Good with words, too. For amateurs, I mean.

In short I used to do a class with a couple of other students reading, thinking and discussing about some old books etc. So we went on to continue as a little bookclub. Now there was made some fairly uninspirational name like [translated] bookclub for technical students. I just realized I could improve it a bit. So I came up with the pretentious 'Group Of Technical Students Par Excellence' - with an in-joke that the initials spell 'gotspe' which is a little-used Dutch word which, according to wiki, translates to the English 'Chutzpah' [same root] aka "the quality of audacity, for good or for bad".

Not *officially* - as far as I know - but I've seen at least two different attempts to coin such a word as the basis of a tricky little paradox.

Let's say an adjective is *homosemantic* if it describes itself (or refers to a class of which it is a member). So such words as 'short', 'English' and 'polysyllabic' are all homosemantic. Other adjectives (long, blue, spurious) are heterosemantic, and do not refer to themselves.

So which category does the adjective 'homosemantic' belong to? And 'heterosemantic' ...?

1. The Dervish House, by Ian McDonald
2. Surface Detail, by Iain M Banks
3. How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe, by Charles Yu

Thanks for the information, I had not yet realized the paradox :)

<In Dutch, <het erosemanticje>>

Might be we're dealing with some o' that here, but of course the dynamics here are a bit more complicated and diverse. All converging, though. Nesspah? heh

I agree many possible endgame configurations offer a universe of possibilities to pursue a "fault pas."

Which mostly just brings us back to the 24-hour turnaround, I'm afraid.

Looking back, there really wasn't much difference between Ng4 and Bf1. Both were drawish. But hardly anyone has time to examine both alternatives deeply ... one tends to end up with an optimistic eval of the line you've looked at, and a caricature version of the other. So the Bf1 people thought Ng4 a weak move essayed by naive OTB hackers (with no engine skills, but the sneaky advantage of lifemaster titles and rhetorical power) ... and the Ng4 supporters saw the other side as talentless drones, willing to go into a character-free ending if Rybka gave it a centipawn more than the alternative ...

Perhaps I exaggerate. But these caricatures became embedded in the game's meta-narrative, and still flare up whenever *kvetch day* comes around, as in Monday, Wednesday, Friday ...

Actually, I could go on. The lack of clear direction means that analysis is being duplicated (and lost) over and over. This is partly due to the fact that, at 24 hrs, RV's former advantage is reduced. And some other people now have heavyweight machines, and there are so many new engines ... in GMAN-1, by contrast, I think Fritz 10 or 11 was released mid-game (cue excitement) and seen as cutting edge. Now somebody like me - Fritz 12 on a standard dual-core laptop - is a Neanderthal.

And, and, something about the rate of play (again) and the Zhdanov controversy (etc) seems to have alienated former stalwarts. There are still quite a few experienced team members, obviously, but perhaps not quite enough to prevent erratic crowd behavior. We haven't had much outright trolling or old-style <PUTERS R RONG!> types ... yet I think there's a wide continuum of attitudes, degrees of deference to The Machine, and it's really hard to sort out the silly ideas from the good ones ...

I've had one idea, which I was saving for the next extension, if we get that far. It is to nominate a particular hour each day -- the hour after 'move time' would be good -- as a time when a majority of team members might be logged in. And we get somebody (some bodies) to write a daily bulletin, just saying where we are and how things stand. Giving the threats for both sides, the likely continuation, the top lines according to RV et al, and anything promising or notable that has turned up in the last 24 hours. Those who happened to be asleep at that hour would be urged to look for it ("Today's Bulletin was by hms124 and is on page 999")

Frogspawn lives, and I ain't misbehavin' ... much.

Over at GOTD -- Zsuzsa Polgar vs V Dimitrov, 1984 -- we've been discussing the Double Excelsior theme, where a pawn on each side captures its way to promotion. As in such famous games as Rosenberg vs Tartakower, 1954 and, ahem, G McCarthy vs M Kennefick, 1977

Excelsior is from a poem by Longfellow. The hero keeps going no matter what -- danger, beautiful maidens, death, it's all the same to him. Onwards!

<"Try not the Pass!" the old man said; "Dark lowers the tempest overhead,
The roaring torrent is deep and wide!"
And loud that clarion voice replied,
Excelsior!

"O stay," the maiden said, "and rest
Thy weary head upon this breast!"
A tear stood in his bright blue eye,
But still he answered, with a sigh,
Excelsior!>

So I've modified this with a Dylan version:

<"... ain't it just like a pawn to promote when you're trying to be quiet? We took a few pieces and then we all tried to deny it, And Louise had two Queens, saying anyone wanna defy it ...? Excelsior lived in the loft
With his classical books we all scoffed
Latin? You gotta be soft ..." >

So maybe a rap version is next?

I have neither the time nor the energy (see!) to bother with him.

I've seen OTB players have fits when losing to a woman. Chess still has a large degree of subsurface sexism. Meanwhile, some folks had actually persuaded themselves that the CG Centaur was rated 3000+ and the strongest chess entity in world history ...

Some people have been badly rattled by our failure to get an advantage against "our weakest opponent". So they blame the opening, the advocates of 'human moves' (there *are* no human moves - there are human ideas, but everything gets checked with engines and a 'pure' human idea simply wouldn't survive long), and of course the time control.

Which is then wrapped up into a Zhdanovite conspiracy in which Pogo and PZ planned all this to score 1.5/2 against 'the world' and, uh, further her career...

I dunno. I do know that between 1986 and 2008 -- a few years on either side of my 15-year 'vacation' from chess -- I drew ten games in succession against female opponents. Some were strong-ish, some less so ... but I always drew. And I suspect fear of losing played a part.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm a reincarnation of Van Rijn. Or his lady friend.

I spent awhile listening to Genna Sosonko in Russian, of which I only catch a word here and there, but I love the sound of it. There was one brilliant moment, when they were talking about upcoming elite events, and next month's London Classic hove into view. As players were mentioned, I got a definite sense that the English contingent were seen as a bit of a joke compared to the others (Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik, Nakamura).

OK, Adams can compete with these. Short, to a degree. David Howell, ELO 2616? Lions vs Christians. And there was something in Sosonko's voice as he spoke the name Luke McShane that made me tremble for Luke.

All of that may well be true, but I don't think that anyone believed anything similar of our previous opponents. It is irritating to be treated as the foil for a publicity stunt rather than the opponent for a serious game.

Sorry. Well, yes. Bridge (and Scrabble) tournaments are full of very talented women. I suppose the social element plays a part in bridge, at club duplicate pairs level anyway. I've known some 2400-rated chessplayers (male) to switch completely to bridge in their 20s, so that they could share a hobby with their better halves.

I've also been in those horrendous situations where (me plus girlfriend) play rubber bridge against girlfriend's parents. Her father is macho and ultra-competitive, tending to dismiss the ability of both wife and daughter, and seeing it as a straight duel with me. Which he very badly wanted to win.

He made two classic mistakes: dismissing his daughter, who was at least as good as me, was bad enough. Dismissing his wife, making her nervous and forgetful, was worse. The younger generation invariably won, and we thanked them for the meal and made our getaway. A weekly ritual for about five years, that was.

I'm not really very competitive, not in the classic would-be-alpha male sense. I know I'm going to lose some chess games, and if I play well I don't mind too much. The most successful types - the Fischers and assorted ego-crushers - seem to have a quadruple version of the competitive gene. Which women, to their eternal credit, tend not to have. The few who do become Margaret Thatcher ... and even right-wing politics is humane compared to macho chess.

I'm rambling, plus I've probably alienated about six genders already. I miss Annie. And Jess. They know how to keep me in line...

With those other guys, it's more like an urge. Dark, deep, atavistic, riddled with fear of predators and the need to kill anything weaker. Probably comes from growing up in the middle of a food chain.

Hmmm... are *middle children* competitive? Caught between extremes, the desire to overtake the one ahead combined with the fear of being caught from behind? Maybe. Not sure I trust that brand of pop psychology much, though there may be *something* to it. It's almost impossible to verify, in the absence of proper controls and the human facility for self-fulfilling prophecies.

I've mentioned JG Ballard's brilliant 'Zodiac 2000' before. He simply replaces the old sheep and waterboys -- the everyday characters from the life of a Chaldean shepherd, 4000 years ago -- with modern equivalents. And he does it in a way that retains some of the metaphorical mumbo-jumbo which has accrued round the standard zodiac.

So I'm under the Sign of the Computer ("The Taurean Computer, seeding its limitless possibilities"). I like that.

Reminded me of something I saw at deviant art a few weeks ago:

Also, don't forget he's an Acadian Indian so he's likely talking about "Mother Raven," as opposed to Jehovah or some other foreigner.