03 January 2007

Right-Winger Goes To War


Sticking with the theme of war, I was delighted to come across a signed copy of the pictured book "Sam Coates Bobby Fischer Goes To War" the other day. This book is widely regarded as one of the best and most accessible chess books. It tells the tale of the 1972 world chess championship clash between the champion Spassky and the challenger Fischer. This clash is regarded as the match of the century and not only did it develop into a chapter of the Cold War (set in Iceland), but it was also the number one sports event as New York bars ignored baseball to follow the encounter.

Bobby Fischer is famous for quotes by and about him. My favourites by Bobby are

"I don’t believe in psychology. I believe in good moves."

"When I was 11, I just got good"

"I love the moment when I crush the other man's ego"

and about Fischer

"When you play Bobby, it is not a question if you win or lose. It is a question if you survive." – Boris Spassky

"Fischer is Fischer, but a horse is a horse." – Mikhail Tal (upon hearing Bobby Fischer’s claim that he could beat any female player in the world giving her knight start)

Indeed Fischer won and Spassky survived, but both Cold War warriors were never to return to their homeland. Nevertheless Fischer received a congratulatory telegram from Richard Nixon.

My question to the crowd assembled gathering. Is arrogance ever justified?

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Surely the more interesting question is whether the he should be deported to the USA and could he expect a fair trial given his support for 9/11?

Praguetory said...

As he is a citizen of Iceland, I think that's an irrelevant question.

Steven_L said...

In chess, arrogance is always justified, it's not about manners it's about out-monoeuvering your opponent.

When you analyse a game tact doesn't come into it. If they made a bad move you say 'that was a bad move, you should have put it there', not 'it might have been better if you hadn't put your bishop there, maybe here would have been a little better'.

All top chess players are arrogant it's part and parcel of the game.

Samuel Coates said...

Your little joke isn't all wrong.... I played chess for the Liverpool schools teams once upon a time I'll have you know!

Praguetory said...

Good to hear it, Sam. Paradoxically (when you consider its strength in Soviet states) there's a preponderance of right-wingers in the chess world for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.

Anonymous said...

..
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
communism is SUPER

even though it never works
because we are not robots



absurd thought -
God of the Universe feels
communism is fair

fools can't or won't think it through
idiots just keep scheming
..

Anonymous said...

You're good for a laugh Praugey-boy!

Anonymous said...

MAY THE ARROGANT GET A BRAIN TUMOR AND CHOKE ON THEIR BLOODY VOMIT,GOD BLESS THEM,THE MISERABLE BLOODY BASTARDS-

All people lose some games in chess,the top grandmasters lose 10 or so percent of their games to similar caliber players. Remember,all cowards are bullies and all bullies are cowards-those who get arrogant are dickless pieces of subhumanity who will wind up getting brain cancer. Also all non scumbag individuals say good game if they win to assuage their opponent,
3,speed chess consisting of only 3 or 4 minutes for each person is the only real chess, and 4,
as these chess brilliancy games will show,grandmasters can sacrafice the queen for a pawn to mate, the queen is a weak player's favorite piece,God Bless,You friend.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1176706 =MOST BRILLIANT QUEEN SACRAFICE IN HISTORY !!http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1176706 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1262425 SACRIFICE AANOTHER BRILLIANT QUEEN SACRIFICE: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001165= WOW WOW WOW WOW now this here game is INCREDIBLE:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001140 1834 GAME KASPAROV BEATS IBM SUPERCOMPUTE WITH "HYPERMODERN" BISHOPS ON THE LONG DIAGONALS: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070912 "THE EVERGREEN GAME" WITH ADOLF ANDERSSEN-http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018961http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018961 "THE IMMORTAL GAME"-- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910 BOBBY FISCHER-"THE GAME OF THE CENTURY"http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphyhttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858 1-0
Paulsen vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs Le Carpentier, 1849 1-0
Bird vs Morphy, 1858 0-1
Morphy vs Schrufer, 1859 1-0
Morphy vs A Morphy, 1850 1-0
J Schulten vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs Anderssen, 1858 1-0
N Marache vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs NN, 1850 1-0----------------------------------- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgamegid=1008419 =WOW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermodernism_%28chess%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovered_attack http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ezsearch.pl?search=kasparov+karpov http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ezsearch.pl?search=a07http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=A07http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032174

What is the reason players refuse to even say hi at the start of the game? I can understand that when playing, a running conversation is not desirable.
Or when you compliment a player on an excelent move, silence.
Or better yet, win or lose... and the player leaves the table in silence.

As a rule the better the player the less manners they have.
Did some grand master teach that poor sportsmanship is a desirable trait in chess??

http://www.gamecolony.com/forums/chess/9252/#postnew

Anonymous said...

I SPIT ON THE UNSHAVED FACE OF THE EVIL SCUMBAG BOBBY FISCHER-ECHELON www.nsa.gov death to osama bin laden-death penalty on national tv for all violent home invasion goons and guilty child killers-God Bless America- menwith hill room 641a total information awareness ECHELON OASIS MAGIC LANTERN-

All people lose some games in chess,the top grandmasters lose 10 or so percent of their games to similar caliber players. Remember,all cowards are bullies and all bullies are cowards-those who get arrogant are dickless pieces of subhumanity who will wind up getting brain cancer. Also all non scumbag individuals say good game if they win to assuage their opponent,
3,speed chess consisting of only 3 or 4 minutes for each person is the only real chess, and 4,
as these chess brilliancy games will show,grandmasters can sacrafice the queen for a pawn to mate, the queen is a weak player's favorite piece,God Bless,You friend.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1176706 =MOST BRILLIANT QUEEN SACRAFICE IN HISTORY !!http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1176706 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1262425 SACRIFICE AANOTHER BRILLIANT QUEEN SACRIFICE: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001165= WOW WOW WOW WOW now this here game is INCREDIBLE:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001140 1834 GAME KASPAROV BEATS IBM SUPERCOMPUTE WITH "HYPERMODERN" BISHOPS ON THE LONG DIAGONALS: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070912 "THE EVERGREEN GAME" WITH ADOLF ANDERSSEN-http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018961http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018961 "THE IMMORTAL GAME"-- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910 BOBBY FISCHER-"THE GAME OF THE CENTURY"http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphyhttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858 1-0
Paulsen vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs Le Carpentier, 1849 1-0
Bird vs Morphy, 1858 0-1
Morphy vs Schrufer, 1859 1-0
Morphy vs A Morphy, 1850 1-0
J Schulten vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs Anderssen, 1858 1-0
N Marache vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs NN, 1850 1-0----------------------------------- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgamegid=1008419 =WOW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermodernism_%28chess%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovered_attack http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ezsearch.pl?search=kasparov+karpov http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ezsearch.pl?search=a07http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=A07http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032174

What is the reason players refuse to even say hi at the start of the game? I can understand that when playing, a running conversation is not desirable.
Or when you compliment a player on an excelent move, silence.
Or better yet, win or lose... and the player leaves the table in silence.

As a rule the better the player the less manners they have.
Did some grand master teach that poor sportsmanship is a desirable trait in chess??

http://www.gamecolony.com/forums/chess/9252/#postnew

Anonymous said...

KASPAROV OR KARPOV WOULD HAVE HAD BLOOD PORING OUT OF THE ANTI-AMERICAN COWARD BOBBY FISCHER'S INSOUCIANT MOUTH.

All people lose some games in chess,the top grandmasters lose 10 or so percent of their games to similar caliber players. Remember,all cowards are bullies and all bullies are cowards-those who get arrogant are dickless pieces of subhumanity who will wind up getting brain cancer. Also all non scumbag individuals say good game if they win to assuage their opponent,
3,speed chess consisting of only 3 or 4 minutes for each person is the only real chess, and 4,
as these chess brilliancy games will show,grandmasters can sacrafice the queen for a pawn to mate, the queen is a weak player's favorite piece,God Bless,You friend.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1176706 =MOST BRILLIANT QUEEN SACRAFICE IN HISTORY !!http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1176706 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1262425 SACRIFICE AANOTHER BRILLIANT QUEEN SACRIFICE: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001165= WOW WOW WOW WOW now this here game is INCREDIBLE:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001140 1834 GAME KASPAROV BEATS IBM SUPERCOMPUTE WITH "HYPERMODERN" BISHOPS ON THE LONG DIAGONALS: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070912 "THE EVERGREEN GAME" WITH ADOLF ANDERSSEN-http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018961http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018961 "THE IMMORTAL GAME"-- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910 BOBBY FISCHER-"THE GAME OF THE CENTURY"http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphyhttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858 1-0
Paulsen vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs Le Carpentier, 1849 1-0
Bird vs Morphy, 1858 0-1
Morphy vs Schrufer, 1859 1-0
Morphy vs A Morphy, 1850 1-0
J Schulten vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs Anderssen, 1858 1-0
N Marache vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs NN, 1850 1-0----------------------------------- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgamegid=1008419 =WOW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermodernism_%28chess%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovered_attack http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ezsearch.pl?search=kasparov+karpov http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ezsearch.pl?search=a07http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=A07http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032174

What is the reason players refuse to even say hi at the start of the game? I can understand that when playing, a running conversation is not desirable.
Or when you compliment a player on an excelent move, silence.
Or better yet, win or lose... and the player leaves the table in silence.

As a rule the better the player the less manners they have.
Did some grand master teach that poor sportsmanship is a desirable trait in chess??

http://www.gamecolony.com/forums/chess/9252/#postnew

CURIOUS CASE OF BEN BUTTON IS AN AWESOME MOVIE !! BEST MOVIES EVER LIST-- 1 THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON2 AWAKENINGS DE NIRO-WILLIAMS3 SCENT OF A WOMAN4 EAST OF EDEN -JAMES DEAN5 ELMER GANTRY-BURT LANCASTER6 CRIMSON TIDE- GENE HACKMAN-DENZEL WASHINGTON7 THE GRADUATE-DUSTIN HOFFMAN8 SEVEN DAYS IN MAY-KIRK DOUGLAS-BURT LANCASTER9 SPARTACUS-KIRK DOUGLASS10 THE GODS MUST BE CRAZY ONE AND TWO11 ALSO MAD DOG+GLORY,THE DREAM TEAM-MIKE KEATON,MIDNIGHT RUN,DE NIRO,SERPICO-- AND JUSTICE FOR ALL-AL PACINO ETC,ETC. I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it, in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body; and it appears more probable to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have had existence, as I now have, before that existence began. Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Part I, Recapitulation TRANSLATION:DAD is drinking Cold Guiness in heaven right now ! BEGINNING PART: When considering the scenarios that try to explain the creation, there are two choices: The creation is due to an intelligent designer, a Creator; or that matter itself is the eternal. Although neither scenario can be proven, only one of these two seemingly impossible scenarios is possible. Even though the Biblical account of the creation is but primitive MUMBO-JUMBO, it is equally naive to think that lifeless matter created itself. I do not argue that one has to believe that God is, but that its illogical to believe that God is not. A belief in God does not require the rejection of evolution as a means to explain what has occurred after the so-called "Big Bang". To claim evolution was not the engine driving creation after the "Big Bang" is as thoughtless as claiming that creation is simply the results of random actions of inanimate matter. For if the creation had been solely dependent upon inanimate matter, there would be no universe but a void, 0 = 0. We, the created, are the proof of God. Logic demands that the source of creation had to be a living, intelligent, eternal. No substance of matter, whether it is hydrogen or helium, seen or unseen, can meet the absolute demand of being a living, intelligent, eternal. No matter how infinitesimal a particle of matter may be, it is nonetheless lifeless. What is lifeless has no will and thus it could not have created its own self in a void. In order for lifeless matter to have materialized in the void, it had to be subject to the will of a living source. Without the will of a living a source to create lifeless matter, there would be no universe, but a void, 0 = 0 The evidence that the source of creation is intelligent is seen in the design of the creation; in the laws and reason that govern the universe. Had law and reason not proceeded inanimate matter, the universe would not be comprehensible, but incomprehensible chaos. Knowing that the inanimate could not have created themselves and that the universe is governed by laws and reason testifies that another dimension exists; one that is superior to the created and is best described as a Spiritual realm, whose intelligent designer is God. ----------------------------------------------------------- IN DEFENSE OF THE GOODNESS OF GOD-essay on Old Testament violence and CONTRADICTIONS (exegesis)----------- 1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. (3) Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camels and donkey! How can any sound-minded person not see the UTTER DEPRAVITY in the claim that God would command men to be butchers of men and women, which by itself is vile enough, but that He even commanded that they be the butchers of children and infants, as well? To believe that God is that bloody butcher in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 leaves little need of a devil to fear. Common sense alone should tell one that if God had wanted the Amalekites destroyed, He would have done it Himself! Unlike the primitive mumbo jumbo of the Great flood and the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt, 1 Samuel 15:2-3 has God commanding men to do the dirty work, rather than doing it Himself. Thus, it can be personalized by imagining one's self in that scenario. Making it personal, means one must visualize the horror of that bloody scene. They must see the sword in their own hand and see the terror in the eyes of those being butchered; hearing the screams of women and children being literally hacked to death in front of one another. In making this bloody atrocity personal, it becomes real, rather than just an abstract account. It forces one to consider whether or not they could have been obedient to that claim... It's the command of God! And to honestly question whether or not they could truthfully love one that would command them to do such things. Only morons and lunatics could think that butchering people is not an atrocity. And only a liar would claim that God has personally told them that 1 Samuel 15:2-3 speaks truthfully of Him. Thus, the only excuse a sane sound minded person can offer for not questioning what 1 Samuel 15:2-3 says of God is that they are fearful of questioning what the Bible claims, which is the evidence of their bondage to an unrighteous fear of God. by Wayne Lamar HarringtonRELIGION IS LARGELY CONTRADICTARY! -- but God exists Somewhere between the hardcore reductionists who explain all things as merely the sum of their parts and greet every suggestion of spirituality with a sneer, and the unquestioning faithful who receive their beliefs full-blown from prophets and preachers, lie the skeptical but open-minded free thinkers curious to investigate their own nature and purpose in life. Are you one of them?http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Unnamed Lands-- Walt Whitman

..>..>..>..>..>
..>..>..> ..> ..>
NATIONS ten thousand years before These States, and many times ten
thousand years before These States;
Garner'd clusters of ages, that men and women like us grew up and
travel'd their course, and pass'd on;
What vast-built cities--what orderly republics--what pastoral tribes
and nomads;
What histories, rulers, heroes, perhaps transcending all others;
What laws, customs, wealth, arts, traditions;
What sort of marriage--what costumes--what physiology and phrenology;
What of liberty and slavery among them--what they thought of death
and the soul;
Who were witty and wise--who beautiful and poetic--who brutish and
undevelop'd;
Not a mark, not a record remains--And yet all remains.

O I know that those men and women were not for nothing, any more than
we are for nothing; 10
I know that they belong to the scheme of the world every bit as much
as we now belong to it, and as all will henceforth belong to
it.

Afar they stand--yet near to me they stand,
Some with oval countenances, learn'd and calm,
Some naked and savage--Some like huge collections of insects,
Some in tents--herdsmen, patriarchs, tribes, horsemen,
Some prowling through woods--Some living peaceably on farms,
laboring, reaping, filling barns,
Some traversing paved avenues, amid temples, palaces, factories,
libraries, shows, courts, theatres, wonderful monuments.

Are those billions of men really gone?
Are those women of the old experience of the earth gone?
Do their lives, cities, arts, rest only with us? 20
Did they achieve nothing for good, for themselves?

I believe of all those billions of men and women that fill'd the
unnamed lands, every one exists this hour, here or elsewhere,
invisible to us, in exact proportion to what he or she grew
from in life, and out of what he or she did, felt, became,
loved, sinn'd, in life.

I believe that was not the end of those nations, or any person of
them, any more than this shall be the end of my nation, or of
me;
Of their languages, governments, marriage, literature, products,
games, wars, manners, crimes, prisons, slaves, heroes, poets,
I suspect their results curiously await in the yet unseen
world--counterparts of what accrued to them in the seen world.
I suspect I shall meet them there,
I suspect I shall there find each old particular of those unnamed
lands.

Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus






Editorial Page, New York Sun, 1897


We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of The Sun:






I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so." Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?
Virginia O'Hanlon






Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a sceptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.






Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.






He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.






Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.






You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.






No Santa Claus?Thank God he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.






Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!!




From The People's Almanac, pp. 1358-9.
------------------ST. ANSELM OF CANTERBURY:According to current estimates, there are about a hundred billion galaxies in the visible universe, some of these containing hundreds of billions of stars. Among these stars are such mind-boggling entities as black holes, pulsars, and infinitely curving space-time. One vogue cosmological view, called eternal inflation, poses the existence of an infinite number of fertile universes. If Walt Whitman was correct and "a mouse is miracle enough to stagger sextillions of infidels," what does a Universe of such defiant dimensions and mysteries do to cosmologists, those scientists who strive to understand "it" all?
A recent poll of American scientists shows about 40 percent of them believing in God. Despite predictions that the hot light of science would vaporize the dew of religion, that percentage has remained pretty constant since a similar poll was conducted in 1916. But if religious faith hasn't changed much among scientists over that time, their willingness to publicly investigate the spiritual ramifications of their work certainly has.
In recent years, many astronomical researchers and academics have come out of the closet to discuss and debate the evidence for and against the existence of God, the role of divine inspiration in their work, and other once-taboo subjects. Such titles as The Mind of God, God and the New Physics, and Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God, authored by preeminent physicists, hardly raise an eyebrow any more. And New Scientist, The New York Times, Science, and Mother Jones have all recently dedicated features, or entire issues, to the subject of science and religion.
This June, top scientists from the fields of biology, computer science, physics, and cosmology convened in Berkeley to discuss the fit between the science and the faiths they practice. Philip Clayton is a philosophy professor at Sonoma State University and the author of Explanation from Physics to Theology: An Essay in Rationality and Religion. He and I interviewed the 60 religious scientists who participated in the workshops preceding this conference, which was put on by the Berkeley-based Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS). The material for this article was drawn from those workshops, from papers prepared by the scientists for the conference, and from the interviews which, in the cases of the cosmologists and physicists, were expertly conducted by Clayton.
Though nearly all of the cosmologists participating in the project describe themselves as religious, what they mean by that word, and how they view the relationship between their religion and their science varies tremendously. Joel Primack, physics professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, whose theoretical work predicted both the mass of the charmed quark (one of the six elementary particles thought to form all other particles except leptons) and the existence and nature of cold dark matter, remembers giving a talk at his Bar Mitzvah about the relationship between science and religion. "There is no necessary conflict," he says, "and each can illuminate the other."
In the early 1990s, Primack and his wife and colleague, Nancy Abrams, were struck by the parallels they saw between modern theories of cosmology and the description of the structure of the universe in Kabbalah, a Jewish mystical tradition whose texts were compiled in the Middle Ages. In Kabbalah, God is said to have withdrawn from the universe, having made space for it by breathing in. He then sent shafts of light into that space, creating ten spheres, or "sephirot," the first of which, representing God's infinite potential for creation, says Primack, closely resembles the modern concept of eternal inflation, the infinite bubbling potential many cosmologists now believe generated the Big Bang. The second sphere corresponds to the Big Bang itself, or the physical manifestation of the pure potential. The third sphere is like the womb in which God's creation expands, an analogy to the emergence of space, time, and matter after the Big Bang, says Primack.
Though the parallels fascinate him, Primack does not see in them any kind of scientific confirmation of Kabbalistic thought. In fact, he says, he doubts that Judaism is either provable or falsifiable, in a strictly scientific sense. He is pleased, however, by the "consonance" and "complementarity" of the cosmology that he does and the religion that he practices. "Rather than assuming that science and spirit are separate jurisdictions, I assume that reality is one, and that truth grows and evolves with the universe of which it speaks," writes Primack.
Primack's God is not so much a personal entity that listens to and answers prayers, as it is the underlying orderliness and discernability of the universe itself, and he is grateful that the Jewish tradition leaves plenty of room for such non-literal interpretations. "I think of the religious texts as being more like art or literature," he says. "Religious moments" come for Primack when his theory predicts reality. For instance, the experience of predicting--in work done with the late physicist Heinz Pagels and other colleagues--the existence and nature of cold dark matter, (a likely candidate for the hidden matter probably comprising at least 90 percent of the universe's mass) based solely on theoretical constructs, and then having that prediction substantiated years later by the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer satellite (COBE), was "amazing," Primack says.
"You wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, it raises goose bumps...to have in your mind apprehended something fundamental about how the world works, and years later discover that's how it really is," says Primack. It is a "sense of contact with the way that nature really is underneath it all."
There is a long tradition in the monotheistic religions of arguing that the nature of creation implies, or proves, the existence of a Creator. Before the theory of natural selection took the wind out of its sails, this argument was most convincingly applied to the biological realm. Without God, how could we explain the perfect correlation between the hummingbird's bill and the shape of the flower that it pollinates? Only a deliberate designer could have created the elaborate mechanisms of nature, claimed the argument, known as the "argument from design."
An interesting twist on this logic, known as the anthropic principle, was made by John Barrow, a physicist at Sussex University in England. In his book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-authored with Frank Tipler, Barrow demonstrates how even the tiniest tweak of the laws of nature at the time of the Big Bang would have created a universe wildly hostile to life as we know it. At about one second after the Big Bang the fine tuning of the expansion rate had to be done to an accuracy of about 15 decimal places. If the universe expanded one part in the fifteenth decimal place faster, it would have flown apart without galaxies forming. If it expanded one part less, then the universe would have collapsed without galaxies forming. No galaxies, no bananas.
What is responsible for the fine tuning of atomic weights and natural laws that created a world with time, space, and the other necessary ingredients for amoebae, let alone cosmologists? Did we just draw a winning cosmic lottery ticket despite chances that dwarf those of any human lottery? A chorus of the religiously inclined answer: "No, it's not chance. It's God."
Barrow, however, a Protestant Christian, does not argue that the anthropic principle does or could prove the existence of God, only that it raises provocative questions. "It's easy to say negative things about the relationship between science and nature, and it's premature to say much that is positive," he says. Furthermore, "because of the horizon structure of space-time, we may never know much about the Universe with a capital U. It would be a coincidence of incredible proportions if we were intellectually equipped to understand that. The anthropic coincidences have no unique interpretation. They are consistent with a special fine-tuning of the universe, but they are also consistent with there being many possible universes--or even widely varying conditions within a single universe--of which only those displaying these special coincidences become oases of life. Alternatively, life might be easier to evolve than we suppose. Perhaps other forms of intelligent life might be possible even if many of these coincidences did not exist. As far as we are aware, all of these scenarios are consistent with general theistic or atheist outlooks."
Unlike most of the scientists in the project, Jocelyn Bell Burnell sees a relatively weak link between her scientific work and her religious life. An astronomer at the Open University in England, and a co-discoverer of pulsars, Bell Burnell is a practicing Quaker. "Spirituality forms the center of my life and is the driver. As far as I am concerned everything begins and ends here," she says. "Astrophysics feeds into my spiritual life only in a minor way. The sense of God that comes to me in still times is so profound that nothing else holds a candle to it."
Because Quakerism emphasizes spiritual experience over doctrine, Bell Burnell says it is a spiritual path well suited to scientists. When her theology conflicts with science, Bell Burnell makes adjustments in her theology. She also readily admits that there may be limits to her ability to ever understand the relationship between the spiritual and the material realms. Quakerism "involves a commitment to search and exploration," she says. "It requires one to hold preconceptions tentatively and to be prepared to revise them in the light of experience gained or revelations received.... It strongly parallels the way in which many of us go about our science.
"My approach is to require a rigorous intellectual integrity, but to be willing to say as necessary, "I don't know" and be silent, rather than forcing an answer. I prefer to set aside theologies that do not seem to stand up to rational inquiry, risking appearing faithless rather than misleading people. I am suspicious of post hoc justifications for beliefs using science," says Bell Burnell. That suspicion applies to both the arguments for the existence of a creator based on the anthropic principle, and for "God in the gaps"-type arguments that suggest God acts in the world through quantum indeterminacy, or that He set everything up in the first moments between the Big Bang and the beginning of Planck Time (5.4 x 10-44 seconds after the Big Bang) and then withdrew. (The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics prevents any meaningful speculation on events preceding Planck Time.) She says these arguments are consoling "if one is already disposed towards a belief in God," but are "probably unconvincing otherwise." The anthropic principle arguments, Bell Burnell says, "feel to me like a theology looking for a proof. In the face of our ignorance about other parts of the universe, let alone other universes, this seems to me credulous."
If I expected any of the scientists I interviewed to draw connections between their scientific discoveries and their religious lives it would have been Arno Penzias. He shared a Nobel Prize in 1978 for his part in the discovery of the background radiation that constituted the first material evidence for the Big Bang theory. But I was wrong. Penzias, former Research Director at Bell Labs in New Jersey, says "It's tempting, but it wouldn't be honest," to draw religious meaning from his discovery.
In fact, he bristles at the attempt by some scientists to identify God in certain aspects of the material world. "I have no problem with scientists saying there is no God," he says. "But for them to say "This is God," annoys me. It is blasphemy.... I have little patience for the misuse of one of the fundamental concepts of humankind in this absurd way."
"If God created the universe, he would have done it elegantly," says Penzias, who is Jewish. "The absence of any imprint of intervention upon creation is what we would expect from a truly all-powerful Creator. You don't need somebody diddling around like Frank Morgan in The Wizard of Oz to keep the universe going. Instead, what you have is a half a page of mathematics that describes everything. In some sense, the power of the creation lies in its underlying simplicity."
Andrei Linde, a cosmologist at Stanford University, is the co-inventor of the theory of eternal inflation. Inflation theory holds that the universe's fundamental forces separated out in the first 10-35 seconds, causing the universe to expand, or inflate, very quickly and violently. Eternal inflation suggests that this sort of event may have occurred many, many times, perhaps an infinite number of times, in a universe that is constantly self-reproducing.
Until 1989, Linde lived in the Soviet Union, where, he says, "the whole society was opposed to any type of religious education," and where dialectical materialism was the only publicly discussed ideology. He now distrusts any dogmatic and authoritarian system, including, he says, religions ruled over by one God, or one church hierarchy. "When you say something abstract about philosophy, about some great things which you want to explore, this is fine. But when you say that there is some savior who came to save you, this is absolutely a different issue. If you assume, as monotheistic religion does, that something like that is an important part of religion, then it makes the whole idea of religion too narrow...and in some respects dangerous," Linde says.
Linde is more attracted by polytheistic Indian religions. "Indian thought speculated about different ways one may think about God. God may be a powerful old man with a beard who drives the universe in a proper direction. God may be a universal law of nature. Or at some level of abstraction God is a perfection, or the Absolute which incorporates everything and which is, in some sense, you or me."
Scientists are influenced by the religious metaphors that pervade their culture, says Linde. "ne of the basic assumptions among physicists--that one set of natural laws can describe everything that exists--is a product of the monotheistic tradition, he says. A view of the cosmos encompassing innumerable universes, where new ones are springing forth all the time, and where different physical laws apply in different universes (as suggested by eternal inflation), might seem more reasonable to people practicing polytheistic religions.
Though he is reluctant to name it, Linde does see his scientific efforts as attempts to "see clearly the boundary of physics and science, and...to investigate what is beyond that boundary. I would call it philosophy, or my own religion, in my sense of the word. I would say that it is a way towards understanding something greater than simply the world of matter."
Bruno Guiderdoni, an astrophysicist at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, studies galaxy formation. He also hosts a French television show about Islam, the religion to which he converted ten years ago after bumping up against the limits of scientific knowledge. "Modern science is very successful at answering the question of how things occur," says Guiderdoni. "But all these successes cannot cancel another question which is very important. This is the question "Why?" Why are things as they are?
"We are trying to get closer to reality with science," he says. "And we succeed in some sense. But we feel that we need a qualitative step, and this is the question of the meaning of things. We can get an answer to this only through a religious approach. This is why I see the two activities (science and religion) as completely complementary," Guiderdoni says. He quotes the Prophet Mohammed: "The root of sin is ignorance, or obscurity.... Look for knowledge from the birth to the death."
Unlike Bell Burnell or Penzias, Guiderdoni finds the anthropic principle logically compelling evidence of the existence of God. "I would defend the strong version of the anthropic principle; everything has been designed in such a way as to make the appearance of man possible," Guiderdoni says. "The vastness of the cosmos has been used as an argument against religion, but we now know that the age of the universe, and the size of the observable universe, are intimately linked to our presence on Earth,...that the large age of the universe is necessary in order to have the heavy element enrichment necessary for the formation of planets and the appearance of life. The size of the universe is a consequence of its age; we need this space around us and this time behind us in order to be here on Earth."
Guiderdoni sees evidence of the existence of God in the regularities of physics. He again cites the Koran, saying that "God's creation has no holes in it, no defects. Everything is full of regularities and order, because God himself is Order; God himself is Beauty. And the beauty that we see in the cosmos is an image of God's beauty."
Unlike Barrow, who is skeptical about the human ability to grasp the nature of the universe with a capital U, Guiderdoni says our ability to do so is to be expected. "The cosmos is not a foreign country. It is not different from us. The cosmos and ourselves have been created by the same Intelligence."
Sandra Faber, a professor of physics at the University of California at Santa Cruz, is not affiliated with any formal religion nor does she believe in a personal God. At one of the CTNS workshops, she described her lack of faith in the midst of so many believers as like being a colorblind person in the midst of the color sighted. She believes that they are telling her the truth when they say green looks different from blue; she just doesn't know what they are referring to. Ironically, she finds a version of the anthropic argument rationally compelling. "The concept of the Creator making the Garden of Eden for the human species is true in the sense that the physics that set up our universe set in motion a chain of events resulting in us.... We are the daughters of this universe. It's our true alma mater," Faber says. "In that sense, I find that lots of North American Indian cosmologies appeal to me. The Great Spirit really, that's what our universe is for us.
"If you were typing out universes like monkeys on typewriters, you wouldn't type out this universe very frequently," she says. Given the incredible series of cosmic coincidences needed to evolve this universe, she sees two reasonable interpretations of its origins: either ours is only one of many universes, the vast majority of which are likely incompatible with space and time, let alone life and self-consciousness; or else it was made by an intelligent being.
"I think people who believe in God are perfectly sensible," Faber concludes. "So why do I reject God, since I see a good reason for him in cosmology? It just seems sort of silly. It is distasteful to my orientation as a natural scientist. It's literally deus ex machina," she says. She finds the naturalistic option left open by the multiple universe, inflation theories more "scientifically fertile."
But astronomy itself is a spiritual pursuit for Faber. "Observing is almost mystical. It's the act that puts me in contact with the rest of the universe," she said recently on a public television series about astronomy.
To have proper perspective, Faber says, there are a few things one must understand about the human condition that astronomy explains: "The Earth is small, the atmosphere is thin, and around it is a hostile void, the next nearest planets in the solar system are not too attractive. The next nearest star is awfully far away, and human history is a blink on the cosmic clock." These facts provide the backdrop for Faber, against which we can imagine playing out various human dramas for ourselves and the whole species. They are the context in which the story of life, the human story, and our individual stories take place. In this sense, cosmology, and the truths that it reveals, may indeed give meaning to life even if it does not settle questions about the existence of divine intelligence and the nature of the human spirit.
On the other hand, maybe the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was right when he said, "Even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of the meaning of life remain untouched." The great minds of science, both those sympathetic and those hostile to religious concerns, simply do not agree with each other on this. Nor do they seem to be moving toward agreement. This must mean something. But what? You're on your own there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_love http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_Root Arguments for the existence of God
The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God.
The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god.
The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[14]
The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.
Arguments that some non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as justice, beauty, love or religious experience are arguments for theism as against materialism.
The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
Arguments based on claims of miracles wrought by God associated with specific historical events or personages.
http://www.thegodtheory.com/ Preface

Anonymous said...

BE MODEST OR BEWARE THE UNIVERSE BEAT YOU DOWN-LOOK AT THE ARROGANT BEARED FAGGOT,BOBBY FISHER, HE DIED A PAINFUL DEATH THE ARROGANT FAGGOT- OH HOW THE ARROGANT SHALL FALL !!

All people lose some games in chess,the top grandmasters lose 10 or so percent of their games to similar caliber players. Remember,all cowards are bullies and all bullies are cowards-those who get arrogant are dickless pieces of subhumanity who will wind up getting brain cancer. Also all non scumbag individuals say good game if they win to assuage their opponent,
3,speed chess consisting of only 3 or 4 minutes for each person is the only real chess, and 4,
as these chess brilliancy games will show,grandmasters can sacrafice the queen for a pawn to mate, the queen is a weak player's favorite piece,God Bless,You friend.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1176706 =MOST BRILLIANT QUEEN SACRAFICE IN HISTORY !!http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1176706 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1262425 SACRIFICE AANOTHER BRILLIANT QUEEN SACRIFICE: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001165= WOW WOW WOW WOW now this here game is INCREDIBLE:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001140 1834 GAME KASPAROV BEATS IBM SUPERCOMPUTE WITH "HYPERMODERN" BISHOPS ON THE LONG DIAGONALS: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070912 "THE EVERGREEN GAME" WITH ADOLF ANDERSSEN-http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018961http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018961 "THE IMMORTAL GAME"-- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910 BOBBY FISCHER-"THE GAME OF THE CENTURY"http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphyhttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858 1-0
Paulsen vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs Le Carpentier, 1849 1-0
Bird vs Morphy, 1858 0-1
Morphy vs Schrufer, 1859 1-0
Morphy vs A Morphy, 1850 1-0
J Schulten vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs Anderssen, 1858 1-0
N Marache vs Morphy, 1857 0-1
Morphy vs NN, 1850 1-0----------------------------------- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgamegid=1008419 =WOW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermodernism_%28chess%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovered_attack http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ezsearch.pl?search=kasparov+karpov http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ezsearch.pl?search=a07http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=A07http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032174

What is the reason players refuse to even say hi at the start of the game? I can understand that when playing, a running conversation is not desirable.
Or when you compliment a player on an excelent move, silence.
Or better yet, win or lose... and the player leaves the table in silence.

As a rule the better the player the less manners they have.
Did some grand master teach that poor sportsmanship is a desirable trait in chess??

http://www.gamecolony.com/forums/chess/9252/#postnew

6:44 PM