
Main
Date: 13 May 2005 22:45:05
From:
Subject: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

The "experiment" of no quick draws is useless in the tournament in Sofia Bulgaria because these grandmasters have memorized lines that promise them assured draws. In my opinion, this is disgusting. There doesn't seem to be a way to force grandmasters into playing exciting, uncompromising chess with no quarter. Here's my solution...and there are several options. One of them may be in line with Capablanca's idea of including new pieces that can be placed on the chessboard during the course of the game. One is to introduce Bughouse rules in classical chess. This will DEFINITELY prevent draws because there is no way a grandmaster can prevent opponents from using captured pieces to force sacrificial attacks on enemy positions. A captured pawn, minor piece can be dropped practically anywhere...forcing chess into a new level of dynamism and exciting play. Of course, detractors will sneer at this and say "That's not chess!" Well, excuse me...but the point is to force these memory masters into unknown territory right away and make them AFRAID for once in their lives of possibly LOSING a game of chess, rather than MEMORIZING 30 moves in one's sleep and gain a "perfect draw". Another idea...actually mentioned by Kramnik...is for chess games to be drawn by lottery and have players play openings according to the luck of the draw. For example...by ECO code...games could be awarded to unknown or relatively unplayed openings. But my problem with this is this...in no way will a chess player experienced enough to memorize opening theory will be caught with his or her pants down. They'll simply learn the lesser known lines until they figure out "perfect moves" and then continue to draw the games. This approach simply won't fly. Then there is former World Champion Bobby Fischer's improvised version of shuffle chess using his improvements for castling in such shuffled chess starting positions. At 960 possible setups...this is the best way to FORCE these chess memory masters into playing unknown positions right away and takes away their comfortable knowledge of opeing theory. Heh...I would love to hear k Dvoretsky's position on FischerRandom Chess! Now, I believe chess organizers and chess enthusiats should prevent Gary Kasparov's idea from taking hold. He's taking a "pragmatic" approach to the idea of FischerRandom. Before Kasparov announced his retirement...he speculated on the idea of introducing one FischerRandom setup per year. This sounds interesting...except this is once again allowing chess masters to scurry to their computers and seconds and coming up with ways of finding perfect moves leading to yet more draws. This nonsense of perfect draws have to stop. It's killing interest in the game as nobody wants to spend 7 plus hours by the computer and seeing chessmasters play lifeless chess leading to boring draws. And I don't agree with the idea of withholding their pay if they agree to play lifeless draws...because chessplayers can argue they played everything they could "think" of and yet the results lead to draws. All of this is proof enough that classical chess is no longer worth paying attention to because of the proliferation of draws. The chessical chess position may still hold interest for club players who haven't memorized enough theory to allow interesting chess to be played...but still...I think there is merit in FischerRandom and Bughouse rules being introduced to bring the excitement back to this venerable game.



Date: 20 May 2005 12:25:05
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

Nicki: "In every book about number theory that I can recall, 1 is *not* a prime number and 2 is a prime number." Nicki is right. Here is a table of all prime numbers up to 1,000: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71 73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113 127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173 179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229 233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281 283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349 353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409 419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463 467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541 547 557 563 569 571 577 587 593 599 601 607 613 617 619 631 641 643 647 653 659 661 673 677 683 691 701 709 719 727 733 739 743 751 757 761 769 773 787 797 809 811 821 823 827 829 839 853 857 859 863 877 881 883 887 907 911 919 929 937 941 947 953 967 971 977 983 991 997


Date: 20 May 2005 03:38:46
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

> > ClausJuergen Heigl wrote (to k Houlsby): > > I assure you, as mathematicians are concerned, 2 is a prime number. Nicki: >In every book about number theory that I can recall, 1 is *not* a prime number and 2 is a prime number. k to Nick: I am sure that, in writing this, you're not claiming to have read even every *reputable* book which pertains, much less every book. You're not, are you? k to ClausJ=FCrgen: > That is most interesting. A number of *my* mathematician > friends have assured me that the opposite is true. Nick to k: k, could your 'mathematician friends' please cite any book(s) about number theory in which 2 is defined as *not* a prime number? k to Nick: I have already stated in this thread that I shall be seeing one of these friends very soon. It's possible that the question has *already been clarified* by other posters in this thread, who are more knowledgeable than I am, and, possibly, more knowledgeable than you are. k to ClausJ=FCrgen: > You may have gathered that I am not a mathematician. Nick to k: k, I hope that you should know me well enough to accept that I am qualified enough to comment on this subject. k to Nick: Certainly. I can't remember an occasion on which we have discussed math, and I have *not* taken the trouble to acknowledge your being more knowledgeable about it. Can *you* recall such an occasion? Note that I *immediately* acknowledged the efficacy of ClausJ=FCrgen's contribution, and thanked him for it. k to ClausJ=FCrgen: > I naturally assumed that this was Bernd's point, as well. > May we take it, for now, that, as far as mathematicians > are concerned, opinion is, evidently, *divided* about > whether or not 1 and 2 are primes? Nick to k: >I cannot recall having known any mathematician who would dispute the proposition that 1 is *not* prime and 2 is prime. k to Nick: Evidently, I have met some mathematicians with whom you are not acquainted. Nick to k: >*Perhaps* in some field associated with mathematics, there *might* be a definition that 2 is is considered *not* prime, but it would be considered unorthodox by mathematicians. k to Nick: Yes, that would appear to be the consensus view which is emerging from this thread. Thanks for writing. k


Date: 19 May 2005 19:33:58
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

k Houlsby wrote (to ClausJuergen Heigl): > ClausJuergen Heigl wrote (to k Houlsby): > > I assure you, as mathematicians are concerned, 2 is a prime number. In every book about number theory that I can recall, 1 is *not* a prime number and 2 is a prime number. > That is most interesting. A number of *my* mathematician > friends have assured me that the opposite is true. k, could your 'mathematician friends' please cite any book(s) about number theory in which 2 is defined as *not* a prime number? > You may have gathered that I am not a mathematician. k, I hope that you should know me well enough to accept that I am qualified enough to comment on this subject. > I naturally assumed that this was Bernd's point, as well. > May we take it, for now, that, as far as mathematicians > are concerned, opinion is, evidently, *divided* about > whether or not 1 and 2 are primes? I cannot recall having known any mathematician who would dispute the proposition that 1 is *not* prime and 2 is prime. *Perhaps* in some field associated with mathematics, there *might* be a definition that 2 is is considered *not* prime, but it would be considered unorthodox by mathematicians. Nick


Date: 16 May 2005 12:16:21
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

An interesting post. Before I attempt to reply in detail, may I ask please: are you familiar with the fact that this topic has been debated over and over and over in these groups? How many of the (literally hundreds) of relevant posts in the archive have you read? If you can answer those simple questions, it may give me an idea of how best to address your *every point* in detail (I certainly intend to do *exactly that*). Thanks for posting. k


Date: 16 May 2005 18:16:36
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

> The "experiment" of no quick draws is useless in the tournament in > Sofia Bulgaria because these grandmasters have memorized lines that > promise them assured draws. In my opinion, this is disgusting. There > doesn't seem to be a way to force grandmasters into playing exciting, > uncompromising chess with no quarter. False premise: no GM has the ability to memorize the opening out to a forced draw. They may *think* they've done it, but the computers would make fools of them fast if they tried to actually do it. > Here's my solution...and there are several options. One of them may be > in line with Capablanca's idea of including new pieces that can be > placed on the chessboard during the course of the game. That's not chess anymore. > One is to introduce Bughouse rules in classical chess. This will > DEFINITELY prevent draws because there is no way a grandmaster can > prevent opponents from using captured pieces to force sacrificial > attacks on enemy positions. This is called Crazyhouse and it's already very popular. >A captured pawn, minor piece can be > dropped practically anywhere...forcing chess into a new level of > dynamism and exciting play. Of course, detractors will sneer at this > and say "That's not chess!" Well, excuse me...but the point is to > force these memory masters into unknown territory right away and make > them AFRAID for once in their lives of possibly LOSING a game of > chess, rather than MEMORIZING 30 moves in one's sleep and gain a > "perfect draw". And when an 1800rated player becomes world champion at Crazyhouse, don't say you weren't warned. > Another idea...actually mentioned by Kramnik...is for chess games to > be drawn by lottery and have players play openings according to the > luck of the draw. For example...by ECO code...games could be awarded > to unknown or relatively unplayed openings. But my problem with this > is this...in no way will a chess player experienced enough to memorize > opening theory will be caught with his or her pants down. They'll > simply learn the lesser known lines until they figure out "perfect > moves" and then continue to draw the games. Chess is far from a dry drawing game. When GMs draw it's because they want to or because the game forces it. >This approach simply won't > fly. > > Then there is former World Champion Bobby Fischer's improvised version > of shuffle chess using his improvements for castling in such shuffled > chess starting positions. At 960 possible setups...this is the best > way to FORCE these chess memory masters into playing unknown positions > right away and takes away their comfortable knowledge of opeing > theory. Or it just rewards players who are book wizards even more. >Heh...I would love to hear k Dvoretsky's position on > FischerRandom Chess! > > Now, I believe chess organizers and chess enthusiats should prevent > Gary Kasparov's idea from taking hold. He's taking a "pragmatic" > approach to the idea of FischerRandom. Before Kasparov announced his > retirement...he speculated on the idea of introducing one > FischerRandom setup per year. This sounds interesting...except this is > once again allowing chess masters to scurry to their computers and > seconds and coming up with ways of finding perfect moves leading to > yet more draws. Nonsensical. How about shortening the time controls? At oneminute chess, "unsound" moves can be very powerful weapons. > This nonsense of perfect draws have to stop. It's killing interest in > the game as nobody wants to spend 7 plus hours by the computer and > seeing chessmasters play lifeless chess leading to boring draws. No one wants to spend seven hours watching a chessgame, period. I say promote oneminute chess as the ideal solution. >And I > don't agree with the idea of withholding their pay if they agree to > play lifeless draws...because chessplayers can argue they played > everything they could "think" of and yet the results lead to draws. Yep. > All of this is proof enough that classical chess is no longer worth > paying attention to because of the proliferation of draws. Hardly. >The > chessical chess position may still hold interest for club players who > haven't memorized enough theory to allow interesting chess to be > played...but still...I think there is merit in FischerRandom and > Bughouse rules being introduced to bring the excitement back to this > venerable game. Why not add a pair of DICE while you're at it?  Ray Gordon, Author http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html Four FREE books on how to get laid by beautiful women http://www.cybersheet.com/chess.html Free Chess Ebook: Train Like A Chess Champion Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.


Date: 16 May 2005 07:03:01
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

>Yes, yes... Every time there's a tournament, somebody complains that there are too many draws, somebody suggests that draws be worth zero (or draws score 1 and wins 3) and somebody suggests that players would just toss a coin in drawn positions to decide who would resign because a 50% chance of a whole point is worth more than a 100% chance of no points. >Dave. All true. Well put. k


Date: 16 May 2005 11:38:49
From: Reinhold Stansich
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

Here is my solution: Don't reward a draw with 1/2 point but give it 0 points, and they will fight to the end. Best regards Reini

 
Date: 16 May 2005 11:31:29
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

Reinhold Stansich <[email protected] > wrote: > Here is my solution: Don't reward a draw with 1/2 point but give it 0 > points, and they will fight to the end. Yes, yes... Every time there's a tournament, somebody complains that there are too many draws, somebody suggests that draws be worth zero (or draws score 1 and wins 3) and somebody suggests that players would just toss a coin in drawn positions to decide who would resign because a 50% chance of a whole point is worth more than a 100% chance of no points. Dave.  David Richerby Hungry Game (TM): it's like a family www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ board game but it'll eat you!


Date: 15 May 2005 14:11:42
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

>I think 2 is a prime number, but I also know people that think it isn't. I think it depends on the context in which you are discussing primes. Thank you. I am particularly pleased to learn that I am not, evidently, the *only* person who knows people who believe that 2 is not a prime. The context issue clearly is highly significant.


Date: 15 May 2005 09:32:40
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

Hmmm... I seem to be sensing a pattern emerging, here.... Call it a hunch.... k


Date: 15 May 2005 09:31:11
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

>k: >Every source that I look at has 2 as a prime number. While getting my MS in MIS, I had to come up with algorithims to calculate prime numbers and the number 2 was always considered a prime number. >John Thank you, John. I *must* speak to these friends of mine... :/


Date: 15 May 2005 09:30:01
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

Hola Antonio, Many thanks. Your opinion is noted. I'm a musician (not a very talented one). MH


Date: 15 May 2005 15:16:59
From: John J.
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

The next time I play in a GM tournament I'll worry about the draws. Otherwise, why should it be of any concern to me? At my level all I want to do is win and learn, not necessarily in that order. If I'm leading the last round of a tournament, and a draw or a win would assure me of first place, why would I risk losing when a quiet draw will do the job for me? John <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected] > The "experiment" of no quick draws is useless in the tournament in > Sofia Bulgaria because these grandmasters have memorized lines that > promise them assured draws. In my opinion, this is disgusting. There > doesn't seem to be a way to force grandmasters into playing exciting, > uncompromising chess with no quarter. > > Here's my solution...and there are several options. One of them may be > in line with Capablanca's idea of including new pieces that can be > placed on the chessboard during the course of the game. > > One is to introduce Bughouse rules in classical chess. This will > DEFINITELY prevent draws because there is no way a grandmaster can > prevent opponents from using captured pieces to force sacrificial > attacks on enemy positions. A captured pawn, minor piece can be > dropped practically anywhere...forcing chess into a new level of > dynamism and exciting play. Of course, detractors will sneer at this > and say "That's not chess!" Well, excuse me...but the point is to > force these memory masters into unknown territory right away and make > them AFRAID for once in their lives of possibly LOSING a game of > chess, rather than MEMORIZING 30 moves in one's sleep and gain a > "perfect draw". > > Another idea...actually mentioned by Kramnik...is for chess games to > be drawn by lottery and have players play openings according to the > luck of the draw. For example...by ECO code...games could be awarded > to unknown or relatively unplayed openings. But my problem with this > is this...in no way will a chess player experienced enough to memorize > opening theory will be caught with his or her pants down. They'll > simply learn the lesser known lines until they figure out "perfect > moves" and then continue to draw the games. This approach simply won't > fly. > > Then there is former World Champion Bobby Fischer's improvised version > of shuffle chess using his improvements for castling in such shuffled > chess starting positions. At 960 possible setups...this is the best > way to FORCE these chess memory masters into playing unknown positions > right away and takes away their comfortable knowledge of opeing > theory. Heh...I would love to hear k Dvoretsky's position on > FischerRandom Chess! > > Now, I believe chess organizers and chess enthusiats should prevent > Gary Kasparov's idea from taking hold. He's taking a "pragmatic" > approach to the idea of FischerRandom. Before Kasparov announced his > retirement...he speculated on the idea of introducing one > FischerRandom setup per year. This sounds interesting...except this is > once again allowing chess masters to scurry to their computers and > seconds and coming up with ways of finding perfect moves leading to > yet more draws. > > This nonsense of perfect draws have to stop. It's killing interest in > the game as nobody wants to spend 7 plus hours by the computer and > seeing chessmasters play lifeless chess leading to boring draws. And I > don't agree with the idea of withholding their pay if they agree to > play lifeless draws...because chessplayers can argue they played > everything they could "think" of and yet the results lead to draws. > > All of this is proof enough that classical chess is no longer worth > paying attention to because of the proliferation of draws. The > chessical chess position may still hold interest for club players who > haven't memorized enough theory to allow interesting chess to be > played...but still...I think there is merit in FischerRandom and > Bughouse rules being introduced to bring the excitement back to this > venerable game.


Date: 15 May 2005 05:56:52
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

David Richerby wrote: >1 certainly isn't regarded as prime. I can imagine that there would be circumstances under which one might only be interested in odd prime numbers and state that one is using ``prime'' as an abbreviation for ``odd prime'' but that's more of a matter of notation than definition. Yes, exactly, it's about *notating* not *defining* so in this context, it's pretty meaningless, it's only noise, like so much of your writing. This needs to be clarified by someone who *knows more about it* than either one of us does. ClausJ=FCrgen evidently *is* such an individual, and he has clearly presented his perspective. Further clarification is pending. k p=2Es. "...one might be interested *only* in odd prime numbers....."

 
Date: 15 May 2005 14:57:20
From: LSD
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected] I think 2 is a prime number, but I also know people that think it isn't. I think it depends on the context in which you are discussing primes.

 
Date: 15 May 2005 16:45:19
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

k Houlsby <[email protected] > wrote: > This needs to be clarified by someone who *knows more about it* than > either one of us does. ClausJ=FCrgen evidently *is* such an individual, > and he has clearly presented his perspective. Which, incidentally, agrees with any dictionary you might care to consult and with http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html . Dave.  David Richerby Unholy Pants (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ welltailored pair of trousers but it's also a crime against nature!


Date: 15 May 2005 05:11:32
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

>I stand corrected. Lesson: never post to usenet after 23:00 >Bernd. Hmmm. This is an interesting situation. I have no doubt about ClausJ=FCrgen's credentials, and certainly do not doubt his word. Still, mathematician friends of mine *have assured me* that 1 and 2 are *not* regarded as primes. ClausJ=FCrgen has clearly explained why they *ought* to be so regarded, indeed, as I have written to him, his explanation is rekably similar to the objection which *I* raised when I was assured by professional mathematician friends that 1 and 2 are not conventionally regarded as primes. It appears that opinion is divided. I shall speak upon the matter to at least one of these friends (indeed, I hope to see her very soon).=20 k

 
Date: 15 May 2005 13:17:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

k Houlsby <[email protected] > wrote: > Still, mathematician friends of mine *have assured me* that 1 and 2 > are *not* regarded as primes. 1 certainly isn't regarded as prime. I can imagine that there would be circumstances under which one might only be interested in odd prime numbers and state that one is using ``prime'' as an abbreviation for ``odd prime'' but that's more of a matter of notation than definition. Dave.  David Richerby Carnivorous Moistened Postman (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a man who delivers the mail but it's moist and it eats flesh!


Date: 15 May 2005 04:32:42
From:
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

Hi Dave, David Richerby schrieb: > > Bernd wrote: > >> It's slightly offtopic, but actually all prime numbers ARE odd. An > >> even "prime" would be divisible by two, obviously, so definitely not > >> prime :) > > > 2 *is* prime: it has no factors other than 1 and itself. I stand corrected. Lesson: never post to usenet after 23:00 Bernd.


Date: 15 May 2005 03:49:26
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

>Hello k, >I assure you, as mathematicians are concerned, 2 is a prime number. That is most interesting. A number of *my* mathematician friends have assured me that the opposite is true. You may have gathered that I am not a mathematician... I naturally assumed that this was Bernd's point, as well... May we take it, for now, that, as far as mathematicians are concerned, opinion is, evidently, *divided* about whether or not 1 and 2 are primes? >An important theorem in mathematics is that every positive integer greater than 1 can be written as a product of prime numbers. This theorem has an essential role in the field of cryptography. The consequence is, that in whatever base you write an integer (binary or decimal or else) every integer has its unique set of prime factors. Whatever your base is, the prime factors are the same. Yes, I already knew that as it happens. I have read a little about cryptography. If 2 is not a prime number, then what is 4? Yes. That's where *I* got confused when I was told, on entirely separate occasions, by different mathematicians, that 2 is not a prime. >It's obviously the product of 2 * 2. If 2 is not a prime number the theorem would not be true. 1 is not a prime number because by definition a prime number has to be greater than 1. Yes. 2 is kind of special since it is the only even prime number. 5 is also special in the decimal system since it is the only prime number that ends with the digit 5. Yes. >If you want to read more about prime numbers, the Wikipedia has an excellent article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P=ADrime_number. Regards=20 ClausJuergen Many thanks for your post. Best k

 
Date: 17 May 2005 01:09:10
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

On 15 May 2005 03:49:26 0700, "k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote: >>Hello k, > >>I assure you, as mathematicians are concerned, 2 is a prime number. > >That is most interesting. A number of *my* mathematician friends have >assured me that the opposite is true. You may have gathered that I am >not a mathematician... > >I naturally assumed that this was Bernd's point, as well... > >May we take it, for now, that, as far as mathematicians are concerned, >opinion is, evidently, *divided* about whether or not 1 and 2 are >primes? 1 is a special case. 2 is a prime number. Everything I have seen indicates that 2 always was a prime number. Diplomatically, if your mathematician friends work with computers, that's one to miss, because that probably is the first escape in a prime function (if x mod 2 = 0 return not prime). > > >>An important theorem in mathematics is that every positive integer >greater than 1 can be written as a product of prime numbers. This >theorem has an essential role in the field of cryptography. The >consequence is, that in whatever base you write an integer (binary or >decimal or else) every integer has its unique set of prime factors. >Whatever your base is, the prime factors are the same. I would argue 2 isn't a prime number in binary, as it doesn't exist. 10 is prime in binary. 13 is a prime in hex, as is B and D. > >Yes, I already knew that as it happens. I have read a little about >cryptography. > >If 2 is not a prime number, then what is 4? > >Yes. That's where *I* got confused when I was told, on entirely >separate occasions, by different mathematicians, that 2 is not a prime. > >>It's obviously the product >of 2 * 2. If 2 is not a prime number the theorem would not be true. 1 >is >not a prime number because by definition a prime number has to be >greater than 1. > >Yes. > >2 is kind of special since it is the only even prime number. 5 is also >special in the decimal system since it is the only prime number that >ends with the digit 5. > >Yes. > >>If you want to read more about prime numbers, the Wikipedia has an >excellent article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number. > > >Regards > > >ClausJuergen > > >Many thanks for your post. > >Best >k

 
Date: 15 May 2005 17:43:14
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

En/na k Houlsby ha escrit: >>Hello k, > >>I assure you, as mathematicians are concerned, 2 is a prime number. > > That is most interesting. A number of *my* mathematician friends have > assured me that the opposite is true. You may have gathered that I am > not a mathematician... > > I naturally assumed that this was Bernd's point, as well... > > May we take it, for now, that, as far as mathematicians are concerned, > opinion is, evidently, *divided* about whether or not 1 and 2 are > primes? Hello k, If you want a third opinion, 2 is a prime number. I'm matematician (not a very talented one). AT

 
Date: 15 May 2005 15:13:15
From: John J.
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

k: Every source that I look at has 2 as a prime number. While getting my MS in MIS, I had to come up with algorithims to calculate prime numbers and the number 2 was always considered a prime number. John "k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected] >Hello k, >I assure you, as mathematicians are concerned, 2 is a prime number. That is most interesting. A number of *my* mathematician friends have assured me that the opposite is true. You may have gathered that I am not a mathematician... I naturally assumed that this was Bernd's point, as well... May we take it, for now, that, as far as mathematicians are concerned, opinion is, evidently, *divided* about whether or not 1 and 2 are primes? >An important theorem in mathematics is that every positive integer greater than 1 can be written as a product of prime numbers. This theorem has an essential role in the field of cryptography. The consequence is, that in whatever base you write an integer (binary or decimal or else) every integer has its unique set of prime factors. Whatever your base is, the prime factors are the same. Yes, I already knew that as it happens. I have read a little about cryptography. If 2 is not a prime number, then what is 4? Yes. That's where *I* got confused when I was told, on entirely separate occasions, by different mathematicians, that 2 is not a prime. >It's obviously the product of 2 * 2. If 2 is not a prime number the theorem would not be true. 1 is not a prime number because by definition a prime number has to be greater than 1. Yes. 2 is kind of special since it is the only even prime number. 5 is also special in the decimal system since it is the only prime number that ends with the digit 5. Yes. >If you want to read more about prime numbers, the Wikipedia has an excellent article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number. Regards ClausJuergen Many thanks for your post. Best k


Date: 14 May 2005 15:56:57
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

>A prime number is a number divisible only by itself and one; 2 fits that definition, and is therefore a prime. This is the first I have heard of it not being considered a print.  Chris F.A. Johnson Not quite. It's true that 2 has no *integer* factors other than 2 and 1. In mathematical circles, however, the numbers 1 and 2 are not generally regarded as primes, which, I think, was Bernd's point. Therefore, as far as *mathematicians* are concerned, your definition, if not inherently inaccurate, is *incomplete*. Regards, k nomiddleinitial Houlsby

 
Date: 15 May 2005 10:44:49
From: =?ISO88591?Q?ClausJ=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

k Houlsby wrote: > Not quite. It's true that 2 has no *integer* factors other than 2 and > 1. In mathematical circles, however, the numbers 1 and 2 are not > generally regarded as primes, which, I think, was Bernd's point. Hello k, I assure you, as mathematicians are concerned, 2 is a prime number. An important theorem in mathematics is that every positive integer greater than 1 can be written as a product of prime numbers. This theorem has an essential role in the field of cryptography. The consequence is, that in whatever base you write an integer (binary or decimal or else) every integer has its unique set of prime factors. Whatever your base is, the prime factors are the same. If 2 is not a prime number, then what is 4? It's obviously the product of 2 * 2. If 2 is not a prime number the theorem would not be true. 1 is not a prime number because by definition a prime number has to be greater than 1. 2 is kind of special since it is the only even prime number. 5 is also special in the decimal system since it is the only prime number that ends with the digit 5. If you want to read more about prime numbers, the Wikipedia has an excellent article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number. Regards ClausJuergen


Date: 14 May 2005 15:53:26
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

2 *is* prime: it has no factors other than 1 and itself. Dave. You're *not* a mathematician are you? That was Bernd's point. It's true that 2 has no *integer* factors except 2 and 1, but, notwithstanding this rather obvious fact, in mathematical circles, 1 and 2 are NOT generally regarded as primes. I suggest that you learn something about *industry standards* before posting again. It's *impossible* to conduct a reasonable debate with you for 3 reasons: 1) You cannot read. 2) You assume that just because you understand something to be correct, then it must be correct. 3) You will not apologise even after it has been repeatedly demonstrated that you are in the wrong. Now, IFF you have *learned to read* AND you have something NEW and RELEVANT to contribute to the debate about whether or not chess is a draw, you may post something to that effect, and I will post some links to earlier discussions so that you can get up to speed. Until then, I think you know what you should do. We have *never* been in disagreement that not everyone will become a master. Stop assuming that everyone is afflicted with the same shortcomings as you are. k

 
Date: 15 May 2005 12:05:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

k Houlsby <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby wrote: >> 2 *is* prime: it has no factors other than 1 and itself. > > You're *not* a mathematician are you? As a matter of fact, I am. Dave.  David Richerby Unholy Atlas (TM): it's like a map www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of the world but it's also a crime against nature!


Date: 14 May 2005 14:34:10
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

>It's slightly offtopic, but actually all prime numbers ARE odd. An even "prime" would be divisible by two, obviously, so definitely not prime :) Bernd. I rather suspect that he may have been calling the number 2, itself, a prime, which is not usually done (perhaps he was unaware of this). k

 
Date: 14 May 2005 18:44:46
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

On Sat, 14 May 2005 at 21:34 GMT, k Houlsby wrote: >>It's slightly offtopic, but actually all prime numbers ARE odd. An > even "prime" would be divisible by two, obviously, so definitely not > prime :) > > Bernd. > > I rather suspect that he may have been calling the number 2, itself, a > prime, which is not usually done (perhaps he was unaware of this). A prime number is a number divisible only by itself and one; 2 fits that definition, and is therefore a prime. This is the first I have heard of it not being considered a print.  Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org > ================================================================== Shell Scripting Recipes: A ProblemSolution Approach, 2005, Apress <http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/ssr.html >

 
Date: 14 May 2005 23:34:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

k Houlsby <[email protected] > wrote: > Bernd wrote: >> It's slightly offtopic, but actually all prime numbers ARE odd. An >> even "prime" would be divisible by two, obviously, so definitely not >> prime :) > > I rather suspect that he may have been calling the number 2, itself, a > prime, which is not usually done (perhaps he was unaware of this). 2 *is* prime: it has no factors other than 1 and itself. Dave.  David Richerby Homicidal Microsoft Projector (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a 16mm film projector that's really hard to use but it wants to kill you!


Date: 14 May 2005 14:29:52
From:
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

Hi, David Richerby wrote: > > No, we don't *know*; we merely think it is the most likely outcome. Given > the evidence of 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, > 57, ... we might ``know'' that all prime numbers are odd, but they aren't. > It's slightly offtopic, but actually all prime numbers ARE odd. An even "prime" would be divisible by two, obviously, so definitely not prime :) Bernd.


Date: 14 May 2005 14:27:05
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

>Oh, do stop frothing. I read your whole post but, since I was boggling at all of it, it didn't seem necessary to quote the whole thing. Dave. "That is why you fail." Yoda


Date: 14 May 2005 12:48:58
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

> > >k Houlsby <[email protected]> wrote: >> David Richerby wrote: >>> Somebody wrote: >>>> The game is theoretically drawn with the best play from both sides. >>>> That truism points out the problem. >>> That's not a truism at all  it might not even be true! >> Based on what evidence? >You want me to provide evidence that chess *might not* be drawn with best play?!? OK. We do not currently know whether it is or not. Yes, we do, IF we take the trouble to examine the evidence... > Ergo, it might not be. There's no "therefore" about it. In the absence of any *credible* EVIDENCE that chess is *not* a draw, unless one is superstitious, it seems sensible to conclude that it is EVEN THOUGH CHESS IS NOT SOLVED. Treat it as a science. Treat it the way scientists use theory which is not proved to solve practical problems. It's as close as we're gonna get in our lifetime. Are you as ignorant of scientific investigation as you are of reading? Trawl the archive. We, in these groups, have been over this and over this many times. If you have anything *new* to add to the argument, great, let me know, and we can debate it, if not, your time may be better spent in learning to read... >>> It would be much more accurate to say that ``The game is believed by >>> most people who have thought about it to be a draw with best play from >>> both sides.'' >> Nope, it wouldn't. > Boggle. Yet more EVIDENCE of your being ILLITERATE. READ MY *********WHOLE********* STATEMENT (IF YOU CAN) INSTEAD OF ***SNIPPING IT*** AFTER THE FIRST SENTENCE. IDIOT TROLL. k

 
Date: 14 May 2005 22:05:44
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

k Houlsby <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby wrote: >> k Houlsby <[email protected]> wrote: >>> David Richerby wrote: >>>> Somebody wrote: >>>>> The game is theoretically drawn with the best play from both >>>>> sides. That truism points out the problem. >>>> >>>> That's not a truism at all  it might not even be true! >>> >>> Based on what evidence? >> >> You want me to provide evidence that chess *might not* be drawn with >> best play?!? OK. We do not currently know whether it is or not. > > Yes, we do, IF we take the trouble to examine the evidence... No, we don't *know*; we merely think it is the most likely outcome. Given the evidence of 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 57, ... we might ``know'' that all prime numbers are odd, but they aren't. >> Ergo, it might not be. > > There's no "therefore" about it. In the absence of any *credible* > EVIDENCE that chess is *not* a draw, unless one is superstitious, it > seems sensible to conclude that it is EVEN THOUGH CHESS IS NOT SOLVED. We cannot conclude that chess is a draw from evidence  that firm conclusion can only come from proof. > Treat it as a science. OK. The evidence points to chess being drawn. Therefore, we believe that this is the most likely case. Tomorrow, conclusive evidence might (unlikely, I grant you) turn up that it's a win for Black in 29 moves with best play. > Treat it the way scientists use theory which is not proved to solve > practical problems. It's not a practical problem. It's purely theoretical. > Are you as ignorant of scientific investigation as you are of reading? On the evidence available, it seems that I understand scientific investigation rather better than you do. In particular, scientific theories are only susceptible to disproof  it is impossible to prove something by experiment. >> Boggle. > > Yet more EVIDENCE of your being ILLITERATE. READ MY > *********WHOLE********* STATEMENT (IF YOU CAN) INSTEAD OF ***SNIPPING > IT*** AFTER THE FIRST SENTENCE. Oh, do stop frothing. I read your whole post but, since I was boggling at all of it, it didn't seem necessary to quote the whole thing. Dave.  David Richerby Homicidal Soap (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ personal hygiene product but it wants to kill you!


Date: 14 May 2005 11:19:06
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

>I think that the statement "The game is drawn with best play by both sides" is the one that needs evidence to support it. Fine. You go right ahead and think that. Did you read my *entire* post, or did you just read the top of it, and, like a typical troll, disregard the rest? k


Date: 14 May 2005 11:13:19
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

>> The game is theoretically drawn with the best play from both sides. >> That truism points out the problem. >That's not a truism at all  it might not even be true! Based on what evidence? > It would be much more accurate to say that ``The game is believed by most people who have thought about it to be a draw with best play from both sides.'' Nope, it wouldn't. Your statement may be accurate (in fact, I'm virtually certain that it is) but it's certainly *no more* accurate than saying: "Chess is a draw". MG is correct. >Even then, there are people who believe that White wins with best play and even people who believe that Black does. Ah yes, but they have yet to *demonstrate* the same. Evidence is your friend. Everything else is either philosophy or fantasy or superstition or some combination of those. Reading any Informator *should* tell you that chess is a draw. If it *doesn't* tell you that, then you should *read it again*, but *more carefully* the second time. Chess is a draw. Live with it. k.

 
Date: 16 May 2005 14:59:55
From: Amarande
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

k Houlsby wrote: > Ah yes, but they have yet to *demonstrate* the same. Evidence is your > friend. Everything else is > either philosophy or fantasy or superstition or some combination of > those. Reading any Informator > *should* tell you that chess is a draw. If it *doesn't* tell you that, > then you should *read it again*, but > *more carefully* the second time. > > Chess is a draw. > > Live with it. Okay, let's go into a little more depth. First of all, the OBJECTIVE state of being. There are three possible cases here (which will probably not be settled conclusively until we have supercomputers that can analyze all the way from the initial position down to tablebases, which is still a loooooong way off techwise, and since the % rate at which CPU speed is increasing is slowing down due mainly to aging architectures, unless there is a major revolution in technology we are probably at least 100 years off from chess being 'solved' as such as an optimistic estimate ...): 1*  The game, assuming perfect play (i.e., the absolute best possible moves; these are not known yet as chess is not yet 'solved') by both players, will end in a draw. 2*  The game, assuming perfect play by both players, will end as a win for White. 3*  The game, assuming perfect play by both players, will end as a win for Black. It is anyone's guess as to which one of these is true. Practical evidence points to 1* but as I will mention there are reasons that practical evidence may not be most accurate. If it is not 1*, then there are two situations  a) the advantage of the first move is sufficient to enforce a win; b) the initial position represents a zugzwang, and White loses because he is forced to disturb the initial arrangement. It is difficult to say which is the case. It would be clearer were chess to allow passing, for then 3* could definitely not be true  this is indeed a universal law of games without an element of chance, if there is an effective way to "pass", then the second player cannot be the objective winner, because if we hypothesize that there is a winning strategy for the second player, then the first player could hijack this strategy by passing and thus becoming the 'second player'. In chess, though, it is always necessary to make a move, and it is fairly safe to assume it's impossible to make a first move that does not inherently disturb the positionvalues, i.e., there is no effective way for White to "pass", and so any of these cases could conceivably be true. Second, the PRACTICAL state of being. This unfortunately clouds the effective judgment, mainly because  a) the importance of prize money. In other words, the outofchess world importance of the tournament environment. I.e., the fact that top professionals earn a large portion of their paychecks from prize money, and the necessity of a paycheck to living a decent life. b) the increasing importance of a point in tournaments. An individual point, while possibly deciding a tournament in the end, has also become much more important than it was in the halcyon days, mainly because of the replacement of traditional round robin tournaments in most cases with Swisses. A Swiss makes points much more important because  i) you are playing fewer games in general, so a point becomes that much more important. In a 21player round robin, one point represents 5% of the score you could possibly attain. In a 7round Swiss, a single point is a whopping 14% of your maximum! Thus, even before the other considerations, a point in that Swiss is about 3 times as important as an individual point in the RR. ii) in a RR, if you have, say, a score of 6, and someone else a score of 7, you know (unless you already played them) that you're going to play them, and you have a chance to equalize by beating them (mutual exclusion of points). In other words a lost point is much less serious as it can frequently be 'made up' later if you beat the right opponent. In a Swiss, though, players are paired in an almost ironbands manner with samescored players, especially when there are a large number of players. If you have a score of 6 and someone else a score of 7, there is a good chance that you will not get to face them, because you will be forced to play other players with a score of 6, instead. Thus, you are unable to catch up via the mutual exclusion of points, and even if you keep winning, if they keep winning they will stay that one point ahead of you. Since most Swisses have considerably fewer rounds than players, there's a good chance of them keeping away from you for the rest of the tournament, and if they win every game there is no way to get past this 'moving wall'. c) the generally decreasing time limits imposed on games (often involving suddendeath cycles, so once time pressure occurs it is often for the rest of the game) compared to the halcyon days of unlimited 40/120, or 30/120 + 15/60 cycles as used to be the standard, is an inducement towards simpler positions and rote memorization in order to save time for, and minimize the risk of time pressure. As you can probably tell, this produces an environment where the main concern seems to be becoming risk minimization. It's possible that many games are being drawn because while winning lines may exist, they may be being shied away from due to being very risky, involving a lot of careful thought (which these days often = major time pressure), and thus not jelling well with the realities of prize structures and tournament competition ...

 
Date: 14 May 2005 20:33:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

k Houlsby <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby wrote: >> Somebody wrote: >>> The game is theoretically drawn with the best play from both sides. >>> That truism points out the problem. >> >> That's not a truism at all  it might not even be true! > > Based on what evidence? You want me to provide evidence that chess *might not* be drawn with best play?!? OK. We do not currently know whether it is or not. Ergo, it might not be. >> It would be much more accurate to say that ``The game is believed by >> most people who have thought about it to be a draw with best play from >> both sides.'' > > Nope, it wouldn't. Boggle. Dave.  David Richerby Generic Pants (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ welltailored pair of trousers but it's just like all the others!

  
Date: 17 May 2005 06:08:55
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

Yes, well, a lot of people seem to agree with you. Not everybody does, apparently. Thanks.

 
Date: 14 May 2005 18:15:35
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

In article <[email protected] >, "k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote: > >That's not a truism at all  it might not even be true! > > Based on what evidence? I think that the statement "The game is drawn with best play by both sides" is the one that needs evidence to support it. Ron


Date: 14 May 2005 09:01:34
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

A very interesting post. I should like to know what the *players* think of the idea (aside from their being paid for playing). "The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." Herbert Sebastian Agar


Date: 14 May 2005 15:53:55
From: Morphy's ghost
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

In the year of our Lord 13 May 2005 22:45:05 0500, [email protected] wrote: >The "experiment" of no quick draws is useless in the tournament in >Sofia Bulgaria because these grandmasters have memorized lines that >promise them assured draws. In my opinion, this is disgusting. There >doesn't seem to be a way to force grandmasters into playing exciting, >uncompromising chess with no quarter. The game is theoretically drawn with the best play from both sides. That truism points out the problem. Draws will be with us for just as long as we continue to pit the best players against each other. People who don't like that really need to follow another game. That said, I think the "experiment" is working out pretty well. I saw a draw yesterday that was played down to where an intermediate player could explain why the game was drawn. (It was rook + pawns vs rook +pawns: the Polgar game I think.) If that rule had not been in force, I think the game would have ended in an agreed draw about 15 moves earlier and the audience would have missed an interesting try by White to save the win. In contrast, I also saw the Shabalov game from the CCAICC where the opponents agreed to a draw in a sharp position with lots of play in it, probably because neither player was overly excited about continuing in time pressure, although it appeared that Black did have an advantage. A "no agreed draw" rule for that game would undoubtedly have given us a more interesting game. Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake

 
Date: 14 May 2005 18:31:18
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

Morphy's ghost <[email protected] > wrote: > The game is theoretically drawn with the best play from both sides. > That truism points out the problem. That's not a truism at all  it might not even be true! It would be much more accurate to say that ``The game is believed by most people who have thought about it to be a draw with best play from both sides.'' Even then, there are people who believe that White wins with best play and even people who believe that Black does. > In contrast, I also saw the Shabalov game from the CCAICC where the > opponents agreed to a draw in a sharp position with lots of play in it, > probably because neither player was overly excited about continuing in > time pressure, although it appeared that Black did have an advantage. A > "no agreed draw" rule for that game would undoubtedly have given us a > more interesting game. But maybe a game full of blunders due to time trouble, which wouldn't really have been any more valuable than the draw. Dave.  David Richerby Pickled Lead Sword (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ razorsharp blade that weighs a ton but it's preserved in vinegar!


Date: 14 May 2005 03:19:11
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Tournament in Sofia Bulgaria is proof classical chess is dead

HAHAHAHAHA you're *such* an idiot. Interest in the game was never that great. The reason for that is that most people think that there are more important things to do in life than spend the necessary time to study enough chess to be able to *appreciate* GM play. It's really got nothing to do with what suits *us*. It has to do with what's good for GMs, IMs, FMs and NMs and *therefore* the game *itself*. FischerRandom and Bughouse are fine in themselves, but they are chess *variants* which don't really belong in this group unless perhaps you're analysing a line in a FischerRandom game. Chess is *not* exciting to anyone who has not taken the trouble to gain the prerequisite knowledge to appreciate it, which applies both to a great many people who, perfectly reasonably, are uninterested in chess andmuch, much worseto imbeciles like you who *pretend* to be interested in chess, but are just too plain dumb to realise how idiotic they are being in posting ridiculous suggestions for "making the game more exciting"..... ROTFLMAO! Have you ever actually *read* an Informator? Even one game? Go away, silly little dwarf.

