Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

saremba.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 115 posts

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#71

Post by [deleted] »

wellthisisgreat wrote: post #69
hirundo wrote: post #14

checkmate (n.) mid-14c., in chess, said of a king when it is in check and cannot escape it, from Old French eschec mat (Modern French échec et mat), which (with Spanish jaque y mate, Italian scacco-matto) is from Arabic shah mat "the king died" (see check (n.1)), which according to Barnhart is a misinterpretation of Persian mat "be astonished" as mata "to die," mat "he is dead." Hence Persian shah mat, if it is the u…

So it does mean that the chess assumes that the king is never “killed”? It always stood out to me as, what I assumed to be medieval code of conduct that required not killing kings (killing queens is ok)

[deleted]

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#72

Post by phonebucket »

Aulig wrote: post #68
phonebucket wrote: post #53

This occurred in a game of mine. I play(ed) international correspondence chess. The games can go on for years. In one of my games, my opponent sadly passed away. The game was adjuticated to a draw nine months after we had started. I did not have much personal connection with my opponent or interaction beyond our moves and an initial greeting, but it was obviously an extremely sad way for the game to end. Edit: the te…

Im not familiar with chess - why do some games last that long? Or was it multiple games?

It’s one game that lasts so long.

This was traditionally played by players exchanging moves via letters sent by post.

Naturally people use the internet more these days, but with a lot of time allowed between moves to keep the slow pace of correspondence chess.

Allowing this amount of time between moves completely changes the character of the game. There’s ample time of deep analysis and research. There’s more incentive to leave the beaten track if you need to push for a win.

It’s an extremely different game to over-the-board chess.

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#73

Post by forty »

kevinventullo wrote: post #64
lenzm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's too surprising, I doubt you can play chess at a high level with early stages of Alzheimer's.

I think what they meant was that they’d never heard of someone who was at any point in time a high level chess player eventually succumbing to Alzheimer’s.

I'm not sure what to conclude of that though. Does it mean that playing high level chess lower risks of contracting Alzheimer's or does it mean that people with low Alzheimer's risks have higher chance to become high level chess players?

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#74

Post by thaumasiotes »

forty wrote: post #73
kevinventullo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what they meant was that they’d never heard of someone who was at any point in time a high level chess player eventually succumbing to Alzheimer’s.

I'm not sure what to conclude of that though. Does it mean that playing high level chess lower risks of contracting Alzheimer's or does it mean that people with low Alzheimer's risks have higher chance to become high level chess players?

It might also mean that high-level chess players contract Alzheimer's at the normal rate, but it goes undiagnosed because their lower functioning still seems fine to everyone else.

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#76

Post by kzrdude »

wellthisisgreat wrote: post #69
hirundo wrote: post #14

checkmate (n.) mid-14c., in chess, said of a king when it is in check and cannot escape it, from Old French eschec mat (Modern French échec et mat), which (with Spanish jaque y mate, Italian scacco-matto) is from Arabic shah mat "the king died" (see check (n.1)), which according to Barnhart is a misinterpretation of Persian mat "be astonished" as mata "to die," mat "he is dead." Hence Persian shah mat, if it is the u…

So it does mean that the chess assumes that the king is never “killed”? It always stood out to me as, what I assumed to be medieval code of conduct that required not killing kings (killing queens is ok)

That it is called a queen is also cultural, in Russia, Arabic speaking countries etc it is not a queen but a called a vizier or similar (a high ranking official). Looks like the Europeans changed to queens in their interpretation of chess.

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#77

Post by tialaramex »

forty wrote: post #73
kevinventullo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what they meant was that they’d never heard of someone who was at any point in time a high level chess player eventually succumbing to Alzheimer’s.

I'm not sure what to conclude of that though. Does it mean that playing high level chess lower risks of contracting Alzheimer's or does it mean that people with low Alzheimer's risks have higher chance to become high level chess players?

We know a bunch of other intellectual capabilities have mitigating effects on mental decline, presumably because they exercise brain plasticity which will then later be called into play as things fail.

For example being multi-lingual is reported to help.

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#78

Post by iaw »

mandmandam wrote: post #24
ashtonkem wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one of them at least. Getting another match is kind of tricky with that strategy.

Tell that to Death.

Excellent reference to "The Seventh Seal" [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpKrvkussjw

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#79

Post by kgwgk »

phonebucket wrote: post #72
Aulig wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not familiar with chess - why do some games last that long? Or was it multiple games?

It’s one game that lasts so long. This was traditionally played by players exchanging moves via letters sent by post. Naturally people use the internet more these days, but with a lot of time allowed between moves to keep the slow pace of correspondence chess. Allowing this amount of time between moves completely changes the character of the game. There’s ample time of deep analysis and research. There’s more incenti…

> Allowing this amount of time between moves completely changes the character of the game. There’s ample time of deep analysis and research.

It can also end in chaos: https://maxxwolf.tripod.com/woody.html

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#80

Post by dogorman »

zepto wrote: post #75
amelius wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you implement Asimov's first law of robotics.

You still have to worry about the Zeroth law.

The Zeroth law, which permits a robot to harm individuals if it's good for the collective humanity, is certainly cause for concern. But it's scarcely the only concern. The three laws are riddled with holes which Asimov used as plot generators for his robot stories. Consider the Solarian formulation of the first law: Robots are not permitted to kill humans [where 'human' is defined to only include Solarian.]

But even when the laws haven't been tampered with, they're still filled with holes, traps, oversights, etc. The first law states "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." This law requires a robot to intervene when a human is doing something the robot considers risky. A robot operating under this rule might grab you off your skateboard, because it judges skateboarding to be risky and is required to take action to prevent that possible harm ("A robot may not [...] through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm") That inaction clause could be removed, but that introduces other problems.

Post reply on HN