<Dom: <But I'm not great at *sharing*>>

You're not *jealous*, I hope? :p

Unable to ascertain. Cognitive stance described falls outside this unit's experiential mind-state memory. Continuing diagnostic.

This seems to be a genetic trait among many of the McCarthy persuasion. cf Gerry McCarthy, passim.

Right now, I'm thinking of Pynchon's term <temporal bandwidth>, which he defined as the extent to which one lived in the 'now'. Live for the moment, you have low TB; smear your sense of self into past and future via memory and extrapolation, you have high TB.

As I recall from the original context, low TB wasn't entirely a bad thing: it led to a zen-like state (sometimes called *antiparanoia*) where neither regret (re: past) or worry (re: future) can intrude. In contrast, high TB is associated with Paranoia.

This is not quite the same as either the clinical psychological condition or the casual slangy sense ("wow, that dope makes me rilly paranoid, man"). It's more of a distillation of the human tendency to make connections, which I called <cultural paranoia> in my MA thesis.

Not everyone is driven to make connections. Those of us who are frequently enjoy the process, as long as the clinical lines aren't crossed. Pynchon even speculates that the full *antiparanoid* state (where nothing is connected to anything) could not be endured for long. Yet, as I say, there *are* people who don't make connections: more precisely, they don't look for new ones. They accept the set of lego blocks standard in their society, and may even regard thinking outide the box as a sin.

Back to chess. The priorities are different. Projection into the future is essential. So is memory, as long as it leads to the learning of useful tricks rather than a mid-game tendency to dwell on lost opportunities.

But in general, high <Positional Bandwidth> is a good thing. Low PB, drifting from move to move, waiting for a response from the opponent before considering one's options, is bad.

Here, you may well argue, all this has been said before. The simple maxim <have a plan> seems to cover the same ground more succinctly.

Ah, but I haven't reached Positional Entropy yet. Or <Negentropy>, sometimes seen as synonymous with order or information.

What I'm looking for is a way to distinguish between two types of position (or position sequences). In one case, an engine eval may read 0.00 - but the opponent's next ten moves are forced, and any deviation loses. In the other case, all reasonable responses lead to flatlines: the game has a greater <only-move bandwidth>.

Players who make trappy moves to exploit <Trappy Only-Move Bandwidth> are called TOMB Raiders. Obviously.

This exercise in neologism is a work in progress. When I finish I'll have a full working vocabulary for the dynamics of team chess ... perhaps the game of chess itself, ha, I'll write *Mein Zweiter System* and invent *Hypomodernism* ...

All right, Herr Doktor, I'll now quietly come. Forgive me, I mean of course that I'll come quietly now. If only all your inmates fretted over word order, ja?

Word? Order? What words? What orders?

<RV><<36.Nxb5> cxb5 37.c6 Nb8 is worth deeper examination>>

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Be7 6. Bg2 c6 7. O-O O-O 8. Qc2 b6 9. Rd1 Nbd7 10. Bf4 Ba6 11. Nbd2 Rc8 12. Rac1 Nh5 13. Be3 Nhf6 14. Bg5 h6 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. b4 Bb7 17. Qb3 Ba8 18. c5 a5 19. a3 Rb8 20. Qc2 Bb7 21. e4 Qc7 22. Nf1 dxe4 23. Qxe4 Rfd8 24. Ne3 Ba6 25. Ng4 Bb5 26. Qc2 axb4 27. axb4 Be7 28. Ra1 h5 29. Ne3 Bf6 30. Ra3 bxc5 <31. bxc5 e5 32. Nf5 g6 33. dxe5 Nxe5 34. Rxd8+ Rxd8 35. Nd6 Nd7 36. Nxb5 cxb5 37. c6 Nb8 <38. Nh4!> Kg7 39. Rb3 Nxc6 40. Nxg6 fxg6 41. Rxb5 Qe7 42. Qxc6 Qe1+ 43. Bf1 Rd1 44. Qg2 Bd4 45. h3 Rd2 46. Rb7+ Kh8 47. Rf7 Kg8 48. Rf4 Kh7 49. g4 Qe5 *>

click for larger view

hiarcs13.1

<Depth : 24/11>
Time : 01:03:43
Nodes : 2601471K
N/sec : 680395

Score : +0.02
49... Qe5 50. Re4 Rxf2 51. Rxe5 Rxg2 52. Kxg2 Bxe5 53. g5 Kg7 54. Bd3 Bc3 55. Kf2 Bd2 56. h4 Bc3 57. Be4 Bd4 58. Kf3 Bc3 59. Ke2 Kh7 60. Bc6 Bd4 61. Bd5 Kg7 62. Kf3 Be5 63. Kf2 Bd4 64. Ke2

Score : +0.03
49... Bc5 50. gxh5 Bxf2 51. Rxf2 Qxf2 52. Qxf2 Rxf2 53. Kxf2 gxh5 54. Be2 Kh8 55. Bxh5

Score : +0.03
49... Kg7 50. gxh5 Bxf2 51. Rxf2 Qxf2 52. Qxf2 Rxf2 53. Kxf2 gxh5 54. h4 Kg8 55. Be2 Kg7 56. Bxh5

Score : +0.14
49... hxg4 50. hxg4 Qe5 51. Re4 Qf6 52. Be2 Kg7 53. Qg3 g5 54. Qc7 Kf8 55. Qc8 Kg7 56. Qd7 Qf7 57. Qxf7 Kxf7 58. Kf1 Kg7 59. Re6 Ra2 60. Rd6 Be5 61. Rd7 Kf6 62. Bd3 Bc3 63. Kg2 Be1

This line grabs my attention as white goes up one pawn into the endgame. I had a good look and I don't think black can avoid the lost pawn. But to win it? I don't know.

Anyway... another post I've really enjoyed reading. Don't tell me you can't write.

Anyhoo, I've posted the following in t'bearpit. It may be ignored or it may open up a whole new dimension of argument...

< One other thing. When this is over, maybe we should take a vote on whether these 806+ pages of 'kibitzing' should be erased. Either wiped entirely or very heavily edited.

Apart from the bickering and kvetching - which is really only embarrassing to the bickerers and kvetchers themselves, and some have thick necks and large egos that never suffer embarrassment - there's all the rude, nasty, suspicious, paranoid and unpleasant stuff that's been said about Natalia Pogonina and her husband.

She might not want any further contact with CG if she ever read this stuff. And CG - for sound commercial reasons - wants to stay friendly with grandmasters of whatever gender.

I know, sweet, I know. ;)

<Oct-19-10 The World vs N Pogonina, 2010

<Domdaniel: <overheard in droppings of eaves>

"There is extension countdown, like Sputnik? And I was, like, rilly, narodnik, enough. What is this, follicle fascism? Hair today, gone tomorrow? I am *krasiva*, my extensions are, like, part of who I am - anyone who like picks a fight with my extensions has me to reckon with. And, like, maybe Peter too. OK, he's dumb as a rock, but he knows business. And he doesn't have any extensions, at least none I've ever been able to jerk off. You say what? Jerking off is not same as jerking out? Crazy language. Give me break. And give me more extensions also. Swords into ploughshares, and Pogo sticks to guns.">>

OK, *now* they can delete away, if they want. :)

Of course, there is *bad* revisionism, which usually boils down to <my nation/ tribe/ family/ object of fetish-worship *never* did anything nasty, so anyone who says otherwise is lying> ... the whole corpus of denialism, ranging across numerous minor atrocities and genocides, and one really big one.

As Leonard Cohen wrote:
<I believe in all the history I remember But it's getting harder to remember much history.
I believe with a perfect faith
in the Second World War.
I am convinced that it happened.
The Spanish Civil War, maybe.>

Anyhoo, I'm with you on the subject of cyber-revision. I very rarely delete posts, my own or others'. And I don't Ignore people. Even my interest in psychology urges me to retain the Pogo archive whole, as a study in team disintegration under pressures previously discussed.

Yet this has been such a mess, and the bad stuff so personal, that drastic measures may be needed -- yep, hands up, I've been guilty too, but I was trying to be, uh, *funny*. Not, traditionally, a great defence in courts of law.

Once upon a time, briefly, I was a law student. Didn't suit me. Before I left, I learned the old common-law maxim about the use of drunkenness as a defence to homicide: <He that killeth a man while drunk, sober shall he hang>.

So I guess that he that doeth stuff while trying to be funny shall eventually see how he likes laughing on the rack. Or the gallows, whatever. Isn't there a genre called 'gallows humor'?

Can't say I didn't warn myself, but where am I now that I need me?

Anyway, the main issue here is not the lessons taught to or learned by the various hotheads - if that were the case, I too would stand by my usual stance of censorship/revisionism opposition - but cg.com's best interest. Which, frankly, has little to do with democratic processes such as polling.

As our admin (who may be ready to run for office in another year or two...) ;p himself seems to have observed recently:

chessgames.com chessforum

<chessgames.com: <Democracy can be a good thing, but sometimes it needs a nudge in the right direction.>>

Of course, throwing it open to the floor was downright irresponsible.

Heh indeed. :D You just feel like having a bit of a fun argument there, dontcha? ;)

Nothing wrong with that. I get into these things myself now and then, when the mood to give the ol' adrenaline a little workout strikes me.

Mind you, this hobby involves an equivalent to a hangover the next day or so, but that's not so bad if you know to expect it. Just sayin'. ;)

Btw, from Over There:

<Domdaniel: <This is hilarious. First the country falls apart, now the game implodes. I'm keeping a close watch on the gravitational integrity of the solar system, just in case.>>

Say, didn't I, rather recently, point out the desirability of consistency WRT gravity, right here?