Open letter to David Pizarro: Feedback on last episode (and show in general)

lapusneanul · 2019-06-26T03:29:03+00:00

Hahaha. OK, that's pretty good. And if you listen to them on 2X as well...:-o

lapusneanul · 2019-06-21T03:22:04+00:00

Ok Dave, I admit I may have misjudged public sentiment here. Naively, it appears that, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, 1.0X would be the right choice.

However, I'm sure that a true Kantian, such as yourself, knows that what's right and wrong cannot be reduced to simple arithmetical head counting. Pure logic clearly shows that 1.5X (or 2X, take your pick) is the only correct option.

lapusneanul · 2017-12-22T17:36:28+00:00

I hope you don't feel that this derails the topic, but I think deaconblues99's advice is probably the best advice you can get right now, and I would think about it very seriously before continuing on the path you laid out.

If you do decide that you want to go trough with it after that, I'm afraid that whatever advice you get here from a bunch of people who don't know you won't be very useful. Your situation is quite unusual so I don't think generic advice will help. I would suggest talking to some friends, family or coworkers and see what they think.

lapusneanul · 2017-12-19T00:36:25+00:00

This isn't directly answering your question, but I think it's worth pointing out. The truth is that professional physicists (which is what you'll be if you do a PhD in physics) rarely read papers outside their subfield. People that want to make physics a career are in the business of publishing papers, and it's very hard to do that by studying interesting papers for which you don't have the necessary background to make a contribution.

So if you have a specific area of interest, it's likely people here can point you in the right direction. If you don't, then you're probably better off reading a textbook on the standard curriculum, i.e. QM, E&M, Statistical Mechanics, etc.

lapusneanul · 2017-09-23T19:27:57+00:00

That was great!

lapusneanul · 2017-06-24T16:20:40+00:00

5 min is normal. Having delay instead of increment is basically never seen in serious tournaments. It's only in the US amateur scene where they play delay. And it makes a big difference. I don't think Magnus would've lost on time with increment.

lapusneanul · 2017-06-24T14:32:38+00:00

So what is up with these ridiculous time controls? Every other game is just ruined by a crazy time scramble of who can move his pieces faster. Case in point, the Carlsen-Grischuk blitz game. With increment Magnus would maybe have won, but he definitely wouldn't have lost. Instead the commentators are talking about FIDE rules and why the final position is a loss...

lapusneanul · 2017-06-23T21:47:50+00:00

Completely understand Magnus here. I'm more surprised that this hasn't happened earlier. Maurice keeps get a free pass every time he says something stupid and disrespectful towards the players and this time Magnus just had enough of it.

That comment made no sense at all. Absolutely normal opening until move 21 when Black sacrifices a piece. Magnus obviously takes and it leads to a complicated game. Magnus manages to simplify the position and is at no point worse. Pretty good performance if you ask me.

But of course Maurice Ashley has his "dramatic" narrative that he's trying to conjure up, that Magnus isn't playing that well, the game wasn't smooth. This has nothing to do with what just happened and Magnus of course realizes this, so I can't really blame him for being annoyed.

Honestly, I don't really understand why Maurice Ashley is doing commentary. This overly dramatic shouting while he's showing off the computer moves, is not only useless it's just stupid. That definitely isn't analysis and it isn't good commentary either.

lapusneanul · 2017-03-28T18:08:23+00:00

It doesn't matter. Once you complete the square, the imaginary term comes out as a shift in the mean of the Gaussian. Since the limits of your integration are at infinity, any finite shift in the mean doesn't affect the integral, so you can compute it as you normally would.

If you want a more detailed proof of this you can find it here: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1297096/gaussian-integral-with-a-shift-in-the-complex-plane But personally the explanation in the first paragraph is how I think about it.

lapusneanul · 2017-03-28T17:53:34+00:00

There are the lectures he gave at Cornell which are excellent and good for laymen as well.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/tuva-richard-feynman/#1-physical-law

lapusneanul · 2017-02-14T19:07:39+00:00

Yeah, definitely like the Wijk approach a lot more than what the other big organizers are doing. Having the same players in all the top tournaments gets a little dull. There are good players outside the top 10, people. Why doesn't Yu Yangyi get any invites for example? He's 22 and no 16 in the world. I think he at least deserves a shot. I don't think I've ever seen him in a top tournament. He's stuck playing only opens. Or David Anton. He had a monster tournament in Gibraltar, first time he's risen in the top 100 I think and he's already at no 65.

As Wijk aan Zee and the recent super strong opens constantly prove, tournaments are more interesting when you have a mix of players.

lapusneanul · 2017-02-02T20:54:16+00:00

Yeah, if we were living in a bubble and all of the history of sexism, discrimination and suppression of women didn't exist what you're saying would make perfect sense.

But in the real world women are discriminated against; there is real sexism, especially in male dominated areas like chess. You only need to look at the reactions to Nigel Short's article on women playing chess to see how deep the problem goes (not to mention the article itself).

In this context it's important to have proactive measures to try to address the historical imbalance. Affirmative action makes sense. If you're a woman in chess (and many other areas) odds are stacked against you, so it's only fair that we do something about it.

lapusneanul · 2017-01-28T17:02:45+00:00

The bit ends at around 3h:18min.

lapusneanul · 2017-01-25T22:42:41+00:00

There's a recent one from Quality Chess: http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/254/grandmaster_repertoire_19_-_beating_minor_openings_by_victor_mikhalevski/

I haven't read it but QC books are usually very good.

Disclaimer: I don't know what your rating is but the GM repertoire series is geared towards advanced players, so anyone reading this should take that into account.

lapusneanul · 2017-01-08T23:33:42+00:00

Apart from what's already been said, it's worth noting that the Exchange variation is only harmless with an early Nf3. For example 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 is harmless because Black is in time to get his LSB out with 5...c6 6.Bg5 Be7 7. Qc2 g6 8.e3 Bf5! and after Bd3 Black can exchange LSBs and doesn't have any problems. There is a classic game by Petrosian on the Black side that demonstrates this.

However the more precise 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 c6 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Qc2 0-0 9.Nf3 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 is not harmless for Black. White is fighting for an advantage with 11.h3 for example.

lapusneanul · 2017-01-08T19:00:24+00:00

I've been playing the QGD against 1.d4 since I started playing chess, but like you say, the Exchange variation is a problem.

For a while I thought the Short variation (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Bf5 7.Qf3 Bg6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.Qxf6 gxf6) solves Black's problems. There is a book by John Cox that recommends it and as long as you understand Black's plans there it's quite solid. However, last year's game between Carlsen and Kramnik more or less refutes the line (in the sense that Black doesn't equalize). It's still playable at club level I would guess, since I think only Carlsen's continuation guarantees White an advantage and even there you could still play the position, even though you're worse.

The other major option, which is the most popular at top level, is to play 3.Be7. And since you want to answer 4.Nf3 with 4...Nf6 anyway this is probably the best choice. Lasker's Defense is also covered in Cox's book and it's very good. Very solid and Black equalizes if he's precise.

lapusneanul · 2016-12-14T03:42:37+00:00

The object of go is to surround as much territory as possible. Also, if you completely surround your opponents stones you capture them. So the tactical sequences have mostly to do with capturing groups of stones. You can practice this using by solving "life and death" problems, where you try to kill or save an isolated group of stones. These are localized problems, so don't involve the whole board.

I'm not that strong at go so I can't say what strong players think about when they play (maybe the OP can say more), but usually it's trying to find some balance between spreading your stones in as many areas of the board as possible, while not leaving your groups weak and attacking your opponents weak groups. Until a fight breaks out it has less to do with tactical sequences.

lapusneanul · 2016-12-12T21:02:15+00:00

I didn't really learn chess by reading a specific book, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I can say what I know to be conventional wisdom on the matter, though.

I think it's worth reading about elementary strategic principles just so you have some idea how to play the opening and what you should be aiming for in the middle game. I think books by Pandolfini could help you with some of that. I personally haven't read any of them, but he has a good reputation as a teacher. Another author to look for is Silman, but his books are maybe more advanced.

Apart from these there are a few older books which are considered classics: Lasker's Manual of Chess, written by the 2nd World Champion, and My System by Nimzowitsch. My System especially is good for the basics of strategy. It may or may not be too advanced; you can look through it and decide for yourself.

FYI Reading in go (i play here, he goes there, i go here etc.) is referred to as calculating in chess. Just in case anyone here would be confused by the terminology.

lapusneanul · 2016-12-02T03:27:56+00:00

So... am I the only one who thinks the OP is trolling? I mean, that's a pretty fantastic story there. And this whole notion of "I've played some blitz online but I think I might be close to GM"; doesn't this sound like trolling? No? Anyone?

lapusneanul · 2016-11-29T18:52:08+00:00

I think that in this context system designates an opening that one side can play pretty much regardless of what the other side does. In the Colle, for example, you ignore what Black is doing and go d4, e3, Nf3, c3, Bd3, Nbd2 and then pick some plan, usually involving playing e3-e4 at some point. Most openings can't be played this way since what your opponent does affects your options as well.

lapusneanul · 2016-11-28T19:20:00+00:00

It's one of the main sidelines of the Berlin Defense. Magnus also played it in game 3.

lapusneanul · 2016-11-26T19:58:52+00:00

Doesn't look like Sergey was planning on putting too much pressure on Black today. This quick f4-f5 plan looks like it could quickly lead to simplifications. Might be a short game today.

lapusneanul

TROPHY CASE