Supranormal Acitivity in Chess

In another post I recommend that players of the Black pieces try to play the Universal Attack. In thirty postal games in the 1994 Golden Knights postal tournament, I played 1...g6/2...Bg7/3...e6/4...Ne7/5...O-O. Later I learned to refine the move order and avoid an early O-O. Now it appears that White can either try an immediate pawn storm against the UA when White plays 1.e4 and/or just build an annoying pawn chain that stilfles Black by the simple expedient of e4/e5 (in response to d5)/d4/c3/Na3/Nc2 which is what Fritz 8 played against me. But to show you why the UA is so dangerous to White, consider the following game I played against a postal expert: Marcuson-Moody Postal 1994.

Noticed an interesting co-incidence in the posts above:

"For the past quarter century, I have been trying to become a top-flight theoretician by spending thousands of dollars doing chess research under the guidance of GM Lev Alburt"

"My latest book has been given good reviews by GM Lev Alburt..."

I took the statements about novelties and unusual moves seriously until I looked at a couple and they looked dubious. Imagine how many people have thought of playing 4. ... d5 against the Scotch? Such an obvious idea. Why is not played? I suppose because it is not very good. One line to get an endgame advantage is this. I am not claiming that this is a clear win for white, just that that's where the chances are.

When you are comparing the Scotch to the Sicilian Defense, you are comparing apples to oranges. There is almost no real

similarity between these two systems despite their superficial similarities. Lets talk endgames. Two diagrams are presented. First:

Geesh, imagine spending 25 years trying to become a top notch theoretican only to end up with 1500 rating online and a 3. Qe2 variation in the kings gambit accepted.

The second endgame suffers from lack of theory. Believe it or not, if you search both Fine's Basic Chess Endings and Silman's endgame books

, you will not find the incredibly common endgame Rook, Bishop and pawns versus Rook, Knight and pawns. Here, for example, in this endgame, I seriously doubt any GM's would continue the game because it is so obviously equal.

Sloughterchess: Here, for example, in this endgame, I seriously doubt any GM's would continue the game because it is so obviously equal.

The opening position is obviously equal, but GMs do sometimes play it. I think you are confusing equal, and drawn. In endgames, where a tempo-here-an-opposition-there can be the difference between winning and losing, pronoucing positions unplayably equal without lots of reasearch, or lots of endgame chops (if you were Smyslov, it'd be another story) is IMO pretty empty. 

The decision to "play on" is based on a lot of factors. Stronger players will routinely play on in dead equal positions because they know the weaker player won't play endgames as well as they do; witness the number of wins in simuls where GM's consistently grind out wins from equal or inferior endgames.

The first variation, Na7/Nxc8 is very complicated and White may have a slight edge due to his ability to create and exploit connected outside passed pawns faster than Black who will probably wind up with connected center pawns, but it is clearly worth some practical tests, particularly in correspondence chess.

The objective of any theoretician, however, is not to deal with "practical" results; his only job is to provide analysis and evaluation assuming "best play" for both sides. In this case, with best play, in my opinion, it is equal. In Rook and pawn endings, it is often difficult to win endings a pawn up, and here, in the second variation, we are rapidly approaching a Rook and pawn ending with equal material where White's winning chances are problematic.

In the Narch 1995 issue of Mensa Bulletin (Communal Blind Spot Theory), I described a research technique called Intuitive Iteration. It is based on my belief that facts and logic are one way to view reality. Intuition is a separate yet distinct way to view reality. It is a "knowing" without knowing how or why. I have been able to use intuition to its fullest extent by never allowing a factual or logical conclusion to override an intuitive conclusion. They must balance each other.

Here are the steps in the process:

1)Get a gut reaction to an idea, event or anything else,

2)Bring in the facts and logic,

3)Compare and contrast the facts and logic to your intuitive finding,

4)Try to reconcile them. If they are reconciled, then you are on to something,

5)If they can't be reconciled, then throw out your intiution, the facts and the logic and start over,

6)Get a gut reaction, etc.

I had to iterate over 2000 times to find 12.Qe2 in the Berliner Gambit.

This process is, according to Einstein, the definition of insanity i.e. doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. He failed to recognize that it is also a great way to create paradigm shifts. Here, for example, I had a "gut" reaction that the Two Knight's Defense favored White because with the exception of one subvariation of the Fritz, Black never gets three tempos for the gambit

pawn. In a sharp position, this should matter.

ArKheiN, in another post, beat me five games in a row in a critical variation. But I didn't give up on my belief that I was missing something, so I went back to a critical variation "for just one more look". This is what I found.

This is the toughest way for White to gain a plus in the 8.Qf3 Be7 variation of the Two Knights' Defense. Out of maybe 10 tries by Black, Black remains a pawn down with White making slow but steady progress. Meanwhile, White is able to hamstring Black's primary source of counterplay in the endgame, his Kingside pawn majority, but the nemesis of Black, that busted pawn structure on the Queenside, never disappears

. You will note that even though White leaves a piece en prise for several moves, Black is never going to win any material here.

Where intuitive iteration is crucial is in science and technology. If as few as one scientist in 100 could use it effectively, we would see a doubling of the rate major discoveries were made in the sciences over and above what other wise would occur. It will not be a quick fix; major discoveries may take 10 years as more and more scientists have confidence they work.

Here is what the techniques have allowed me to accomplish. I am on the front cover of Infinite Energy Magazine for my article called, "Beyond Plate Tectonics: 'Plate' Dynamics, IE, v.13, issue 74, p.12-24. This is the first new school in the earth sciences in the past 40 years. I was on George Noory's program Coast to Coast for three hours describing the model. It represents my belief that to understand our planet, you must understand how it sheds heat. One reviewer in a peer-reviewed journal was highly negative, but as an aside, said if correct, it would be, "provocative and revolutionary".

What I have predicted is that if the realignment of the plate boundaries I see occurring is correct and indicates we are at the start of a "surging" episode, we may have to evacuate the entire West Coast of the U.S. within 100 years from the start of the surging episode; I have stated that, "not one masonry building in the State of California" will be left standing within 100 years of the start of a surging episode.

This article is on line.

I am on the cover of IE a second time for my article, "The Eclipse Data of 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science", IE, v.15, issue 87, p.17-25. This article spanned over 10 years of research and confirmed my suspicions that the upper echelons of astrophysics, nuclear physics, theoretical physics and geophysics involves the greatest level of corruption that the scientific community has ever seen. What is not known to the scientific community in general is that two of the greatest revolutions in physics in the 20th Century, general relativity and quantum mechanics were initially based on fraudulent data. These became "strong" models precisely because of this fraudulent data.

What is not generally recognized either is that Albert Einstein had nothing original to do with E=mc^2 except promote it. He didn't originate the equation (Jules Henri Poincare came up with it several years earlier). He tried seven times yet failed to derive it (Ohanian, "Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius". Ohanian also said that Einstein didn't include E=mc^2 in his autobiography)

Einstein didn't originate the concept of the conversion of matter into light. This was known to Sir Isaac Newton in 1704 in a book called Opticks where Newton said, "Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another." At least seven scientists before Einstein referred to the matter/light or matter/energy conversion. The equation as written is wrong. E is proportional, not equal to mc^2. According to Ajay Sharma in a book called "E=mc^2 Generalized", E is less than mc^2 for electrical, magnetic, acoustical and chemical energy, equal to mc^2 for some kinds of radioactive decay and greater than mc^2 for gamma ray bursts. According to Sharma Einstein violated the conservation of energy law because he has a candle emit a wavelength of light and gain mass at the same time.

Here is how a biologist might use intuitive iteration. Suppose a biologist had a "gut" reaction that a certain amino acid was critical to the development of a certain type of cancer. That biologist might run some tests yielding negative results. After a few failed attempts, many biologists would give up and try something else. This is where intuitive iteration kicks in. That research scientist should tweak the results, run the experiment again. If it doesn't work, leave it alone for a few months, then revisit it. If his/her intuition tells them they are missing something, they should never give up their gut reaction and keep looking for different ways to run the experiment. Many scientists would eventually establish that the particular amino acid did, indeed, have a relationship to cancer. Without II, many scientists would have given up on that avenue of research, and, more importantly, they would have discouraged other scientists from that research.

So as well as being a theoretician, you are a scientist.

Can I also ask if he though your idea was nonsense (the highly negative critic)

"One reviewer in a peer-reviewed journal was highly negative, but as an aside, said if correct, it would be, "provocative and revolutionary".

A lot of psuedo-scientific nonsense would be "provocative and revolutionary" if it was correct.  What's the ref for your "peer-reviewed" journal?

--Cystem

The reason I withdrew my paper from the Geological Society of America was because I thought I could present one part of my model, get it accepted and go from there. The Editor indicated that out of 10 potential reviewers, only one responded. Since I had submitted my paper in July 2009 & just got back my first review in February 2010, I decided to resubmit a full-length paper in another journal.

The reason the paper was given a "bad" review was that the reviewer felt that I had not justified my claims with adequate referencing. I had submitted an "idea" paper with a 1200 word limit. When I wrote my model paper in IE, I had 78 references (I had sources for all my data and theory) and six personal communications. The GSA format didn't permit me enough space to justify my theories (The references "chew" up a lot of words), so I will resubmit a full-length paper elsewhere.

This is all nonsense. First, the proportionality of energy to the mass of an object is only relevant if that object is moving. Second, of course E is less than mc^2 in the types of energy you listed, since E in the mass-energy relation equation refers to the TOTAL ENERGY of an object. Finally, E=mc^2 ESPECIALLY for gamma ray bursts; it is not greater.

I'm pretty familiar with the major Earth Sciences journals.  Even though I didn't stay in the field, I do have a Ph.D. in geochemistry, and am familiar with journal publication in earth sciences from both the submission and reviewing end.  You still don't specify which journal you're talking about (GSA has 10 journals, including GSA Bulletin and GSA Today), but it doesn't matter.   A typical review process is for a submitted paper to be assigned to an editor, who then distributes the paper to 3 potential reviewers with expertise in the appropriate field (in journals catering to short papers, such as Geology [another GSA publication], sometimes the assigned editor will provide the third review).  They almost always get 3 responses out of 3 requests.

If they had to push your paper out to 10 people to get just 1 response, then you essentially got 10 bad reviews.  Reading your nonsense on physics here, I can only imagine what your earth sciences logic is like.  Geology gets far more than its share of crackpot armchair theorists (most of them trying to make money somehow or other with scare-mongering predictions, like that guy a few years ago who made all the talk show appearances with his predicted specific date for a major New Madrid fault earthquake), who then claim they are being suppressed when their idiocy doesn't make it into legitimate journals.

Chess, physics, geology.  Is there any subject for which you don't have earth-shattering brilliant theories the rest of the world is too stupid to appreciate?  Surely you must have some great economics theories and formulas you've offered to various governments that can pull us out of our current downturn?

--Cystem

Paradigm shifts always require that the old guard die off before major new ideas can bubble to the surface. Peer-reviewed journals are punitive today. Any research scientist who sees a paper that would reduce their percentage of wealth, power and prestige is going to give an unfavorable review.

As to my article on physics, I sure hope you never aspire to become an astrophysicist. Here is what will happen to you if you speak out against the Big Bang theory: From the website, "The Suppression of Inconvenient Fact in Physics: The Big Bang Scandal". Here is the forward by Brian Martin.

"Textbooks present science as a noble pursuit for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth...They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous---especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call is suppression of intellectual dissent...

The usual patter is that some one does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representative of that group attack the critic's ideas or critic personally-by censuring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors..."

How many scientists are willing to acknowledge that they may spent half their lives pursuing a particular scientific discipline, only to find out they had wasted their lives promoting theories that are fundamentally wrong?

One source of quality control: I rely heavily on the advice of a teacher, mentor and friend who is a recipient of a Life Time Achievement Award from the Geological Society of America.

In other words, the same old paranoid explanations used by anyone whose wacko ideas can't survive examination, or are completely untestable.  I should have guessed that your article was in the rag that used to be called Cold Fusion, and that your 3-hour on-air interview was on the Coast-to-Coast AM show, which specializes in UFOs, the Hollow-Earth "theory", and conspiracies.  The Wikipedia entry for Coast-to-Coast lists as previous guests psychics, an astro-psychologist, ufologists, an End Times prophet, and that guy who claims there is a secret NASA program using anti-gravity devices found on the moon.  Yeti sightings, faces on Mars, power sources of ancient Atlantis, all past topics given air-time on Coast-to-Coast.  That show was tailor-made for you!

"I rely heavily on the advice of a teacher, mentor and friend who is a recipient of a Life Time Achievement Award from the Geological Society of America."

Yeah, and I'll bet he's real proud! 

--Cystem

All of my theories are supported by the data; I have simply interpreted the data in a new way. Have you read the paper or are you just "shooting from the lip".

Well, coast-to-coast has more credibility than that.  While they are known for bringing in people to discuss  exotic topics, they also bring in experts in physics, geology, economics, and other areas to keep them honest.  As long as you take everything with a grain of salt, you will find some shows very interesting.  There are times when I have to turn it off when somebody rediculous comes on saying, "when I was looking for aliens, I found Bigfoot." 

This does not make Sloughter more credible as he lacks credentials for us to take him seriously.

I would also like to point out that Alan Guth has successfully gone against the established belief in the Big Bang theory with the theory of Inflation, so Sloughter is wrong there as well.