2012 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[Svino]

It is. It is just like anything else. But I never really studied a lot of openings or anything, I just learned them through trial and error. I still don't know the nomenclature, but I know what to do based on most openings. I really think you can learn all the same stuff through trial and error, but it will probably take a lot longer than just being taught and memorizing it.

It is kind of funny that you're an 1850+ player (which is quite good) who "doesn't know the nomenclature."

There's a variant of chess that's aimed at reducing the "opening memorization" problem where the first rank pieces are placed in a random order instead of the traditional way. (The same order for both players in a given game.) That way, it throws out all the openings. I've never actually played it, but it sounds fun.

I haven't played chess in a super-long time. There were a few openings I used to like:

Ruy Lopez: Solid opening. A bit common, though.

Queen's Gambit Accepted: Usually a good option against computers, who will try to hold on to the material advantage for dear life.

Center Game: It pretty much sucks, and is only included in books for historical reasons, so no one learns it. That makes a little bit effective against non-experts, and it's also fun to play. It is like the heel-hook of chess openings.

[MMA_scientist]

It is kind of funny that you're an 1850+ player (which is quite good) who "doesn't know the nomenclature."

Well, by the time I was interested enough to actually pick up a book on it, I realized that I already knew most of the openings. Also, I really don't like reading about chess at all. I don't even know the name of my usual opening... I learned it from playing against computer Bobby Fischer on "Chess Masters" computer game. He kept doing it to me and I couldn't figure out how to beat it, so I started doing it. I never really think about openings much beyond the first 2 or 3 moves.

I am familiar with the names, I just don't know what they are. I just played a lot of games and sort of figured out when someone does X, they are trying to set up Y. It is something like learning bjj without ever naming any position. It still works, you just can't explain it very well.

Studying would probably help me make fewer mistakes... that is my biggest issue. I will play a really tight game, I feel like I am controlling the board, but then I will just make a really bad mistake due to a lack in concentration. I can play a game against a 1900 player and win, and then turn around and lose to 1600 player. Formal study would probably help my consistency.

I looked up center game, I do bring both my pawns out like that. I don't retreat my queen the way teh vid shows, but I think what I do is some variant of that. It is ultra aggressive, which is probably why it works well at my level.

[poopoo333]

All this casino talk made me look around the casino on bookmaker...I have $300 bonus play there that I had no idea about, wonder if you guys have it to? Just go to "bonus casino"..but I have to have a $240,000 rollover to cash any of it out. So this bonus casino money is obviously never going to be cashed out BOL

[High5]

Behold, my new transport. My goal is to not use my car in July except for when I have to go to court.

Nice!
Great exercise and fun, It's easy on the knees. Cars suck though.....be careful!

[MMA_scientist]

Nice!
Great exercise and fun, It's easy on the knees. Cars suck though.....be careful!

Yeah, thanks. I am noticing that cars are not usually too excited to share the road with me.

I will say that even though my bike is the entry level road bike... to me it might as well be a Ferrari. I spent $750 on it, and I feel like I am on a mototcycle when I get going... road bikes are way faster than mountain bikes. I am enjoying it a lot so far. X, if you are considering a road bike still... I recommend it. It beats the shit out of my converted Haro Vecter from college (that's my mountain bike). I am actually thinking of converting my Haro into a single speed just so I have a cool new hobbie (tinkering with bike builds).

[SPX]

Yeah, thanks. I am noticing that cars are not usually too excited to share the road with me.

I will say that even though my bike is the entry level road bike... to me it might as well be a Ferrari. I spent $750 on it, and I feel like I am on a mototcycle when I get going... road bikes are way faster than mountain bikes. I am enjoying it a lot so far. X, if you are considering a road bike still... I recommend it. It beats the shit out of my converted Haro Vecter from college (that's my mountain bike). I am actually thinking of converting my Haro into a single speed just so I have a cool new hobbie (tinkering with bike builds).

I'm far too poor to spend $750 on a bike. Maybe in 10 years or something. But I appreciate the suggestion.

[SPX]

I think the most common reaction by far to a new discovery is swift acceptance. The quote might apply more to significant scientific controversies (which are certainly not the most common mode of operation for science), but even then, I'm a bit hard pressed to come up examples of accepted ideas that spent a long time in the first two stages. Maybe plate tectonics would qualify, and there could be some others, but it is not the case in general that credited science goes through a period where it "looks like" fringe science before it is eventually accepted.

It has always seemed to me that science has its own sort of orthodoxy and dogmatism as religion. If you challenge the status quo then the establishment bares its teeth like a pack of wolves.

If anything, the REAL problem is that the scientific establishment doesn't want to look at anything that can't be replicated in a laboratory. But that makes no sense to me. Science is about exploring the world and discovering truth. Not all truth is subject to the scientific method. That doesn't mean it's not worth looking into.

I hadn't heard of him. Based solely on my reading of the Wikipedia article, I'd say it's pretty clear that he is also just a nut making stuff up, but in this case, he hasn't even bothered to limit himself to the physically possible. Furthermore, he doesn't even seem to know the meanings of the words he uses. (Saturn is not like anything that could go "nova". The composition of Venus is nothing like that of a "comet".) He is claiming that Venus was in orbit around Jupiter sometime within the last few thousand years. I guarantee that no reputable astronomer is giving any credence to this theory. If he was right about any particular detail, it's just one of those "stopped clock" effects.

I'm actually not that familiar with him. I just heard the author of this book. . .

http://www.amazon.com/Velikovsky-Heresies-Collision-Catastrophes-Revisited/dp/1591431395

. . . on a radio show the other day and it was pretty interesting.

At least from what he said, SOME evidence does supported Velikovsky's ideas. For instance, Velikovsky stated that Venus is younger than generally believed, and Venus's surface does exhibit many of the characteristics of a younger, more pristine, less pock-marked world.

But I'm just a layman, and one who hasn't even looked into it that much. So I dunno.

BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "stopped clock" effect.

I don't know if I should be encouraging this, but if you're interested in Russians with unconventional ideas about history, there's always Anatoly Fomenko. He's a Russian mathematician who thinks real human history is only about a thousand years old. Jesus lived in the 12th century, and all history that supposedly happened before then is people just making up stories to reflect events that happened in the middle ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko

I actually read quite a bit about this dude last night. That link didn't have much info but a Google search on his name did bring me to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29

I'll give a few thoughts:

1. My first reaction to all this was a big WTF.

2. I was particularly interested in Garry Kasparov's support of Fomenko's ideas.

3. Is Fomenko right about carbon dating of a series of known objects coming back with significantly dates? If so, that would seem to call into question the reliability of carbon dating.

4. I have also been a little troubled by the idea of the "dark ages." Similarly, I have found it somewhat troubling and unbelievable that previously gained scientific and academic knowledge was just kind of tossed away and forgotten. Why? It makes no sense. Then again, we don't know how they built the pyramids, so. . .

5. He seems like a dude who may have gotten so wrapped up within his own mathematical discipline that he sort of went off the deep end with it.

[SPX]

Cable motherfuckers!

I called Comcast today to see where my shit was. They told me it still hadn't shipped even though I called them on Monday to get my shit set up.

So today I took my ass up to the cable office and walked out with about 30 lbs of equipment. Now I'm watching "Chasing UFOs" on National Geographic. Life has gotten a lot better.

[SPX]

There's a variant of chess that's aimed at reducing the "opening memorization" problem where the first rank pieces are placed in a random order instead of the traditional way. (The same order for both players in a given game.) That way, it throws out all the openings. I've never actually played it, but it sounds fun.

You're not talking about . . . Fischer Random Chess, are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_Random_Chess

I've always wondered why that didn't catch on.

[poopoo333]

Just watched "Jeff, who lives at home"...it's a real good movie.

[High5]

Yeah, thanks. I am noticing that cars are not usually too excited to share the road with me.

I will say that even though my bike is the entry level road bike... to me it might as well be a Ferrari. I spent $750 on it, and I feel like I am on a mototcycle when I get going... road bikes are way faster than mountain bikes. I am enjoying it a lot so far. X, if you are considering a road bike still... I recommend it. It beats the shit out of my converted Haro Vecter from college (that's my mountain bike). I am actually thinking of converting my Haro into a single speed just so I have a cool new hobbie (tinkering with bike builds).

I ride too, it's my fountain of youth!
Mostly mountain this time of year but do mix it up with my road bike in the mountains.....I like to climb, cars and traffic not so much.
Keep it up Scientist......it's addicting!

[MMA_scientist]

Just watched "Jeff, who lives at home"...it's a real good movie.

Agreed, i watched it last week, recommend

[MMA_scientist]

I'm far too poor to spend $750 on a bike. Maybe in 10 years or something. But I appreciate the suggestion.

You can find some decent ones on craigslist. I found a prety nice cannondale for 250. Wouldve bought it but for the downtube shifters

[poopoo333]

I am keeping that job...brb just made $15.75 an hour

[Svino]

It has always seemed to me that science has its own sort of orthodoxy and dogmatism as religion. If you challenge the status quo then the establishment bares its teeth like a pack of wolves.

If anything, the REAL problem is that the scientific establishment doesn't want to look at anything that can't be replicated in a laboratory. But that makes no sense to me. Science is about exploring the world and discovering truth. Not all truth is subject to the scientific method. That doesn't mean it's not worth looking into.

I think that that sort of dogmatism is a little bit of a problem in the social sciences, but not much of an issue in the natural sciences; nature does a pretty thorough job of holding our feet to the fire. Even completely revolutionary theories like Special Relativity are accepted quickly if theoretically sound and not contradicted by observation.

I agree that "science is about exploring the world and discovering truth", and I also agree that it would be crazy to think all science has to take place in a laboratory. Most of it probably doesn't. Astronomers have had a notoriously difficult time getting stars into a lab, and field observations and survey data play major roles in other sciences.

The simplified version of "The Scientific Method" that is taught in high schools is awful, and I think it does more harm than good, since it appears to fuel the belief that "science" is something specific and clearly distinct from rational inquiry in the grander sense. Hypothesis testing is only one tool in the toolkit -- it certainly isn't the whole of science.

BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "stopped clock" effect.

Just referring to the maxim that, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day". I could make a prediction about the outcomes in UFC 148 based on patterns I found in The Epic of Gilgamesh. But even if most of my fighters win, it wouldn't validate my theory; it would mean I got lucky.

3. Is Fomenko right about carbon dating of a series of known objects coming back with significantly dates? If so, that would seem to call into question the reliability of carbon dating.

4. I have also been a little troubled by the idea of the "dark ages." Similarly, I have found it somewhat troubling and unbelievable that previously gained scientific and academic knowledge was just kind of tossed away and forgotten. Why? It makes no sense. Then again, we don't know how they built the pyramids, so. . .

Radioactive dating is generally reliable, though I'm sure some tests may have been botched here-and-there. You can probably find a complete history of every wrong attempt at radioactive-dating online since creationists desperately want to believe it doesn't work.

A lot of historians have been pushing back against the idea that the Dark Ages were regressive, which is one reason the term "Early Middle Ages" is now preferred. But there were definitely severe negative effects on learning caused by the collapse of the Roman Empire and the conflicts that followed.

We might not know all the details, but we have a fair idea of how the pyramids were built. (Ramps, ropes, and a lot of manpower) Modern crews have duplicated a lot of the necessary tasks with only the tools available that were known to the Egyptians, who were pretty decent engineers.