Falsification - And Other Reasons Girls Kick Your Butt At Chess

I was wondering if you had disappeared from newsvine and I was tempted to just seed this from your blog.

I'm definitely thinking that I would like to play a game or two with Vesna Rozic...

I have to say this is an important article and I'm glad you wrote it. It's entirely irrelevant to your main point but I believe Hume was keen on the idea that induction is *not* a viable form of argument. And by the way from that the idea that cause and effect are not linked in any provable way, but only by induction.

You've done great things for Chess, Cash, and you've mentioned the most important philosopher of science - Popper - meaningfully in the same article. You are the master.

Disclaimer: the above may not in fact be the primary reason I enjoyed the article. Just saying.

Perhaps like me Cash, you have stumbled upon a set of obscurely conflicting principles that when applied, allow you to be @!$%# at chess but to happily sacrifice that as a mere pawn in the larger game in which you succeed to the degree that you could afford to have gorgeous women deliberately and self evidently lose to you simply because that made you happy. [Their sacrifice , not you winning, although there comes a point physically where it becomes one and the same.]

I play at Chess.com quite regularly (great site btw) and can confirm that all the women there are beautiful.

Although the one's with hot avatar's mostly have penises

PS - todays French lesson: pawn in french is pion (makes sense)

My favorite chess set has a shot glass for each piece. Needless to say when you start loosing you tend to continue.

I stopped playing chess at the age of six, because you get tired to win all the time.

We have a guy here, who has made triChess, but he was not that good with marketing and web pages.

Cash, terrific to see you back writing new material. Your seeds are great, but this is what I think of as vintage Cash -- putting science theory into terms laymen (cough) can relate to with an ease that makes us all think we might have what it takes to do science. (I said do science, not do scientists, dammit...)

The whole falsification approach sheds some light on something I've been writing about a bit lately, namely the tendency of the tenured academic community to get so super-defensive about their theories that they will attack like a pack of rabid hounds anyone with the temerity to posit any hypotheses that threaten to undermine their smug and hidebound world-view.

That stand always seemed to run counter to the intent of the scientific method to me, and I'd always felt that its principles should encourage new facts that challenge the status quo, as well as revelling in the provision of those facts as additional points of data.

This article, hot chess chicks aside, helps me to 'get' this phenomenon a lot better. I still don't like it, but it's nice to be able to put it in a science context.

One last thing. I see people mentioning the notorious chess shot-glass game, but there's an appalling lack of discussion of the merits of strip chess....somebody do something about that, willya?

The local chess club that I attended in my youth was populated by the same sort of people who now turn up at LUG meetings. Great article!

I think falsification works, there is no doubt that it means there is more relativity involved, it means eliminating white trash (white noise) even reducing the irrevocable infinity of possible universes to a void, which means that it would imply an irreducible complexity. Eventually creating a limited number of possibilities, reducing the need for optimism and increasing your chances. 

I still would like believe in infinite relativity, the importance of winning, according to falsification is not losing.  You can 'not lose' without winning...There I just used falsification.

Even though the greatest chess champion in the world has lost few games, the person who never plays has lost 0, what bearing does the chess champion have?  If they have any bearing, they are an implying an irreducibly complex infinite relativity...  Such things are Quantum, meaning the 'system probability set' exists outside of itself.