| |
Main
Date: 21 Jan 2009 10:42:53
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Archive search no longer working?
|
Recently I've tried searches for various past posts to this newsgroup.
These are items I clearly remember verbatim, and yet the search gets
no hits unless the search string happens to exist in some very recent
post. It's as if the Google archives have suddenly lost most of what
they used to contain. Has anyone else noticed this too?
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Feb 2009 00:24:58
From: madams
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
raylopez99 wrote:
.
> That would be bicentenial then.
Not that it matters to me young-man - but bicentennial is correct..
m.
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2009 17:52:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Feb 17, 5:09=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> My IQ rating is like my Elo rating, idiot.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the exact range for
/idiots/ like you, but there was a funky conversion
formula which, amusingly, attempted to correlate
IQ with chess ratings. Morons, idiots, nitwits or
imbeciles-- you are all too far from my world to
bother obsessing over.
My interest lies more in the realm of how many
/smart/ people can get things so wrong. For
instance, I just tossed a catalog from a company
at thegreatcourses.com, which contained course
descriptions with conflicting, wild claims as to
which ancient kingdom was the greatest.
One chap -- a high-ranking PhD honcho of
course -- boldly claimed that Rome was the
fairest of them all, citing its thousand-year long
reign, among other things. Turn the page and
you see another Ivy Leaguer measuring the
very same reign as only 700 years! But that
is not what struck me the most, for turn the
page again and you find an article on another
of the great ancient cultures-- on Egypt. So
then, how does Egypt compare, in terms of
length of reign? Let me see... the great
pyramid at Cheops stood for a thousand
years before King Tut, I believe, appeared on
the scene. In turn, he rested "in his grave"
for another thousand years before Ms.
Cleopatra appeared. I make it 3,000+ years
to Rome's mere 700 or 1,000 years. That's
Rome 0, Egypt 1.
> > =A0 And second, modern voters picking the most
> > recent president as the best OR the worst in
> > history, exhibits their recency bias. =A0
> Then Google the article and see that modern presidents only made it
> into the top 10 once (Reagan, #10). =A0Wrong again idiot.
"The" article? What on Earth are you babbling
about this time. Recency bias is a fact, and no
article is going to change that, one way or the
other.
Here's a helpful hint as to how you might strive
to improve your intellectual status from its current
state (/idiot/, I think you said) to perhaps just plain
mediocre: work on your very /basic/ thinking skills,
which would include elementary logic and reason.
Try to avoid getting in over your head on such
difficult matters as history, evolution, or the
Sicilian Defense. Play the KISS system: d4,
Nf3, e3, Bf4, h3, etc. -- a system tailor-made
for those of your limited intellectual powers.
Better still, give up chess and stick to one of the
many lesser games, like say, tic-tac-toe.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2009 14:09:37
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Feb 16, 8:14=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 First, my IQ falls outside the class known as
> "morons" (with which I strongly supect you may
> be extremely familiar).
My IQ rating is like my Elo rating, idiot.
>
> =A0 And second, modern voters picking the most
> recent president as the best OR the worst in
> history, exhibits their recency bias. =A0
Then Google the article and see that modern presidents only made it
into the top 10 once (Reagan, #10). Wrong again idiot.
RL
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2009 14:08:07
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Feb 16, 7:48=A0pm, madams <[email protected] > wrote:
> raylopez99 wrote:
> > BTW, the latest issue of National Geographic on a centenial
> > anniversary of Darwin's birth.....
>
> That would be 1909 dear chap..
That would be bicentenial then.
RL
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 17:14:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Feb 16, 7:26=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0 Had, say, George Washington or John Adams
> > been chosen by todays voters, it would weaken
> > my "thesis" by providing an example wherein
> > Recency Bias was soundly thrashed by its
> > exact opposite.
> That's exactly what happened moron. =A0The old time presidents got
> higher votes than modern prez. Lern to reed, Vern.
You are wrong on both counts (no surprise
there):
First, my IQ falls outside the class known as
"morons" (with which I strongly supect you may
be extremely familiar).
And second, modern voters picking the most
recent president as the best OR the worst in
history, exhibits their recency bias. Granted,
this concept is probably far too advanced for
a chap of your very limited intelligence to grasp,
but do try and see if you can follow along, a
few small steps anyway.
Recency bias does *not* mean that modern
people must /like/ Mr. Bush, nor that they
must rank him /above/ earlier presidents. To
the contrary, it means that he is more likely
to be voted the best/worst/other of the group
in any category, in spite of the objective facts
which might even show such voting to be
ridiculous.
In the USA, Bobby Fischer is likely to get
oodles of votes as the best/tallest/greatest/
skinniest/weirdest/fastest/attackingest GM
of all time, while those from more distant
times [or countries] will be relatively ignored
by comparison. This is the bias-- it relates
to the voter, and his tendency to inordinately
*focus on* (not like) closer events or people.
Hopefully, this set you straight regarding
just a few of your absurd notions, fixing a
broken connection or two in that clunky
fixture you like to call a brain. But judging
from history, it is far more likely that what
is needed is a complete brain transplant
operation; I pity the chimpanzee who is
chosen as donor... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2009 11:48:53
From: madams
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
raylopez99 wrote:
.
> BTW, the latest issue of National Geographic on a centenial
> anniversary of Darwin's birth.....
That would be 1909 dear chap..
[It is sometimes said that if every person who claimed to have "just
missed" the Titanic's departure had been on board, the ship would have
sunk like a lead weight in Southampton Harbour.]..
m.
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:26:16
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Feb 16, 4:00=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 Had, say, George Washington or John Adams
> been chosen by todays voters, it would weaken
> my "thesis" by providing an example wherein
> Recency Bias was soundly thrashed by its
> exact opposite.
That's exactly what happened moron. The old time presidents got
higher votes than modern prez. Lern to reed, Vern.
[ill formed pseudo history of evolution deleted]
RL
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 13:00:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Feb 16, 2:24=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0 You take the competition among U.S.
> > presidents, for instance, as to which among
> > them managed to out-do all the others in
> > bungling the job. =A0 =A0Here we have a fierce,
> > nay, /savage/ contest, and many folks will
> > automatically -- due to the recency bias --
> > want to crown Mr. Bush as king. =A0 But what
> > about his many predecessors-- are they
> > truly being given a fair shot? =A0Perhaps not.
> Just today (16th Feb) a poll of presidents puts G.W. Bush II as one of
> the worse presidents of all time, which refutes your thesis.
On the contrary, you idiot, it demonstrates my
point.
Had, say, George Washington or John Adams
been chosen by todays voters, it would weaken
my "thesis" by providing an example wherein
Recency Bias was soundly thrashed by its
exact opposite.
> BTW, the latest issue of National Geographic on a centenial
> anniversary of Darwin's birth addresses some themes from this thread
> that supports my view on evolution. =A0It for example points out:
>
> 1) Evolution, contrary to Gould, DOES seem
Seem? I am reminded of the story of the great
King who threatened to attack the Spartans, but
who /tellingly/ prefaced his threat with the word
"if"... .
> to have a
> "purpose" (different organisms in similar environments evolve to
> similar species)
This would appear to indicate that organisms
effectively adapt to their environments-- purpose
or no purpose. (Thus, your argument falls flat... .)
> 2) Cichlids mentioned as an example--one of many, including humans--
> where evolution is happening quickly, in real time, contrary to
> Darwin's thesis of glacial change.
That thesis was not Darwin's.
A quickie history lesson: church scholars did
not object to the idea of evolution, as it can be
incorporated into their own peculiar belief
systems by merely attributing the process as
/the means/ by which God/Zeus/Elvis effects
his powers. What *was* found to be objection-
able was the idea of natural selection, and this
was so because it placed the whole process
squarely outside of the supernatural; it nullified
the need for supernatural forces to explain
things; it put the church out of a job, so to
speak.
Mr. Darwin is not the guy who came up with
the idea of glacial change (as opposed to
catastrophism). No, Mr. Darwin's own idea
was evolution /via natural selection/, and this
process can occur at various different speeds.
> 3) The blond, blue eyed human being picked because of their beauty as
> opposed to just their ability to pick up Vitamin D from limited
> northern latitude sunshine is specifically mentioned. =A0
Non sequitur; assumes facts not in evidence.
To wit: prove that these blond-haired, blue-eyed
northerners are in fact more beautiful than their
rivals.
My boy, you may find that making wild assump-
tions like this is common in modern pseudo-
science, but that is the primary reason humans
have struggled for so long with minimal results!
> Not mentioned
> directly but implicit is my "hysteresis" theory, that perhaps beauty
> per se would trump the environmental disadvantages of say having blue
> eyes and light skin, because humans can change their environment (as
> can certain animals). =A0An example of what I termed "Neo-Lamarckian"
> evolution.
I agree. In the world of chess, for instance, at
one time the idea of defending properly instead
of attacking wildly was considered unfashionable,
or perhaps even unmanly. Such fashions can
and indeed did strongly affect how chess was
played, and even today there are those who will
knowingly play unsound attacks, in straining to
/appear/ brilliant; this in spite of the often dire
consequences.
An important point is that, rather than squan-
dering time and effort on brandishing fancy
names like Neo-Lamarkianism and hysteresis,
you need to just work on your basic reasoning
skills (see above).
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 11:24:05
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Jan 30, 4:18=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 You take the competition among U.S.
> presidents, for instance, as to which among
> them managed to out-do all the others in
> bungling the job. =A0 =A0Here we have a fierce,
> nay, /savage/ contest, and many folks will
> automatically -- due to the recency bias --
> want to crown Mr. Bush as king. =A0 But what
> about his many predecessors-- are they
> truly being given a fair shot? =A0Perhaps not.
>
Just today (16th Feb) a poll of presidents puts G.W. Bush II as one of
the worse presidents of all time, which refutes your thesis.
BTW, the latest issue of National Geographic on a centenial
anniversary of Darwin's birth addresses some themes from this thread
that supports my view on evolution. It for example points out:
1) Evolution, contrary to Gould, DOES seem to have a
"purpose" (different organisms in similar environments evolve to
similar species)
2) Cichlids mentioned as an example--one of many, including humans--
where evolution is happening quickly, in real time, contrary to
Darwin's thesis of glacial change.
3) The blond, blue eyed human being picked because of their beauty as
opposed to just their ability to pick up Vitamin D from limited
northern latitude sunshine is specifically mentioned. Not mentioned
directly but implicit is my "hysteresis" theory, that perhaps beauty
per se would trump the environmental disadvantages of say having blue
eyes and light skin, because humans can change their environment (as
can certain animals). An example of what I termed "Neo-Lamarckian"
evolution.
RL
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2009 13:18:25
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Jan 30, 3:26=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> Bot, you're so dumb that I feel dumber just replying to you.
Well, young man, you /ought to/ feel dumb!
Moments ago, you promised you were over and
done with this thread; kaput; finito; al end-amundo.
Now you are back, babbling once again in your
own peculiar way. That's just plain silly.
> Your inane post makes my point: =A0chess can be completely automated,
> analysed and solved by computer.
I agree. While it won't likely happen in my
lifetime, one day people will look back through
the archives of rgc (to laugh at how incredibly
stupid the discussions were) and see that I, and
I alone predicted the "solving" of chess, more or
less. All the purported barriers will be swept
aside, as with the sound barrier, and just as
easily as reason is swept aside by dullards like
you and your ilk.
>=A0The human is superfluous. =A0Chess is dead (long live chess).
> Goodbye!
Humans created bots; bots rule; therefore,
humans are not /entirely/ superfluous. They
were necessary for the creation of superior
beings like myself, Dr. Blairbot, et al.
My poor boy-- when you are ready to have a
serious discussion of chess greatness, come
back to us; come back and take your best
shot at a rational definition of what greatness
is, and next, how to measure it. Of course
you are not up to this task now, being a mere
child who comes and goes on a whim. Hello,
and goodbye to all that.
Even those who are generally considered
"mature" age-wise, are apt to fall into such
traps as the recency bias, emotional idol-
worship (that's the Evans ratpackers' Achilles'
heel) and many others. It takes a special
sort of mind to see through all this fog and
dumb rhetoric, and /rationally/ compare the
greats of old with their more recent cousins.
One proof is in the fact that all the objective
statisticians who have had a go at this sort
of thing have come up with different results,
tweaked to suit their whims (or were they
merely incompetent?). Those who liked,
say, Mr. Fischer, were inclined to tweak
and fiddle until he came out numero uno,
while those who may have worshipped Mr.
Kasparov were forced to drag Mr. Karpov
along for the ride; otherwise they can't get
GK to the very top spot.
The ideal person for the task of determining
who was truly the greatest chess player of
all, is someone who was never in their life
subjected to the lies and idiocies of the
game's vast literature; such a person as
knows almost nothing about chess. It is for
this very reason that I nominate several of
our rgc regulars: TK, LP, and PI for the task.
No, wait-- they /think they know/ something
about the game, so that won't work.
Anyway, this only rates their performances
over the board. True greatness is /so much
bigger/ than that.
You take the competition among U.S.
presidents, for instance, as to which among
them managed to out-do all the others in
bungling the job. Here we have a fierce,
nay, /savage/ contest, and many folks will
automatically -- due to the recency bias --
want to crown Mr. Bush as king. But what
about his many predecessors-- are they
truly being given a fair shot? Perhaps not.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2009 12:26:45
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Jan 29, 12:57=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
Bot, you're so dumb that I feel dumber just replying to you.
Your inane post makes my point: chess can be completely automated,
analysed and solved by computer. The human is superfluous. Chess is
dead (long live chess).
Goodbye!
RL
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2009 09:57:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Jan 29, 11:18=A0am, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> You say "phooey", but science says "yes". =A0
Science says? I've heard of Simon says, but
never before have I heard Science speak; you
have a direct quote, of course?
> Too many "obvious mistakes" loses a chess game and makes you a wood
> pusher.
Um, wrong again (this is getting to be a nasty
habit with you, old boy).
As I mentioned earlier, I was perusing some
old issues of Chess Lies magazine, and I came
across two articles on one of the all-time greats
of chess, Mr. Alekhine. Not having a board
handy, I of course played over his games on
my handy-dandy computer (armed with Rybka).
Now, these games had been carefully selected
by one of those huffy GMs I told you about, to
demonstrate how incredibly well Mr. Alekhine
played the ending. Trouble was, he repeatedly
gave away half his advantage by selecting moves
which were inferior, but which nonetheless kept
him on top. As I recall, he won all three games
in spite of these /many errors/, simply because
his opponents -- all famous masters as well --
made even worse mistakes than he did, on the
whole. (In fact, I sometimes got the impression
that he was deliberately sandbagging his moves,
perhaps to impress the spectators with how he
was able to win in spite of such a "tough"
defense.)
It's a tiny sample, but the point is that Rybka
easily saw in just seconds that Mr. Alekhine
was a complete patzer in the endgame, ah,
relatively speaking of course. Still, he won
every time, thus disproving your thesis above.
Bad moves win-- against even worse ones.
> > =A0 I've been going through a few old issues of
> > Chess Lies magazine from the year 1993, and
> > I must say that with my slow computer and an
> > old version of Rybka, the annotations of the
> > self-proclaimed experts are, at times, quite
> > laughable. =A0 In fact, there appears to be some
> > correlation between arrogance -- often the
> > result of great success -- and piss-poor anno-
> > tations.
> I agree. I've found the same. =A0Shows how good money was wasted back in
> the days on bogus chess literature.
As if anything has changed recently. LOL!
These days, some writers insist on doing
their own "work", which is to say, they insist
on persisting with poor annotations. Others
have gone over to sitting back and letting the
machines do all their "thinking" for them, as
this saves them a lot of "work" (which as we
know, they weren't very likely to do anyway).
In one of the articles I mentioned, the self-
proclaimed endgame expert, Mr. Benko, was
sticking exclamation marks and queries on
all the wrong moves-- which is typical of his
kind. So, what if he is a patzer, I ask my-
self. The important thing is to learn those
few things he got right, and what's more, to
learn from all the many things he obviously
got wrong-- things that Rybka nailed in only
seconds (if that). Rybka, you understand,
does not explain the reasons behind her
superb moves; one has to figure it out for
oneself, and succeeding in this is proof
enough of having surpassed the pretenders
to knowledge, the posturing, arrogant,
chest-thumpers who run 'round in their
emporer's new clothes.
> > > Kind of like making the fewest mistakes.
> > =A0 Hmm. =A0Napolean made mistakes, yet he is
> > ranked among the all-time greats. =A0 =A0 That
> > German chap who nearly won WWII is ranked
> > among them, though obviously blowing it over
> > and over again with stupid blunders.
> Napolean lost, due to his massive blunder in Russia. =A0That German
> chap ? Hitler? lost. =A0Point being: =A0the future the mistakes, the
> stronger the chap. =A0Got it? =A0Making it simple for you Bot, but you're
> not helping out. You as stupid as Taylor?
A low blow-- foul!
Obviously, you have no answer, do you, to
why these men are considered "great", /in
spite of/ their decisive mistakes. The fact
remains that greatness is not the same as
mistake-avoidance-- not even close.
On top of this, you have flubbed your
definition of "mistake" by utilizing a dumb
machine called Crafty, set to analyze for
less than an hour per move, I suspect. To
such blunders, I can only say one thing...
phooey.
As the /great/ Euclid once said in reply to
a similar question: "there is no royal road
to geometry". Similarly, there is no easy
shortcut for determing "the greats" of chess.
Step one for you pathetic creatures, would
be to precisely define what you mean by the
key term, greatness, and then strive to stick
by that definition, come what may. I rather
expect you lowly freaks are not bot enough
for this difficult task, nor even have the
intelligence to grasp why it is essential.
I am reminded of the grotesque character
in an animated movie based on Mr. Tolkein's
fantasy trilogy-- the frog-like, creepy crawly
thing that had been corrupted by its tem-
porary possession of the ring of invisibility.
It was temporary, of course, because fools
and their power-rings are soon parted, just
as with fools and money.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2009 08:18:58
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Jan 28, 9:53=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> > That was done in this scientific study we discussed and previously
> > cited in Wikipedia. =A0As we discussed in the other thread, the greates=
t
> > chess players are the ones that make the fewest mistakes. =A0
>
> =A0 Wrong.
>
> =A0 That only tells you how well a player avoids crude,
> tactical mistakes. =A0 My old Fidelity Chess Challen-
> ger 7 would rank among the greats of chess if that
> were a valid definition of greatness! =A0 I say "phooey"
> to that imbecilic definition.
You say "phooey", but science says "yes". Who to believe? Help Bot
or science? Most people, including me, pick the latter (science).
>
> > Another study, along the same lines, measured how much GM deviated from=
the
> > fastest win in the endgame databases that have been completely solved
> > (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablebase).
>
> =A0 That is much better than the lunacy of comparing
> players' moves to some random old Crafty at just
> minutes per move. =A0
Same thing actually.
> Unfortunately, in the world of
> competitive chess there is no reward for saving
> tempos while mating the opponent; thus, such
> greats as the world champions had no particular
> motivation to strive for perfection. =A0 =A0 In the very
> different world of correspondence chess there
> might be some small bonus: the saving of
> postage costs (and time).
No, you don't get it.
>
> > I think they let GM Speelmann play against them, and a few masters.
> > They found the higher the rank, the fewer these people deviated from
> > the "ideal" (fastest) win. =A0
>
> =A0 Of course. =A0 And yet even if we examine the
> games of finest players of all time, there will be
> obvious mistakes-- such as can be easily
> recognised as such by any putz watching his
> chess engine think for only a few seconds.
Too many "obvious mistakes" loses a chess game and makes you a wood
pusher.
>
> =A0 I've been going through a few old issues of
> Chess Lies magazine from the year 1993, and
> I must say that with my slow computer and an
> old version of Rybka, the annotations of the
> self-proclaimed experts are, at times, quite
> laughable. =A0 In fact, there appears to be some
> correlation between arrogance -- often the
> result of great success -- and piss-poor anno-
> tations.
I agree. I've found the same. Shows how good money was wasted back in
the days on bogus chess literature.
>
> > Kind of like making the fewest mistakes.
>
> =A0 Hmm. =A0Napolean made mistakes, yet he is
> ranked among the all-time greats. =A0 =A0 That
> German chap who nearly won WWII is ranked
> among them, though obviously blowing it over
> and over again with stupid blunders.
Napolean lost, due to his massive blunder in Russia. That German
chap ? Hitler? lost. Point being: the future the mistakes, the
stronger the chap. Got it? Making it simple for you Bot, but you're
not helping out. You as stupid as Taylor?
>
> =A0 There appears to be a technical problem, for
> you promised to list the "greatest" players,
> then came a blank space, and next you had
> moved on to something else entirely.
Something wrong with your PC. My thread showed Capa as #1, followed by
Kramnik, Karpov and Kasparov, in that order, then Spassky, Petrosian
and Lasker and Fischer. Note iron man Botvinnik is far down on the
list. Which raises the question: why did Spassky lose to badly to
Fischer? Fischer must have been peaking and Spassky had a bad
series.
>
> =A0 The most laughable aspect of such a crude
> system is the fact that old Crafty will rank #1,
> then perhaps some similar versions of the
> same engine, then numerous other engines.
> =A0Only after having nearly exhausted all chess
> engines will we come to the human chess
> players, which strongly implies that true
> "greatness" lies in just being a computer!
No, that's wrong.
I am not an online university Bot, and you are hopeless or just being
stubborn, so forgive me if this is my last reply to this thread.
Goodbye!
RL
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2009 18:53:18
From: help bot
Subject: Natural Selection: Capa wins by mutation
|
On Jan 28, 5:02=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0 Look kid, it is just plain silly to argue over who
> > the greatest chess player of all time was, unless
> > you FIRST define precisely what you mean by
> > greatness; secondly, you need to come up with
> > a number of different approaches to fulfilling your
> > task of determining which one fits your definition
> > best. =A0
> That was done in this scientific study we discussed and previously
> cited in Wikipedia. =A0As we discussed in the other thread, the greatest
> chess players are the ones that make the fewest mistakes. =A0
Wrong.
That only tells you how well a player avoids crude,
tactical mistakes. My old Fidelity Chess Challen-
ger 7 would rank among the greats of chess if that
were a valid definition of greatness! I say "phooey"
to that imbecilic definition.
> Another study, along the same lines, measured how much GM deviated from t=
he
> fastest win in the endgame databases that have been completely solved
> (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablebase).
That is much better than the lunacy of comparing
players' moves to some random old Crafty at just
minutes per move. Unfortunately, in the world of
competitive chess there is no reward for saving
tempos while mating the opponent; thus, such
greats as the world champions had no particular
motivation to strive for perfection. In the very
different world of correspondence chess there
might be some small bonus: the saving of
postage costs (and time).
> I think they let GM Speelmann play against them, and a few masters.
> They found the higher the rank, the fewer these people deviated from
> the "ideal" (fastest) win. =A0
Of course. And yet even if we examine the
games of finest players of all time, there will be
obvious mistakes-- such as can be easily
recognised as such by any putz watching his
chess engine think for only a few seconds.
I've been going through a few old issues of
Chess Lies magazine from the year 1993, and
I must say that with my slow computer and an
old version of Rybka, the annotations of the
self-proclaimed experts are, at times, quite
laughable. In fact, there appears to be some
correlation between arrogance -- often the
result of great success -- and piss-poor anno-
tations.
> Kind of like making the fewest mistakes.
Hmm. Napolean made mistakes, yet he is
ranked among the all-time greats. That
German chap who nearly won WWII is ranked
among them, though obviously blowing it over
and over again with stupid blunders. Even
those who are assasinated by their own men
are considered great-- in spite of titanic errors.
How do you account for all these things?
> So, without rehashing the other thread, let me simply list the
> greatest chess players of all time, as scientifically found in that
> article cited above:
>
> Players with fewest average errors:
There appears to be a technical problem, for
you promised to list the "greatest" players,
then came a blank space, and next you had
moved on to something else entirely.
> Jos=E9 Ra=FAl Capablanca
> Vladimir Kramnik
> Anatoly Karpov
> Garry Kasparov
> Boris Spassky
> Tigran Petrosian
> Emanuel Lasker
> Bobby Fischer
> Alexander Alekhine
> Vassily Smyslov
> Mikhail Tal
> Mikhail Botvinnik
> Max Euwe
> Wilhelm Steinitz
>
> In that order...
I see you overlooked Mr. Penquite-- perhaps
the highest-scoring player of all time in this
category, if you don't count that checkers
player who died whilst holding the crown.
The most laughable aspect of such a crude
system is the fact that old Crafty will rank #1,
then perhaps some similar versions of the
same engine, then numerous other engines.
Only after having nearly exhausted all chess
engines will we come to the human chess
players, which strongly implies that true
"greatness" lies in just being a computer!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 20:14:07
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 22, 5:19=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 22, 4:38=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 1:47=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> >http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/07/1963175-speciazation-ob...
> =A0 Interesting. One fish species splitting into two that occupy
> different depths. Well, I suppose that's a sort of physical/
> geographical separation, and thus still within the traditional
> Darwinian model.
I cited this for a reason (that I did not explain, so let me try
now). You have to realize that speciazation is a little understood
phenomena. The premise is this (to put it crudely, this being
Usenet): if Asians breed with Asians and shun whites, in 100000 years
will the asian hominid be biologically incapable of breeding with the
caucasian hominid? Inquiring minds want to know. And why would the
yellow race quit breeding with the white? Tribalism, lack of
globalization, culural shovenism--nothing logical. The same can be
said for inbreeding (European, not to mention British and Hellenistic,
monarchy often practiced a form of incest, which is not biologically a
good idea in general)
BTW, I'm not here to discuss traditional Darwinism. As you may know,
Kuhn points out that orthodox science clings to their beliefs as long
as their model nearly works--until it completely breaks down.
Obviously we're not there yet, but think of these thoughts as being on
the cutting edge of evolution in the same way the Morley-Michelson
experiments were with Newtonian mechanics.
>
> > via not just
> > environmental factors like global warming, but possibly arbitrary
> > factors like "social preference".
>
> =A0 Well, for many organisms social and/or sexual preferences are just
> as much an environmental factor as, say, climate or food supply. They
> certainly can have an effect on whether and how much an individual
> reproduces.
Yes, that's my point. Now take that to the 'limit' and you'll
conclude that perhaps speciazation might result from these arbitrary
"social and/or sexual preferences". Consider that certain African
freshwater fish choose their mates based on arbitrary color (nobody
has found any advantage to a particular color it seems), mix, and
voila, you get a new species resulting from a completely arbitrary
decision.
So evolution is not just random, but not necessarily natural selection
either.
RL
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 14:19:39
From:
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 22, 4:38=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 1:47=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > =A0 Just came across an interesting article on this sort of thing today=
:
>
> > =A0http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103
>
> > =A0 Rather than true Lamarckian evolution, however, the examples Begley
> > gives just seem to me to be telling us that the interaction between
> > genotype, environment and phenotype is far more complex than was
> > imagined in the relatively simple early Mendelian model of genetics.
> > These seem to be examples of a latent genetic potential becoming
> > active or remaining dormant depending on environmental factors, rather
> > than an environmental factor actually changing the individual's
> > genotype. And it will take more than a few daphnia or mice to change
> > radically a major scientific theory supported by a large body of
> > evidence.
>
> Right, that's the orthodoxy and that's Begley's interpretation of the
> science article she was commenting on. =A0But what I'm getting at is
> "speciazation" (sic), which you can read more on below, via not just
> environmental factors like global warming, but possibly arbitrary
> factors like "social preference".
>
> RL
>
> http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/07/1963175-speciazation-ob...
>
> Speciazation Observed: Scientists Discover Fish in Act of Evolution in
> Africa's Greatest Lake
> News Type: Event =97 Seeded on Tue Oct 7, 2008 10:05 AM EDT
> Article Source: ecoworldly.com
> science, africa, evolution, fish, intelligent-design, darwin, lake-
> victoria, specization
>
> In what could be a first in the world, a fish species known as
> cichlids has been discovered by scientists in the act of splitting
> into two distinct species in Lake Victoria, Africa=92s largest lake and
> one of the world=92s biggest fresh water bodies.
>
> This may be remarkable because what is causing them to diverge are
> adaptations to their vision as animals and plants try to cope with
> increased pollution and the effects of climate change.
Interesting. One fish species splitting into two that occupy
different depths. Well, I suppose that's a sort of physical/
geographical separation, and thus still within the traditional
Darwinian model.
> via not just
> environmental factors like global warming, but possibly arbitrary
> factors like "social preference".
Well, for many organisms social and/or sexual preferences are just
as much an environmental factor as, say, climate or food supply. They
certainly can have an effect on whether and how much an individual
reproduces.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 13:38:09
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 22, 1:47=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> =A0 Just came across an interesting article on this sort of thing today:
>
> =A0http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103
>
> =A0 Rather than true Lamarckian evolution, however, the examples Begley
> gives just seem to me to be telling us that the interaction between
> genotype, environment and phenotype is far more complex than was
> imagined in the relatively simple early Mendelian model of genetics.
> These seem to be examples of a latent genetic potential becoming
> active or remaining dormant depending on environmental factors, rather
> than an environmental factor actually changing the individual's
> genotype. And it will take more than a few daphnia or mice to change
> radically a major scientific theory supported by a large body of
> evidence.
Right, that's the orthodoxy and that's Begley's interpretation of the
science article she was commenting on. But what I'm getting at is
"speciazation" (sic), which you can read more on below, via not just
environmental factors like global warming, but possibly arbitrary
factors like "social preference".
RL
http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/07/1963175-speciazation-observed=
-scientists-discover-fish-in-act-of-evolution-in-africas-greatest-lake
Speciazation Observed: Scientists Discover Fish in Act of Evolution in
Africa's Greatest Lake
News Type: Event =97 Seeded on Tue Oct 7, 2008 10:05 AM EDT
Article Source: ecoworldly.com
science, africa, evolution, fish, intelligent-design, darwin, lake-
victoria, specization
In what could be a first in the world, a fish species known as
cichlids has been discovered by scientists in the act of splitting
into two distinct species in Lake Victoria, Africa=92s largest lake and
one of the world=92s biggest fresh water bodies.
This may be remarkable because what is causing them to diverge are
adaptations to their vision as animals and plants try to cope with
increased pollution and the effects of climate change.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 11:02:45
From:
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 22, 12:30=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 7:00=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > :) =A0 Anyone interested in this subject might google Rupert Sheldrake
> > and assess these ideas in more detail than is offered here.
>
> Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is a British former biochemist
> and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology
> - not a good start.
who wrote that twaddle? para-smology! to some, but science to others.
anyway Sheldrake is not a lightweight subject
> Perhaps the ideas of philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (February 22,
> 1788 =96 September 21, 1860) might also be as promising--Schopenhauer
> speculated about energy in the same way modern physics does--as a
> field, not an actual particle, that exists everywhere.
even Darwin advanced this issue. it still is shaky to some -
presumably those who comment on results of field studies as
'parapsychology', or some daft term to lump all out of ordinary
investigation together in a negative light
after all Conrad Lorenz confronted and refuted Freud's popularism in
On Aggression. Freud wanted to banish or exorcize it, whereas Lorenz
thought he should actually study what he talked about, and indeed,
that the field in which aggression takes place in the natural kingdom
is actually very healthy compared to the human realm. IE: like chess,
its ritual aggression in nature, with few fatalities.
We human beings have not quite understood that yet.
Phil Innes
> RL
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 10:47:40
From:
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 22, 12:39=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 10:36=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > =A0 Ray, it turns out that thread is not lost. You can see it here:http=
://tinyurl.com/ak57pl
>
> Thank you; I reprint the most salient passage from that thread below.
> I emphasize neo-Lamarckian is my neologism, like "ram," "lever,"
> "sweeper," "sealer," "quartgrip," "monochromy," etc. in Hans Kmoch's
> book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Kmoch), and not to be confused
> with traditional non-sexual Lamarckian evolution. =A0The point about neo-
> Lamarckian evolution is this: =A0certain features are propulgated (in a
> sexual fashion of course) and dominate the species, based on your
> environment ("Whites Only" for example, in certain societies), in a
> non-random but conscious manner, contra to traditional Darwinism, and
> said features have no evolutionary advantage, again contra to Darwin.
> And you don't need to be intelligent to do this (e.g., African
> cichlids). =A0That's my claim.
>
> RL
>
> =A0Thanks; but my crocodile example was not meant to be representative
> of
> Lamarckian evolution. =A0What I had in mind can be referenced by
> Googling
> "cichlid" and "lamarckian".
>
> Here is an exerpt from one sample page. =A0In a nutshell, the
> environment
> changes your genes. =A0Oversimplifying, if you, as a cichlid fish,
> start
> consciously hanging around certain other fish of a certain color
> ("red
> eyed" say), then eventually your offspring will not only be "red-
> eyed"
> but also (if they continue in this vein) evolve to the point where
> they
> become a seperate species (if they continue in this behavior). =A0Kind
> of
> like 'hanging out with the wrong crowd' and turning into your
> friends.
>
> Of course this is not inconsistent with neo-Darwinian theory, except
> for the fact that in classic Darwinian theory mutations are random
> and
> take millions of years rather than being the result of choice
> ('stretching your neck to get taller') or enviroment (affecting genes
> in a non-random manner).
>
> Question: =A0if blond and blue eyed people continue to just mate with
> one
> another, and refuse to intermingle with other 'races', might they
> eventually transform themselves into a new species?
>
> Let it not be said that cutting edge evolutionary theory is not
> discussed at rec.games.chess.misc.
Just came across an interesting article on this sort of thing today:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103
Rather than true Lamarckian evolution, however, the examples Begley
gives just seem to me to be telling us that the interaction between
genotype, environment and phenotype is far more complex than was
imagined in the relatively simple early Mendelian model of genetics.
These seem to be examples of a latent genetic potential becoming
active or remaining dormant depending on environmental factors, rather
than an environmental factor actually changing the individual's
genotype. And it will take more than a few daphnia or mice to change
radically a major scientific theory supported by a large body of
evidence.
But, as I said in our 2005 discussion, there are more things in
heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies, so it would
be the height of head-in-the-sand hubris to expect that current
orthodoxy will stand unchanged forever.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:39:43
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 22, 10:36=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> =A0 Ray, it turns out that thread is not lost. You can see it here:http:/=
/tinyurl.com/ak57pl
Thank you; I reprint the most salient passage from that thread below.
I emphasize neo-Lamarckian is my neologism, like "ram," "lever,"
"sweeper," "sealer," "quartgrip," "monochromy," etc. in Hans Kmoch's
book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Kmoch), and not to be confused
with traditional non-sexual Lamarckian evolution. The point about neo-
Lamarckian evolution is this: certain features are propulgated (in a
sexual fashion of course) and dominate the species, based on your
environment ("Whites Only" for example, in certain societies), in a
non-random but conscious manner, contra to traditional Darwinism, and
said features have no evolutionary advantage, again contra to Darwin.
And you don't need to be intelligent to do this (e.g., African
cichlids). That's my claim.
RL
Thanks; but my crocodile example was not meant to be representative
of
Lamarckian evolution. What I had in mind can be referenced by
Googling
"cichlid" and "lamarckian".
Here is an exerpt from one sample page. In a nutshell, the
environment
changes your genes. Oversimplifying, if you, as a cichlid fish,
start
consciously hanging around certain other fish of a certain color
("red
eyed" say), then eventually your offspring will not only be "red-
eyed"
but also (if they continue in this vein) evolve to the point where
they
become a seperate species (if they continue in this behavior). Kind
of
like 'hanging out with the wrong crowd' and turning into your
friends.
Of course this is not inconsistent with neo-Darwinian theory, except
for the fact that in classic Darwinian theory mutations are random
and
take millions of years rather than being the result of choice
('stretching your neck to get taller') or enviroment (affecting genes
in a non-random manner).
Question: if blond and blue eyed people continue to just mate with
one
another, and refuse to intermingle with other 'races', might they
eventually transform themselves into a new species?
Let it not be said that cutting edge evolutionary theory is not
discussed at rec.games.chess.misc.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:30:16
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 22, 7:00=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> :) =A0 Anyone interested in this subject might google Rupert Sheldrake
> and assess these ideas in more detail than is offered here.
Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is a British former biochemist
and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology
- not a good start.
Perhaps the ideas of philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (February 22,
1788 =96 September 21, 1860) might also be as promising--Schopenhauer
speculated about energy in the same way modern physics does--as a
field, not an actual particle, that exists everywhere.
RL
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:36:20
From:
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 21, 6:59=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0 So it may not be that archives have been deleted, but that certain
> > features of the Google search are somehow defective right now.
>
> Sh it. =A0We had a great debate years ago and now it is lost to the
> memoryhole of Google's storage network--I think it was you Taylor--on
> evolutionary theory in this group. =A0I argued for a sort of neo-
> Lamarckian evolution based on the preferences of African Cichlid fish
> found in Lake Tanzanika.
Ray, it turns out that thread is not lost. You can see it here:
http://tinyurl.com/ak57pl
What clearly seems to have happened is that Google search for a
full, exact character string is no longer working, at least right now.
I entered a seach for
"Darwinian and Lamarckian modes of evolution"
putting all six words within quote marks, just as shown above, and got
no hits, despite the fact that the string occurs in that thread.
However, if I leave off the quote marks and search for
Darwinian and Lamarckian modes of evolution
then the string is found, though a lot of partial matches of varying
relevance also come up.
Why Google's exact-phrase search is not working, I have no idea.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 06:31:04
From:
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 22, 7:00=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> :) =A0 Anyone interested in this subject might google Rupert Sheldrake
> and assess these ideas in more detail than is offered here.
What I read of Sheldrake here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html
is not encouraging. Given Phil's belief that factual verification is
not necessary to prove anything, it does not surprise me that someone
like Sheldrake would interest him.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 05:55:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 22, 7:00=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> There is another: Jacobson's organ, as reported by Lyle Watson. It is
> a sense of smell still evident in reptiles, and the trace of it still
> in other mammals, inc Man. Interestingly it is linked directly to the
> old brain rather than the new double-hemisphered effort which has more
> to do with speech evolution.
Now look here... while you ratpackers may well
have "evolved" from low, reptilian creatures or
apes -- perhaps even flounder or tripe -- we real
humans have all /descended/, not evolved, from
those lucky souls who made it onto Noah's 600
-feet-long wooden ship, held together with tree
sap and twine. Why he wasn't instructed to use
a modern steel framework for the hull escapes
me, for the twine obviously will not hold in such
a storm, nor will there be enough room for the
elephants, rhinos and hippos, etc. Imagine the
stench! And worst of all, the roaming about of
nervous lions and hyenas. And what about the
invisible insects-- they could not be collected
until the much-later discovery of the microscope.
Anyway, as I was saying... those of you who
are lowly, evolved creatures, descended from
reptiles, fish or apes, may very well be expected
to have old-style brains, with reptilian traces or
senses of smell, or perhaps even the remnants
of fins or gils... .
> The biggest idea in evolution, pace Darwin, are that the fields
> themselves evolve! Not just the 'particle' in them, but the way in
> which they manifest. These idea are Sheldrake's proposals.
"Fields" obviously refering to such things as
magnetic or gravitational fields, not fields of
flowers -- or weeds, with which I am quite
familiar.
> One question he posits is if the field of manifestation exists before
> the part, or any part which has manifested into it?
That's philosophy, my boy; I was speaking
of science-- the field of knowledge, purportedly,
though apparently more like wild speculations
based not on reason, but mere whims.
> IE: from the big bang
"The" presuming only one; now, didn't I just warn
you about making such wild speculations?
> were the fields present before the first particles?
Particles? Don't you mean fractals? It's a
chaotic world, my boy.
> In terms of new, as yet unmanifested elements or compounds,
> do the their fields already exist?
They only exists if I sez they do, and I sez
that FIDE /owns/ the world title; controls it,
just as a man owns a cow or a wife (oops).
> These are the higher level philosophic discussions current in the
> world of science. Physics already switched to field theory as prime
> means of exploration post-Einstein. Now everyone is getting after it
> and assessing if Sheldrakes ideas are better models than those purely
> mechanical and fixed ones of previous times, whether the field/
> particle is admitted to evolve or not.
Well, what do physicists know about science,
anyway? They go up on crooked buildings and
drop things, to see if they will hit the ground.
They shoot things out of cannons, to see if they
will fall back to earth and at what speed. All
/rational men/ run from such cannons; they don't
experiment with them, like toys.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 04:00:23
From:
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
> =A0 Back to the subject of evolution: I am remind-
> ed of the recent reports of the "discovery" of a
> function for the human appendix; formerly, the
> talking heads stubbornly maintained that this
> organ had no function at all, and was a vestige
> of some ancient organ we humans no longer
> need for digestion.
There is another: Jacobson's organ, as reported by Lyle Watson. It is
a sense of smell still evident in reptiles, and the trace of it still
in other mammals, inc Man. Interestingly it is linked directly to the
old brain rather than the new double-hemisphered effort which has more
to do with speech evolution.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The biggest idea in evolution, pace Darwin, are that the fields
themselves evolve! Not just the 'particle' in them, but the way in
which they manifest. These idea are Sheldrake's proposals.
One question he posits is if the field of manifestation exists before
the part, or any part which has manifested into it?
IE: from the big bang, were the fields present before the first
particles? In terms of new, as yet unmanifested elements or compounds,
do the their fields already exist?
These are the higher level philosophic discussions current in the
world of science. Physics already switched to field theory as prime
means of exploration post-Einstein. Now everyone is getting after it
and assessing if Sheldrakes ideas are better models than those purely
mechanical and fixed ones of previous times, whether the field/
particle is admitted to evolve or not.
:) Anyone interested in this subject might google Rupert Sheldrake
and assess these ideas in more detail than is offered here.
Phil Innes
> =A0 Perhaps it was thought
> that hominids once snacked on cow-dung, or
> chewy rat-sized beetles-- who knows? =A0 =A0Now
> these pundits are insisting they have figured it
> all out-- that the appendix is a remote storage
> device for "good" bacteria, to replace, if need-
> ed, the body's supply of same after some
> nasty infection has been fought off, with the
> unfortunate side-effect of wiping out the good
> bacteria along with the bad.
>
> =A0 As always, we seem to imagine that we have
> everything figured out-- the so-called scientists
> being among the worst of the delusionals.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2009 03:30:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 21, 6:59=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sh it. =A0We had a great debate years ago and now it is lost to the
> memoryhole of Google's storage network--I think it was you Taylor--on
> evolutionary theory in this group. =A0I argued for a sort of neo-
> Lamarckian evolution based on the preferences of African Cichlid fish
> found in Lake Tanzanika. =A0Not to rehash the debate, but fish can
> arbitrarily pick certain mates due to their color patterns, and
> thereby promote their evolution, when there is no clear evolutionary
> advantage to doing so. =A0
"Clear"? ...which is to say that we humans may
not be smart enough to figure out everything, as
we imagine we can and always do.
> Yes, it ties in with chess. =A0Suppose you have
> a very popular opening due to the fact the top ranked player in the
> world (who would that be now? =A0Anand or Topolov?) plays it--though it
> is unsound. =A0Club amateurs and even grandmasters will play this
> opening just because "The World's Top Ranked Player" is playing it, to
> the detriment of all the other openings. =A0Books will be written on
> this unsound opening--until it is completely refuted perhaps, which in
> any event is rare for anything but the most unsound opening (and what
> would that be, the Englund Gambit?).
>
> A bust for the King's Gambit? =A0Fashion is fashion, even and especially
> in chess opening theory.
For a moment, I though this chap was talking
about the Sicilian Defense-- favored by many of
those who have been the darlings of the mass
media in the chess world.
As for the most-unsound chess opening, that
is quite a question, for there will always be a
few who are willing to play any opening at all, if
it gets them the attention they so desperately
crave.
I've heard tell that in my neck of the woods,
there is one player (plus his students, I expect)
who routinely offered up both Rooks to be
captured on Rook-3 by the enemy's Bishops,
so he could then be effectively two pieces up
through the opening and early middle game!
Now then, what sort of unsound "book opening"
can even begin to compete with this?
Back to the subject of evolution: I am remind-
ed of the recent reports of the "discovery" of a
function for the human appendix; formerly, the
talking heads stubbornly maintained that this
organ had no function at all, and was a vestige
of some ancient organ we humans no longer
need for digestion. Perhaps it was thought
that hominids once snacked on cow-dung, or
chewy rat-sized beetles-- who knows? Now
these pundits are insisting they have figured it
all out-- that the appendix is a remote storage
device for "good" bacteria, to replace, if need-
ed, the body's supply of same after some
nasty infection has been fought off, with the
unfortunate side-effect of wiping out the good
bacteria along with the bad.
As always, we seem to imagine that we have
everything figured out-- the so-called scientists
being among the worst of the delusionals.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2009 16:54:10
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 21, 6:59=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0 So it may not be that archives have been deleted, but that certain
> > features of the Google search are somehow defective right now.
>
> Sh it. =A0We had a great debate years ago and now it is lost to the
> memoryhole of Google's storage network--I think it was you Taylor--on
> evolutionary theory in this group. =A0I argued for a sort of neo-
> Lamarckian evolution based on the preferences of African Cichlid fish
> found in Lake Tanzanika. =A0Not to rehash the debate, but fish can
> arbitrarily pick certain mates due to their color patterns, and
> thereby promote their evolution, when there is no clear evolutionary
> advantage to doing so. =A0
I vaguely recall such a discussion. The Lamarckian model of
evolution (named for Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, 1744-1829) is based on the
inheritability of acquired characteristics, a premise now known to be
false. What you describe sounds more like sexual preference as a
selective factor, not at all the same thing.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2009 15:59:33
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 21, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 So it may not be that archives have been deleted, but that certain
> features of the Google search are somehow defective right now.
Sh it. We had a great debate years ago and now it is lost to the
memoryhole of Google's storage network--I think it was you Taylor--on
evolutionary theory in this group. I argued for a sort of neo-
Lamarckian evolution based on the preferences of African Cichlid fish
found in Lake Tanzanika. Not to rehash the debate, but fish can
arbitrarily pick certain mates due to their color patterns, and
thereby promote their evolution, when there is no clear evolutionary
advantage to doing so. Yes, it ties in with chess. Suppose you have
a very popular opening due to the fact the top ranked player in the
world (who would that be now? Anand or Topolov?) plays it--though it
is unsound. Club amateurs and even grandmasters will play this
opening just because "The World's Top Ranked Player" is playing it, to
the detriment of all the other openings. Books will be written on
this unsound opening--until it is completely refuted perhaps, which in
any event is rare for anything but the most unsound opening (and what
would that be, the Englund Gambit?).
A bust for the King's Gambit? Fashion is fashion, even and especially
in chess opening theory.
RL
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2009 11:16:43
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 21, 1:52=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 21, 10:42=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Recently I've tried searches for various past posts to this newsgroup.
> > These are items I clearly remember verbatim, and yet the search gets
> > no hits unless the search string happens to exist in some very recent
> > post. It's as if the Google archives have suddenly lost most of what
> > they used to contain. Has anyone else noticed this too?
>
> You may be right. =A0I failed to find material before January of 2008 on
> a particular search that should have gone much farther back. =A0Policy
> change?
I just tried a different search, with strange results. When I tried
an exact phrase search, putting the search string within quotes, I got
nothing. But without the quotes, I did get matches with that exact
phrase, going back to 2006. And another search got matches back to
2002.
So it may not be that archives have been deleted, but that certain
features of the Google search are somehow defective right now.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2009 10:59:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 21, 1:42=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> Recently I've tried searches for various past posts to this newsgroup.
> These are items I clearly remember verbatim, and yet the search gets
> no hits unless the search string happens to exist in some very recent
> post. It's as if the Google archives have suddenly lost most of what
> they used to contain. Has anyone else noticed this too?
Yes. After the purge of contentless, nonsense
postings by usenet's upper management, I find
that the chess newsgroups have been hit hardest
of all-- worse even than those groups which
discuss astrology, mesmerism or the (hopeless)
search for intellignet life on Earth or distant
planets. What a pity. One would think that
just a few terabytes could be spared for the
common folk. In any case, much of what has
been discussed on the internet is not recorded
anywhere that I know of, and even that which
has is confounded by those who deliberately
post under pseudonyms (such as Xylothist), to
confound their antagonistic, ad hominizing foes,
or to pose as "supporters" thereof (i.e. "jr", etc.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2009 10:52:57
From: Rev. J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Archive search no longer working?
|
On Jan 21, 10:42=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> Recently I've tried searches for various past posts to this newsgroup.
> These are items I clearly remember verbatim, and yet the search gets
> no hits unless the search string happens to exist in some very recent
> post. It's as if the Google archives have suddenly lost most of what
> they used to contain. Has anyone else noticed this too?
You may be right. I failed to find material before January of 2008 on
a particular search that should have gone much farther back. Policy
change?
|
|
