman, has been brilliant. I am rather sure his layman book is equally good. He for sure know his QM, and had excellent teaching capabilities.

user review:

<the book by john gribbin is brilliant - especially if you want to understand <time travel> . However, it takes only a smart man with stellar IQ and logical skills to get the maximum out of this book. 99.9% users will give up on this after a few pages/chapters. but the ones who finish this book will be authority on <TIME TRAVEL>.

however, if you can not finish this book, that does not mean that you are not smart or purposeful - it will simply mean you don't know where to look for what you want (and may be don't even know what you want).

It simply means that you need to start easy - small step at a time. take the book <what the bleep do we know> for example. electron interference explained in very simple way and that is pure 'quantum physics' then ofcourse they will use the interpretation of quantum physics for explaining metaphysics (and btw, no book on pure quantum physics will explain you time travel - only the book on interpretation of quantum physics will explain that).... and after understanding this book you can proceed on to some really hard core book - book by feyman for example.

well, read john gribbin and become expert on time travel and explain that here after a few months. if you fail to do that and still want to understand time travel - then by then hopefully, you would have learned the lesson of how and where to look for in order to accomplish what you want to accomplish.>

metaphysics - there are certain things some people know but they don't know them using 5 senses. such knowledge is in the domain of metaphysics. can such knowledge be explained through physics? <no one has seen electron. they used some intelligence to interpret that a sub atomic particle exists>. and quantum physics goes a step further to give the interpretation that electron is energy - all matter is energy. now that is still in the domain of physics. because the experiments to prove the theory can be observed using 5 senses.

now, are human beings matter or energy ? well, quantum physics says humans are energy. if they are energy then metaphysics has been saying for ages that humans can not die (energy can not be destroyed) but it just changes the form. so, may be humans can not die. but this is still metaphysics - right? this theory can not be proved using 5 senses. so do some people have more than 5 senses?

------*-----
forget it! this is too far out. and if i understand it , it will give me some humility also (all sages have humility after all). very dangerous! I will only understand the things which require 5 senses and i will excel at that - i will have stellar IQ and logical skills and arrogance and ...

he calibrates the enenrgy of different people.

according to him the energy of jesus, buddha ... is more than 600 (highest level)

well, david hawkins is psychiatrist and uses muscle testing and other methods for measuring energy. but then that is closer to exact science like newtonian physics but still that is not pure science. is it ?

it is a different matter however that stu mittleman has used these muscle testing methods very successfully to set records in endurance running. endurance runners need energy to run the way stu mittleman runs - 500 miles in 5 days. ;0)

i myself have been applying these principles in running with great success for last 6 months ;0) (oh boy, am i smug at the results i am getting - i really have stellar intelligence when it comes to be smart at where to look for in order to accomplish what i want ;0) )

'slow burn' - stu mittleman

http://www.amazon.com/Slow-Burn-Fas...

now, that is the real thing - stephen hawking does not use any mathematics in 'A brief history of time' ; it is for layman . its language is not mathematics but english.

when i was studying engineering, i was the best student in my batch in engineering mechanics in my engineering college(and the college was ranked 6th in the country). There were some problems which i was the only one to solve in my batch.

Concerning quantum mechanics, there is an interesting book to the layman: "The Infamous Boundary: Seven Decades of Controversy in Quantum Physics", by David Wick, a mathematician.

When being up there (instead of poking into countless CS books!!), why not drop by the University library? The physics section there is huge, so they would most likely have a copy of everything you want.