A Chess Position Analysis by Me

This is the PGN (record of the chess game) for a Karpov game one position of which I recently put a little time into analyzing:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. f4 Nc6 9. Be3 Bd7 10. Nb3 a5 11. a4 Nb4 12. Bf3 Bc6 13. Nd4 g6 14. Rf2 e5 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. fxe5 dxe5 17. Qf1 Qc8 18. h3 Nd7 19. Bg4 h5 20. Bxd7 Qxd7 21. Qc4 Bh4 22.Rd2 Qe7 23. Rf1 Rfd8 24. Nb1 Qb7 25. Kh2 Kg7 26. c3 Na6 27. Re2 Rf8 28. Nd2 Bd8 29. Nf3 f6 30. Rd2 Be7 31. Qe6 Rad8 32. Rxd8 Bxd8 33. Rd1 Nb8 34. Bc5 Rh8 35. Rxd8

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=123530&page=2

Here is my analysis so far of the position from White's perspective after Black's 16th move:

Material: the dark squared Bishops have been traded off. Otherwise all there. Now, the Bishop that is the same color as you are playing (Black dark Bishop, light White Bishop) is considered a bit stronger in middlegame because it can hit two of the enemy King's castled Pawns, not just one. There's a tiny material advantage for White. With one Bishop gone on each side so is the Bishop pair; the remaining Bishop without his partner is now no better than a Knight for the most part. Tempo: White 11, Black 10. You can see the extra tempo pretty easily; White's castled Rook has been developed to e1. Space: White has 2 Pawns in the center to Black's 1. White's QN is better developed for center control than Black's. Both of White's Rooks are pressuring the center; neither of Black's Rooks are. Both sides' Bishops and Queens are pressuring the center. White has the center space advantage. He also has the Queenside space advantage and a little bit of a Kingside space advantage. He also has a tiny material advantage. White has significant advantages in all three areas (see Znosko-Borovsky's The Middle Game in Chess). Nimzowitch positional elements: no open files, no Rooks on 7th, no outposts, no Pawn chains...but White can open the d-file or form a Pawn Chain by pushing the d-Pawn. If he goes the Pawn Chain route he needs to put heavy pressure on d5, d6 and e4 - especially d5. The fact that he's already advanced the c-Pawn is a good sign for the Chain as it will be needed to attack d6 or neutralize Black's cxd6. The Pawn Chain could lead to an Outpost on d5, a brutally central and advanced position. Opening the file means White wants to get a Rook on the 7th. There's a Knight on that file which will make a fine target, slowing Black down while White prepares his artillery battery along the d file. White's tempo advantage suggests this is a good idea. White can pursue either option and maintain advantage. Undefended pieces and Pawns (white) c2, c4 (black) a7, b7 and d7. The b7 Bishop looks especially vulnerable, white White's is backed by it's King. Single defended P&P (white) a2, b2, h2, f3, g2 (black) d6, g7. These two groups of points are weak points in each position. Target the enemy's and protect your own. Now analyze what's going on on each line. See which diagonals are controlled or empty - remember dark squares are in some ways safer for both sides due to the lack of those Bishops. Look at what files and ranks major pieces are on. Notice that both of White's Rooks can be Rook lifted to the 3rd Rank, while neither of Black's can be. Notice that the White Queen and a Black Rook are on C; a Black Queen and White Rook are on e. A white Rook is on d, and a Black one on f. All Rooks are on back Ranks, both Queens on their second Rank. Notice the White Queen aiming at the Black King's position. Both Bishops struggle over the long light diagonal. OK I'm bored now. Notice I've done zero tactical analysis.

At this point, I'm leaning toward dxe5 with a view to getting a Rook on d7 followed by an attack on the castled King. The Pawn chain situation could be made really annoying if Black plays b4.

Leadership, Management, Strategy and Tactics 1/16/10 Revision

Leadership is doing the right thing; management is doing things right. - Proverb

"Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do, strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do” – Savielly Tartakower

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu, The art of War

"Strategy requires thought, tactics require observation." - Max Euwe

Thought Terminating Cliches 4/3/10 Revision

This space is dedicated to the exploration of the concept of the Thought Terminating Cliche.

=======

From a recent thread:

John Calvin (A.D. 1509 - 1654) "In considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step beyond the confines of God's Word."

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=123131

The term [thought terminating cliche] was popularized by Robert Jay Lifton in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. Lifton said, “The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.” ...Thought-terminating clichés are also present in religious discourse in order to define a clear border between good and evil, holiness and sacrilege, and other polar opposites. Examples: "God has a plan and a purpose." "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away." Job 1:21 "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" (opposing same-sex marriage) "God works in mysterious ways." "Forgive and forget." "That's not Biblical." "Jesus loves you." (ignoratio elenchi) "I'll pray for you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

Is Calvin's statement an encouragement to use thought terminating cliches to keep oneself from thinking?

EDIT - also from Wiki The religious or semi-religious ideas of cults, heretics, and infidels are also often used as thought-terminating clichés, e.g. "Do not listen to him, he is an infidel"

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=123226

========

EDIT 4/3/10 See also

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

Dimensions 12/26/09 Revision

This space is dedicated to the investigation of this question:

How exactly are these definitions of "dimension" related and different?

Mathematics. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.

Physics. A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dimension

Palynka at redhotpawn.com responded:

A mathematical space is a bit of a malleable concept. Intuitively, you can see it as representing all the possible combinations of certain characteristics of objects. The Euclidean space, for example, is a way of representing the three "dimensions" of height, length and width of certain objects. However, in mathematics, we say this space has dimension 3 because you need three independent coordinates to specify a point in that space. But if the objects have other characteristics that you want to represent and you can represent them by a number, then you can add additional coordinates. For example, you may want to represent colour so you might add another coordinate representing wavelength values. You'll then have a space of dimension 4 and so on if you want to add more information to the representation. A mathematical space is then something much more general than our conventional view of "space" and can be used to represent virtually anything measurable. For example, you have 1000 stocks for which you have information about mean return and variance over 20 years. You can then represent these stocks on a mean-variance space which is then of dimension 2. Sometimes "dimension" is used to mean the space defined by each one of the measured characteristics (i.e. "height is one dimension, length is another and width is the third". This is used often, although technically incorrect from a purist mathematical sense. It seems this is close to how you describe dimension in physics, but since I'm not a physicist maybe someone else might comment.

My next post:

Is there something which differentiates between the type of dimension that are linear bases of a vector space (and thus orthogonal) and something like mass or volume?

Palynka's response:

I think they are very different. Mass and volume have an existence beyond mathematics, which is simply a language. One which is operationally incredibly efficient, but basically still just syntax. You can represent mass and volume in mathematical spaces, though. For example, using a pair of orthogonal vectors then any point in that space will represent an unique combination of mass and volume. But note that any 2 orthogonal vectors can be used for this representation. So you can have an infinity of mathematical spaces representing the same 2 dimensions (physics sense). You could also add another orthogonal vector representing another dimension (physics sense) and you would now have a mathematical space with dimension equal to 3 (math sense). So they are very different concepts. It's hard to think what they have in common...

ATY:

The problem is that linear bases do not come to an end, while mass cannot go below 0. In addition there is inertia along spacial dimensions, but not along mass.

Palynka:

That's not correct. The scalars need not be the real numbers and can be any set (the positive reals, for example). Also, nothing prevents you from representing something by a subspace in a more general space. For example, the image of a function represented in the real plane is a subspace of the real plane, yet it's easier for us to visualize it as a curve in the real plane, despite it being only a one dimensional object (although sometimes axes are useful to represent domain and codomain). Representing an additional concept like inertia would require adding an additional coordinate. If you want to add time, add another dimension, etc. Like I said, mathematical spaces (not just vector spaces) are very malleable concepts and can be used to represent virtually any set. So mass, length, width, etc. have as much in common with mathematical spaces as GDP growth and inflation, in the sense that we can measure these concepts and map them into coordinates. That's all there is to it.

Aetherial:

i think ultimately what [Palynka is] saying (if i understand correctly) is that mathematical spaces and mathematical "dimensions" are much more adaptable concepts than the physics "physically-based" conception of a dimension (i.e. a physically measured quantity). in fact, i think that it is exactly that versatility and "malleable" nature, as you put it, that differentiates it from the definition of a dimension in physics. in a sense, the physics-version of a dimension is a more specific subset of the mathematical "coordinate" in a space that is describing physical quantities. coordinate systems and mathematical spaces can be used as the mathematical language with which to describe the more limiting physics conception of a dimension.

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=123106&page=1#post_2324195

Video Games (3/8/11 Revision)

Nerd time!

Every time I play a Halo game (no, I haven't tried Halo 3 yet) I am overcome with an urge to write an analysis of the different weapons and their relative usefulnesses. Now that I have a blog I might as well indulge. I've been playing a lot of Halo 2 recently.

In the game Halo 2, there are the following weapons. I rate them on a scale of 1 (near useless) to 10 (best weapon in game). I also describe their ideal range(s): Short, Medium or Long range and whether it's one handed or not (enabling dual wielding).

The Range I list is not a hardcoded number. That kind of Range exists too. I know because I've used the Scorpion tank to repeatedly blanket areas with high explosive and the inhabitants of that area never noticed. The Range I describe is more of a subjective Range. Short Range is melee range and just out of it. Medium Range is when you're trading projectiles from fairly close up, and Long Range is sniping range.


Brute Shot: Value - 10/10, Short and Medium range, two handed This is my favorite weapon in the game. It is effectively a semiautomatic grenade launcher with a bayonet. The grenades seem to be fairly small; if relative effects are a good indication, they are nothing like the 40mm grenades launched from the M203 in America's Army. Perhaps they are 20-30mm, allowing larger magazines but a weaker effect. It takes about 3 of these to take out a Brute or Elite using direct shots, and the explosion is fairly small and won't even kill weak units in one shot most of the time. A 40mm grenade in AA is more like the hand grenades used in both games than the Brute Shot projectiles; a one shot explosive killer, with only four or less able to be carried. All that being said it's a Brutal (wocka wocka wocka!) weapon. One grenade may not take out a charging Brute or Elite but the sheer firepower of this thing will stop it before your magazine is empty (usually 2-3 shots needed). The explosion can disruptfor a closely packed group of enemies. As a semi-auto with explosive rounds, easily carried spare ammo and no overheating problems it can be rapid fired to compensate for the smallish size of the grenades. The blade on the butt is wonderful; it combines the power of the Energy Sword (or at least most of it) with a powerful projectile weapon. Fists are weak, and the Energy Sword denies you a projectile attack while wielding it. This is an ideal compromise. The Brute shot grenades are fairly slow, so can be dodged at long range, but they wreak havok at medium range! They also arc in flight so aiming them can be tough at longer ranges. As a Brute weapon it's much more like human weapons than most Covenant weapons; it is stealthy, can be reloaded and does not overheat. Any doubts I've had about this weapon (which were few) were silenced on a level in which my force of Elites and Hunters rush out of a door onto a bridge. On a parallel bridge a medium distance away the Brutes were entrenched. In the ensuing battle I watched over and over again how the barrage of grenades hammered away at the Hunters, which I have always had immense respect for. The Brute Shot with a fairly small number of shots will drop Hunters reliably without necessarily hitting the soft spots directly (I think). I replayed this battle several times, both because of death and because it's a fun battle. The Hunters stood no chance.


Covenant Carbine: value - 5/10, medium and long range, two handed

This weapon "feels" like an AR-15, the civilian semi automatic version of the M16 with it's small, high velocity bullets (I base this on the America's Army game). While you'd think this would give it more value than I gave it, somehow it never really seems that useful to me; it's a second rate equivalent of several different, more specialized weapons.

In the hands of the enemy it's actually fairly scary, but not overly so. The computer enemy seems to use it best as a midrange weapon, rapid firing it accurately.

In the hands of the player it seems to be better suited to long range sniping. There are many midrange weapons that are better than this, and it's not too unreasonable to go with a Close/Long Range weapon combo like an Energy Sword and Beam Rifle if they are available. Either option beats using one of these instead of a dedicated sharpshooter rifle when you can get one. The scope is only 2x or so and feels very tunnel visiony. However, these weapons are more common than either of those rifles for a very logical reason.

The Covenant Carbine is a basic infantry rifle for the medium ranked Covenant infantry. The peons can't use this and the Elites and Brutes usually like to fight closer up than Long range. This makes a fair compromise. It seems very much like the alien equivalent of an M4 Carbine without burst mode.

The projectile is pretty high velocity and while it leaves behind a glowing streak the streak is less bright and garish than many others, making this moderately stealthy. The bullet also hits pretty hard which to me was unexpected; the understated visual effects of the projectile led me to assume it was weak. However it's most effective on the head or when the opponent is standing still so you can get several shots into him. The fact that it's reloadable is nice, but this matters less for a weapon you plan to trade away when something better is available.

Pistol: value - 1/10, medium range, one handed

A human basic sidearm. This is not the heavy scoped pistol of Halo: CE; that weapon does not exist in Halo 2 as far as I know. This appears to be a 9mm semiautomatic sidearm - you know, the kind that's falling out a favor as a weapon of war in the beginning of the second millenium of the common era.

Since you can only carry two weapons besides your fists and eight grenades, and there are weapons lying around is profusion almost everywhere, I cannot think of any reason to ever use this unless you need to conserve ammo.

If you're in that situation you're probably dead due to incompetance, which is why this weapon is being phased out several centuries before this game is set. Apparently it's been reintroduced in the Space Marines. Even when the Flood has one I'm glad. I'd rather they take pistol shots at me than run up and rip me a new one with those claws.

It does have the advantages of being visually stealthy and having high velocity ammunition. Thus it could serve as a low end sniper weapon in a way that the Plasma Pistol cannot. It's quite capable of Grunt killing, but other than that is not very effective.

It is entertaining to hunt Grunts while evading their Elite bodyguards on Legendary with the Pistol. One shot to the face will drop any Grunt I think.


Plasma Pistol: value - 2/10, medium range, one handed

This is the basic firearm of the low class Covenant forces; Grunts, Drones and Jackals. It is a semi automatic energy pistol, in some ways roughly equivalent to the human Pistol.

As with most Halo energy weapons, the projectiles coming from this weapon are slow and very visible, as is the weapon itself. Thus the projectiles can be easily dodged at long range and it's obvious where the shooter is firing from; the shooter is even obvious when not firing due to the garish glowy spots on the weapon. When in the hands of the enemy, this is a severe disadvantage but this factor is less significant in the campaign to some extent when the player or his allies carry are using it, as the AI enemies don't always respond intelligently when under long range energy fire; that is, they don't always seem to know where the attacks are coming from. I noticed this recently while sniping at a Flood Combat Form with one of these. However when the enemy has one of these (or any Covenant weapon, really) they can be spotted by the player a mile away. This is why I fear the Combat Forms that come from Human stock more than Covenant; Covenant forces and Combat Forms created from them for the most part lack stealth. I can easily lose track of units carrying human weapons, but never the glowing units or those with glowing weapons.

As a semi-auto weapon without a scope and slow projectiles it's hard to really accomplish much with this thing. It seems to be more powerful than the Pistol, though I'm not sure about that. As an energy weapon it seems to be pretty good at taking down those force fields the Covenant love so much - I mean the glowing solid ones, not the Elite and Spartan shields (that I know of). In an emergency it can take down weaker enemies at medium range ok, but overall I find this weapon pretty useless; just not quite as useless as the Human pistol.

One of the reasons for this is the alternate attack this weapon has. The charged up guided energy bolt attack is very interesting. First of all it's projectile and the mechanism of firing the weapon are very original compared to some of the other weapons. This attack hits really hard (takes down full shields) and is guided. It also looks a lot like the Fuel Rod Cannon projectiles which is very powerful psychologically. This attack is apparently very effective in multiplayer when combined with a second weapon for the killshot. Unfortunately it's really slow both to fire and in flight; even slower than the standard projectiles, and seemingly with less range - I was able to snipe Combat Forms with the standard shots but the charged up bolt did nothing to them at the same range (despite seemingly direct hits).

An annoying weakness of this weapon, like some others, is the fact that it overheats, preventing heavy sustained fire. It also cannot be reloaded.

Overall, the main reason I give this weapon any more credit than the Pistol, however, is the fact that the low end Covenenat forces use it quite effectively. The Jackals combine it well with the force field Shield they carry, and the even the very low quality Grunts use it adequately at medium range. In the hands of Drones it can be a nightmare; not because it's a great weapon for flyers, but simply because they are too weak to carry anything else into the air I think. However these pale in comparison to the other flying infantry, the Elite Rangers with Plasma Rifles, demonstrating it's value as a light, cheap weapon for Covenant forces, not a quality weapon when compared to the others.


Plasma Rifle: value - 5/10, medium range, one handed

This is a flexible weapon at medium range. It's fully automatic but due to overheating problems it is effectively limited to bursts. The plasma projectiles are slow and moderately powerful.

While Grunts can use it, it seems to be considered too high status to allow them to have under most circumstances. This surprises me, because they often use the more valuable (in my mind) Needle Gun (I can't remember if that's the right name - the thing with the purple guided projectiles).

I'm a bit underwhelmed by it in either my hands or enemy hands except under one specific circumstance; when high ranking Elites dual wield them. I can't do it very effectively but the AI seems very skilled. The firepower of two of these things together is brutal.

It's not scoped and seems more like the SMG than the Battle Rifle to me. However it seems to hit harder than the SMG but has the overheating problem and slow, glowing ammo.

Battle Rifle
Submachine Gun
Shotgun
Energy Sword
Rocket Launcher
Fuel Rod Cannon
Beam Rifle
Needle Gun
Sniper Rifle
Fists
Fragmentation Grenades
Plasma Grenades/Flares

***************************

Radical Aces
http://www.radicalplay.com/radicalaces/

Radical Aces is a free Flash game portraying a futuristic battle over Mars between you and your stable of trusty drone aircraft. The enemy drones are sent by the Zappor, enemy aliens from another solar system who have drained their planet dry of resources.

The game is pretty good for a Flash game. I give it an 8 out of 10. There is also a sequel in which the aircraft are given strange and intriguing powers. I have played both. The sequel is now pay-to-play past level 12 or so. In both games the drone fighters have the ability to super-accelerate a certain number of times before needing a recharge, and the recharge and repairs are attained by flying through a hoop on the ground at the end of your landing strip.

Weapons for all units seem to be some sort of slow moving guided plasma cannon. Ammunition is unlimited.

In the original, you have five drone aircraft:

Silver Legend, Destroyer, Dragon Bird, Hammerhead and Sky Bullet, listed in order of top speed.

Silver Legend seems to be a near-obsolete aircraft. It can hyperjump 4 times. It fires very small Twinkie like bolts in a straight, narrow stream. It's slow and unimpressive in an way.

Max Speed - very low (76)
Firepower - medium
Tolerance - low
Turning - medium
Elevation - medium

Destroyer is a heavy hitting armored craft that reminds me of the A-10 Warthog. It has 3 hyperjumps. It's cannon is very strong and fires wide violet bolts.

Max Speed - low
Firepower - high
Tolerance - high
Turning - high
Elevation - medium

Dragon Bird has two cannons - one on the end of each wingtip. This seems to me to increase accuracy but I am uncertain. They fire white bolts that look like ice cubes.

Max Speed - medium
Firepower - medium
Tolerance - medium
Turning - medium
Elevation - medium

Hammerhead has the odd distinction of being able to fly higher than any other aircraft. It is an armored interceptor like aircraft, capable of duking it out with most aerial opposition. It can jump 5 times. It's plasma cannon fires green bolts that look like dollar bills.

Max Speed - high
Firepower - medium
Tolerance - medium
Turning - low
Elevation - high

Sky Bullet is in my opinion the best aircraft in the game. It is like an F-15, king of the skies. It's cannon hits hard and the small white or yellow plasma bolts move very quickly. It has an astounding 7 jumps but is very fragile. It is best used as a jouster, or interceptor, moving in quickly firing it's cannon, and as soon as counterfire begins to arrive using it's hyperleap to escape, only to come around for another pass.

Max Speed - very high
Firepower - high
Tolerance - low
Turning - low
Elevation - medium

ENEMY UNITS

The first enemy encountered are Zonich "Zany" light hovertanks. They have dual cannons that fire Twinkie like projectiles at targets near the ground. They can levitate; that is, they fall very slowly. They are easily destroyed with a concentrated burst of plasma cannon. They also have a pair of small ear-like fins giving them a comical appearance (to me anyway).

Next, the E-Daco "Taco" fighters arrive. These are capable multirole fighters with a pair of plasma cannons firing green bolts that remind me of cilantro (to go with the taco theme). Like the Zany light tanks, they are capable but easily destroyed.

When they come together as the first combined arms force encountered, the Zany tanks make the easiest targets, but they are also unable to attack aircraft that are at altitude and so are less dangerous than the Tacos. Taking out hostile aircraft is the top priority.

Following these initial light forces, a heavier aircraft is encountered, called the Festa Worm "Fiesta Worm". It is slow, heavily armored but quite agile. It fires ice cube bolts and looks something like the F-117 Nighthawk stealth bomber. I prefer to think of it like an Su-25; an armored attack plane similar to the Destroyer. Due to it's heavy armor other targets, like the Taco fighters, are better to focus on first.

Level 6 has all three bots already encountered; Tacos, Zanies and Fiesta Worms in roughly equal proportions. Tacos should be taken out first because they can follow you anywhere and are easy to destroy.

A note on collisions: when aircraft collide, which happens fairly often, one will generally survive and the other will be destroyed. In my experience the first two aircraft encountered will lose in a collision with most player aircraft. However the next one, the Ghost, generally wins when I run into them with Sky Bullet.

I fear the Contras Ghosts. They look like X-wings and are deadly. I think of them as something like an Su-27; a heavy air superiority aircraft. They fire ice cube like projectiles. I never beat them with anything but Sky Bullet or less often Hammerhead. And, as I mentioned, they will try to ram you and if successful you will die.

Next come heavier tanks; the Matlos. They are like the Zanies but more armored. They have dual ice cube cannons.