.
I played 6 action chess games (Game in 30 minutes per player) yesterday. I won all 6, so I must have done something right. So, here is a review the games and how my thinking seemed to go.
First, I traveled to another city and found myself playing one of my own club mates. Well, as there were only 10 players in the tournament I ended up playing 6 of the 9 available. It was almost inevitable.
Game one: We played an opening that we had played dozens of times before at the local club (a Pirc Defense, Byrne variation) and I think he was a bit tight because he played an unusual move or two early and I pushed forward when he wasn't ready to retreat. This actually cost him a piece very quickly and soon after he lost another without seeing that it was happening. I'm happy with my thinking in this game. I was thinking in terms of patterns, where the pieces should be played for maximal effect and safety, and didn't have to think logically very much. I stopped on one or two moves for a while, but most of the game went very smoothly. His (uncharacteristically short) loss was due far more to his tightness than to my abilities.
Game two: This game was much more tense as my opponent developed actively (a Nimzo-Indian Defense, Rubinstein variation with Nge2) and held a safe position without trying to force anything. I tried to gradually place my pieces where I could pressure his position to force him into unwanted exchanges. He exposed one pawn a bit on the queen-side and that gave me a target. On the other side of the board I used a free piece to maneuver to pressure another pawn (directly in front of his king). This plan was partly opening pattern and middle-game logical thinking -- to find the targets and pressure them. He immediately felt the pressure and tried to push back. In the next few moves some exchanges happened and he let me have a pawn for some good piece activity and then he offered a draw. But, he had overlooked a small problem in his position. I chased one bishop, which he retreated, and then I double attacked another undefended bishop and the weak pawn in front of his king. He was going to be checkmated or lose the bishop, so he resigned. He simply didn't see the potential threat and when it occurred he had no defense. I'm very pleased with my thinking in this game as it involved both standard patterns and some maneuvering to probe weaknesses, ending with a couple of tactical moves.
Time for some lunch and a chance to enjoy the beautiful weather.
Game three: This was (already) the big match-up with the second-highest-rated player. It was a nice game (Najdorf Sicilian with 6. Be2 e5) with a few difficult trade decisions, which I think he might've done better on, and I gradually took a small positional advantage. But, it cost me some time to get there and he was holding on pretty well. He also was trying to play quicker to make the time differential a big factor. I decided to change the position of a bishop and forgot it had been required to defend a pawn. So, he snapped up the pawn. I simply kept applying pressure which gave me equality and then I sped up play with some determination to watch him try to figure out what to do and to not lose on time. Well, he had a tough time deciding what to do and it cost him time. My play was easier, so I just maintained my advantages as well as I could and fought his pieces as he tried to activate them. This process took him a lot of time. In fact, he couldn't activate his king and that let me neutralize his play. Then, I traded off one of his pieces and completely destroyed his pawns. This is when he more or less panicked and let me win his pawns. He was finally down to my time and still taking long on each move. Finally I was ahead two pawns (!) and he ran out of time. I'm not sure how much time I had left, but it was around 30 seconds. This left my nerves jangling for a while. He was very unhappy, but it was just a tough chess game. My thinking in the game was solid throughout except for the poor timing to change bishop position which cost the pawn. My recent practice playing faster probably helped me stay clear-minded when the time ran low.
After that game I wished I had time to calm down!
Game four: I played a lower-rated player who felt a great deal of strain during the game, but who managed his army rather well and safely. I, on the other hand, was not in a perfect state of mind. I wanted to play safely in one way, but aggressively in another. In the end I achieved neither to my satisfaction. I wasn't feeling very intuitive, but I did manage to use logic to compensate. I had the black pieces and didn't really get equality from the (English) opening. But his pieces weren't ideally placed and he was very fearful. Against a master I would've been worried. Well, I decided to fight where I had to and he made a mistake. He was perhaps trying to calculate too many irrelevant variations (as he explained to me afterward) and simply let me take a pawn without recapturing. Then I was able to construct a plan to build on that and everything went smoothly. Using logic helped through the more difficult parts of the game. Intuition was really failing me, perhaps because the positions I got weren't very familiar. That was probably one of my mistakes: not playing familiar positions where intuition could play a bigger role. But then, maybe I didn't play familiar positions because my intuition wasn't leading me there. Which failed me first the chicken of the egg (intuition or familiar positions & patterns)?
Game five: My opponent in this game (Philidor's Defense) hadn't played tournament chess for 25 years and was having great difficulty. He lost a piece on move 9 and another on move 17.
Game six: Except for game 3 this was my most intriguing game. I don't know my opponent, but he played the opening (Alekhin's Defense, Larsen/Miles ...c6 variation) very well. At one point he could've traded bishops to have a fine position and instead he retreated a knight which let me trade two minor pieces to give him doubled pawns (a weakness) and to give me a queen-side pawn majority. After that I aimed to trade rooks, so my pawns might move forward more safely. He didn't seem to realize the danger of this and simply allowed it. I think my thinking was more logical in this game since I hadn't played any tournament games with this variation. In fact, I had perhaps played one or two casual games with it. So, without a lot of memories and only study material in mind I played a normal developmental pattern and really only analyzed moves once we got beyond that. He seemed to have done the same except that when that moment came he made a mistake...and then others. At one point he offered a bishop trade and offered a draw. First, I wasn't going to accept a draw when I had the positional advantage (even a small one) and second he had just blundered a piece away. The game lasted only a few moves more. However, I feel this player has great potential. Again, I was quite happy with my move choices and logical continuation of the opening pattern and (for the most part) calculations.
So, for the tournament had ups & downs, but I was able to manage the rough spots pretty well and played a couple of excellent games. I don't think I was in danger of losing, though a couple of games were quite tense for a while. My thinking varied from excellent, even in time pressure, to blankness until I could logically work out a plan.
My prize? $ 70.00 !!!! Woo hoo! :-)
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Left Brain, Right Brain, Hypnosis, Emotional Tiredness ...
.
I have noticed that the way I think changes when I'm in a tiring event. This is noticeable whether it's a long day or two days, but it becomes hugely significant for longer events (4, 5 or more days). I also know that emotional draining can occur when we have to make a long series of difficult decisions whether, in the end, one feels good about the performance or outcomes. Decision-making is emotional work and it leaves us feeling slow, dull and weighed-down. A long series of tasks requiring emotional decision-making can drain us without necessarily making us physically much weaker. We will still feel the need to consume massive calories and to sleep. One chess grandmaster was asked his hobby and he said "sleeping". Sleeping helps to reset the emotional nervous system to do its work properly and that's crucial for decision-making.
Given all that, it makes sense to understand how to do the mental work with less decision-making draining effort and in some way to maintain a steady consistent way of thinking with high efficiency and effectiveness over days of heavy mental work involving (potentially) lots of decisions (as happens in a chess tournament with long games over many days).
I have noticed many times when a potential move would pop into my mind almost instantly when viewing a new chess position. I'm sure diagnostic physicians also have such intuitions when they're seeing a steady steam of new patients. Probably many business leaders or stock traders or sports coaches who have a steady flow of decisions to make have the same experience. "Get in the *flow* and intuit what to do" -- that's been a common suggestion for everyone to do better. But, often intuition fails us and in a game like chess or with anything which has lasting and serious consequences you want more from your choices if you have time to consider options and ramifications.
So, a typical approach suggested for chess (and perhaps other things) is to intuit something and then to rationally, logically & consciously analyze it before committing to it. In chess the second part is sometimes called the Blumenfeld Rule or the Blunder-Check. One reviews the intuited candidate action by whatever angles you understand are important to see if the candidate stands up to scrutiny. One problem with that is that our conscious efforts are very slow and very very tiring and we're still not very good at it. Another is that we can talk ourselves out of a candidate action which in fact is alright. Having the Left and Right Brain arguing against each other doesn't always help.
What do you do when your intuition becomes hard to recognize and many moves/actions seem equally good or when all seem bad?
Without intuition how do we, how can we, approach a situation or problem to find the next thing to do or the solution?
If hypnosis is truly a way to 'speak directly to the subconscious', and many believe that it is, then it means the Left Brain and the Right Brain operate separately and may become tired separately (remembering the whole body is involved in thinking and decision-making). If intuition is slow or indecisive or somehow ineffective when it becomes tired, then perhaps that is the time we really have to lean on other means to think clearly. People under stress, like policemen or commercial airplane pilots or soldiers or firefighters or ER doctors need sleep and a good diet, but they also need good thinking techniques and regular procedures.
The subconscious is powerful, though we're not always directly conscious of what it's effecting. I've seen it in action and realized that my conscious efforts were simply not that powerful. That's why I think hypnosis or other ways of leading the subconscious to behave a certain way is indeed powerful and a great lesson to us all. Don't be sold by the P.R. department known as the conscious mind with its story-telling. A lot of it is justification made of cobwebs and isn't to be trusted.
I think this also has ramifications for education. We feed information to children and hope they can remember it. We show them methods for doing things and hope they practice it and remember how to do it. But, when it comes to new things or creative things or especially difficult and stressful things I wonder if they have any education or ways of arriving at good thinking techniques. It's sometimes thought to be too personal and not something one should be taught. But, learning thinking techniques is like learning mathematics or scientific experiment protocols or engineering practices and these are all important for people to achieve greater things than intuition alone can provide.
I'm curious what stories people from various fields would tell about how they think under duress and during long events. What works and what is just 'old wives tales'?
I have noticed that the way I think changes when I'm in a tiring event. This is noticeable whether it's a long day or two days, but it becomes hugely significant for longer events (4, 5 or more days). I also know that emotional draining can occur when we have to make a long series of difficult decisions whether, in the end, one feels good about the performance or outcomes. Decision-making is emotional work and it leaves us feeling slow, dull and weighed-down. A long series of tasks requiring emotional decision-making can drain us without necessarily making us physically much weaker. We will still feel the need to consume massive calories and to sleep. One chess grandmaster was asked his hobby and he said "sleeping". Sleeping helps to reset the emotional nervous system to do its work properly and that's crucial for decision-making.
Given all that, it makes sense to understand how to do the mental work with less decision-making draining effort and in some way to maintain a steady consistent way of thinking with high efficiency and effectiveness over days of heavy mental work involving (potentially) lots of decisions (as happens in a chess tournament with long games over many days).
I have noticed many times when a potential move would pop into my mind almost instantly when viewing a new chess position. I'm sure diagnostic physicians also have such intuitions when they're seeing a steady steam of new patients. Probably many business leaders or stock traders or sports coaches who have a steady flow of decisions to make have the same experience. "Get in the *flow* and intuit what to do" -- that's been a common suggestion for everyone to do better. But, often intuition fails us and in a game like chess or with anything which has lasting and serious consequences you want more from your choices if you have time to consider options and ramifications.
So, a typical approach suggested for chess (and perhaps other things) is to intuit something and then to rationally, logically & consciously analyze it before committing to it. In chess the second part is sometimes called the Blumenfeld Rule or the Blunder-Check. One reviews the intuited candidate action by whatever angles you understand are important to see if the candidate stands up to scrutiny. One problem with that is that our conscious efforts are very slow and very very tiring and we're still not very good at it. Another is that we can talk ourselves out of a candidate action which in fact is alright. Having the Left and Right Brain arguing against each other doesn't always help.
What do you do when your intuition becomes hard to recognize and many moves/actions seem equally good or when all seem bad?
Without intuition how do we, how can we, approach a situation or problem to find the next thing to do or the solution?
If hypnosis is truly a way to 'speak directly to the subconscious', and many believe that it is, then it means the Left Brain and the Right Brain operate separately and may become tired separately (remembering the whole body is involved in thinking and decision-making). If intuition is slow or indecisive or somehow ineffective when it becomes tired, then perhaps that is the time we really have to lean on other means to think clearly. People under stress, like policemen or commercial airplane pilots or soldiers or firefighters or ER doctors need sleep and a good diet, but they also need good thinking techniques and regular procedures.
The subconscious is powerful, though we're not always directly conscious of what it's effecting. I've seen it in action and realized that my conscious efforts were simply not that powerful. That's why I think hypnosis or other ways of leading the subconscious to behave a certain way is indeed powerful and a great lesson to us all. Don't be sold by the P.R. department known as the conscious mind with its story-telling. A lot of it is justification made of cobwebs and isn't to be trusted.
I think this also has ramifications for education. We feed information to children and hope they can remember it. We show them methods for doing things and hope they practice it and remember how to do it. But, when it comes to new things or creative things or especially difficult and stressful things I wonder if they have any education or ways of arriving at good thinking techniques. It's sometimes thought to be too personal and not something one should be taught. But, learning thinking techniques is like learning mathematics or scientific experiment protocols or engineering practices and these are all important for people to achieve greater things than intuition alone can provide.
I'm curious what stories people from various fields would tell about how they think under duress and during long events. What works and what is just 'old wives tales'?
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Democrats Support People while Republicans Try To Trivialize Them
.
Democrats have created the Minimum Wage law and the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to help the disenfranchised and the poor. Today, because of Republicans (and frankly their hatred of the poor) the minimum wage is $3,000 less than the poverty line and it hasn't been increased since 2009. Democrats hoped with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that the African-Americans and other ethnic groups could get past discrimination and vote to elect some of their own representatives for government. Now the Supreme Court Conservatives (what are they conserving) have gutted the Voting Rights Act provision which lets the federal government regulate voting laws & practices in states where discrimination at the polling place has been prevalent.
Chief Justice John Roberts can say the law is out of step with the times, but can he really claim ignorance that today's Republicans in Congress won't create new legislation to deal with the issue.
It seems clear the Conservative Republican Absurdity Parade (CRAP) is destroying America even as the American people twice elected an African-American to be president and have become more and more open to homosexuals and are moving on past the racism of the past. Do the Republicans believe they can turn back the clock? Do they think we will ignore their efforts to impose terrible voting laws in their states? Do they think America will stand still for their CRAP?
Turn your back on that Parade and yell to your member of Congress to move America forward, not back.
Democrats have created the Minimum Wage law and the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to help the disenfranchised and the poor. Today, because of Republicans (and frankly their hatred of the poor) the minimum wage is $3,000 less than the poverty line and it hasn't been increased since 2009. Democrats hoped with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that the African-Americans and other ethnic groups could get past discrimination and vote to elect some of their own representatives for government. Now the Supreme Court Conservatives (what are they conserving) have gutted the Voting Rights Act provision which lets the federal government regulate voting laws & practices in states where discrimination at the polling place has been prevalent.
Chief Justice John Roberts can say the law is out of step with the times, but can he really claim ignorance that today's Republicans in Congress won't create new legislation to deal with the issue.
It seems clear the Conservative Republican Absurdity Parade (CRAP) is destroying America even as the American people twice elected an African-American to be president and have become more and more open to homosexuals and are moving on past the racism of the past. Do the Republicans believe they can turn back the clock? Do they think we will ignore their efforts to impose terrible voting laws in their states? Do they think America will stand still for their CRAP?
Turn your back on that Parade and yell to your member of Congress to move America forward, not back.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Tree...Apples...Falling...etc.
.
“George W. Bush’s Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather was a Slave Trader.” Thomas “Beau” Walker “died at sea in 1797 when his own crew mutinied and threw him overboard”.
This shows people will take action when the insanity is obviously a threat. In America you've got to yell really loud. Fight government spying, Republican absurdity, Syrian use of chemical weapons, the huge wealth gap with so much wealth and so many living in poverty and all the other terrible things we face.
“George W. Bush’s Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather was a Slave Trader.” Thomas “Beau” Walker “died at sea in 1797 when his own crew mutinied and threw him overboard”.
This shows people will take action when the insanity is obviously a threat. In America you've got to yell really loud. Fight government spying, Republican absurdity, Syrian use of chemical weapons, the huge wealth gap with so much wealth and so many living in poverty and all the other terrible things we face.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
"Absurd" Republicans have Absurd Ideas
.
Congressman Steve King (R) believes you should be free to hide your income from the tax man.
Secret Income Is Part of Freedom
Meanwhile, tax avoidance is on the rise!
It's twice the amount of Social Security and Medicare.
Maybe if all the hidden income was taxed we wouldn't have the so-called 'unfunded liability' problem.
The Supreme Court Conservative Justices are at it again.
Even Small Businesses can't shake mega-corporations chokehold on access to the courts.
And, it isn't just the Justices who believe corporations are people. During the last presidential race the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, said "corporations are people too, my friends" and now Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky and Senate minority leader) believes corporations deserve 'free speech'.
"Absurd" to ban corporations from having same rights as people
Of course, the free speech he's referring to is when corporations seek to be active in the political world by giving money to Republicans. He also believes it's crucial for them to be able to act in secret, so Democrats can't "go after" their donors. I don't know what he's almost alleging, but it's weasel words like that we have come to expect from Sen. McConnell. If he wants to say Democrats are attacking donors to Republicans he should say so. Well, he can point to the IRS scandal, but that was begun by Republicans in IRS's Cincinnati office and not the White House.
Apparently the Republicans are simply scared that without corporate dollars they won't have sufficient support from real American citizens. Boo hoo! Become a real political party which represents a majority of the public.
I might begin to believe corporations are somewhat like people if Texas ever executes an innocent one, like the innocent people they've executed. Somehow corporations seem to be superior.
Congressman Steve King (R) believes you should be free to hide your income from the tax man.
Secret Income Is Part of Freedom
Meanwhile, tax avoidance is on the rise!
It's twice the amount of Social Security and Medicare.
Maybe if all the hidden income was taxed we wouldn't have the so-called 'unfunded liability' problem.
The Supreme Court Conservative Justices are at it again.
Even Small Businesses can't shake mega-corporations chokehold on access to the courts.
And, it isn't just the Justices who believe corporations are people. During the last presidential race the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, said "corporations are people too, my friends" and now Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky and Senate minority leader) believes corporations deserve 'free speech'.
"Absurd" to ban corporations from having same rights as people
Of course, the free speech he's referring to is when corporations seek to be active in the political world by giving money to Republicans. He also believes it's crucial for them to be able to act in secret, so Democrats can't "go after" their donors. I don't know what he's almost alleging, but it's weasel words like that we have come to expect from Sen. McConnell. If he wants to say Democrats are attacking donors to Republicans he should say so. Well, he can point to the IRS scandal, but that was begun by Republicans in IRS's Cincinnati office and not the White House.
Apparently the Republicans are simply scared that without corporate dollars they won't have sufficient support from real American citizens. Boo hoo! Become a real political party which represents a majority of the public.
I might begin to believe corporations are somewhat like people if Texas ever executes an innocent one, like the innocent people they've executed. Somehow corporations seem to be superior.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Beware, Conservatives at Work !
.
Bridges are in disrepair. Will Conservatives in Congress vote for an infrastructure spending bill?
Apparently our Constitution is also in disrepair and the Conservatives like it that way. Who will stand up to them and call for the impeachment of the idiot Justices who say we have no Constitutional right to remain silent? How can they be textualists or even originalists when they say the police can interpret fidgeting as guilt?
This is not "sour grapes" because of the 'scandals' the Right has found in the administration. Remember, the Right backed the movie-maker who angered the Muslims in the middle-east, there was a riot over the movie in Tripoli and several other cities before the attack in Benghazi, the IRS scandal was begun by Republicans in the Cincinnati office of the IRS (and that was admitted by the Republican Bush-appointed IRS commissioner) and the AP news scandal was done according to the law which was written by Republicans (the PATRIOT Act).
Republicans are just absolutely killing America and now the Supreme Court Conservatives say we can't remain silent. So, it's time to yell very loud!
Update: The Supreme Court says corporations are BETTER than citizens!
Bridges are in disrepair. Will Conservatives in Congress vote for an infrastructure spending bill?
Apparently our Constitution is also in disrepair and the Conservatives like it that way. Who will stand up to them and call for the impeachment of the idiot Justices who say we have no Constitutional right to remain silent? How can they be textualists or even originalists when they say the police can interpret fidgeting as guilt?
This is not "sour grapes" because of the 'scandals' the Right has found in the administration. Remember, the Right backed the movie-maker who angered the Muslims in the middle-east, there was a riot over the movie in Tripoli and several other cities before the attack in Benghazi, the IRS scandal was begun by Republicans in the Cincinnati office of the IRS (and that was admitted by the Republican Bush-appointed IRS commissioner) and the AP news scandal was done according to the law which was written by Republicans (the PATRIOT Act).
Republicans are just absolutely killing America and now the Supreme Court Conservatives say we can't remain silent. So, it's time to yell very loud!
Update: The Supreme Court says corporations are BETTER than citizens!
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
"Observe patiently while attacking ruthlessly" -- a martial artist
.
Recent technological advances are allowing people to analyze eye movements for various purposes. For example, Eye-Tracking Software May Reveal Autism or Eye Movements when Examining an Image or Eye Movements of Doctors Spotting Cancers orTracking Cricket and Baseballs to Hit Them.
Studies done long ago showed chess players who are better consider empty squares more than weaker players. Soccer pros seem to study the empty spaces between players more than do amateur audience watchers. Could it be the player is considering what COULD happen and their creative mind must consider all the area involved?
Then there is the 'secret' of boxing: Where to Look during a Fight and how that works compared to studying the gloves, shoulders or other parts of your opponent's body.
What these studies say in common is that the more expert people don't have quicker eyes which see everything, but that they have specific skills which help them focus on specific things related to their work. Ball hitters can't follow the ball if it's too fast, so they may see it as it leaves the pitcher's hand and judge a path for it with an attempt to see it somewhere else on the way. Chess players may look at open lines to see where pieces may soon move. Boxers may look at nothing specific to avoid being misled by feints. Each isn't being faster, but smarter.
It's also true chess experts (meaning certified masters of all kinds) are somehow faster at getting to the relevant bits. This may relate to their quicker ability to recognize (chunk) patterns in the position before them and then to move on to the logic of their task. One thing I'm curious to learn is how much of the thinking of a top player is about the dynamics (calculating variations) and how much is about imagining the creation of another position they consider as good or better than their current one. Do they move from position to position or are they always looking for the path forward which is better and better?
Recently I looked at a YouTube.com video of Radjabov and Carlsen discussing the latter stage of a game (I presume they had just played). In that they didn't seem to discuss abstract plans (and in particular Radjabov seemed completely to not understand Carlsen's one and only way to win), but to focus entirely on move sequences.
It is sometimes said you just need to focus on what's important to learn to become expert in something. But, it's not always obvious what is the important thing to learn. Maybe eye-movement analysis, and some other things, can help us figure it out.
Recent technological advances are allowing people to analyze eye movements for various purposes. For example, Eye-Tracking Software May Reveal Autism or Eye Movements when Examining an Image or Eye Movements of Doctors Spotting Cancers orTracking Cricket and Baseballs to Hit Them.
Studies done long ago showed chess players who are better consider empty squares more than weaker players. Soccer pros seem to study the empty spaces between players more than do amateur audience watchers. Could it be the player is considering what COULD happen and their creative mind must consider all the area involved?
Then there is the 'secret' of boxing: Where to Look during a Fight and how that works compared to studying the gloves, shoulders or other parts of your opponent's body.
What these studies say in common is that the more expert people don't have quicker eyes which see everything, but that they have specific skills which help them focus on specific things related to their work. Ball hitters can't follow the ball if it's too fast, so they may see it as it leaves the pitcher's hand and judge a path for it with an attempt to see it somewhere else on the way. Chess players may look at open lines to see where pieces may soon move. Boxers may look at nothing specific to avoid being misled by feints. Each isn't being faster, but smarter.
It's also true chess experts (meaning certified masters of all kinds) are somehow faster at getting to the relevant bits. This may relate to their quicker ability to recognize (chunk) patterns in the position before them and then to move on to the logic of their task. One thing I'm curious to learn is how much of the thinking of a top player is about the dynamics (calculating variations) and how much is about imagining the creation of another position they consider as good or better than their current one. Do they move from position to position or are they always looking for the path forward which is better and better?
Recently I looked at a YouTube.com video of Radjabov and Carlsen discussing the latter stage of a game (I presume they had just played). In that they didn't seem to discuss abstract plans (and in particular Radjabov seemed completely to not understand Carlsen's one and only way to win), but to focus entirely on move sequences.
It is sometimes said you just need to focus on what's important to learn to become expert in something. But, it's not always obvious what is the important thing to learn. Maybe eye-movement analysis, and some other things, can help us figure it out.
We're # 27 !!!!
.
The American middle-class has been taking it on the chin for a few decades and Les Leopold writes about it in Big Lie.
The world is changing and when the rich are benefiting and the 99% aren't screaming the politicians don't feel any need to change.
Unfortunately the need for big money to run political campaigns means that even Democrats have to listen to the rich too. After all, making money is part of the American Dream. Where there's a huge difference is that Democrats want the entire system to work well for everyone and the Republicans seem to think they only need to help the rich. As one Republican Congressman put it, "Our job is to help business." Oh, how wrong he is.
The American middle-class has been taking it on the chin for a few decades and Les Leopold writes about it in Big Lie.
The world is changing and when the rich are benefiting and the 99% aren't screaming the politicians don't feel any need to change.
Unfortunately the need for big money to run political campaigns means that even Democrats have to listen to the rich too. After all, making money is part of the American Dream. Where there's a huge difference is that Democrats want the entire system to work well for everyone and the Republicans seem to think they only need to help the rich. As one Republican Congressman put it, "Our job is to help business." Oh, how wrong he is.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Syria, Immigration Reform and Movies about and for Women
.
The following are links two three articles about the title issues: Americans opposing Syrian involvement, a Republican Congressman from Texas fears the Latino vote and how Hollywood's disinterest in women could waste a generation of outrageously talented actresses.
Aside from the interesting nature of each of these there is something about how people, perhaps particularly people with some power, think and how that may make sense but still seems out of synch with the larger public. Why is this?
In my posts about "how we think" I should perhaps have emphasized INTUITION as it's always there, always pushing us toward "its" conclusion, "its" next step. When I was young I knew about intuition and considered it as a foundation for chess play, but realized quickly my intuition for chess was absolutely terrible. Does power over events lead us to trust our intuition more than we should? I'm not so sure it does, but that being able to actually shape events may simply be a reinforcing feed-back. It might make someone so confident they rely less on science (calculating variations in chess) or on the opinions of others. This has been known to be a problem for corporate CEOs as well as the President (who is said sometimes to "live in a bubble"). Considering the availability of information and the numbers of consultants and pollsters it doesn't seem possible the bubble could exist, but it does. I think each and every one of us lives within the bubble which is the sum total of our experiences and knowledge. How can you ever 'think outside of the box'? Learn, experience, think!
At least today we can't say people don't know. There are far too many ways to get information of many kinds. For example, ignorance of climate change isn't really possible, but it can be ignored while the public isn't very well informed. On the other hand, for Republicans the immigration issue can't be ignored. Sen. Lindsay Graham said Sunday that the party was in a 'death spiral' because they're trying to ignore the issue. Can the Republican Party continue if they don't begin to include more African-Americans, Oriental-Americans, Latino-Americans and single women? Can you be a party of only wealthy, well-educated White men of Caucasian ethnicity and gain a ruling majority? That's what makes the immigration reform going on now in Congress so interesting. Their intuition is saying, "stay the course" and their pollsters are telling them they can't do that if they want to be in the majority.
The case of involvement in the Syrian conflict is different for the President. He isn't up for re-election! But, of course, beyond his personal world there is his sense of what's good for America. That's why, so far, the question has been "what is in our national interest?" Sen. McCain and some others have called for involvement from the start, but haven't provided compelling reasons. Now the president says the use of dangerous gas to kill people is crossing the "red line". Trying to get the Russians to accept that Syria's president Assad must leave hasn't been easy. The Russians have had a long-term relationship with Syria and they need the business and naval port. Somehow the loss of human lives hasn't yet bothered Russia's president Putin sufficiently to end his objection to American involvement. I hope Pres. Obama can either convince him otherwise or provide some kind of incentives to make this easier for Putin to accept. It would also benefit our relations with Russia if we weren't always at loggerheads. I fear Putin is too hard-headed, like George W. Bush was. Maybe the G8 meeting, going on now in Ireland, will result in some progress.
But, back to how we think...
Why is it the public opposes Syrian involvement? Their "mental box" says we've been at war a long time and we need to back off, take a break and let other people solve their own problems. It isn't always easy for the public to see the long-term advantages to any kind of foreign involvements. What do Americans gain from the recent changes in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen? Do the Americans even realize the significance of the recent democratic elections in Pakistan which have become possible because of American involvement? It's not an easy task for a president to convince people of the Righteousness or efficacy of our foreign policy. We've been trying to help more people to be free and prosperous when it's also to America's benefit. We've been trying to reduce the nuclear threat in Libya, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and everywhere. Can the public see that in the news reports? It's no wonder they aren't comfortable with another step when they haven't really been told the previous steps produced benefits to them. It's even harder when there is disinformation coming from the political opposition. Instead, they hear about scandals with the IRS, spying on news agencies and now the 'whistleblower' revealing what the NSA has been doing. They're not hearing about things government does which work out well. Naturally, the public opinion polls show Congress is held in very low esteem.
Moving to corporate America...
Why do movie-makers ignore women? Is it just easier to get women to go to a man's movie than to get men to a chick flick? Do men spend that much more money on movies, so focusing on bringing in their dollars is all-important? Are these movie studios/production-companies/makers just focusing on the 'science' of what makes more money? I suspect they can safely ignore women since there isn't any focused single 'enemy' women can attack. What would move these movie makers to change their way? If they're just looking at revenues it's hard to imagine anything will change them, so women must make more movies to change things.
If you can't inform someone or some group to shape their next step, then you simply need to change the person in charge to get a different next step. For example, if Republicans don't pass immigration reform then the next election or three could change them for someone else. If the president isn't at least partially successful, then Democrats could suffer in the next elections. In his case the fate of many other politicians is involved. If a movie-maker makes tons of money it isn't likely a few blog posts will change their minds about what kind of movies to make. Maybe more story writers interested in a broader range of ideas could make a difference. We elect a different politician to get different policies, so changing the writers should be effective too.
If you want change, you must get out there and do it. In Ireland Pres. Obama told everyone the politicians tend to follow the public's attitudes and that it is therefore in THEIR hands what kind of policies and future they will have. The politicians will simply codify it and enforce it after the public has already decided. That's true here when the shape of the electorate changes they will enforce their will on the political class.
Now, if we could just change some of the ideas on Wall St. and in the corporate boardroom about what the workers deserve to be paid when their productivity goes up.
The following are links two three articles about the title issues: Americans opposing Syrian involvement, a Republican Congressman from Texas fears the Latino vote and how Hollywood's disinterest in women could waste a generation of outrageously talented actresses.
Aside from the interesting nature of each of these there is something about how people, perhaps particularly people with some power, think and how that may make sense but still seems out of synch with the larger public. Why is this?
In my posts about "how we think" I should perhaps have emphasized INTUITION as it's always there, always pushing us toward "its" conclusion, "its" next step. When I was young I knew about intuition and considered it as a foundation for chess play, but realized quickly my intuition for chess was absolutely terrible. Does power over events lead us to trust our intuition more than we should? I'm not so sure it does, but that being able to actually shape events may simply be a reinforcing feed-back. It might make someone so confident they rely less on science (calculating variations in chess) or on the opinions of others. This has been known to be a problem for corporate CEOs as well as the President (who is said sometimes to "live in a bubble"). Considering the availability of information and the numbers of consultants and pollsters it doesn't seem possible the bubble could exist, but it does. I think each and every one of us lives within the bubble which is the sum total of our experiences and knowledge. How can you ever 'think outside of the box'? Learn, experience, think!
At least today we can't say people don't know. There are far too many ways to get information of many kinds. For example, ignorance of climate change isn't really possible, but it can be ignored while the public isn't very well informed. On the other hand, for Republicans the immigration issue can't be ignored. Sen. Lindsay Graham said Sunday that the party was in a 'death spiral' because they're trying to ignore the issue. Can the Republican Party continue if they don't begin to include more African-Americans, Oriental-Americans, Latino-Americans and single women? Can you be a party of only wealthy, well-educated White men of Caucasian ethnicity and gain a ruling majority? That's what makes the immigration reform going on now in Congress so interesting. Their intuition is saying, "stay the course" and their pollsters are telling them they can't do that if they want to be in the majority.
The case of involvement in the Syrian conflict is different for the President. He isn't up for re-election! But, of course, beyond his personal world there is his sense of what's good for America. That's why, so far, the question has been "what is in our national interest?" Sen. McCain and some others have called for involvement from the start, but haven't provided compelling reasons. Now the president says the use of dangerous gas to kill people is crossing the "red line". Trying to get the Russians to accept that Syria's president Assad must leave hasn't been easy. The Russians have had a long-term relationship with Syria and they need the business and naval port. Somehow the loss of human lives hasn't yet bothered Russia's president Putin sufficiently to end his objection to American involvement. I hope Pres. Obama can either convince him otherwise or provide some kind of incentives to make this easier for Putin to accept. It would also benefit our relations with Russia if we weren't always at loggerheads. I fear Putin is too hard-headed, like George W. Bush was. Maybe the G8 meeting, going on now in Ireland, will result in some progress.
But, back to how we think...
Why is it the public opposes Syrian involvement? Their "mental box" says we've been at war a long time and we need to back off, take a break and let other people solve their own problems. It isn't always easy for the public to see the long-term advantages to any kind of foreign involvements. What do Americans gain from the recent changes in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen? Do the Americans even realize the significance of the recent democratic elections in Pakistan which have become possible because of American involvement? It's not an easy task for a president to convince people of the Righteousness or efficacy of our foreign policy. We've been trying to help more people to be free and prosperous when it's also to America's benefit. We've been trying to reduce the nuclear threat in Libya, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and everywhere. Can the public see that in the news reports? It's no wonder they aren't comfortable with another step when they haven't really been told the previous steps produced benefits to them. It's even harder when there is disinformation coming from the political opposition. Instead, they hear about scandals with the IRS, spying on news agencies and now the 'whistleblower' revealing what the NSA has been doing. They're not hearing about things government does which work out well. Naturally, the public opinion polls show Congress is held in very low esteem.
Moving to corporate America...
Why do movie-makers ignore women? Is it just easier to get women to go to a man's movie than to get men to a chick flick? Do men spend that much more money on movies, so focusing on bringing in their dollars is all-important? Are these movie studios/production-companies/makers just focusing on the 'science' of what makes more money? I suspect they can safely ignore women since there isn't any focused single 'enemy' women can attack. What would move these movie makers to change their way? If they're just looking at revenues it's hard to imagine anything will change them, so women must make more movies to change things.
If you can't inform someone or some group to shape their next step, then you simply need to change the person in charge to get a different next step. For example, if Republicans don't pass immigration reform then the next election or three could change them for someone else. If the president isn't at least partially successful, then Democrats could suffer in the next elections. In his case the fate of many other politicians is involved. If a movie-maker makes tons of money it isn't likely a few blog posts will change their minds about what kind of movies to make. Maybe more story writers interested in a broader range of ideas could make a difference. We elect a different politician to get different policies, so changing the writers should be effective too.
If you want change, you must get out there and do it. In Ireland Pres. Obama told everyone the politicians tend to follow the public's attitudes and that it is therefore in THEIR hands what kind of policies and future they will have. The politicians will simply codify it and enforce it after the public has already decided. That's true here when the shape of the electorate changes they will enforce their will on the political class.
Now, if we could just change some of the ideas on Wall St. and in the corporate boardroom about what the workers deserve to be paid when their productivity goes up.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Cancer Research and New Directions
.
Mina Bissell in a TED Talk Discusses a New Understanding of Cancer
A New Computational Cell Biology to Kill Cancer
If cancer cells can be infected and killed or if the environment of the cells can be strengthened to make them behave, then it seems we are moving rapidly toward real solutions.
I wonder which we spend more on: cancer research & technology development or stopping terrorist attacks.
Mina Bissell in a TED Talk Discusses a New Understanding of Cancer
A New Computational Cell Biology to Kill Cancer
If cancer cells can be infected and killed or if the environment of the cells can be strengthened to make them behave, then it seems we are moving rapidly toward real solutions.
I wonder which we spend more on: cancer research & technology development or stopping terrorist attacks.
The Economy
.
The Dow Jones Index which is a broad indicator of the stock market, and some say the economy, is around 15,000. It was closer to 6,000 when Pres. Obama took office. So, the economy is obviously doing great...for some people. For the vast majority of people wages are not up and the federal government is still operating in deficit. What's going on here?
Nick Hanauer talks about this in a TED talk.
Kevin Drum's blog at Mother Jones magazine discusses it.
Dissent Magazine makes an argument for higher taxes (on somebody) to end the deficits.
It's hard to see Wall Street doing so well and main street not making any progress. Why aren't the minimum wage going up and the government spending more on infrastructure nationally? It's time for the federal government to start discussing legislation to fix the tax system, to raise taxes on the wealthy (closing international loopholes allowing hidden or untaxed accounts) and to spend more.
The Dow Jones Index which is a broad indicator of the stock market, and some say the economy, is around 15,000. It was closer to 6,000 when Pres. Obama took office. So, the economy is obviously doing great...for some people. For the vast majority of people wages are not up and the federal government is still operating in deficit. What's going on here?
Nick Hanauer talks about this in a TED talk.
Kevin Drum's blog at Mother Jones magazine discusses it.
Dissent Magazine makes an argument for higher taxes (on somebody) to end the deficits.
It's hard to see Wall Street doing so well and main street not making any progress. Why aren't the minimum wage going up and the government spending more on infrastructure nationally? It's time for the federal government to start discussing legislation to fix the tax system, to raise taxes on the wealthy (closing international loopholes allowing hidden or untaxed accounts) and to spend more.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
More On How We Think
.
First, a few things I've read about how we think:
Our mind works like it's trying to find our next footstep or the next number in the sequence or what is necessary to complete a pattern;
we don't light up nerve cells in the brain when we find the solution, but we turn off the switch on things which don't 'turn us on'. What remains, however unobvious must be the (probably) right answer;
we don't begin with an idea and find ways to implement it, so we had better consider a full range of possibilities to be more certain of finding at least one good one.
I think we start with known patterns and the information on the problem in front of us, we consider a variety of intuited (and sought-for) potential 'next steps', 'solutions', 'pattern completions' or whatever and then for each we test to see if it passes through the test of relevance. Does it fit the permanent pattern we have? Naturally, when your intuition is working well you have less difficulty getting through the relevance filter and we 'flow'.
Many times masters will ask, "what's going on here or what is right for this KIND of situation" and that's their filter. There is a greater pattern learned from experience of how to handle any kind of situation to get a favorable outcome.
"Look both ways before you cross the street." is an idea which says that in the context of standing on the side of the road and wanting to cross it's wise to look to be sure the street remains clear while you're crossing.
"Don't drink and drive!" is an idea which says that in the context of drinking (being drunk) it's not wise to also drive a car.
The greater idea is to be careful with your physical safety and that of others before 'boldly going where nobody has gone before'. That generalization isn't understood so well by kids and adults repeatedly make it clear to them. It becomes a filter like "big boys do thus and so" and "adults are responsible drinkers and street crossers", so the young person has a wide-spectrum pattern to try and live up to.
In a chess game, boxing match, tennis match, football game or other one-on-one fights there are specific situations (they're going to blitz or keep an eye on the base-runner so he doesn't steal) and there are generalizations about how to handle situations or the overall game ("Just win, baby."). It's helpful to have a teacher pass on that knowledge to young students.
In chess I taught the kids at my local library club there is a pattern to the fight: each side brings their pieces forward to combat the enemy; each tries to beat down the other with punches and at some point they can focus on one weakness to try and 'win' a battle; eventually this leads to one side or the other having sufficient overall advantage to take out the opposing king. Within each phase of that fight they should try to get the advantage by being quicker, more efficient, more precise and so on.
Without the pattern every move may be random (a word often used by stronger players to refer to moves which don't fit a pattern or purpose for the game/fight.
Iconic sports figures are by nature a pattern for young athletes and all adults kids encounter are examples of what it means to be a grown-up. Having a favorite car or house or vacation or perfect job are also patterns and we may work to those, but we may also make adjustments to fit ourselves. Yes, you may want to be a football pro, but you might settle for playing football on the weekends with friends in the park. Yes, you may want a Ferrari, but you might settle for a convertible sports car of less expensive kind. Keeping up with the Jones' is a very real thing, but you've gotta want it!
First, a few things I've read about how we think:
Our mind works like it's trying to find our next footstep or the next number in the sequence or what is necessary to complete a pattern;
we don't light up nerve cells in the brain when we find the solution, but we turn off the switch on things which don't 'turn us on'. What remains, however unobvious must be the (probably) right answer;
we don't begin with an idea and find ways to implement it, so we had better consider a full range of possibilities to be more certain of finding at least one good one.
I think we start with known patterns and the information on the problem in front of us, we consider a variety of intuited (and sought-for) potential 'next steps', 'solutions', 'pattern completions' or whatever and then for each we test to see if it passes through the test of relevance. Does it fit the permanent pattern we have? Naturally, when your intuition is working well you have less difficulty getting through the relevance filter and we 'flow'.
Many times masters will ask, "what's going on here or what is right for this KIND of situation" and that's their filter. There is a greater pattern learned from experience of how to handle any kind of situation to get a favorable outcome.
"Look both ways before you cross the street." is an idea which says that in the context of standing on the side of the road and wanting to cross it's wise to look to be sure the street remains clear while you're crossing.
"Don't drink and drive!" is an idea which says that in the context of drinking (being drunk) it's not wise to also drive a car.
The greater idea is to be careful with your physical safety and that of others before 'boldly going where nobody has gone before'. That generalization isn't understood so well by kids and adults repeatedly make it clear to them. It becomes a filter like "big boys do thus and so" and "adults are responsible drinkers and street crossers", so the young person has a wide-spectrum pattern to try and live up to.
In a chess game, boxing match, tennis match, football game or other one-on-one fights there are specific situations (they're going to blitz or keep an eye on the base-runner so he doesn't steal) and there are generalizations about how to handle situations or the overall game ("Just win, baby."). It's helpful to have a teacher pass on that knowledge to young students.
In chess I taught the kids at my local library club there is a pattern to the fight: each side brings their pieces forward to combat the enemy; each tries to beat down the other with punches and at some point they can focus on one weakness to try and 'win' a battle; eventually this leads to one side or the other having sufficient overall advantage to take out the opposing king. Within each phase of that fight they should try to get the advantage by being quicker, more efficient, more precise and so on.
Without the pattern every move may be random (a word often used by stronger players to refer to moves which don't fit a pattern or purpose for the game/fight.
Iconic sports figures are by nature a pattern for young athletes and all adults kids encounter are examples of what it means to be a grown-up. Having a favorite car or house or vacation or perfect job are also patterns and we may work to those, but we may also make adjustments to fit ourselves. Yes, you may want to be a football pro, but you might settle for playing football on the weekends with friends in the park. Yes, you may want a Ferrari, but you might settle for a convertible sports car of less expensive kind. Keeping up with the Jones' is a very real thing, but you've gotta want it!
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
How People Think
.
I play chess and I've been recently considering ways to think better to get the best results. It may be a joke to think there's a way to think better. Scientists tell us they don't actually know how a person thinks. So, keeping that in mind...
I've accumulated a lot of knowledge over the years and I want to know how best to use it without getting bogged-down in a labyrinthine approach which is too slow. Chess players also love to play very fast games which challenge our ability to tackle impossible problems in seconds. It's amazing how much can be done in a few seconds. But, without an efficient approach it's clearly impossible to play fast games.
It's really fascinating to listen-in on my opponents when we play team games at the club. That's where two or more players work together as a team against another team. Each player discusses what they want (and feels comfortable saying aloud) so the team can make a well-informed decision what to play. I must say I'm amazed some of them can ever reach a move of any kind or one that's good, but they do.
I have noticed a bit of a pattern (or style) of thinking and can see that from the weaker players to the stronger players there is some consistency.
The weaker players meander around with little discernible logic in what they say. Some will suddenly jump from that to a move which seems entirely different, and perhaps good. I think this exploration of the problem space and consideration of various possibilities isn't bad, but inefficient and prone to error. Unfortunately I have to say I have sometimes been accused (and clearly guilty) of doing the opposite and being so focused I miss a good move.
Another player a bit stronger may be a bit more efficient, but still has trouble when his positions fall apart when attacked. Apart from using logic to find a move it has to be of good quality.
So, the next strongest, you might guess, is one who thinks more about the overall position's security. Naturally they begin to be drawn to moves which ensure that security in their positions. There is even a thing called "blunder checking" which requires you to find a move and then reconsider it with fresh eyes to ask if it's a blunder. I have found that maintaining that position security over the course of a game can be quite challenging -- particularly when you want to do something aggressive to try to win. I told kids in my local library chess club (where I taught for a few months) that one way to get the advantage is simply to wait until their opponent ruins things. It's true and I've done it myself. No chess player is entirely immune from these problems. In 1971 I had the opportunity to play a world-class player who gave an exhibition playing something like 50 players simultaneously. He would walk from board to board and make his move. I managed to maintain my coordination and security a very long time and only when the position was very difficult AND I was distracted did I blunder and lose. This was something of a miracle considering my general strength at that time. But, it shows some basic level of security-maintenance is very valuable.
Everyone wants to win and tries to find any path to victory that they can. Some look for short-forcing sequences (tactics) which bring gain and some look for methods which may take time and some consider heavy-duty strategies. Once a player can maintain their security they are generally more free to consider the more effective methods & strategies. Having stability in one's life gives a degree of freedom to do productive gainful things. So it is in a chess game.
At my local club the players who understand and can do this are clearly superior to the others. They ensure against losses much better and give themselves more time to perhaps win.
What differentiates these players?
Once a player recognizes the value of a safe position and can aim for that they become much better. Their ability to maintain that safety over time and when under attack distinguishes between weak and stronger. Many years ago there was a player from Armenia (I think) who was known as "Iron Tigran" because he rarely lost. He didn't win very often, but in a match he was formidable and he held the world championship for a short time. He often went a year with only one or two losses. To beat him Bobby Fischer had to be amazing. Their match was billed as the "Irresistible Force against the Immovable Force". At first it was close, but after one grueling fight which Fischer won the Iron man broke down and lost four games in a row. It's tough to just defend. It's psychologically and technically difficult. Yet, top masters say one of their aims is to maintain a position which is safe and easy to play. Computer programs show that isn't close to what is required to win, just to survive. Why just survive? To give one's opponent time to ruin their position and to give yourself time to find some path (previously unknown) to victory.
So, we come to chess among stronger tournament players: what to do when one attacks the other and neither side's position falls apart very easily.
In chess as in war big beats small. Thus, you may wish to break apart your opponent's position and then focus on a small unit to overwhelm it and its defenders. You can also swarm an area of the board which previously seemed safe to achieve much the same goal. Big beats small. More beats less.
So, at my club the very strongest players not only seek positions which are safe, but which allow them to threaten the opponent's position to break it apart or to overwhelm it. Achieving this level of play on a consistent basis is a great achievement.
Among those players there are winners and losers. What happens to cause a failure?
Sometimes a player simply won't be in gear or will be tired, sleepy, in need of food, distracted by outside events or off for no discernible reason. These problems manifest themselves in play which is meandering, inconsistent, weak or simply not good in any of the many areas necessary for good play to result.
Imagine learning to ride a bike. At first training wheels are helpful and an example of someone else riding shows us what to aim for. I sometimes provide that training wheel for the other members of my club. In team games I lead them, when I can, to an efficient logical analysis of the situation and to moves which may be of use and to comparison of those moves to try and find the best. Take away the training wheel and immediately the rider feels something missing and my club mates (probably) notice the method I've provided is missing. Without the skill of feeling the balance of the moving bike you seek balance and can't find it. Having to pedal while doing this is insanely difficult until you "get it" and then it's a breeze. In chess some players 'get it' and some don't seem to want the help and would rather continue in their own way to enjoy their personal journey to a method. Some will suggest they want your help, but then ignore that and go on their own way. That's fine. Everybody enjoys the game, or bike riding, for their own reasons.
Back to square one: what do we absolutely need to do to get the best results?
We must recognize what a safe position is and how to get there.
To try and win from there we should know what is not only safe, but offers potential to win in some way against our opponent's position (or sometimes against the person themselves).
To try to win very consistently and against stronger opposition you have to be able to do these things and have effective precise consistent play in any kind of position and with little time to think against opponents who are on their own turf and who have studied their situation for a long time at home and in other games with other opponents. That is difficult.
How do we get there?
In a recent conversation a friend said he studied a lot of tutorials online to learn patterns. I think it's not so important to learn patterns someone else has used, but to see how a pattern (static or dynamic) works is a building block to creating your own patterns in your own games. A pattern would be a formation where pawns and pieces fit together to be secure and/or offensive. A dynamic pattern would be something which maintains its security while moving over a course of time to achieve some goal. Being able to create in your own games has to be very important. We aren't always replaying positions which are known. Chess isn't about turning the wheel around one more time to see if it's different somehow.
This leads me, I think, to how we construct such patterns in our games and ensuring they're sufficient for use against anyone. Naturally, we test ourselves against opponents to see where we're strong or weak. If we consistently do badly in one thing we must work on that 'muscle' to build it up.
The thought process (which I started saying I want to improve)?
Well, I've read the top masters never lose sight of the 'big picture' or 'what the position is about' and it could be this relates to their concept of what kind of position they must have in both defensive and offensive terms. With some big picture concept they have a meta-picture of the game which leads them to evolving their position as the game moves along in order to maintain maximum security and offensive capability and in the places on the board which will be most effective.
It sounds a bit like building a new gun to shoot an ever moving and changing target and then changing that gun over time to hit the new target. It's challenging.
Enough rambling for now.
I play chess and I've been recently considering ways to think better to get the best results. It may be a joke to think there's a way to think better. Scientists tell us they don't actually know how a person thinks. So, keeping that in mind...
I've accumulated a lot of knowledge over the years and I want to know how best to use it without getting bogged-down in a labyrinthine approach which is too slow. Chess players also love to play very fast games which challenge our ability to tackle impossible problems in seconds. It's amazing how much can be done in a few seconds. But, without an efficient approach it's clearly impossible to play fast games.
It's really fascinating to listen-in on my opponents when we play team games at the club. That's where two or more players work together as a team against another team. Each player discusses what they want (and feels comfortable saying aloud) so the team can make a well-informed decision what to play. I must say I'm amazed some of them can ever reach a move of any kind or one that's good, but they do.
I have noticed a bit of a pattern (or style) of thinking and can see that from the weaker players to the stronger players there is some consistency.
The weaker players meander around with little discernible logic in what they say. Some will suddenly jump from that to a move which seems entirely different, and perhaps good. I think this exploration of the problem space and consideration of various possibilities isn't bad, but inefficient and prone to error. Unfortunately I have to say I have sometimes been accused (and clearly guilty) of doing the opposite and being so focused I miss a good move.
Another player a bit stronger may be a bit more efficient, but still has trouble when his positions fall apart when attacked. Apart from using logic to find a move it has to be of good quality.
So, the next strongest, you might guess, is one who thinks more about the overall position's security. Naturally they begin to be drawn to moves which ensure that security in their positions. There is even a thing called "blunder checking" which requires you to find a move and then reconsider it with fresh eyes to ask if it's a blunder. I have found that maintaining that position security over the course of a game can be quite challenging -- particularly when you want to do something aggressive to try to win. I told kids in my local library chess club (where I taught for a few months) that one way to get the advantage is simply to wait until their opponent ruins things. It's true and I've done it myself. No chess player is entirely immune from these problems. In 1971 I had the opportunity to play a world-class player who gave an exhibition playing something like 50 players simultaneously. He would walk from board to board and make his move. I managed to maintain my coordination and security a very long time and only when the position was very difficult AND I was distracted did I blunder and lose. This was something of a miracle considering my general strength at that time. But, it shows some basic level of security-maintenance is very valuable.
Everyone wants to win and tries to find any path to victory that they can. Some look for short-forcing sequences (tactics) which bring gain and some look for methods which may take time and some consider heavy-duty strategies. Once a player can maintain their security they are generally more free to consider the more effective methods & strategies. Having stability in one's life gives a degree of freedom to do productive gainful things. So it is in a chess game.
At my local club the players who understand and can do this are clearly superior to the others. They ensure against losses much better and give themselves more time to perhaps win.
What differentiates these players?
Once a player recognizes the value of a safe position and can aim for that they become much better. Their ability to maintain that safety over time and when under attack distinguishes between weak and stronger. Many years ago there was a player from Armenia (I think) who was known as "Iron Tigran" because he rarely lost. He didn't win very often, but in a match he was formidable and he held the world championship for a short time. He often went a year with only one or two losses. To beat him Bobby Fischer had to be amazing. Their match was billed as the "Irresistible Force against the Immovable Force". At first it was close, but after one grueling fight which Fischer won the Iron man broke down and lost four games in a row. It's tough to just defend. It's psychologically and technically difficult. Yet, top masters say one of their aims is to maintain a position which is safe and easy to play. Computer programs show that isn't close to what is required to win, just to survive. Why just survive? To give one's opponent time to ruin their position and to give yourself time to find some path (previously unknown) to victory.
So, we come to chess among stronger tournament players: what to do when one attacks the other and neither side's position falls apart very easily.
In chess as in war big beats small. Thus, you may wish to break apart your opponent's position and then focus on a small unit to overwhelm it and its defenders. You can also swarm an area of the board which previously seemed safe to achieve much the same goal. Big beats small. More beats less.
So, at my club the very strongest players not only seek positions which are safe, but which allow them to threaten the opponent's position to break it apart or to overwhelm it. Achieving this level of play on a consistent basis is a great achievement.
Among those players there are winners and losers. What happens to cause a failure?
Sometimes a player simply won't be in gear or will be tired, sleepy, in need of food, distracted by outside events or off for no discernible reason. These problems manifest themselves in play which is meandering, inconsistent, weak or simply not good in any of the many areas necessary for good play to result.
Imagine learning to ride a bike. At first training wheels are helpful and an example of someone else riding shows us what to aim for. I sometimes provide that training wheel for the other members of my club. In team games I lead them, when I can, to an efficient logical analysis of the situation and to moves which may be of use and to comparison of those moves to try and find the best. Take away the training wheel and immediately the rider feels something missing and my club mates (probably) notice the method I've provided is missing. Without the skill of feeling the balance of the moving bike you seek balance and can't find it. Having to pedal while doing this is insanely difficult until you "get it" and then it's a breeze. In chess some players 'get it' and some don't seem to want the help and would rather continue in their own way to enjoy their personal journey to a method. Some will suggest they want your help, but then ignore that and go on their own way. That's fine. Everybody enjoys the game, or bike riding, for their own reasons.
Back to square one: what do we absolutely need to do to get the best results?
We must recognize what a safe position is and how to get there.
To try and win from there we should know what is not only safe, but offers potential to win in some way against our opponent's position (or sometimes against the person themselves).
To try to win very consistently and against stronger opposition you have to be able to do these things and have effective precise consistent play in any kind of position and with little time to think against opponents who are on their own turf and who have studied their situation for a long time at home and in other games with other opponents. That is difficult.
How do we get there?
In a recent conversation a friend said he studied a lot of tutorials online to learn patterns. I think it's not so important to learn patterns someone else has used, but to see how a pattern (static or dynamic) works is a building block to creating your own patterns in your own games. A pattern would be a formation where pawns and pieces fit together to be secure and/or offensive. A dynamic pattern would be something which maintains its security while moving over a course of time to achieve some goal. Being able to create in your own games has to be very important. We aren't always replaying positions which are known. Chess isn't about turning the wheel around one more time to see if it's different somehow.
This leads me, I think, to how we construct such patterns in our games and ensuring they're sufficient for use against anyone. Naturally, we test ourselves against opponents to see where we're strong or weak. If we consistently do badly in one thing we must work on that 'muscle' to build it up.
The thought process (which I started saying I want to improve)?
Well, I've read the top masters never lose sight of the 'big picture' or 'what the position is about' and it could be this relates to their concept of what kind of position they must have in both defensive and offensive terms. With some big picture concept they have a meta-picture of the game which leads them to evolving their position as the game moves along in order to maintain maximum security and offensive capability and in the places on the board which will be most effective.
It sounds a bit like building a new gun to shoot an ever moving and changing target and then changing that gun over time to hit the new target. It's challenging.
Enough rambling for now.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Sheila Bair Speaks Plainly About Our Financial System
.
There once was an assistant to Senator Bob Dole (R-Kansas) who knew a lot about economics. She was so universally trusted she became the FDIC director for Pres. Obama. Now she's out of government (AFAIK) and I wish there were some good role for her. Read the link below and find out what she has to say about our current situation. If you think the Republicans are impeding President Obama's mild efforts at reform you will find it hilarious that she, a Republican, thinks it's only a tiny beginning to what we really need. She is capable of speaking in the highest gobbelty-gook, but this article by Sheila Bair on our financial system is very plain talk.
Update: I've been thinking about this and it seems a great spot for her, aside from the many advisory boards a President uses, is a tax reform panel. She could be a member or chair and delve into various tax reform possibilities using her knowledge of banking and how money flows into and around and out of the investment world. Most people think of how taxes affect individuals, small businesses, big corporations and government, but few think of the real economy & investment/finance world dichotomy. She can do that.
There once was an assistant to Senator Bob Dole (R-Kansas) who knew a lot about economics. She was so universally trusted she became the FDIC director for Pres. Obama. Now she's out of government (AFAIK) and I wish there were some good role for her. Read the link below and find out what she has to say about our current situation. If you think the Republicans are impeding President Obama's mild efforts at reform you will find it hilarious that she, a Republican, thinks it's only a tiny beginning to what we really need. She is capable of speaking in the highest gobbelty-gook, but this article by Sheila Bair on our financial system is very plain talk.
Update: I've been thinking about this and it seems a great spot for her, aside from the many advisory boards a President uses, is a tax reform panel. She could be a member or chair and delve into various tax reform possibilities using her knowledge of banking and how money flows into and around and out of the investment world. Most people think of how taxes affect individuals, small businesses, big corporations and government, but few think of the real economy & investment/finance world dichotomy. She can do that.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Growing Evidence We Need to Increase the Minimum Wage
.
Amy Goodman makes the case!
Bloomberg News Provides Some Useful Information on the Problem
Crooks & Liars presents Susie Madrak's argument.
Remember Herman Cain who ran for president as a Republican? He was president of a restaurant-owner's association which made a deal with Congress to accept an increase in the minimum wage so long as 'tipped wage earners' didn't get included. Restaurant owners got a sweet deal -- everybody else had to pay more, but not them. Thank goodness he wasn't elected president.
The last minimum-wage increase was a long time ago, during Clinton's presidency. I think the economy could use a boost from more consumption spending and since the 'job creators' aren't creating jobs or paying more the government should do just that. One way is to raise the minimum-wage and another is to spend money (borrowed at very low interest rates) on major infrastructure work. It's sometimes said government does what the private sector can't or won't do. Private business will not pay more in a lot of places (though some states have minimum-wage rates higher than the federal level) and private business isn't hiring much, so government should do that. Ideally corporations which are doing great, or their owners, should pay more to the government to get these things done, but Republicans refuse to have them pay a penny more.
Update: John Schmitt of democracyjournal.org makes his argument for increasing the MinimumWage
Amy Goodman makes the case!
Bloomberg News Provides Some Useful Information on the Problem
Crooks & Liars presents Susie Madrak's argument.
Remember Herman Cain who ran for president as a Republican? He was president of a restaurant-owner's association which made a deal with Congress to accept an increase in the minimum wage so long as 'tipped wage earners' didn't get included. Restaurant owners got a sweet deal -- everybody else had to pay more, but not them. Thank goodness he wasn't elected president.
The last minimum-wage increase was a long time ago, during Clinton's presidency. I think the economy could use a boost from more consumption spending and since the 'job creators' aren't creating jobs or paying more the government should do just that. One way is to raise the minimum-wage and another is to spend money (borrowed at very low interest rates) on major infrastructure work. It's sometimes said government does what the private sector can't or won't do. Private business will not pay more in a lot of places (though some states have minimum-wage rates higher than the federal level) and private business isn't hiring much, so government should do that. Ideally corporations which are doing great, or their owners, should pay more to the government to get these things done, but Republicans refuse to have them pay a penny more.
Update: John Schmitt of democracyjournal.org makes his argument for increasing the MinimumWage
Did Reagan Learn Nothing from the "Missiles of October" Crisis?
.
In 1983 Reagan scared the paranoid Russians. Were we close to another Nuclear missile crisis? Aren't you glad we didn't elect Mitt "Russia is our biggest geopolitical enemy" Romney?
But, don't worry there's Proof Cats are Superior to Dogs!
In 1983 Reagan scared the paranoid Russians. Were we close to another Nuclear missile crisis? Aren't you glad we didn't elect Mitt "Russia is our biggest geopolitical enemy" Romney?
But, don't worry there's Proof Cats are Superior to Dogs!
Sunday, June 9, 2013
More Gun Deaths
.
You may have heard there was a shooting at Santa Monica college in California. The man who shot people also killed family members before going to the college with over 1,300 rounds of ammunition. Here are a few other stories of the same kind:
9-year-old boy shot in chest -- "Mommy I'm shot."
4-year-old boy accident kills army dad
police officer kills wife and self with shotgun over dinner dispute
ten injured in shotgun blast at gun show
assault weapons high capacity magazines mass shootings
When does it end?
You may have heard there was a shooting at Santa Monica college in California. The man who shot people also killed family members before going to the college with over 1,300 rounds of ammunition. Here are a few other stories of the same kind:
9-year-old boy shot in chest -- "Mommy I'm shot."
4-year-old boy accident kills army dad
police officer kills wife and self with shotgun over dinner dispute
ten injured in shotgun blast at gun show
assault weapons high capacity magazines mass shootings
When does it end?
Alternative Energy News
.
At Ohio State they're developing real clean-coal technology!
Biofuel breakthrough turns virtually any plant into hydrogen!
Electric-car maker Tesla repays federal startup funds early!
Just thing how much further along we would've been if the oil lobby hadn't taken over the White House in 1981 (Pres. Reagan with V.P. George H. W. Bush). One of the first things they did was remove solar panels Carter had installed on the White House roof. They had no interest in a competitive energy sector. They had no interest in reducing America's dependence on foreign energy sources.
At Ohio State they're developing real clean-coal technology!
Biofuel breakthrough turns virtually any plant into hydrogen!
Electric-car maker Tesla repays federal startup funds early!
Just thing how much further along we would've been if the oil lobby hadn't taken over the White House in 1981 (Pres. Reagan with V.P. George H. W. Bush). One of the first things they did was remove solar panels Carter had installed on the White House roof. They had no interest in a competitive energy sector. They had no interest in reducing America's dependence on foreign energy sources.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Some Good News...for a change
.
"European researchers on Wednesday said they had identified how the malaria parasite sticks to blood vessels, a finding that opens up new targets for drugs to protect children who are the biggest victims of the disease." Thus begins an article at RawStory.com.
=========================================================================
In India the world's biggest coal company wants to use solar panels to lower it's energy costs! This article comes from ThinkProgress.org.
This just shows there are reasons to keep working toward a better future and there is more to life than the manufactured scandals and the crazy news stories.
"European researchers on Wednesday said they had identified how the malaria parasite sticks to blood vessels, a finding that opens up new targets for drugs to protect children who are the biggest victims of the disease." Thus begins an article at RawStory.com.
=========================================================================
In India the world's biggest coal company wants to use solar panels to lower it's energy costs! This article comes from ThinkProgress.org.
This just shows there are reasons to keep working toward a better future and there is more to life than the manufactured scandals and the crazy news stories.
Update on the police action this morning.
.
I heard a bit of a local news report which said one of the men in the house was from Detroit.
Later I heard they were discovered by a real estate agent whose company was trying to sell the house. She saw their lock on the door was broken, so she went in (a brave, foolish or thoughtless thing to do) and saw the two men sleeping. She then called the police.
There have been drug dealers coming to Huntington from Detroit for many years. This appears to be another instance of that.
I heard a bit of a local news report which said one of the men in the house was from Detroit.
Later I heard they were discovered by a real estate agent whose company was trying to sell the house. She saw their lock on the door was broken, so she went in (a brave, foolish or thoughtless thing to do) and saw the two men sleeping. She then called the police.
There have been drug dealers coming to Huntington from Detroit for many years. This appears to be another instance of that.
What I Saw Today -- Guns!!!
.
Today I stuck my head out the door to check the weather (gray & humid, but not hot) and when I looked down the street I saw four police cars. Looking around I saw two officers at the front of a house and one had his hand-gun drawn. Next, some other police cars arrive and they set up a perimeter with their cars around the front of the house. Well, more and more cars kept arriving and the officers pulled out shotguns, long guns and bullet-proof vests. This was pretty serious stuff.
When the officers lined up behind their cars I realized if someone in the house fired at them the bullets would be headed toward my house. So, I took my mother downstairs to wait a while. But, nothing happened, except more and more police arrived, filling up the street with their SUVs and a big white van. There were also a couple of cars which didn't have police markings, but had the colored lights.
One officer got out of his car and hitched up his belt & yelled to ask if everybody was alright. I figured right away he was the boss. Instead of a gun he pulled out a yellow legal pad. Instead of arming himself he asked if another officer needed a gun. He said, "Do you want a long gun. I've got one. Do you want it?" He was clearly experienced at this kind of thing. I suspect he was the negotiator.
Mostly there was quiet with the officers waiting in place, guns & rifles drawn. A few cars turned in the street and had to turn around. It took a long while before the local NBC press turned up with a reporter and cameraman. They kept their distance until it was all over. Then they moved up the street to take better pictures and to interview a few people.
An officer used a bullhorn to talk to the men inside. One always presumes it's men. He even called one of the men by name! After a little talk the man came out hands up and was taken away. He looked like he had just gotten out of bed, so he was probably taken somewhat by surprise. But, there were apparently two men and the other wasn't budging.
Finally, another officer arrived and put on a helmet. I figured this had to be a SWAT guy who planned on going in the house. It didn't take long until he had about a dozen men around him with rifles and they were getting the plan. Some went around the house, some went up the hill away from the house, perhaps to find a sniper's post. Several got in position with shields to go in the front.
Very quickly a handful of them in two groups started towards the front door in their hurried short-step pace, huddled as if being 1" shorter would help. I went into the other room because it was clear that if anything violent was going to happen it would be now. Apparently they got the other man without shots fired.
Later, when all the police were relaxed and walking down the street casually (though still carrying rifles) one officer saw me and came to the door to answer questions. He said they got both men safely and nobody was hurt. He told me these men had known the previous occupants of the house and knew it was now vacant. He didn't say if they were known to be dangerous or had arrest warrants outstanding.
Now I know how the citizens of Boston may have felt when the manhunt led police through residential neighborhoods and chasing men down the street. At least we didn't have to have gunfire.
This is incredibly unusual for my neighborhood. It's usually quiet and safe. The main thing which made this possible was the availability of guns and the vacant house where these men could hide.
Would a better background check have kept them from getting guns? I don't know, but it might have.
Today I stuck my head out the door to check the weather (gray & humid, but not hot) and when I looked down the street I saw four police cars. Looking around I saw two officers at the front of a house and one had his hand-gun drawn. Next, some other police cars arrive and they set up a perimeter with their cars around the front of the house. Well, more and more cars kept arriving and the officers pulled out shotguns, long guns and bullet-proof vests. This was pretty serious stuff.
When the officers lined up behind their cars I realized if someone in the house fired at them the bullets would be headed toward my house. So, I took my mother downstairs to wait a while. But, nothing happened, except more and more police arrived, filling up the street with their SUVs and a big white van. There were also a couple of cars which didn't have police markings, but had the colored lights.
One officer got out of his car and hitched up his belt & yelled to ask if everybody was alright. I figured right away he was the boss. Instead of a gun he pulled out a yellow legal pad. Instead of arming himself he asked if another officer needed a gun. He said, "Do you want a long gun. I've got one. Do you want it?" He was clearly experienced at this kind of thing. I suspect he was the negotiator.
Mostly there was quiet with the officers waiting in place, guns & rifles drawn. A few cars turned in the street and had to turn around. It took a long while before the local NBC press turned up with a reporter and cameraman. They kept their distance until it was all over. Then they moved up the street to take better pictures and to interview a few people.
An officer used a bullhorn to talk to the men inside. One always presumes it's men. He even called one of the men by name! After a little talk the man came out hands up and was taken away. He looked like he had just gotten out of bed, so he was probably taken somewhat by surprise. But, there were apparently two men and the other wasn't budging.
Finally, another officer arrived and put on a helmet. I figured this had to be a SWAT guy who planned on going in the house. It didn't take long until he had about a dozen men around him with rifles and they were getting the plan. Some went around the house, some went up the hill away from the house, perhaps to find a sniper's post. Several got in position with shields to go in the front.
Very quickly a handful of them in two groups started towards the front door in their hurried short-step pace, huddled as if being 1" shorter would help. I went into the other room because it was clear that if anything violent was going to happen it would be now. Apparently they got the other man without shots fired.
Later, when all the police were relaxed and walking down the street casually (though still carrying rifles) one officer saw me and came to the door to answer questions. He said they got both men safely and nobody was hurt. He told me these men had known the previous occupants of the house and knew it was now vacant. He didn't say if they were known to be dangerous or had arrest warrants outstanding.
Now I know how the citizens of Boston may have felt when the manhunt led police through residential neighborhoods and chasing men down the street. At least we didn't have to have gunfire.
This is incredibly unusual for my neighborhood. It's usually quiet and safe. The main thing which made this possible was the availability of guns and the vacant house where these men could hide.
Would a better background check have kept them from getting guns? I don't know, but it might have.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
It's Amazing: Latte Art from Japan
.
Will the cat catch the coy in the cup?
Snoopy never looked so decaffeinated.
Some Things Are Looking Up
.
Time to borrow and spend on infrastructure!
Higher education borrowing has been high for a while now and for those people the debt will be with them for some time. Also, household incomes are not rising much, if at all. And, the unemployment rate for those with less than a college degree remains far too high. Thus, more infrastructure spending can help the unemployed.
Time for the big government to borrow more to spend on infrastructure!
Time for the big government to borrow more to spend on infrastructure!
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Dark Alliance: read the book, watch the movie, read about it!
.
http://www.laweekly.com/2013-05-30/news/gary-webb-jess-katz-crack/full/
Gary Webb finally gets an apology! 'Bout time.
http://www.laweekly.com/2013-05-30/news/gary-webb-jess-katz-crack/full/
Gary Webb finally gets an apology! 'Bout time.
Monsanto and 'zombie wheat' in Oregon
.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/03/monsanto-baffled-by-reappearance-of-gmo-zombie-wheat-in-oregon/
If zombies (in the movies) eat human brains, then what would 'zombie wheat' eat/destroy? If wind can blow it from one field to another, then what will protect us from this zombie? Is government action too late?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/03/monsanto-baffled-by-reappearance-of-gmo-zombie-wheat-in-oregon/
If zombies (in the movies) eat human brains, then what would 'zombie wheat' eat/destroy? If wind can blow it from one field to another, then what will protect us from this zombie? Is government action too late?
Another Teen Shoots Himself to Death
.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/03/home-schooled-teen-shoots-himself-to-death-at-michigan-school/
How would having a gun have allowed anyone to protect him from killing himself?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/03/home-schooled-teen-shoots-himself-to-death-at-michigan-school/
How would having a gun have allowed anyone to protect him from killing himself?
Monday, June 3, 2013
ChessBase's Fritz with 3rd-party playing programs failed...Now fixed.
.
This is a geeky chess post most people won't be interested in. But, when I had a problem I couldn't find the solution on the net or with the Chessbase people, so I'm putting it here if anyone else needs help in the future.
I was using 3rd-party playing programs like Houdini and Nejmet with Chessbase's Fritz interface. But, for some reason after I had used them a while they failed and I could no longer play against them. Here is how I solved the problem.
The Fritz Engine Management thought the files were still connected via a .uci profile file, but it couldn't find them when I tried to use that program. I also tried to create a new .uci profile, but then it said the profile already existed.
I had to delete the old .uci profile files, but at first couldn't find them using Search. The trick was to use Search with "See more results" and "Computer" or "Custom" to broaden the search to computer-wide. This will find the files if they exist (they did on my PC). then I highlighted the files (in "Owner/Data/App/Roaming/" where they were invisible to my file navigator) and deleted them.
Then when I restarted Rybka those 3rd-party programs weren't seen and I could create new .uci profiles for them as if I had just then loaded them on my computer.
Good luck.
This is a geeky chess post most people won't be interested in. But, when I had a problem I couldn't find the solution on the net or with the Chessbase people, so I'm putting it here if anyone else needs help in the future.
I was using 3rd-party playing programs like Houdini and Nejmet with Chessbase's Fritz interface. But, for some reason after I had used them a while they failed and I could no longer play against them. Here is how I solved the problem.
The Fritz Engine Management thought the files were still connected via a .uci profile file, but it couldn't find them when I tried to use that program. I also tried to create a new .uci profile, but then it said the profile already existed.
I had to delete the old .uci profile files, but at first couldn't find them using Search. The trick was to use Search with "See more results" and "Computer" or "Custom" to broaden the search to computer-wide. This will find the files if they exist (they did on my PC). then I highlighted the files (in "Owner/Data/App/Roaming/" where they were invisible to my file navigator) and deleted them.
Then when I restarted Rybka those 3rd-party programs weren't seen and I could create new .uci profiles for them as if I had just then loaded them on my computer.
Good luck.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
The Right on Liberty and Gun Background Checks
.
The Right (and the NRA) talk about Liberty and their need to be able to keep and bear arms for self defense. Well, in Texas there seems to be a never-ending stream of stories about children using handguns to kill one another. No handgun used in self-defense would prevent that while they have access to guns in their homes.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/15069/painting_the_red_states_red/
It appears the "Red" states may not be so conservative about background checks as the NRA and the Right would have us believe. Maybe it's the Liberty of the many to govern themselves which worries the Right. Honestly, on the Left I have to admit there are times when I fear the People will rise up and govern themselves and everyone else into oblivion. But, since I favor expanding the background checks, I'll point to their support for it in most states by large margins. Do the Right not trust the many to freely choose to use government to protect their interests?
Teddy Roosevelt speaks to that point in the following video (from YouTube.com):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYn5FJnvrZk&feature=player_embedded
The Right (and the NRA) talk about Liberty and their need to be able to keep and bear arms for self defense. Well, in Texas there seems to be a never-ending stream of stories about children using handguns to kill one another. No handgun used in self-defense would prevent that while they have access to guns in their homes.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/15069/painting_the_red_states_red/
It appears the "Red" states may not be so conservative about background checks as the NRA and the Right would have us believe. Maybe it's the Liberty of the many to govern themselves which worries the Right. Honestly, on the Left I have to admit there are times when I fear the People will rise up and govern themselves and everyone else into oblivion. But, since I favor expanding the background checks, I'll point to their support for it in most states by large margins. Do the Right not trust the many to freely choose to use government to protect their interests?
Teddy Roosevelt speaks to that point in the following video (from YouTube.com):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYn5FJnvrZk&feature=player_embedded
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)