|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-15-08
 | | alexmagnus: <sheaf> (from the debate on the MC page). So, here is my first question. How much time is one given at the IMO? 6 tasks for...? Two days? Three? A week? |
|
| Jun-15-08 | | sheaf: My knowledge maybe outdated, but I thought there are two sets of problems day 1/day2 3 problems on each day.. but why do you ask that, are you testing me? why would you do that ? and what exactly are you testing me on ?? |
|
Jun-15-08
 | | alexmagnus: I'm not testing you, <sheaf>, I just wanted to go on with the debate. 1 day for 3 problems...Now, not much time to think, yes? What I meant, is - in an olympiad one has to be quick. You have some relatively little time for a difficult (but wit enogh talent solvable in that amount of time) task. In real science, you have to prove things proving which may take months, and you don't even know if what you are trying to proof makes sense at all :). Months of patient thinking. It is one of the main differences between an olympiad and what proffessional mathematicians do. It's like running marathon in relation to a 100 meter run. |
|
| Jun-15-08 | | sheaf: I like the analogy, but life is finite, bounded above (as well as below). I dont have a theory for IMO-->Real Math , but there isnt too much of difference in the basic nature except as you mentioned patience and I might add "motivation" not in classical terms but from a mordern and scientific perspective, an unmotivated but concerted effort is as likely to fail as a disorganised one (this is my opinion, i dont claim an objective truth).. Now if dont stop now(1.57 am on my comp); then I am going to have some problems in coming weeks. So I apologize in advance, probably I will drop in sometime in near future to continue the debate(I promise you on that, provided you retain some interest).. thanks for a nice conversation. |
|
| Jun-16-08 | | ifatkullin: alexmagnus, sheaf: I'd say the greatest difference between math olympiads and math research is that in the first case you know that the problem is (at least in principle) solvable within the given amount of time, whereas in the second case this may not be possible altogether. (So I'd agree with alexmagnus' point of view.) Thus one needs much more motivation and belief in his/her personal ability for being a successful researcher. Another very important feature a researcher needs to possess is the ability to choose good (nontrivial yet solvable) problems. (Would be nice if *god* would make up some math olympiads for math professors so they'd know that all the problems they are given from above may be solved in a week or two of hard work! ;-) ). And all of this should, of course, be complimented by excellent analytical/logical abilities... (In case you're wondering I am a professional mathematician with a reasonable math/science olympiad track from my teenage years.) |
|
Jun-20-08
 | | alexmagnus: I made some minor changes to the song in my profile. Now it's "'Cause the game against Carlsen 's still stuck in my head" and the penultimate "intermezzo" ends with "And checkmated my lungs with a scream!" |
|
Jul-02-08
 | | alexmagnus: Hm, I'd like to leave a message for a player who I don't know if he reads cg.com (I hope he does, though still the probability he finds my profile is very low). Still, maybe somebody who knows him reads this one by accident. The "message" is, if <Z.Szajbély> or someone who knows him reads it - <I want a rematch>. Answer here for details :) |
|
| Jul-06-08 | | Thorski: <alexmagnus: ...and the penultimate "intermezzo">
It's called a bridge. =) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge... Great song by the way!
|
|
Jul-11-08
 | | alexmagnus: <continuation of the numerous rating inflation debates>
Here are results of the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest, which can be regarded as the world championship in competitive eating, since 1980: With 12-minute-limitation:
1980: 1. 9
1981: 1. 11(Winner stopped eating after five minutes) 1982: 1. 11
1983: 1. 19 (world record)
1984: 1. 9
1985: 1. 11
1986: 1. 15
1987: 1. 12
1988: 1. 14
1989: 1. 13
1990: 1. 16
1991: 1. 21 (world record)
1992: 1. 19
1993: 1. 17
1994: 1. 20
1995: 1. 19 2. 19
1996: 1. 22 (WR) 2. 20
1997: 1. 24 (WR)
1998: 1. 19
1999: 1. 20 2. 19
2000: 1. 25 (WR) 2. 24 3. 22
2001: 1. 50 (WR) 2. 31 3. 23
2002: 1. 50 2. 26 3. 25
2003: 1. 44 2. 30 2. 29
2004: 1. 53 (WR) 2. 38 3. 32
2005: 1. 49 2. 37 3. 32
2006: 1. 53 2. 52 3. 37
2007: 1. 66 (WR) 2. 63 3. 49
10-minute time limitation:
2008: 1. 59 2. 59 3. 42.
Now, are you going to tell me there is a hot dog inflation? Obviously no. Still, the numbers are growing. I think, mainly due to appearance of a dominator (see 2001 and later). |
|
| Jul-11-08 | | rogge: That <terminator> theory makes sense ;-) |
|
Jul-11-08
 | | alexmagnus: It is also kind of clear why the appearance of a dominator leads to the progress of everybody. While watching what the dominator is doing (in any sport), the other sportspeople try to understand what the difference between him and them is. On the top level (in any sport), dominance is rarely achieved by pure talent (which may lead one on the top, but not to a dominator status); mostly the dominator shows some completely new technique, unknown before. I neither know what Kasparov showed to the chess world (maybe some top players from 1986-99 can answer) nor what Kobayashi showed to the world of competitive eating, but obviously their appearance made both sports progress faster than ever before. |
|
| Jul-11-08 | | Xaurus: <alexmagnus>
Remember this position? :)
 click for larger view21...Qxa3+ |
|
Jul-11-08
 | | alexmagnus: Our last game on FICS, no? |
|
| Jul-11-08 | | Xaurus: <alexmagnus>
That's correct! It may not have meant much to you but to me it was a great experience to actually win a few games. I haven't played since we played those games and I don't think I will. It was kind of a "farewell" for me as a chess player. From now on I'm focusing on a guy called Magnus. ;) |
|
Jul-11-08
 | | alexmagnus: I rarely get into such a king hunt. If my king falls it's mostly missed mate in a couple of moves; if the hunt is on the board, it's me hunting. And - you were lower rated than me. Such games get stuck in the memory - losing to a lower rated player by checkmate after a spectacular king hunt... Still I don't want a rematch like in the case of my first tournament opponent (I wonder if I'll ever get <that> rematch...) :) |
|
| Jul-12-08 | | Xaurus: <alexmagnus>
It's funny, I won 3 of the 11 games we played and all 3 times I won with black. Never with white. The last 2 of those 3 wins I got I won by getting your King out running. :) |
|
Jul-25-08
 | | alexmagnus: Hm, remember once we discussed the fact that chessmetrics ratings drift too despite Sonas saying he "calibrates" them? I think now I understand why. He doesn't take the average of players number 3 to 20 on any list and evens it everywhere (that's how many people misuderstood this idea). He takes the players 3 to 20 on the list X, calculates their average and then makes the same average for <the same players> on the list X+1. |
|
Jul-25-08
 | | alexmagnus: Just for fun, I need FIDE top-50 or better even top-100 lists since the very first 1970 list! |
|
Aug-17-08
 | | alexmagnus: A semi-spectacular finish in my own blitz game:
 click for larger view31.Nxf6 Qxf6 32.Rxh7+ Kxh7 33.Nf5+ Kg6 34.Qh5# |
|
Sep-05-08
 | | alexmagnus: Carlsen became live rated number 1. finally. Now I'll wait for a day when two other of my favourite players become nr. 1 in the (female) world and in Germany respectively :) |
|
Sep-05-08
 | | alexmagnus: Not that I don't trust them more, I just try to be realistic at first :) |
|
| Sep-06-08 | | Artar1: <We need your vote in our Battle of the Brains2 game. Can you vote right now? The team needs you. Thanks!> |
|
Sep-13-08
 | | alexmagnus: For those who believe that Chessmetrics' calibrating method is good to define inflation, I have a message: in the October list it is 0 points in comparison to the July list :). That is it, the average of the players, who were rated 3 to 20 in the July list, is in both lists 2742. |
|
Sep-14-08
 | | alexmagnus: Just did the "Chessmetrics-like calibrating" for all FIDE lists from July 2000 to October 2008. Apparently, by this understanding of inflation, we had a 9-point <deflation> since July 2000. Only one list (October 2000) was inflationary towards the July 2000 list, though there are many lists that are inflationary towards previous list. The list with the record deflation towards the July 2000 list was the January 2006 list (deflation: 22 points). The list with the most deflation towards the previous list was the April 2002 list (deflation: 6 points), the list with the most inflation towards the previous list was the January 2008 list (inflation: 5 points). Yearly comparisons (July->July): 2000->2001: -4
2001->2002: -12
2002->2003: +3
2003->2004: -2
2004->2005: -3
2005->2006: 0
2006->2007: +4
2007->2008: +5.
|
|
Sep-14-08
 | | alexmagnus: Ok that's how the Top-25 since July 2000 would look like by these calculations: 1.Kasparov 2862 Jan 03
2.Topalov 2831 Jul 06
3.Kramnik 2825 Apr 02
4.Anand 2824 Apr 06
5.Ivanchuk 2801 Okt 07
6.Morozevich 2797 Jul 08
7.Carlsen 2795 Okt 08
8.Svidler 2787 Jan 06
9.Leko 2781 Jul 05
10.Aronian 2779 Jul 06
11.Mamedyarov 2771 Jul 07
12.Adams 2768 Jul 02
13.Shirov 2764 Jan 08
14.Radjabov 2762 Apr 08
15.Ponomariov 2759 Apr 02 Jul 02 Apr 06
16.Polgar 2756 Okt 05
17.Bareev 2752 Okt 02 Okt 03
18.Gelfand 2750 Okt 07
19.Jakovenko 2749 Jul 07
20.Bacrot 2748 Apr 05
21.Grischuk 2745 Jul 03 Okt 03
22.Wang Y. 2745 Okt 08
23.Karjakin 2743 Apr 08
24.Navara 2741 Okt 06
25.Movsesian 2741 Okt 08
|
|
 |
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |