If your opponent initiates manuevers in the center, you should initiate manuevers in one of the wings. Not the strongest relationship, but I believe an argument could be made for it.
Sounds more like chess boxing though.
Sounds more like chess boxing though.
That would be fun to see.
Chess boxing world championship between Anand and Carlsen would be good to watch :)
First law: If ther was an action met by a reaction and this reaction depended on that action for sure then then energy equals quantity
Chess boxing world championship between Anand and Carlsen would be good to watch :)
Oh, Carlsen would take the boxing side for sure. He is younger and seems to be in better shape.
I wouldn't put it past Vishy to know some dirty tricks though!
Something like this might really freak out Carlsen:
Newton's First law of Chess:
A pawn in motion continues in motion. (Passed pawns must be promoted - not just pushed !)
Why don't you ask Einstein?He was a good friend of Emmanuel Lasker.
This statement struck me as very odd. I've just finished reading a detailed account, 432 pages long, of Einstein's almost nineteen years living in Berlin (Einstein in Berlin, Thomas Levenson, 2003, Bantam Dell). Not once is Emanuel Lasker mentioned. Given that a good portion of the book is devoted to Einstein's Jewishness and how that colored life in Berlin from 1914 to 1932, one would think that a close relationship with Lasker would be germane to the theme.
While there is sufficient evidence available that they had once met, and that Einstein respected Lasker's work in mathematics, the idea that they were "good friends" seems like nothing more than internet trivia that doesn't have much basis in reality.
Can anyone offer a reference that can verify a true friendship? I'm talking on a level at least approaching Einstein's relationship with men such as Max Planck and Fritz Haber. Or hang that, even evidence that they carried on a correspondance on any kind of a regular basis.
Einsein wrote the preface to J. Hannak's bio of Lasker, "Life of a Chess Master" and stated:
I met Emanuel Lasker at the house of my old friend, Alexander Moszkowski, and came to know him well in the course of many walks in which we exchanged opinions about the most varied questions. It was a somewhat one-sided exchange, in which I received more that I gave. For it was usually more natural for this eminently productive man to shape his own thoughts than to busy himself with those of another.
Einsein wrote the preface to J. Hannak's bio of Lasker, "Life of a Chess Master" and stated:
I met Emanuel Lasker at the house of my old friend, Alexander Moszkowski, and came to know him well in the course of many walks in which we exchanged opinions about the most varied questions. It was a somewhat one-sided exchange, in which I received more that I gave. For it was usually more natural for this eminently productive man to shape his own thoughts than to busy himself with those of another.
Typical chess player...thinks he's smarter than Einstein.
Sorry, you gave me an opening ;)...
Einstines theory stated that light is the fastest moving thing their is in existence and an object travelling faster than the speed of light will only gain mass.
Actually, an object approaching the speed of light will gain mass. At the speed of light, matter has infinite mass, so...there will no gaining of mass past the speed of light in an Einstein-modelled universe ;).
I agree that they don't seem to have been close pals but rather acquainances who found each other interesting enough to spend some time together.
They say c = 186,000 miles per second (whew !).
Is there a chart or equation where you can figure out the mass of an object if it's travelling, say, 185,000 mi/sec, then 185,500 mi/sec, etc. ? Knowing the particle has oo mass at 186,000 mi/sec.
A lot of conversations with Einstein went that way, when outside the circle of physicists. It was very difficult for a layman to even begin to understand physics at the level that Einstein and his colleagues were engaged in.
Regarding that insight, it's interesting to read more in the preface:
Now I must justify myself because I never considered in detail, either in writing or in our conversations, Emanuel Lasker's critical essay on the theory of relativity. It is indeed necessary for me to say something about it here because even in his biography, which is focused on the purely human aspects, the passage which discusses the essay contains something resembling a slight reproach. Lasker's keen analytical mind had immediately clearly recognized that the central point of the whole question is that the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is a constant. It was evident to him that, if this constancy were admitted, the relative of time could not be avoided. So what was there to do? He tried to do what Alexnder, whom historians have dubbed "the Great," did when he cut the Gordian knot. Lasker's attempted solution was based on the following idea: "Nobody has any immediate knowledge of how quickly light is transmitted in a complete vacuum, for even in interstellar space there is always a minimal quantity of matter present under all circimstances and what holds there is even more applicable to the most complete vacuum created by man to the best of his ability. Therefore, who has the right to deny that its velocity in a really complete vacuum is infinite?"
To answer this argument can be expressed as follows: "It is, to be sure, true that nobody has experimental knowledge of how light is transmitted in a complete vacuum. But it is as good as impossible to formulate a reasonable theory of light according to which the velocity of light is affected by minimal traces of matter which is very significant but at the same time virtuallt independent of ther density." Before such a theory, which moreover, must harmonize with the known phenomena of optics in an almost complete vacuum, can be set up, it seems that evey physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot - if he is not satisified with the present solution. Moral: a strong mind cannot take place of delicate fingers.
But I liked Lasker's immovable independence, a rare human attribute, in which respect almost all, including intelligent people, are mediocrities. And so I let matteers stand that way.
I am glad that the reader will be able to get to know this strong and, at the same time, find and lovable personality from his sympathetic biography, but I am thankful for the hours of conversation which this ever striving, independent, simple man granted me.
E = Magnus Carlsen squared.
They say c = 186,000 miles per second (whew !).
Is there a chart or equation where you can figure out the mass of an object if it's travelling, say, 185,000 mi/sec, then 185,500 mi/sec, etc. ? Knowing the particle has oo mass at 186,000 mi/sec.
Here's a calculator.
To answer your question, though, at 185,000 miles/second, the mass of an object is still only 8.5 times normal. You have to really get close to the speed of light before it takes off. At 186282 miles/second mass is 484 times normal, and at the 186282.39 miles/second it's 3648 times normal. At 186282.3969999, it is almost a million times the mass (186282.397 miles/second would be infinite mass).
Chess players get more and more entropic as time goes by ?