|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-22-10
 | | alexmagnus: <pgp> I myself am neither Christian (Ietsist, in case it matters) nor homosexual. But I am interested in all religions and I personally find the interpretation of the relevant Bible passages in the article I linked much more convincing than any sexual interpretation of them. |
|
| Dec-29-10 | | Bridgeburner: I believe there is a response by <visayanbraindoctor> to your posts on my forum. |
|
Dec-30-10
| | alexmagnus: Thx, I replied back :) |
|
| Jan-24-11 | | shivasuri4: Could you solve this question for me please, <alexmagnus>? 2^x=3^y=6^z.Find 1/x+1/y +1/z using logs. |
|
Jan-24-11
| | alexmagnus: 2/z it is.
1/x+1/y+1/z=log_(2^x) 2 + log_(3^y) 3 + log_(6^z) 6 =log_(6^z) 2 + log_(6^z) 3 + log_(6^z) 6= log_(6^z) 36=2/z. |
|
Jan-24-11
| | alexmagnus: Though I don't exactly understand which answer is searched for. 2/z is obviously the simplest form, but if x,y and z were given it would be useless to search for 1/x+1/y+1/z. So, what is given? If it is 2^x (=3^y=6^z, let's call this number w), then log_w 36 is the answer... |
|
| Jan-25-11 | | shivasuri4: Is it possible to eliminate x,y and z?No extra variables,either.Thanks for your effort. |
|
Jan-25-11
| | alexmagnus: I don't think so. After all, every non-negative number is some power of 2, 3 and 6... So it's not possible (as you see above, the answer depends on z). |
|
Jan-28-11
| | alexmagnus: Just found the list of longest (in terms of distance to conversion) tablebase wins... I wonder if a human on a winning side will <ever> win any of those endgames. I guess many would agree to a draw and some people would even argue they <are> draw and it is embarassing to play on - but they are not draw :) http://www.gothicchess.com/javascri... |
|
Mar-30-11
| | alexmagnus: Sonas came upo with anopther article on ratings. This time with no apparent contradictions (just that he focuses on ratings as predictors and not as descriptors) but one he admitted - contradicting his own conclusions from 2002. A "historical" moment - Jeff Sonas admits contradicting himself and even explains why he does it! :) |
|
Mar-31-11
| | alexmagnus: Also, in that article he says he has some new findings on the topic of rating inflation... Well, we'll see which definition of inflation he will use this time :D |
|
| Apr-07-11 | | shivasuri4: <alexmagnus>,I don't know how useful some of the longer mates are.For example,the 50 move rule would kick in if someone tries to mate in that 517 move line.So a player might be able to afford many inaccuracies without losing. |
|
Apr-08-11
| | alexmagnus: 50 move rule is quite artificial though. At least in human vs computer and computer vs computer games I would abandon it - for the sake of pure chess truth. |
|
| Apr-09-11 | | shivasuri4: Yes,of course,I agree with you.However,don't you think a change in the rule would lead to people running away from computer chess, relatively boring as it already is? |
|
Apr-09-11
| | alexmagnus: Boring? Heh, see my post on the Naum page, one of the liveliest games I've ever seen, between any opponents. And playing out a mate in 517 may look boring but it is always intriguing if the position can be won without the 50-move rule or not. While endgames are solved only up to 6 (and some up to 7) pieces, playing them out may also show some interesting constellations worth studying with more pieces. |
|
Apr-16-11
| | alexmagnus: Sonas' obsession with predictive power goes into the absurd: no he wants to test predictive power of <TPRs>. Lol. Those are <clearly> there for description and not for prediction... Trying to predict something with a TPR is nonsense² |
|
| May-01-11 | | shivasuri4: Went through the Naum game.When I said boring,I meant that they don't have the human feel in them.Of course,if you remove the players' names,I might assume that to be a Tal game. |
|
| May-01-11 | | shivasuri4: The entire Hanna Marie-Klek is swarmed by your posts. |
|
May-01-11
| | alexmagnus: Hehe... Yes, I'm her fan. Obviously the only one at this page.... But I hope not for a long time :) |
|
May-01-11
| | alexmagnus: Hehe... Yes, I'm her fan. Apparently the only one at this site.... But I hope not for a long time (that is, I hope she will play so good that she gets more fans here) :) |
|
May-06-11
| | alexmagnus: Continuation of the posts on Slyusarchuk from the Anand page: Also, all S.'s scientific worls are proven to be 100% plagiates. S. tried to defend by saying he published under different names but it is untrue. |
|
| May-07-11 | | parameshv: Hi!! Alex!! Have come to ur blog..
regarding this reading a book in a short time and reproducing..i would like to tell you about what I read several years back.
Have you ever heard of a man called Swami Vivekananda?Ofcourse you can know about him in google easily. |
|
| May-07-11 | | parameshv: I will tell you about a episode in Swami Vivekanand`s(V) life.It so happanned that once V went inside a library to collect some books.As he was browsing there he found that he had read all the books there already.As he was about to leave the place the librarian suggested to V to read the latest edition of Encylopedia Britanicca which had just arrived.
So Vivekananda took the book and came back the next day and returned it saying that he finished reading it.The librarian had serious doubt and said that he was kidding.To this Vivekananda asked the librarian to question from any page and any para.This librarian tested V by asking V to reproduce page number wise at random.
It is said that Vivekananda reproduced perfectly exactly.
This I read in a book about Swami Vivekananda several years back probably 25 yrs before.I can try to get the book and qoute if you want.Whatever i have told you now I am only recalling it from my memory which is very poor.But I can certainly tell you that the crux is already given truthfully to you now.
Actually I was astonished to read it.It was inexplicable at first to me.
Let me hear you now.After hearing you I will tell you about another person I met directly. |
|
| May-07-11 | | parameshv: shall I give you my number so that I can explain certain things directly to you? |
|
May-07-11
| | alexmagnus: Wikipedia's article on Vivekananda mentions "prodigious memory" but no achievements in this field. Guess it's an apocryphal story impossible to verify. <Reading> an encyclopaedia in a day is quite possible. But memorizing it all, word by word? Especially with page numbers? (which is even more difficult than simply learning by heart. It's like memorizing a game of chess with or without the numbers of moves). Doubt it. Not that I'm 100% sure it's impossible, but I'd say it's closer to impossible than possible. When you told about someone able to memorize whole books in a short time, I first thought you mean Magliabecchi, who lived much earlier. Rumor has it he memorized thousands of books during his life and needed about a day per book. (a day! Slyusarchuk claims to memorize a 300-page book in 15 minutes!). And even that is quite much, though the story doesn't tell about how big that books were. Magliabecchi is said to have died surrounded by books. But unfortunately the whole story is impossible to confirm. Also, did you watch Slyusarchuk's exhibitions? For someone with photographic memory (which Slyusarchuk claims to possess) he recites way too slowly. I mean, if he simply sees the page in his mind, why doesn't he read it? He makes big pauses between words, which makes cheating suspicions bigger. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
