Brief Q&A with Magnus Carlsen in TIME. The usual mainstream attempt to ask angled questions that instead fall into the usual cliches of genius, madness, computers, and women in chess. Even the oft-parodied question "how many moves ahead can you see?" gets in there. You can almost hear Carlsen's eyes roll from here, but he keeps it straightforward. (Coincidentally, Kasparov addresses this old chestnut in an upcoming New York Review of Books article about computer chess.) The central failure of these interviews, like so many, is that they operate from the proposition, "what would my readers find interesting?" instead of "what does my subject find interesting?" The best interviewers know you get much better results with the second method. [Update: I didn't mean to sound like such a jerk about the TIME piece. I blame all the coconut rum eggnog I was drinking. Mostly I was complaining about how the same (largely fruitless) questions are always asked. More rambling in this vein from me in the comments here.]
It's a little tragic how we fans always fall all over ourselves whenever chess gets a big-league mention even though it's almost always this superficial. Just happy they know we exist, I suppose, but I don't think it's much of a barometer of anything just yet. It will be interesting to see if Carlsen's new sponsors get enough traction to then see if his brand can extend beyond his home turf. Remember how many thought Anand's world championship was going to release a flood of Indian sponsorship money? Not so much, as the fact that he's defending his title in Bulgaria attests. It does seem to be doing quite a bit for promoting youth and scholastic chess in India, however, though that was already the case.
Garry also just did a Q&A for TIME, about Magnus, but either it hasn't run yet or they just used it for background for this one, which seems likely. If it's the latter I'll put it up here later, though most of the material he's already covered in his other myriad interviews, many for the Norwegian press. [The journalist just let me know it will run at time.com as part of a 2-page profile on Carlsen early in 2010.] Carlsen was just named Norway's sports star of the year, which caused a little controversy due to the usual "is chess really a sport?" argument from some quarters. But he finished ahead of Thor Hushovd, Suzann Pettersen, and Brede Hangeland, and of course we all know how big they are. I mean, just saying Hushovd says it all, I think. Hushovd. [Tarjei in the comments has details here about that and the other Norwegian awards Carlsen has won and is up for.]
Carlsen and Kasparov will be headed to Morocco early in the new year for a pre-Corus training session. They'll also make a simul appearance. It will be interesting to see how well the local press and the local chess scene responds since it's one I know little about. I saw a lot more backgammon than chess in public when I went through Morocco.
The paucity of journalists inculcated with Caissic sagacity is appalling.
Who are these people "Thor Hushovd, Suzann Pettersen, and Brede Hangeland," someone fill me in? Never heard of them. Obviously chess is a sport though - what a dumb argument.
Make the Karlsen (C+K) come give US simuls!!!
Thor Hushovd is a Norwegian professional cyclist. He is a big sprinter, probably best known for competing in Tour de France and winning the Green Jersey (competition for best sprinter/most consistent rider) last year.
Brede Hangeland is a Norwegian footballer who currently plays in centre of defence for Fulham in the Premier League in England.
I didn't know who Suzann Pettersen was but you can always google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzann_Pettersen
"Obviously chess is a sport though - what a dumb argument."
What a mute argument? Actually, chess is a board game. Are Peter Svidler and Nigel Short sportsman or athletes? I don't think so and they don't either in the interviews I've read with them. If fitness is included in the definition of sport, then many games popularly considered as sports are not actually sports. You could be the best bowler, golfer, baseball pitcher, or lineman in American football in the world and be unable to run a 5 minute mile which is a very basic measurement of fitness.
Yes both Peter Svidler and Nigel Short are sportsmen. Athletes questionable. The argument was not whether chess was athletic (which would be interesting to debate) but if chess was a sport (which is boring because it quite obviously is).
Please point me to other sport about to be solved by computers.
From Migs write up one get the impression that Hushovd and Suzann Petersen came second and third in the voting, which seemed a little odd.
Actually number two and three were Ole Ainar Bjoernsdalen and Andreas Thorkildsen.
Mig, he did not only become the sportsman of the year, but he actually won three different awards (the link you provided comes from the national news agency and is only a short summary sent to all local newspapers all over the country):
- Name Of the Year (Årets navn) in Verdens Gang, the biggest newspaper in Norway, an editorial non-sports award based on notable extraordinary achievements and addtention in the past year. Among other candidates were Eurovision Song Contest winner Alexander Rybak, skiier Petter Northug, lawyers, fossils, healers etc. Video interview and info in Norwegian here:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=581096
- Sportsman of the Year 2009 in Verdens Gang, an editorial award with the 100 biggest sports stars in Norway. 2nd was biathlete Ole Einar Bjørndalen, then javelin thrower Andreas Thorkildsen, skiier Petter Northug, alpinist Aksel Lund Svindal, Thor Hushovd and so on. Info and video interview again at http://www.vg.no/sport/artikkel.php?artid=597047
- Thirdly he won "Folkets Idrettspris", a people's choice award in Dagbladet, the second biggest newspaper in Norway. It's another prestigious award, just because it's voted by the people. He got an overwhelming 36 % of the votes:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/12/24/sport/folkets_idrettspris/sjakk/magnus_carlsen/9655015/
Comment from Kasparov: http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/12/24/sport/folkets_idrettspris/sjakk/magnus_carlsen/garri_kasparov/9655353/
At last he is also nominated by the Norwegian Athletics Federation (NIF) as Name Of the Year, along with Bjørndalen, boxer Brækhus, Northug, golfer Pettersen, Lund-Svindal and Thorkildsen. The awards will be handed out in a big show on January 9th.
http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/skiskyting/artikkel.php?artid=583324
And he is nominated by the athletics federation, despite the fact that the chess federation is not a part of it.
Not taking sides, but the contrast is interesting:
http://www.chessvibes.com/columns/carlsen-in-time-and-the-art-of-good-journalism/
(ChessVibes contrarian take)
http://www.chessvibes.com/columns/carlsen-in-time-and-the-art-of-good-journalism/
Indeed. The short piece was just about perfect at covering all bases, not pitched at chess experts, and giving a reasonable portrait of the subject in just about no time at all.
Dunno what the fuss is about. Article seemed pretty run-of-the-mill to me. Bah humbug.
Speaking of chess in popular media, has anyone ever written about the ways chess is represented in motion pictures? The trope that annoys me the most is this: Two dudes are playing chess and having some discussion. Then, at a critical moment in their conversation, Dude #1 serendipitously moves a piece and declares "Checkmate!" to the surprise of Dude #2 who apparently hadn't seen it coming.
And does anyone know of any motion pictures that represent chess from a realistic, informed perspective?
"Name Of the Year (Årets navn) in Verdens Gang, the biggest newspaper in Norway, an editorial non-sports award based on notable extraordinary achievements and addtention in the past year. Among other candidates were Eurovision Song Contest winner Alexander Rybak, skiier Petter Northug, lawyers, fossils, healers etc."
Fossils and lawyers have extraordinary achievements in Norway?! these norwegians are crazy!
It's a little illustration of Bobby Fischer's true and lasting influence on American chess: he got it into every American's head that to be a great chess player you must be a freakish man-child of dubious sanity and without a trace of social aptitude. Of course TIME had to revive all the old canards, although I suppose they deserve a penny for mentioning Morphy as well as Fischer.
"Fossils and lawyers have extraordinary achievements in Norway?! these norwegians are crazy!"
This is the reason for the nomination of Ida:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link
Let's be frank, TIME is a poorly written propaganda rag anyway. The glossy pages make it unsuitable even for sanitary purposes.
Anyone else disappointed to see the short draw Spassky-Korchnoi? Suppose they are tired, but was hoping to see a fight in every game. Especially since Spassky was white and acoording to K, S "wanted the match more".
"Whatever works"
It is a good interview, IMHO.
What should have been there instead?!
"And does anyone know of any motion pictures that represent chess from a realistic, informed perspective?"
While "realistic" would be stretching things, the chess in "The Other Man" (between Neeson and Banderas) does avoid the worst pitfalls: While the phrase "check" is still used for dramatic effect, the dreaded "mate out of nowhere" is thankfully replaced with the launching of a mating combination. Every now and then, the chess dialogue also sounds somewhat authentic. But of course, any suspense of disbelief that might have been instilled, is instantly destroyed by the clumsy way they capture the pieces.
So, it's better than most, but I wouldn't see it for the chess content - and not for the story either, which is a terrible realization of a decent idea. (There's some fantastic images of Milan in it, though, so it wasn't a complete waste of time...)
Another sport that has been solved by computers, try weightlifting, sprinting (out run a new alfa romeo), etc There is hardly a sport out there that machines cannot beat humans.
Wow, bang dead-on with your comments about TIME magazine and the Kortchnoi-Spassky match chesshire cat, well said!
Personally I find the old (from the time of the 1970 WC match!) about "Why They Play: The Psychology of Chess" a more interesting read. This essay, also printed in TIME, was linked to from the Carlsen interview.
See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910405,00.html
Probably some simplifications and hard to document claims there too, but indeed a thoroughly investigated piece none the less.
1970??? I meant 1972, of course! (Heck, I was born in 1972 ...)
Yah, I was too harsh and I didn't mean to make it sound like my annoyance was at this piece in particular. My point wasn't that the Q&A (not exactly an interview as printed) was good or bad for its intents and purposes, but that they so often ask the same things. And in the case of chessplayers, these things (genius, madness, women, computers) tend not to say much about the subject because, other than computers, they aren't things top players spend any time considering. Not that they might not have an opinion, but "does chess make you crazy?" isn't exactly a deep vein to mine, as countless interviews have shown.
Someone like, say, Aronian, who cares mostly about appearing not to take things seriously, can just joke. Veterans who have been asked it all and therefore put in some time thinking on these things (mostly world champions who get a lot of MSM time) might have some thoughts worked out. But if you're an active young player and feel the responsibility to be serious, you don't have much to work with. I expect Carlsen will become more expansive in this regard as he gets asked these things for the 10,000th time, the way Garry, Karpov, and even the epically sincere Anand have.
I don't understand the ChessVibes commentary on the Q&A at all. Most of the questions -- and most of the answers -- have been seen many times even in the relatively few times chessplayers are interviewed in the mainstream press. I don't blame Carlsen for this, and of course his personal answers are always nice to have. That is, just because they've been asked before doesn't mean we might not want to hear how a new person answers. I'm sure many people would be interested in what he eats. (Garry got that all the time. Secret brain foods!?!) It's not as if the Proust questionnaire has suffered much from having interesting people answering the same questions year after year. But other than the nice "chess as combat or art" Q and his interesting A, I didn't feel I got that much.
Heck, I don't really blame the journalist either since he's following in footsteps that are well-trodden and has serious space and time limitations and an editor to deal with. It was more a general rant about mainstream chess coverage and those four evergreen topics, 3 out of 4 of which are usually dead ends. But they introduce facts that the interviewer knows should be interesting to the audience, that a few famous players went nuts and that not many women play. These are indeed interesting facts, as our eternal debates about them here show, but not such great questions for a young player.
Speaking of, the journalist who wrote the piece for TIME wrote to tell me Garry's Q&A will be running in early January as part of a two-page profile of Carlsen, which is exciting to hear. Of course now I feel like a jerk because it sounded like I hated his piece. He clearly put in some work and, as I said above, the piece probably met its goals. Mostly I just hope for more about the player and what a pro chessplayer does (which I think would be interesting for the TIME audience) and hope for fewer questions about insanity.
How will Carlsen define success in 2010 now that he's the #1? What is his average day or week like when he's not playing in an event? What does he use his computer for and can he imagine working without a computer? How is he/his chess/attitude different now from a year ago before working with GK, or four years ago when he was a wunderkind? People can see the difference between Lebron James and guys playing basketball in the park. What's the difference between a top Grandmaster and a guy playing chess in the park? Chess is an ancient game (sport! game! sport!) with a rich history, but do the games of old masters like Capablanca and Botvinnik have anything to teach you?
And for those above who didn't get the joke, I just picked the first three names from the list of other nominees listed in that article on Carlsen winning the VG prize.
Thanks for all the info on his prizes, Tarjei.
Out of curiosity: did you read Justin Horton's piece "It’s Only Chess" in the latest edition of Kingpin?
If you didn't, you probably should. People often enjoy reading the writings of people wh basically agree with themselves. :o)
"I just picked the first three names from the list of other nominees listed"
Not very surprising, since you mixed a big star of a big event like le Tour (Thor Hushovd, who unlike Lance Armstrong won a jersey in the 2009 event - "old" Lance was still impressive in his comeback, though!) - with a mostly unknown soccer player like Hangeland. Only Norwegian football supporters and some in England would recognize his name, while being clueless about Tour de France and its stars tells more about the speaker than about Hushovd. At least for anyone with a general interest in sports - which might not apply to you. :o)
How many jersies were there during the tour and how many of the other winners can you name?
Have to agree with frogbert. I don't think it's that rare to be an international chess fan and an international road cycling fan, and we admire guys like Hushovd as much as we do any super grandmaster excepting the top five or so, because Thor is the equivalent of a super grandmaster in the cycling world.
Very much like your writing, Mig. I'm also a writer and copy editor, so I especially appreciate the quality and easy humor of your writing.
I don't think _my_ knowledge of the Tour is very relevant, as it's probably not average in any way. I'm not an extreme fan of cycling - more like a general sucker for sports.
Regarding the Tour, that probably means being able to name 40-50 (last names only) of the ca. 200 participants and the names of around 10 teams.
They way you ask, makes it seem like you have no idea about the number of jersies (winner - yellow, points - green, hills/best climber - polka-dot, youth/young rider - white), but my view is that even general sports fans care for more than the single person that wins over-all in a classic like Tour de France.
May I ask where you come from, and who finished 1-2-3 in le Tour combined? No cheating, please!
I can add that of the three main US sports (American football, basketball and baseball), I only know names from the single one of those that truely is an international sport - basketball.
Compared to cycling, American football and baseball are oddities with a very limited international spread. Still being the sport geek I used to be, I watch some NFL games now and then, since I finally (though accidentally) have access to a sports channel that broadcasts American football regularly, as well as Nascar racing.
I also watch the latter mostly because I find it a bit fascinating, like outsiders watching a simultaneous display of chess. Compared to formula one racing, Nascar remains a national thing with very limited interest outside the US, while sports geeks all over the world know the stars of formula one, despite having no special interest in that specific sport.
Oh well. Completely off-topic. :o)
As for Suzann Pettersen, she is ranked the number 3 female golfer in the world. While that might not impress people as much as the feats of the top male golfers, I think the money earned by the top 5 female golfers could make the top 5 female chess players quite green of envy (except Judith, possibly).
The rankings: http://wwgr.net/public/
Wrong , equal starting conditions are required in a sport competition , try again.
I wouldn't classify chess as a sport but still don't object it being classified as a sport. Many things requiring physical fittness are NOT classified as sport (like constructing a house) and it looks like the classification is more or less based on what is the culture surrounding the event.
Despite Lance Armstrong's success and subsequent transcendent fame in the US, cycling is not a popular sport here and vanishingly few Americans could name another cyclist. I doubt ESPN here even covered Le Tour, except maybe for the final day, when Armstrong wasn't participating. (Or was that the year the other American who was then disqualified won?) To go briefly on topic for a second, the idea that a single great star in an unpopular sport can make it popular, like Fischer did for chess, is refuted by Armstrong and cycling in the US from what I can tell.
Same goes for naming international football (soccer) players and Formula 1 pilots. I'd be stunned if more than one American in 100 knew who Messi is or could name a F1 pilot (other than those who have also raced in the US). Heck, Landon Donovan probably isn't as well known here as the most obscure player on the NY Yankees. I have to go to great lengths to follow even the biggest international football matches here and the only people I talk about them with were born outside of the US.
Baseball is quite international; it's just not popular in Europe. It's more popular than football in some Latin American countries and is very big in much of Asia, especially Japan and Taiwan. As for American football, many, if not most, countries have their idiosyncratic domestic favorites. (Curling! Sumo!) As with the US not using the metric system, its geographic isolation (relative to the melange of Europe) and a massive domestic market are enough explanation.
Of course chess pros here fall below all of them. Garry is now recognized more after all his TV appearances a few years ago to promote his book, but he is still unmolested on the streets of NY with few exceptions -- all of whom turn out to be foreign-born. We were having lunch near Central Park on the 24th and a kid around eight years old came up to our table to ask him for an autograph. His name was Olivier and we figured his family was French or Swiss. The father stopped by on the way out, turns out Dutch. The entire thing really confused our waitress, who after seeing Garry give the autograph went over to the family's table to ask who Garry was.
"As with the US not using the metric system, its geographic isolation (relative to the melange of Europe) and a massive domestic market are enough explanation."
If there's a worthwhile explanation for the non-adoption of this system in the US, the complacent and lazy excuse above ain't it.
Hi Mig, your take is also interesting, and perhaps you're right and I should just read more Q & A's with chess players in main stream magazines (care to point out a few links so I can compare?), but to be honest I'm not so sure all those questions are always asked to chessplayers. Perhaps your frame of reference is a bit too much focused on Kasparov, who I'm sure has really had all possible questions already... but what about the other guys?
Sure, the first few questions may be obvious, but they're interesting to non-playing people all the same as I experience at least once a month at a party, and I haven't heard the 'art vs. game' one for a while either. and the question about computers taking over humans is also well-posed, with a relevant Short-quote to provoke Carlsen into actually saying something interesting instead of the usual 'well, you know, we can't tell the future' stuff. Most of all, I liked the fact that they kept the subject on chess and didn't go for the cheap 'what's your favourite pet' ones. The temptation must have been hard to resist, don't you think?
I agree the interview is quite shallow, but in my opinion such a Q & A is much, much better than a recent interview I saw with Carlsen in which he was asked all sorts of nonsense questions about dating girls. Talk about chess cliches. At least Time avoided those silly questions and picked the most interesting and controversial ones (computers, Kasparov, women), don't you agree?
I see chess as a construction , a finite representation of our ludic instincts , but not a sport .
Watching a human running or lifting weight will always be a substantially different experience than watching a machine or a computer performing the same task , our own intervention as a race enriches those activities with many variables and subtleties, granting them that " infinite flavor " to their status , a sensation of renewal that only sports have...
On the other hand, a chess move played by Kasparov would have the exact same impact if played by a computer , Kasparov's intervention (as any other human intervention for that matters ) is unable to enrich the game with that " infinite flavor" that sports have .
Nevertheless i don't consider chess (or Go) to be any less than any other professional activity or sport in existence , i just don't see it as a sport.
"I wouldn't classify chess as a sport but still don't object it being classified as a sport. Many things requiring physical fittness are NOT classified as sport (like constructing a house) and it looks like the classification is more or less based on what is the culture surrounding the event."
Umm, I have never seen world championships in house building or "professional house builders". Building a house is a profession, not a sport where people actually compete.
You can't really object to chess being called a sport, as the definition of the word is not dependent of it to be fitness-required.
Whether you can call a chess player an athlete is however an entirely different discussion.
@the Time article >
IMHO the Time's article is very functional and accurate , and has a ping-pong flavor (spontaneous responses from the interviewee) that most interviews from chessbase or chessdom lack.
Fischer had nothing to do with that. In fact, he did much to put chess in a positive light with all the publicity. Of course some of it was over the top. You must be combining his later years with his earlier years.
My favorite part of the interview was the part about being good at chess, but a normal person. It's really strange how some people and journalists will transmute a skill in one area to skill in others. To think that Carlsen is 40,000 times more intelligent than the average person because he's great at chess is foolhardy. It's another one of those opt-repeated misconceptions.
I believe most Grandmasters understand that when they leave a tournament hall, exit the building and get a cab, all the gawking and whispers of fans stop and they are now just a normal person. Carlsen appears mature beyond his years.
frogbert,
I have to disagree a bit on this one. You must have followed the World Baseball Classic. Baseball has become a truly international sport over the years. It may depend on what you see as "international", but the scope and following of that series was huge.
"Umm, I have never seen world championships in house building or "professional house builders". Building a house is a profession, not a sport where people actually compete."
Yes, that was raindeer's point, exactly. He was saying that not all things that require a physical skill are considered sport.
However, I do not believe the corollary is true. I don't believe chess is a sport because all things that are considered sports require 1) the mastery of a physical skill and 2) they are executed in a transparent competitive framework that includes rules.
"It may depend on what you see as "international", but the scope and following of that series was huge."
When I said "truely international", I mean something with serious activity on more or less all continents, including Europe.
Cricket is also played in countries that geographically are far apart, but I would not consider it a truely international sport, regardless.
Baseball might be a corner-case for my loose definition, but to my knowledge it has more or less zero coverage in European sports media, making me quite ignorant about it in many ways, despite my generally notable interest in sports.
By the way, Mig, I'm really curious how Kasparov will address the question about how many moves a strong player can calculate ahead.
The thing is, I don't think it's such a stupid question at all, and Carlsen would be quite wrong to roll his eyes because of it, especially for a non-playing audience. In fact, I would not be surprised if many chess players aren't able to answer in brief coherent terms why this is such a wrong question, especially considering that both engines and humans often do calculate many moves ahead - much more than the average chess amateur.
Suddenly I am reminded of all the questions football players and coaches are required to answer time and again in front of a camera - questions that they no doubt think are stupid from a professional point of view, but which the public apparently is still dying to hear. I guess it's just part of your professionalism to answer 'stupid' questions, and in doing so you might even discover they're not so stupid after all :-)
I have to say it is a stupid question there because it is completely dependent on the position! If its a simple K+RvsK mate I can see 30 moves ahead to mate... on the other hand if its mate in one I clearly can't see 15 moves ahead cause i'm ending the game on this move! So the question is dumb because it lacks the frame of reference a position provides. However, I liked Carlsen's answer to it regardless. The true difficulty is not in seeing ahead but evaluating what is at the end.
The question of how many moves players see ahead is of interest to the general public who view chess and the most difficult game, but to most "serious" chess enthusiasts, #caleague's comments come the closest I've seen to what I believe to be the "answer". It's entirely subjective to three elements: 1) the complexity of the position, 2) the ability of the player in question and 3) the amount of time available for calculation.
On a related note, for those who are familiar with the electronic game "Simon", where one is presented with a series of colors/sounds in a certain order and are required to repeat them, I believe there is a corollary. When calculating variations or lines, it's necessary to be able to remember them when "pruning" or eliminating inferior lines. Some of them can be quite long and it's difficult to remember each line calculated, your evaluation of the resulting position, and then the rankings of the resulting positions. The "fog of war" as it were...
Probably only relevant for Russian speakers... but Kasparov and a team of chess players (inc. Sutovsky, Kazhimdzanov and Kosteniuk) are taking part in a general knowledge quiz tonight called "Who? Where? When?" against a team of experts. It seems only to be on the internet on an IRC channel. Anyway, for anyone interested it's mentioned on Kasparov's blog: http://garry-kasparov.livejournal.com/2009/12/27/ & in more detail by Sutovsky: http://emilchess.livejournal.com/50485.html?page=2#comments
With the "moves ahead" question - it's clearly verging on meaningless without context, but on the other hand I think top GMs fail to comprehend quite how difficult it is for most of us to properly visualise a chess board only a few moves ahead. How GMs do what they do (how they see the board, how they analyse etc.) is perhaps the most interesting question you could ask... the only problem is that it seems almost impossible to answer. It's the same with general intelligence, memory and other physical or mental capacities. It's hard for any of us to really empathise with or understand how differently others see and experience the world.
As a typical American I think I can respond. We are definitely not lazy and stupid. Indeed, we seem to be the only nation on earth who recognize that the much-advertised simplicity of the metric system is a complete myth.
Example.
American:
ONE FOOT = 12 inches
ONE YARD = 3 feet
ONE MILE = 1760 yards
Metric:
ONE FOOT = 30.48 centimeters
ONE YARD = 91.44 centimeters
ONE MILE = 1609.344 meters
Which is simpler:
12, 3, and 1760 or
30.48, 91.44 and 1609.344?
I rest my case.
Besides, "91.44 centimeterBird" ain't gonna sell no jazz albums.
Unless Yard Davis plays on it , like on " Bird on 52nd st." .
Mig, do you have the recipe for that eggnog?
@manu: Please point me to other sport about to be solved by computers.
Hmm... man has created machines that outperform the best human in almost any category for quite some time. We have created machines that are faster, stronger, jump higher than any man ever will ... but that is hardly an issue when discussing sports, now is it?
To create a machine to outperform the best chessplayers actually took quite some time. :)
@greg koster
Ha! I hope you don't mind, I'm going to steal this.
Not sure about your argument:
ONE FOOT = 12 inches
ONE YARD = 3 feet
ONE MILE = 1760 yards
Metric:
ONE CENTIMETER = 10 millimeters
ONE METER = 100 centimeters
ONE KILOMETER = 1000 meters
Which one is simpler?
In fact we figured out ways to outperform ourselves way before machines were invented ...
But that's not the point in the context of an sportive competition were all participants must begin in equal terms.
The inclusion of computers as valid competitors in our chess life speaks for itself about its nature as a game and not a sport , there is a missing layer in chess (as in many other complex games like Go): it doesn't really matter who makes the moves , the human touch goes as far as developing the rules , but it has no further effect on the hermeneutic point of view of the game.
Take a look at one of the big enemies of chess ,for instance: Exhaustion , or like Bobby said: "chess has already been played" ,
Do you see any other "sport" with the same problem?
Of course not ,only games have those problems.
"The inclusion of computers as valid competitors in our chess life"
Valid competitors? As mentioned, perhaps it took longer to get there, but there's just as much point now in having a computer involved in a human chess competition as there is in having a robot involved in weight lifting. What does it matter how a computer with perfect recall, incredible calculating power, zero emotions etc. plays chess?
"a chess move played by Kasparov would have the exact same impact if played by a computer"
Nowadays there's zero impact if Rybka plays a brilliant combination or plays an endgame perfectly - in fact the only remaining interest is if it doesn't in particular positions. But the moves of Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik & co. still have an impact precisely because they're made by humans pushing the limits of what's physically possible for us.
An obvious Izzard reference:
The World Series. Won by the US for the last fifty or even sixty consecutive years. And my guess is you guys will win it again next year. Well done!
Another one.
Don't you come around here with that commie metric system of yours no more. (poking it with tip of semi-automatic)
"As mentioned, perhaps it took longer to get there, but there's just as much point now in having a computer involved in a human chess competition as there is in having a robot involved in weight lifting"
Actually, pocket fritz had played couple of tournaments with humans last year , and the duel machine vs Kramnik was not so long ago ,we even have tournaments among machines to decide which one is the strongest... there is no parallel of something like that in any sport.
"Nowadays there's zero impact if Rybka plays a brilliant combination or plays an endgame perfectly - in fact the only remaining interest is if it doesn't in particular positions. But the moves of Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik & co. still have an impact precisely because they're made by humans pushing the limits of what's physically possible for us."
Missing the point entirely ,you are mixing "impact" with " interest " , i was referring to the universally condition of the moves , due to their abstract nature (like in Go).
A robot lifting a ton means something completely different compared to a human doing it , a chess program playing e4 means exactly the same thing than a human doing it , that's why we never had any sport in which humans compete with machines ...
I see you didn't answer my question about exhaustion ... Why is that no other "sport" has this problem?
Mig wrote: "I saw a lot more backgammon than chess in public when I went through Morocco."
Did you see *any* chess in public? I didn't, although I admit I never looked for it.
"Actually, pocket fritz had played couple of tournaments with humans last year , and the duel machine vs Kramnik was not so long ago ,we even have tournaments among machines to decide which one is the strongest... there is no parallel of something like that in any sport."
There's the odd gimmicky tournament run with a limited computer - and if there's money available super-GMs might still be tempted to play a match - but we all know there's no real point playing full-strength computers in serious competitions (unless you enjoy fighting to draw playing dull chess). They're good enough already and they'll simply get better as hardware improves - even if the programmers don't improve the software.
As for their being no parallel to non-human sports tournaments: how about some robot football: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4534451.stm
"A robot lifting a ton means something completely different compared to a human doing it , a chess program playing e4 means exactly the same thing than a human doing it , that's why we never had any sport in which humans compete with machines ..."
How does it "mean" the same? The computer doesn't know what it's doing, it's just following what it's programmed to do. If you're saying it's a different visual spectacle to see a robot lift a weight - well, it's hardly normal to sit at a chess board and have an opponent who needs an operator to move for it, or perhaps a robotic arm.
"I see you didn't answer my question about exhaustion ... Why is that no other "sport" has this problem?"
Despite the "problem" people go on playing original games of chess and we all keep watching and enjoying it. I don't think chess is any more "exhausted" than most sports you'd care to mention.
For what it's worth I don't really have any strong view on chess being a game or a sport (it's just semantics - by some definitions it is, by some it's not), but on the definition of sport you've given above chess would count as one :)
QED.
Well said, Canal.
By the way, Americans are not the only ones who stubbornly refuse to use the metric system. The Brits still have their stones, pounds, miles and yards.
ECanal
"ONE FOOT = 12 inches
...
ONE CENTIMETER = 10 millimeters
...
Which one is simpler?"
The English system is designed for:
(i) easy fractions, e.g., 12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6;
(ii) convenient sizes for units.
The convenience of the metric system is not so much the simple names for units that differ by factors of 10 change in size; the beauty is that the units for length, volume, area, and mass are so nicely coordinated:
1 ha = 100^2 m^2
1 liter = 1000 cm^3
1 gm water is 1 cm^3, etc.
These types of conversion are ugly in the English system:
1 acre = 208.710325571^2 ft^2
1 gal = 230.278279603 in^2
1 pound of water is 1.0377 pints
The one thing I'm still wondering is how long until they develop a computer / program so powerful that it can beat a World Champ despite having NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF CHESS, save knowing the rules of the game. In other words, it has to figure out 1.e4 (or similar) as a solid opening move with no pre-programmed idea that this is so. Then figure out from scratch where to go after 1... c5, etc.
It'll happen eventually. Might even blow modern opening theories out of the water whilst it's at it.
So clearly, the metric system is superior.
Maybe Americans aren't all that clever again, Greg :)
Oh... you're including national coverage. I suppose I was referring to activity in different regions. The baseball teams in the World Classic played at a good standard... even the Netherlands (many Caribbean players). Asia, Latin America and North America are of course the biggest markets.
This argument over conventional vs. metric is quite silly. You have a very technologically-advanced nations using conventional and you have technologically-advanced nations using metric. Not sure what the issue is unless everyone is suggesting a standard be used... kind of like PGN notation. How many use descriptive, right? Maybe a standard would be good... I don't care either way. As long as people know both methods, it's fine.
It will happen, certainly. I wonder when. 5 years from now would be my guess.
The website "InfoNorway" lists about 40 famous Norwegians in addition to the royal family.
http://www.infonorway.com/?norway=people/famous
Not being particularly interested in Norway, I recognize the following which I think are the most famous ten:
Roald Amundsen - Polar explorer (1872-1928)
Magnus Carlsen - Chess player (1990-)
Roald Dahl - (Norwegian-British) Author (1916-1990)
Leif Ericson - (Norwegian-Icelandic) Discoverer of America (ca 1000)
Edvard Grieg - Composer (1843-1907)
Knut Hamsun - Author and traitor (1859-1952)
Thor Heyerdahl - Explorer and Archeologist (1914-2002)
Henrik Ibsen - Dramatist (1828-1906)
Edvard Munch - Expressionist painter (1863-1944)
Liv Ullmann - Actress (1938-)
I need to admit that in most cases, I knew their famous names and maybe a little bit about them, but wouldn't have known that they are/were Norwegians. This country deserves more attention. For example, I think Norway is very advanced in terms of electric cars:
http://www.google.com/search?tbs=qdr:y&q=electric+car+%2Bnorway&lr=lang_en
...and don't forget the Norwegian giants in mathematics: Niels Henrik Abel (of "Abelian groups" fame and the first to prove that there can be no general formula for solving a quintic equation) and Sophus Lie (for whom "Lie algebras" and "Lie groups" are named).
And Daaim: "This argument over conventional vs. metric is quite silly." Is that right? Thank-you for enlightening us! Let's get right back to discussing interesting and important issues, like whether or not baseball is an international sport.
However, I do not believe the corollary is true. I don't believe chess is a sport because all things that are considered sports require 1) the mastery of a physical skill and 2) they are executed in a transparent competitive framework that includes rules.
***
I think that puts the wrong emphasis on the physical skill aspect.
Some counter-examples:
Marbles -- requires hand-eye coordination. Is it a sport?
Tiddlywinks -- yes there is a championship for it.
Competitive gun sports -- shooting requires hand-eye coordination for sure...but not necessarily a good physique.
Now...take those three examples. Let's consider the "physical" aspect involved. There is no huffing and puffing in any of them -- for marbles you aim and shoot. Minimal physical action. For gun sports, you aim and shoot -- if you can lift the gun, you've got the physical exertion part covered.
I'd say that gun sports are clearly sports -- just as archery would be (and archery requires some strength to work the larger bows -- but this could be finessed, of course, by mechanical assistance).
My reason for choosing these three borderline sports? Imagine Stephen Hawking engaging in them. Obviously he cannot shoot the marbles himself. He cannot lift the gun himself. Could he have a mechanical device that did so? Would he still be engaged in sport? I think so.
Suppose he were telekinetic? If he could move the marbles by force of his mind, would it be sport? If he could write a program to shoot the gun, would it be sport? I think so.
Mental sport is clearly sport.
Chess is simply a higher-level example of marbles. The physical aspect relates to the conditioning of the player -- to the ability to withstand the rigors of the competition and still perform competently -- rather than any singular physical skill.
The image of a smoking, out of shape GM is perhaps pervasive...but not really correct.
But Stephen Hawking as a fat, out of shape, hard-drinking, smoking...telekinetic marbles champion?
He'd still be a sportsman, even if he moved those marbles with his mind (think Matrix).
After all, if chasing and shooting foxes (i.e. computing trajectories is math, not physical action) is sport, then clearly making combinations in the Semi-Slav is (mental) sport.
You really don't get it , do you?
Apparently for you is the same thing to have some robots playing (a non sportive) game of soccer against other robots than having a computer playing among humans in a professional competition...
" How does it "mean" the same? The computer doesn't know what it's doing, it's just following what it's programmed to do."
Very simple , the result is the exact same , no rules had to be modified to allow the computer play , the engine is playing a real game of chess , unlike your midget robots playing against each other in a modified field.
I see you are still unable to give a satisfactory answer about why the problem of exhaustion affects games and not sports , instead you choose to deny it , well done.
"no rules had to be modified to allow the computer play "
I see your point, but then again the machine has access to tablebases and opening books, which are in effect books/outside material to which access is normally forbidden to humans. Also, there is the question of whether the computer's calculations constitute, in fact, moving of the pieces/notetaking? I am not very knowledegable on computer matters and the nitty gritty of what is actually going on as the computer analyses, so any clarifying comments on that welcome.
I don't think there's a lot of interest anymore in man v machine clashes, but in any future matches surely at least the endings tablebase should be disabled and the human(s) (maybe a team of GMs would be more interesting) allowed to move the pieces around.
"Apparently for you is the same thing to have some robots playing (a non sportive) game of soccer against other robots than having a computer playing among humans in a professional competition..."
You mentioned computers playing computers - I mentioned robots playing robots. Quite close to the same thing, I'd have thought. If you read that article you'd see they were aiming to have robots play normal football by 2050 - but if you want a simpler example just take weight-lifting or throwing the discuss or something that robots could compete in almost tomorrow.
"Very simple , the result is the exact same , no rules had to be modified to allow the computer play , the engine is playing a real game of chess , unlike your midget robots playing against each other in a modified field."
Again, there's any number of sports where the robot could easily enough compete on an equal playing field (football isn't a good example due to the inevitable physical contact). Except of course that you need to dramatically change the rules to allow a robot to play - but then you also need to change the rules of a chess competition to let a computer play (with equipment, operators & so on).
If your point is simply that board games aren't sports, then fine - I've no problem with that. But you wrote:
"Watching a human running or lifting weight will always be a substantially different experience than watching a machine or a computer performing the same task , our own intervention as a race enriches those activities with many variables and subtleties, granting them that " infinite flavor " to their status , a sensation of renewal that only sports have..."
That statement would make exactly as much sense if you replaced "running" with "playing chess".
"On the other hand, a chess move played by Kasparov would have the exact same impact if played by a computer..."
This is not correct. A double-edged piece sacrifice played by Kasparov after a long, grimace filled, tie-pulling, watch fiddling think electrifies a watching crowd.
A double-edged piece sacrifice played by a computer after a long time makes a watching crowd wonder if there is something wrong in its evaluation function.
"That statement would make exactly as much sense if you replaced "running" with "playing chess"."
Nice that you mentioned it ,because it is the exact place where you are mistaken :
In the case of chess the renewal sensation works only on a subjective level , while in any real sport the renewal is tangible, part of the empirical experience and carved in the core of the activity.
I understand that you want to perceive the professional game of chess as an sport , but i am afraid it is not ...
You are just mixing "impact" with "crowd reaction" , as far as the game and its hermeneutics concerns the impact of the moves is the exact same if they are played by fritz or a monkey.
Manu you don't make any sense.
Nevermind , i'll stop this , i got this feeling like im telling some kids that Santa is not real and i really don't want to be that guy ,specially at Christmas!, Big hug! , Take care!
Not only that, very few journalists know anything about chess.
ROFLAO!
Manu, whether chess is a game or a sport is only relevant for FIDE or others trying to get money allocated to sports. I don't mind what you call it - but if you say computers playing chess is the same as humans playing chess then for the New Year I wish you hours of fun watching Rybka playing Fritz :)
https://www.target-target.co.cc
https://www.netbook4free.co.cc
https://www.insurance-credit.co.cc
https://www.dubai-youtube.co.cc
Shooting is a sport because there is physical mastery involved. You are wrong if you think there is no physical mastery involved. "if you can lift the gun, you've got the physical exertion part covered." Yes, but not the "mastery" part. How much you exert yourself is irrelevant. If we had decided, as a culture, that shooting marbles was exciting then this could very well be a marbles blog instead of a chess blog. Marbles is as much a sport as dart throwing http://www.pdpa.co.uk/ http://www.worldmarblesfederation.com/
As far as telekenetics is concerned it is the same as using a mechanical aid. It is not a substitute for physical mastery of a skill. So, no, Stephen Hawking can not play any sport that I am aware of. By the way if he were fat and hard drinking there are plenty of models for him in the world of sports - baseball players a-plenty, John Daly in golf...again it's physical mastery not physical exertion that makes the sport. Being physically exhausted by sitting and thinking for seven hours is indeed physical, but there is no mastery of physical skill involved. Chess is not the same as marbles and it is a game not a sport.
go away
¨Manu, whether chess is a game or a sport is only relevant for FIDE or others trying to get money allocated to sports. ¨
Well dude , they are certainly looking in the wrong direction ...
I´m not sure if you noticed but it seems to be also a tiny bit of money involved in casinos , professional poker and online gaming (among many other ludic activities), there is no need to pretend we are something that we are not.
What if the chess piece is very heavy like a big iron wiegth and the board is very big like foot ball and the player must lift up and move heavy piece and run with it in time troble. Mabey chees thean beomce a sport for some peoples.
Oh! Wow! Mr. Manu, You are using awfully big words like "hermeneutics" and are you sure you understand what you are talking about?
Do you think using these terms makes your arguments appear better. Better watch out! Someone may bother to straighten you out!
I had to look the word up!
"Chess is not the same as marbles"
Incorrect, in both activities one is in danger of losing one's marbles, as TIME so aptly pointed out.
" Hermeneutic" Its a pretty common term in my field of work ,in fact it is a key word in cognitive film theory, it is also very pertinent to the argument and sometimes hard to replace ,on the other hand i happen to have one or two degrees in film theory (also in film making) that gives me the confidence to use the word during most conversations (with the clear exception of elevators).
Please consider that English is not my native language , and be kind to forgive eventual inaccuracies from my part , i promise i wont use the word with any girl you like.
But maybe you could just forget about it and answer the easy questions...
i.e Why is that exhaustion is only a threat for games and not for sports?
"I´m not sure if you noticed but it seems to be also a tiny bit of money involved in casinos , professional poker and online gaming (among many other ludic activities), there is no need to pretend we are something that we are not."
But you're just undermining your own point about games and sports. Chess is far closer to sports - where physical attributes, mastery and sometimes strategy are important - than to casino games which are based on almost pure chance.
Poker's also very different from chess due to the huge roll played by chance - of course in time training and skill pay off, but the fact that any amateur can beat the world's best in the short term makes it hugely more appealing for the general public. Plus of course the fact it's based around betting doesn't harm it's financial prospects.
(Not to say FIDE don't have the fund raising abilities of a particularly lazy and corrupt slug)
I just pointed you that there is plenty of money in the gaming family , where chess clearly belongs .
What is the readership of Time like these days?
"I just pointed you that there is plenty of money in the gaming family , where chess clearly belongs ."
So if American Football has lots of money there must be plenty of money for other sports like Underwater Hockey? Anyway, the distinction with games of chance is also mentioned in the Wikipedia definition, for what it's worth:
"Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play. Some view sports as differing from games based on the fact that there are usually higher levels of organization and profit (not always monetary) involved in sports."
Anyway, I'm with you in not particularly wanting to get into the debate. As for your not being a native English speaker - that's fine, but don't then complain that native English speakers (or anyone else for that matter) have misunderstood when you use a word like "impact" incorrectly...
"Anyway, I'm with you in not particularly wanting to get into the debate."
This is not a debate , kid , Santa Claus is made up.
An obvious Izzard reference:
The World Series. Won by the US for the last fifty or even sixty consecutive years. And my guess is you guys will win it again next year. Well done!
****
The Toronto Blue Jays might object to you classifying their consecutive world titles in the 90s in this way.
I see talking of marbles and like to say I once had many many thosands of marbles but not more. I had big and small marbls of all kind because saved them all for many years in side cans fulled to the top. Then one day I worried about my marbles some one stealing all from me so I decide to hide them away some place but only for me. So I dug hole in dirt way out some were and buryed all my marbles in the hole and cover it with dirt and grass and made it not known. I covered with leafs ans sticks to do a good job. Only I was able to know the hide place. But some thing go wrong and year later I cuold nto find my marbles or even the cans in the dirt. Mabey I forget were the holw was or mabey some stealer watch me from behind tree and dug up when I went away. I looked and dug may places and many holes all over but never found my marbles. All thosands of them disapered. So when I saw talking of marbles I rembered my marbls and wonder what happede to them and if they maby are stiil there or maybe not and some one has them even today. Who can say. Any way I stop now because most perhaps do not care about marbles or perhap not care about my marbles. Please do not think I say some one here stoll my marbles. I think I just made big mistake and forget where I made the marble hole. Oh well I am still happy ha.
That entire thing was robbed directly from Stephen King's "The Body" from "Different Seasons", though here it was a jar of coins.
They can object all they like because it's still the US national pastime. The only thing Canadian about those teams was the location of their home games. And sooner or later the Jays will follow the Montreal Expos into extinction, closing the book on a Canadian location experiment that went a little too well.
And Daaim is mistaken regarding the metric system. I don't know what he means by "conventional" but he could be referring to the Imperial system of units, which is the sole system of measurement today in only three world nations: the US and the "technologically advanced" Burma and Liberia. Daaim doesn't read before he posts, yet he labels the argument "silly": used this way, the word seems to mean "an argument I do not understand".
-So I M Stoopid is not that stoopid, after all?
For a good chess related interview with Nikitin (Kasparov's coach) go http://www.crestbook.com/?q=node/1102
in russian, 2 parts. This one is from series ongoing interviews. The next one with Karjakin.
No it really happen to me. I buryed my marbles and probly forget where I did or maybe some one saw me digging hole and dug them up. Many years ago. I do not bother about it now but only talk now about it becuase I see talk about marbles. I had many thosands in big big cans. All gone.
I'm so sorry you lost your marbles.
Fanatical national interest in a pastime with limited international appeal is more common than not. If the U.S. has baseball and American football, India has cricket and China has ping pong.
One might consider Latin America and Southern Europe the sporting oddities for concentrating interest in an internationally pastime to the detriment of local culture.
Regarding the side-blog of the various measurement systems, the quote that comes to my mind (and of all the people) is the one ejaculated by Rosie O'Donnell: "Only the male mind could conceive of one inch equaling a mile."
It's much simpler:
Chess either is, or is not a sport, because officials of some more or less important organizations say it is or say it is not.
Forget any arguments. The only thing which matters is, how these organizations, federations and/or government departments etc. decide about it for whatever reasons. This can differ depending on the point in time, location (country) and zodiac sign, and is subject to change. :-)
Not that I absolutely want to take sides in the "sport/not-a-sport" debate, but a thought occurred to me. You can (on the ICC, for instance) follow a game of chess without ever seeing or hearing the players, and still not feel you're missing much of anything. I can't think of any (other) sport where that's possible.
@ noyb:
That quote is pretty funny, at least to me. Thanks. Although Rosie was probably referring to scales (such as those found on a map) rather than measurement systems.
Holiday cheers to all !
Thank you I am all forgotton about it except for seeing the talk about marbles make me rember. I wonder were they could be now but thank you for your sorry. Now I see talking of chess and sports but I am sleepy.
As a typical American Registered Architect who has spent over forty years in detailed visual and dimensional I think I can respond to greg koster.
*
I agree that we are definitely not lazy and stupid. The system we were dealt is the system we keep--not good nor bad, just the one many machines, tools, and 'as-builts tooled' to.
*
I can do long strings of dimensions in my head, the way blindfold chess players play rapids at the GM level. I have no problem with 47'-8 3/8", and can easily render it into decimal form without travail, and can easily add sequences of fractions better than most, so no complaints from me on SAE format. At the same time, let it be gain said that:
Which is simpler:
30.000 centimeters = 0'-11 63/64" FEET centimeters
100.00 centimeters = 3'-3 18/64ths"
1500.0 meters* * * = 4921'-3 17/64" or 0.932056 mile
30, 100 or 1.5k
odd SAE fractions that the average person cannot commensurate. Having worked building materials retail for six solid years, after architecture and eight years on Wall Street as a senior person can assuredly tell you, the AVERAGE person cannot handle fractions, feet, or inches. No way.
Now, how hard is it to add simple decimals? I rest my case.
addenda: civil engineers in American use tenths of an inch for topography, but structural, mechanical, and electrical engineers use nominal feet and inches. we handle it fine, but it is subject to errors. thanks.
Who's for a quarter pounder with cheese, then?
both comments better said by eCanal. thank you.
Yes, and eCanal may have understood that Koster's post was not meant to be taken seriously (in fact I thought it the funniest Dirt post in a long while, which is unusual since we're supposed to be the same person posting under two aliases and I'm not that funny by half).
It seems all the time spent desperately self-promoting the David Korn brand on Youtube may have somewhat loosened the "long strings of dimensions" in your self-adoring head.
;)
Actually, with a good announcer baseball is very enjoyable to listen to on the radio.
@ regondi
With no ambient sounds? (bat hitting the ball, crowd cheering, etc.)
I did write : "without seeing *and hearing* the players", because of course I had tought of radio broacasts. But even those, as enjoyable as they may be, leave out most of what makes a sport (even a slow paced one like baseball) what it is.
Every sport ever? Hello ? TV? Internet? Radio? Phones?
I was browsing http://www.maroc-echecs.com/ & found an article about a friend of many US players (especially in DFW)
http://www.maroc-echecs.com/spip.php?article2707
It's certainly not the first time I've seen an obviously ironic post reponded to with deadly seriousness by multiple posters.
I ask out of genuine curiosity: is irony less present/understood/utilised in the US? It is a cliche here, since I've never been I can't judge it.
Of course it is somewhat moot, since I don't know how many of said posters are American.
Finally ! ,I'm glad you mentioned.
Of course, and that 's because one big difference between sports and games is that the human intervention is tangible with the first ones and purely subjective on the others.
If you take a closer look , you will find that that also could happen in Go , Poker , t.e.g. , starcraft , etc , all of them are subject to rules that humans are not really able to bend on spite of being their creators and first users.
Let's say aliens land in Modesto, California :) , and want to play games and sports with us (they are on the "play with the galaxy" tour) .
In that case we would have to modify the rules of all sports to fit their own characteristics while nothing would really change with the game's rules ...
Game is a magic word , i don't get why is so offensive for some persons.
@ Girly
yup, I actually read the *hearing* part, too. Crowd sound is not an intrinsic element of the game to begin with. Do you enjoy internet chess games with chat or without chat? It's the same as crowd noise. When your team is playing an away game, and if somebody on your team hits a grand slam the crowd is practically silent. Am I less excited because there is no crowd noise? No. Radio announcers often work in teams these days and their chatter covers up a vast majority of any sounds that you hear on the field especially if they are announcing from an enclosed booth. Radio broadcast of baseball has been awfully successful for "leaving out most of what makes [baseball] what it is" so, obviously, it supplies the listener with enough information for the game to be accurately imagined by the listener. Actually I follow a lot of baseball games on MLB.com where it has some simple graphic representations of the status of the game but the action is described textually. It's very much like internet chess. No crowd noise; no player noise. Your idea really hinges upon the interpretation of "not really missing anything." Yes, I would rather be at the seventh game of the World Series than listen to it on the radio, but I posit that watching Carlsen beat Anand for the WC while physically in the same room is in effect just as different. Oops! did I just make a prediction. God, I hate it when people do that...
Girly Sue - A scale on a map is a measurement system. Semantics... ; )
I realise I have misquoted Eddie slightly on that World Series bit
http://www.youtube.com/Vynjira#p/u/7/Kl9X5tNFSic
from 3:05 onwards.
Myself, I just thought Canada was a US state. Need to dye whats left of my hair..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEP7uti0PDw&feature=related
Does anyone know what happened to Natalie Pogonia in the Russian Superfinal? She seems to have lost her last two games by forfeit. No moves were played - maybe she was sick?
Thanks
tja
Congrats to Grischuk, 2009 Russian Champion!
To chesshire cat: While I've had little direct exposure to cultures outside the US, I do have the strong impression that you are correct in speculating that "irony (is) less present/understood/utilised in the US."
I recall visiting England over 20 years ago and being told listening to the Parliamentary debates on radio was one of the most popular entertainments - and that a critical mass of the parliamentarians, well aware of that, made sure to keep their debates lively and funny in a sophisticated, even erudite way.
Of course American politics generates plenty of laughs too - only unintentional ones. We often get to laugh AT our elected officials, almost never laugh WITH them.
Nevertheless, for some time after that experience I stubbornly clung to my belief that "British wit" must be some pretentious stereotype, that Britons weren't any wittier than Americans or anyone else.
Then, some 5 years ago, I read an issue of Kingpin for the first time. That was enough to make me see the light. Englishmen are simply better at irony, wit, humor, etc. And we Americans are the opposite.
Totally, 100% off topic: I was killing time browsing chess websites, and I happen to visit the site of the upcoming FIDE team championship in Turkey, and they have a note saying that China withdrew at the last minute (and was replaced by India). I wonder what the story is behind that?
Also, Karjakin is apparently still not allowed to play for Russia
Mig --
So I say nice things about yer writing, and what happens? You stop writing. Shall I say something different. We're waiting for your opinionated news. Please bring it!
Frogbert -
I am an avid follower of International road cycling, so I probably know as much as you about who's riding for whom, and what they're good at. And I go back at least fifteen years. No need to test me. I wish I was into it when Merckx was a factor, but I read a book about him, and I know about all the blokes - dopers and non-dopers alike - who followed.
p.s. I'm sure glad doping doesn't get you a high FIDE rating.
Yes, she fell sick. http://twitter.com/Pogonina
Since Magnus would like so much (and I agree that he is)to look like a "normal guy/teenager", perhaps he could have at least arranged to have one question "planted" if you will. Here's my suggestion. "Have you had your first beer yet?"
Happy New Year!
What's the legal drinking age in Norway?
Greg, being a member of inch-foot-yard culture, I must point out that your illustration is somewhat flawed. It is indeed a rare event when those using the metric system have to convert to our "descriptive" system. Since most of the world uses the metric system, it is us users of the descriptive system who do most of the converting to their metric system. A ten-based system is far easier and more logical than the so-called "system" we use where, for example, the length of our foot measurement is based on the length of the King's foot -- a pretty silly way to base our measurements if you ask me. What's logical about equating 12 inches to 1 foot, or 3 feet to 1 yard? Seem like totally arbitrary numbers to me.
Jim
Jim, The English units are designed to be divisible by everything, not just 10. E.g., 1 foot = 12 inches, 1/2 foot = 6 inches, 1/3 foot = 4 inches, 1/4 foot = 3 inches, 1/6 foot = 2 inches. All the numbers are designed for easy and convenient fractions.
Check out the lyrics/songs of your countryman Randy Newman - he certainly doesnt lack wit/irony ......
English Units... "All the numbers are designed for easy and convenient fractions."
Actually it was not "designed" in the sense that the metric system was designed. The English units came about more by a kind of darwinian natural selection. Many different units were suggested and used, different systems were blended as people migrated and conquered, kings sometimes made rules, etc. and those units which were most convenient tended to remain, those too strange, too hard to divide, etc, fell by the wayside. So if by "design" you mean over hundreds of years, by chance, from many origins, keeping those that were practical, then it was designed, but not like the metric system was designed, in a short time, by a group of scientists, with planned 10-based proportions, etc.
Yes but Newman was booed and sued by all the short people who didn't get it (majority). In America people who use irony are considered smart-alecks, comedians, or sarcastic SOBs, not plain-speaking' ordinary 'muricans. In general, Americans do not get irony and would rather it did not exist, or was always marked by irony-quotes, so it is never encountered in the wild. Americans so much expect plain speaking that anything else raises fear and anger.
Cricket 'not an international sport'? Please visit any commonwealth country. It is very much an international sport. This comment must have come from an ignoramus American who thinks Nigeria is the capital of Nairobi.
Thanks for your responses, fly et al.
@joe: That's just not cricket. I'm sure frogbert is flattered for being granted American citizenship, though.
Jim from Sudbury, MA, United States of America,
Some time back my deft skewering of the bizarre metric system sparked a discussion of Americans' appreciation of irony, to which your latest post is a most significant contribution.
fly,
Or compare the personals ads in
--the New York Review of Books with those in
--the London Review of Books.
As Permanent Brain thinks that Norway deserves more attention, I found this beatiful movie on YouTube today called "This is Norway" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebqdwQzmSHM&feature=related
It's reccommneded!
Jim - What justifies the assertion that a "10-based" measurement system is "far easier and more logical"? Not challenging, just trying to understand. There are an infinite number of "bases" possible (some not even using numbers), why 10?
It occurs to me that perhaps our entire notion of measuring could be flawed for that matter. I've always had this feeling that mathematics as man has currently defined it is somehow flawed. It seems to me that it should be easier to quantify the universe.
Tjallen, you hit the nail on the head. The English system is the organic product of an long-evolving process. By and large, the units that have survived are those that are of convenient size and whose numbers have a lot of divisors.
The nice thing about the metric system is not that it singles out 10 as the magic number but that it makes it easy to convert between different types of units:
1 ha = 100 m x 100 m
1 liter = 1000 cubic cm
1 gm water is 1 cc, etc.
To convert between types of units in the English system, e.g., gallons to cubic feet or ounces (volume) to ounces (weight for water), is a pain.
I used to time myself between imperial and metric for purposes of chess calculation, viz: Fahrenheit to Celsius = subtract 32, multiply by five, divide by nine. Not a bad exercise as empty exercises go.
All this talking of numbrs and make me think of why we have ten finger and why do we have 32 chess pieces and 64 sqares. I also think of dinosor attack peoples many years ago and building great big pyramits in egpyt out of sand and rock many thosands of years ago with out machinry I think and no metric numbrs mabye. Oh well mabey some thing new happen. Who can say.
Your "Luke" handle was easier to handle. This diction is giving me headaches.
Oh! Mr noyb, you must have been talking to Mr. Manu. He is very very deep too. He went to film school. But maybe you are right. There seems to be something flawed in this notion of measurement.
After all, I read in a book once by a great man, a great thinker the following. He said: "There is one thing of which one can say neither that it is one meter long, nor that it is not one meter long, and that is the standard meter in Paris."
Wow! Can you imagine that being true? Talk about a flaw.
Have a good year.
Oh , don't mention it! I'm just a humble artist ,making movies from time to time .
I still go to film school , tough ... to teach .
What do you do for a living? :)
Have a good year.
If you have headaches than you must go in corner and sleep. Wake up all better thats what I do. You can drink tea like me. In fatc I go now for make some tea. Sorry about your head you shuold put it down on your pillow.
Since this thread has gone off target anyway, I'll feel free to ask for feedback on some crazy idea I had.
How do you like the following variant of chess:
- Keep all chess rules as they are now (including stalemate!), except:
- the game is not won by mating the enemy king, but instead, the game is won if the white (black) king reaches the 8th (1st) rank.
- The game is drawn if neither side can each the opponent's back rank. (or 3-time repetition of the position, etc)
(Notice that it is possible to mate the enemy king and conquer it. The game will continue, because the side without the king could still potentiall draw the game. It can no longer win, though).
Sounds like a fun game to me. Endgame theory would need to be completely rewritten, but the entire spirit of the game would remain largely the same. It could still be worthwhile to launch an attack against the other king (since conquering it would secure at least a draw) etc...
Any thoughts?
Sounds nice , i´d like to try that .Not sure if it works, did you try it?
How many different sizes do pints of beer come in?
Nice video. The funny thing is that the girl at 2:02 really looks like Magnus' sister Ellen :P
"I've always had this feeling that mathematics as man has currently defined it is somehow flawed."
Recently, a young Dutch mathematician has worked out a proof that there exists an extra ordinal number. Somewhere between 7 and 8.
This "missing number" is considered the reason why the majority of the world's states consistently run up a budget deficit.
clubfoot. happy holidays sir. sorry you are offended. two or three things:
*
one, correct me if i am wrong, i have never offended you directly as to your personhood or conduct or nature. i dont know you, you dont know me.
*
i never asked you or forced you or invited you to watch my videos. yes, i do have faults. i am older, and my life has seen many mistakes. forgive me if i offend you.
*
i hope that one day, that if perchance you should really be so unemployed not by your own choice, that you more than once might think of taking your own very life passed over at age 50 or more, in an economy housed in a large metropolitan area doubly difficult for some, since it is home to the largest bank bust in USA history as WAMU is, filled with literally hundreds applying for each knowledge work oriented job. so that you don't even know if anyone reads your cover letters or even ever sees your resume--that no one ridicules you for trying to expand your horizons, and that if this were to happen, you would one day you find a human heart instead of love of your own hate. on average, 670 applicants for one job at Boeing, 200 for a job paying $15.00 an hour.
*
shame on me for putting an active link to my video resumes at my name, and that you felt such a need to pass judgement.
dk
"i never asked you or forced you or invited you to watch my videos"
With respect, david, by providing that link you are "inviting" every visitor to this blog to watch your videos. I wish you luck in your jobsearch.
Oh don´t be such a jerk-cat , he is inviting people to see his link , not to attack him personally or make fun of his situation, and like he pointed out this sort of agression comes without any provocation at all , so please use your energy for something else rather than to help a bully.
I´d thought an Irish would have a better sense of justice.
I didn't attack him, Manu, or support/attack anyone else, in fact I wished the man luck. Maybe around the 150th time you misread one of my posts you might consider pausing three seconds and thinking about it before posting your reflex indignant reply. Til then I expect more of same.
I have read David Korn's blog for the past two years. He is not only a class act, but a very intelligent one too. If he does not deserve respect, then no one does.
New TIME interview with Magnus:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1950683,00.html
Iron Age indeed..
There must be somwthing wrong with the metric system. Chessboard is 8x8.
Cards are 52, Go is 19x19.
The metric system is for kindergarten.
Yes, chess is a "sport". And so are checkers, backgammon, dominoes, poker, tic-tac-toe, sudoku and connect-four.
Other "sports": bridge, craps, 3-card monte, Nintendo Wee's games, Xbox and monopoly.
Retardos.
You forgot rock-paper-scissors and hopscotch.
I'm not certain that "respect" should be accorded a person who can shapeshift from sage avatar of chess calculation cum fearless metric analyst to suicide-surviving economic meltdown victim compelled (nay forced, poor thing) to salve his sunburned self-worth on a Youtube platform -- and on the same thread no less!. Impressive to be sure, but deserving of our respect? Add to this your own ex cathedra elevation of Mr Korn to mythopoeic status, along with the implication that you too are deserving of respect for reading someone's blog for two years, and well....looks like it's time for a new Chessninja thread, and REAL soon please.
I think yes there is the hop game in the olympic games. Some kind of hoppy game. But not tiddle winks or marbles. That is my joke.
Are US F1 fans all that hard to find? I'm a big F1 fan, and can name most of next year's field, except for the new teams. Surely most have heard by now that Schumi will make a comeback - surely that news bit penetrated the American sports psyche?
Or are the US F1 fans as lonely as US chess fans? Boy, I really have a knack for picking the popular sports to follow...(irony quotes there)
Irv & Manu, great to see you ending the year on such a personal high. The value added to this blog by your debating skills and rapier wit is difficult to express in words...
Don't get me wrong , i enjoy and thank your translations and find your contribution to the site of the highest value ..
Having said that , you should refrain from judging other people's debating skills while having so much to improve on yours at the same time , maybe you can take your losses more lightly , not everyone that beat the crap out of you in an argument is evil...
Manu, so how would you describe irv's debating technique of adding "Retardos" to the post you so enthusiastically responded to? Or your contribution from earlier in this thread: "This is not a debate, kid, Santa Claus is made up." At least you add a thin veneer of good humour, but you're both just insulting people and pretending there's no debate instead of debating.
It would be inexcusably rude even if it you were obviously correct, but chess is considered a sport by the IOC, the UK government and many other groups - and in normal usage often applies to chess. At the very least there's a case to be made.
Again, I've no problem whatsoever with Girly Sue or anyone else presenting reasonable, civilly-worded arguments as to why chess shouldn't be considered a sport - as I said (typically for you you'll never take the person you're responding to at their word) I don't have a strong view either way - but as someone supposedly involved in education you should realise what's so contemptible about your approach to internet discussion.
Tjallen, is Mario Andretti a F1 guy? If so, I've heard of one.
Happy new year to you all, I'm off to get drunk.
Here's to a chesstastic 2010!
For over a month he's controlled his toilet-boy obsession.
For a week he's managed his Sophia rules...Bilbao rules...Sophia rules....Bilbao rules...Sophia rules...Bilbao rules obsession.
And for at least three or four days he's gone without a juvenile machismo eruption.
And then you have to go and provoke him on New Years Eve. Shame on you!
Happy new year to you all, I'm off to get drunk.
Here's to a chesstastic 2010!
Hiya Mig. You make some really good points about the interview content... Now let's do something about it! Why don't you use your special powers to get a telephone interview with the world number one? You know, one that would appeal to someone who likes chess?
Double was technical prob, I'm not drunk...yet! See you next year :)
Talking of translations, there are a couple of nice reviews up at Chesspro (in Russian, but with lots of photos). One on the Russian Championship: http://chesspro.ru/_events/2009/super2.html
And the other on the Spassky-Korchnoi match: http://chesspro.ru/_events/2009/ks1.html
Spassky's obviously also labouring under the same delusion as others that chess might be a sport: "Without ambition, you know, it's impossible to achieve anything either in sport, or in life". (commenting that he's unlikely to return to chess as he no longer has any ambition - he mentions a possible match with Karpov, but Karpov's only willing to play blitz games while Spassky says the classical control suited him and made it possible to play normal chess)
"but as someone supposedly involved in education you should realise what's so contemptible about your approach to internet discussion."
You must understand that internet discussion is a completely different arena than the classroom , mishamp .
You were beaten not because of anyones debating skills , you were beaten because you were on the wrong side of the argument , sh*t happens sometimes , stop judging kid , :)
And can I just add,
1) I love Time's bizarre description of Kramnik: "Tall, handsome and expressionless, he looks exactly as a man who has mastered a game of nearly infinite variation should: like a high-end assassin."
2) Happy New Year!
Great stuff.
How do you think the same writer would describe Topalov?
Happy New Year!
Every Russian in a suit looks like a high-end assassin to Americans. ;-)
Yes, what about this one:
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=4189302
( oops missing post )
" but as someone supposedly involved in education you should realise what's so contemptible about your approach to internet discussion."
It is you who should understand that the classroom is a completely different arena than internet discussion ...
And stop whining about the debates you lost , or the answers you got because of your inability to understand when is that you are in the wrong side of an argument.
And Happy Festivus to all of you !!
I see talking of peoples going drunk. Well it is happy newyear so drunk drunk. Also some othr talk of sport is nto chess. I do not kown if so but who can say.
Manu: "And stop whining about the debates you lost..."
mishanp's point is that you are unusually rude, and you've not done a thing to refute it.
Sanan "Baby Face" Sjugirov
Awesome conclusion , keep going you are almost there , :)
Talk about the definition of sport makes me wonder how to handle the common description of hunting as sport.
ok so if it is not a sport then the definition of sport maybe incorrect or based on interpretation whatever it is competition or no??
I'm sorry , my head is still spinning from the celebrations , could you explain that again with more detail ?
:)
Manu must be drunk from happy new year. He has spinning head.
As reported at Chessbase, Henrik Carlsen has brought an end to his blog & thanked those who helped in Carlsen's development: http://blog.magnuschess.com/
He's also suffering from the sports delusion:
"Chess has been recognized as a sport by Norwegian media in 2009 and this is consistent with the need to focus on physical training and nutrition in chess as in other sports. Magnus has cooperated with the Olympiatoppen this autumn and feels confident this is an important part of optimum preparations for chess tournaments".
"Let's get right back to discussing interesting and important issues, like whether or not baseball is an international sport."
Is baseball a sport? ;)