Columns | December 26, 2009 21:49

Carlsen in TIME and the art of good journalism

TIME interviews Magnus CarlsenYesterday TIME featured a short interview with the new world's new number 1 Magnus Carlsen. Despite the fact that there were only ten questions with relatively short answers, I liked it so much that it got me thinking about chess journalism in general. Why can't interviews with chess players always be this sharp?

The main reason why I thought the interview was so good is that it's got something for everyone: both complete chess ignorants, casual chess enthusiasts and hardcore chess fans  can probably relate to it. The first few questions could, I guss, be called rather obvious to dyed-in-the-wool chess lovers but that would be a wrong interpretation. In fact, it's not so easy to ask personal questions to chess players that are still relevant to their chess profession.

All too often, personal questions to chess pros are of the type 'What's your favourite colour' or 'Do you get a lot of attention from girls?'. Well, I'm sorry, but I couldn't care less! On the other hand, it is interesting (at least to me) to realize Carlsen, too, gets a lot of 'stupid' questions all the time - just like the rest of us chess amateurs - and it's good to hear he deals with them in a sensible way. Next time someone asks me how many moves I can think ahead, I, too, may answer that it's the evaluation that counts most.  

Actually, a good interview is made not only by the journalist but also by the person being interviewed, and Carlsen does a fine job in TIME. He clearly had to be very brief in his answers, but he still manages to mention a few relevant things, such as the complexity of chess intuition and the fact that he isn't afraid computers will kill human imagination in chess. This last point, especially, is worth thinking about. Nigel Short apparently fears computers will take away the mystery of chess - this argument is reminiscent of Keats' famous complaint about natural philosophy (i.e. science) in his poem Lamia (1819):

Philosophy will clip an angel’s wings,

Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,

Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine—

Unweave a rainbow...

This complaint inspired the biologist Richard Dawkins to write an entire book called Unweaving the Rainbow, in which he argued that the more we understand of nature, the more - not less - we should be amazed and awed by it. Magnus Carlsen seems to hold the same opinion when he says he's not afraid computers will 'leave no room for imagination'. And he's quite right, in my view. The more computers show us how wrong we were before, the more fascinating our little game will surely become.

Equally insightful are his answer to the question whether he sees chess as a combat or as an art (this question should be asked more often to chess players anyway - it tells a lot about how they think about their work) and his explanation - or more accurately: his lack of explanation -  for why there are so few women in super-grandmaster chess. He dismisses pseudo-pschygology and even refutes it with an example from his own experience. Finally, he admits not being obsessed by chess - and all this in a Q & A of just ten questions. I'm impressed. Why can't all chess journalism be like that? And why can't all chess players answer so clearly to chess questions? Let's hope in 2010 we'll see more of it.

Arne Moll's picture
Author: Arne Moll

Chess.com

Comments

test's picture

I like Arne Moll because he is not afraid to take the road less traveled. :) He starts thinking when everybody else stops thinking.
Then again, maybe he was just being disingenuously sarcastic, you never know. ;)

Howard Goldowsky's picture

It's about time we stop placing NIC on a pedestal. It's about time we realize how poorly the supposedly best chess magazine actually does journalism. (Besides lame questions like "What is your favorite color?" NIC's English grammar and punctuation are horrible. Good work, Arne. -Howard

Clifford's picture

After their 25th anniversary issue and their Fischer tribute issue, it's hard not to put New in Chess on a pedestal , even if some small parts like 'Just Checking' may miss the mark. Is there a comparable chess magazine in the world?

Daaim Shabazz's picture

I do respect Howard Goldowsky and his committment to journalism, but I will say that NIC has a good presentation and some decent game coverage. The journalism is a bit uneven... some classic, some a bit cheesy. However, I have learned over the years that the approach to journalism is very different in chess. I have met almost all of the chess journalists and photographers and have learned from all. However, I have also learned that chess has a unique element that requires a different style.

We have seen so many non-chess journalists get it wrong so often that many chess-journalists may over-compensate to undo the damage done by these articles. I do believe we have enough diversity of styles in the chess world of journalist to reach a critical mass and to capture the essence of news and events. TIME's article didn't break any ground, but I do appreciate the way Carlsen addressed the questions. A few years back, Carlsen gave terrible interviews with long pauses, jumbled phrases and laconic answers. He has now matured and this article put him in a good light.

I did cringe at the "how many moves..." question and the idea that a chess player is 40,000 times smarter merely because he's good at chess. Carlsen answers this questions in classic fashion.

Rothschild's picture

@P.Doggers. Criticizing cliché chess questions in a TIME magazine interview is a bit strange. They do not target only "chess readers". NIC has no excuse for asking them time and again, yet they do. That is worth criticizing. Sure enough, time is needed (no pun intended) to get a good interview, but if you are a chess journalist and feel like you didn't get enough time, then maybe it's not worth publishing at all?

BTW. NIC is, imho, the best chess magazine out there. Still, it has room for improvement when it comes to journalistic quality.

@Clifford:I seriously don't believe this strategy is necessary. These people (the chess elite) are far from being close to someone like Tiger Woods. They are in many ways in need of attention for sponsorships etc. Woods can pretty much play golf and have NIKE do his promoting - not a situation ANY chess player is even remotely familiar with (not since Kasparov, anyway).

If you can't leave out the "whats your favourite colour?"-questions bc you are afraid to upset the delicate genius (G. Costanza), then maybe interviews should be done by someone else.

Castro's picture

Hey! Just imagine: The comments seccion of the "Computer Skeptic" column remained closed!
Who'd guess that? ;-)

Castro's picture

@Arne

Well, it's a pity there remains unanswered a most mistaken, unfair, prejudiced, misleading and (why not use your idea?) "pedantic" comment!
And a pity you remain satisfied with such situations. I use to accept I'm wrong, but not you :-(

The first decade

after 2000 years, I repeat: AFTER 2000 years
(accepted as well counted, even if they weren't),

is concluded AFTER 10 more years have passed.

Capisce?

BTW, be careful! One of this days you'll be surfing Wikipedia to tell which side is your left! :-)

Michael X Tractor's picture

"Why can’t interviews with chess players always be this sharp?"

Perhaps because to most of the dumbed-down morons who inhabit the chess world, a "journalist" is a man whose entire ability consists in knowing which end of a video camera to stick up some GM's backside, moments after he has finished his game. No names, no pack drill, and all that.

Peter Doggers's picture

Funny, I thought it was OK, but I was't impressed that much - for that too many cliche subjects. And the obligatory 'How many moves ahead can you calculate on the chess board?' - pffffff.

Nonationalism's picture

True, Peter, but its Time, not New in Chess, and even in NIC they ask stuff like whats your favorite color...

Peter Doggers's picture

@Nonationalism Only in the special Q&A column on the last page - not in the regular interviews.

@Michael X Tractor It's hard not to take that one personally. All I can say it that I'm often as unprepared for a good interview as the player, and more importantly, it takes a lot to get everything right - sound, light, camera, et cetera. I often feel this is too much to concentrate on and at the same time ask decent questions. In that sense it's not a fair comparison, this TIME piece with a brief video interview. The TIME journo wasn't watching the last phase of a game, until the result was shown on the DGT screen, to rush to the corridor with camera and mic, hoping to catch the player, who often already has his coat on and is close to the exit door. No, he could comfortably sit down with Carlsen and probably had at least an hour to get everything right. A better comparison would be my interview with Shirov - that was much better than average because we had enough time.

Nonationalism's picture

Well this was a QA too, no? By the way, Peter you do a fine job. Keep up the good work!

Peter Doggers's picture

Yes, both this TIME piece and the last-page interviews in NIC are meant to be short Q&A's. So I guess my point is: only if TIME had dedicated a few pages to Carlsen we could have seen how good their journalism really is...

Nonationalism's picture

Agreed, though writing a nice QA can also be a sign of good journalism. Or should be, at least.

CAL|Daniel's picture

I agree with you Peter.

Jo's picture

While were dealing with media coverage of chess - here's an article from yesterdays NY times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/us/25ladychess.html?em

Silken's picture

Uhm... debating gender differences in mind sports is NOT "pseudo-psychology". There are lots of interesting differences in the male and female brain, let alone the hormonal system. Spatial processing, Risk Seeking Behavior and Operant Conditioning in Competitive Settings are fields which are highly relevant in chess and while there is no final conclusion whether men have an edge in any of them, it would be way too simple to dismiss the idea a priori.

That said, I do believe that the sociological factors are outweighing the psychological ones by far. To my mind, the most important reason for the predominance of male grandmasters is men's greater focus - or disposition to strive for expertise in a single field of knowledge while neglecting the rest. This may be my subjective nonempirical opinion, but I credit it with greater plausibility than "maternal instincts"...

Padraig Hogan's picture

"it would be way too simple to dismiss the idea a priori"

Way too simple? Actually it is the EXACT OPPOSITE.

It would be way too complicated to try to give the ideas any credence at all. You'd be talking about the most negligable factors of all.

Unless you have the locations of practically every atom in the brain or at least have some extremely good experiments that prove that females are more likely to move in a certain way in a certain position (and I am extremely doubtful you would find that), you have NOTHING.

Give me something! And if you have nothing, you have pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism and pseudotheories.

Umm.. debating it is absolutely pseudopsychology because guess what? It's ALL MADE UP BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T ANYTHING TO PROVE IT WHATSOEVER. THAT'S what a simplistic mind does.

Amos's picture

Here is how not to do interviews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWYvl_AIIbU

As you can see, chess journalism is not in that bad a shape :)

Silken's picture

Anyone has christmas leftovers for me? I'm gonna go feed the troll...

I will ignore your request to provide a complete map for the male/female brain or prediction of male/female moves. Unfortunately, the brain is not perfectly mapped (yet) and as far as I know, mind-reading is still in development, too. I only have feeble stabs at the elusive truth, like:

Mehta et al, 2008 (http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2008-06135-011&CF...): Testosterone (male sexual hormone) increases the chance that a behaviour that has previously been successful in establishing dominance is repeated. This learning effect could or could not help in chess but it IS something to explore further.

Voyer et al, 1995 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7724690): Unfortunately, the most recent meta-analysis is not peer-reviewed yet, so you have to do with this one. Their extent is debatable but the existence of sex differences in spatial ability is not.

Harris & Jenkins, 2006 (http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06016.pdf): I don't know if risk assessment or risk seeking is any help in chess (or aggressive chess even) - but the connection between risk seeking and sex is pretty clear.

Of course it is not clear at all whether these results have anything to do with chess - probably because psychologists have yet to determine any factor that predicts chess performance. Also, it is unlikely that a lot of variance will be attributed to a single factor (as I have already stated in my last post). But I find it highly appalling that hypotheses are labelled "pseudoscience" just because there is no conclusive evidence in either direction yet. Mr. Moll (who I trust to be highly competent apart from that) even states that an anecdote could "refute" a hypothesis. This is NOT how science works. If you don't like a hypothesis, then you can state just that. But unless you can refute it with scientific evidence or put up a theory that explains the situation better, you will have to accept its existence. I'll be glad to continue the debate as long as you provide either.

Your move.

Silken's picture

Sorry for the inconvenience: Apparently, two of the links above don't work. This is the route to the abstracts:

For Voyer et al: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1995-20087-001&CF...

For Harris & Jenkins: http://journal.sjdm.org/06016/jdm06016.htm

Arne Moll's picture

@ Howard Goldowsky, I should clarify that I have absolutely nothing against NIC and that this column was not directed against them at all. I think they produce excellent products and that their long interviews are usually of a good standard, if perhaps sometimes a bit uncritical. That said, questions such as 'what's your favourite movie' are not my cup of tea.

Howard Goldowsky's picture

Chess-wise, NIC is great. But as an example of good journalism, there is something to be desired. This is my point. As journalism goes, TIME is standard fare, so Arne pointed out how much below even average magazines, from a journalistic point of view, NIC is.

Clifford's picture

Have you considered that New in Chess might not be so good chess-wise if it were stronger journalistically? If NiC had asked the really hard questions of Kasparov or Topalov, or even just expose and condemn bad behaviour by top players, they probably wouldn't get annotated games or columns from them in future. So there is a trade-off, and NiC have chosen to have outstanding chess content rather than hard-hitting interviews. It's a valid choice.

Arne Moll's picture

You're probably right, Clifford. Still, you can ask yourself: does Nature makes such choices, too? The New York Times? Are professional chess players really such touchy personalities that each time a confronting question is asked, they refuse further contact? That's hardly a compliment for the profession.

Clifford's picture

The elite in the chess world are a much smaller group than the top scientists or the world of the NYT. Compare, perhaps, the golf world, where no golf journal was willing to break the Tiger Woods story , even though the allegations against Woods were known but ignored. Or the media group that withheld the Woods story in exchange for an exclusive cover story and interview.
What NiC is doing - going soft on the big stars to ensure access in the future - is not so unusual in the celebrity world. Stars may also demand to see and sometimes veto interviews with them before publication. It's not 'ideal' journalism to agree, but it happens all the time.

FP's picture

"It's too hard to predict the future, but right now I don’t see myself going mad."

Mags got a great sense of humor!

chess's picture

I want see a match between Super gm like Carslen, Anand, Topalov or Ivantchuk against rybka or other chess engine. Then we could see Carslens real imagination:)

Castro's picture

Arne,

Closing the comments on "computer skeptic" article after answering my comment in that way (and by the way, with a question!) really has some coherence to it!
You're becoming more and more uncapable of 1. reasoning and 2. considering others, in certain domains!

Arne Moll's picture

Don't jump to conclusions, Castro; I have absolutely no idea why the comments are closed to that post. As you no doubt know, closing comments is not our policy so I don't understand how you can think we're doing it now. Peter will solve it I'm sure.

Castro's picture

Forgive me, indeed I jumped into that conclusion, it's really an incredible coincidence someone else (how many are you guys??) did that closing, and in such short time after your comment!
As for the policy of closing, I don't know it exactely, certainly it happens no so often, but I've seen it once or twice.
As for "jumping into conclusions" in general: We're human, everyone of us do it once and a while, but maybe you should pay a special attention on that! :-)
A decade is ANY period of 10 years (of course). The problem is you mentioned "The first decade".
Well, enough off-topic here!
And again, forgive my rushed judgement on closing threads.

Rini Luyks's picture

I think Carlsen did well.
At last some positive publicity about top chess in a non-chess top magazine, I can´t remember the last time this happened.
I also liked to read the "Psychology of Chess"-essay (link given in the interview) from september 1972, really a TIME-document!
Comparison with the 10 Q&A "interviews" in New in Chess (which I don't like at all) looks completely off the mark to me, considering the difference in target audiences. And in a Dutch magazine a "nosey" column can't be that much of a surprise, when you look at the amount of Dutch magazines and tv-programs (exported to the whole world), based on the "need to nose" into other people's personal lives :).
Off topic: Congratulations to New in Chess magazine for its Silver Jubilee (25 years), it´s a great magazine and over the years I had the pleasure to send several letters to Magazine and Yearbook as an enthusiastic reader/amateur.
Only one of them was a letter of disapproval (not so bad as an average...): it was about the ignominious article about the Israeli chess master / specialist intelligent bomb manufacturer Yaacov Bleiman (NIC 2005/2) by Yochanan Afek.
I'm still waiting for the article about an Arab terrorist chess master!
But I suppose this kind of bias is also typically Dutch...(this is a cynical remark, I know, especially coming from a Dutchman...).

Arne Moll's picture

As said, Castro, it's a technical issue.

Arne Moll's picture

Castro, all I can say is read this article by Douglas Adams (one of my heroes), and I hope you're cured for good.

Castro's picture

What a typical reaction! Avoiding to answer to the point. :-)
Your heroe must be your heroe because he must be adressing you directely. Recognise it, know yourself, like Socrates said.
I could be wrong on that, and you just needed to wake up, but you trying to call me pedant on this, assures that it must more than a bad dream or simple mistake from you.
A simple auto-test is try to really answer to the matter. Then you'll be sure.
And please, don't worry about me, I'm (in some sense, humbly) here, waiting for that non-avoidance try, in good spirit ;-)

Arne Moll's picture

I've already answered your point by noting there's more than one way to look at the issue, and yours is a minority view by far (see Wikipedia and Reddit).
A pedant, by the way, is someone who tries to make a minor point with a big goal: not because it being wrong is a bad thing in itself (it isn't by any standard), but to show how clever he is himself. Go figure.

Castro's picture

Yeah, go figure!
Then. what should be called to someone who thinks that my goal is to show I'm clever!
Fantasy and simple defensive-ofensive childish strategy comes to help! Very non-pedantic hahahah!
As for "minor point", that's not the case (BTW, your left is oposed to your right), unless one does not stand any reason (like you and your heroe, on this matter), and instead of accepting it, just seek refuge on making poor humor and labeling the issue as "minor point". It's a strategy. But childhood stayed back then, you know?
And indeed there is NO more ways of looking at it. Just DIFFERENT issues.
If you say "The Sixties", everyone can accept it to be a decade running from 1960 to 1969.
If you say more people comemorated the millenium on January 1, 2000, everyone can believe you. (Also there were times most people thought Earth was flat).
But there's no way arround the arguments and the very nature of the time counting calendar, and it's awfully misleading and ignorant trying to support our (understandable) confusion to the very end, which is only possible by means of demagogy and false acusations of pedantism in particular.
It deserves a good advice: "Back to school!!"

Arne Moll's picture

You really don't get it, do you? You really don't seem to realize that when you so lightly say 'the very nature of the time counting calendar', it's really a very fuzzy concept you're referring to.
How do you count years? There are two ways to do it: by ordinal numbering or by cardinal numbering. Since you're so quick to send me back to school, I assume you're aware of these concepts. Very well, your definition of millennia and decennia consists of using ordinal numbering, and mine of cardinal numbering. This is all very elementary. How to decide which is the 'correct' one, suppose you would want to?
One way is to look at the ancient way of doing this, and then, by reasoning the ancients used terms such as 1 A.D. etc., you may say that this is the 'right' way - of course, this is only the 'old' way. Now, nobody uses this method of counting anymore, but instead uses '1973' and so on - i.e. the cardinal way of counting. This is also reflected in current scientific practise, such as the astronomical year. In fact, the ISO 8601 standard of recording time assumes this practice (with a year 0), so this is really the preferred way nowadays.
Of course you have a point that the original Gregorian calendar doesn't use a year 0 but starts counting at year 1 (1 A.D.), thus creating the confusion in the first place. However, what's the logical behind this, except a historical one? I found a nice analogy from Arthur C. Clarke who said: "If the scale on your grocer's weighing machine began at 1 instead of 0, would you be happy when he claimed he'd sold you 10 kg of tea?" What's the 'reason' you claim to exist behind this?
Anyway, all this beside the point because intuitively, there's no discussion as to when the millennia and the decades should start. This is of course when the 9 becomes a 0 because psychologically this change is much more dramatic than from 0 to 1.
Still, even when you disregard this psychological argument (and this is the reason why discussing this point at all should be called 'pedantic') you still have a lot to explain. But to tell you the truth your arguments don't really interest me since I know them already. On second thoughts, I would define a pedant as someone who makes a point in order to look smart AND thinks his listeners are not aware of the complexity of the issue.

Castro's picture

:-)
Nothing like inserting a "But to tell you the truth your arguments don’t really interest me" somewhere. It does put a lot of bad argumentation together, in some psycological way!
You know, indeed I'm aware of all that kind of complexity in processes (and about the calendar too, stay calm).
So, I'm going to answer you, even if you say that you DISREGARD and that you KNOW. If indeed you wouldn't disregard, please verify (and tell us) exactely which of the below you really know:

1. To begin with, NO, you didn't even try to answer before;

2. NO, you didn't begin all the issue (on the column "Computer Skeptic") by being any ponderous about the remark I made, just tried to ridicularise strait away, not to mention "any" reason I could have, and not to mention that OF COURSE you wouldn't allow any "there’s more than one way to look at the issue", as you claimed after.

3. My formation is on Mathematics, so again you go very wrong thinking I could be confused about ordinals and cardinals, on the calendar. My greatest love on Maths lyes precisely on the foundations of it.

4. Our calendar is not a "fuzzy concept", Arne, unless we want it to be.
You say "your definition of millennia and decennia consists of using ordinal numbering, and mine of cardinal numbering". This is wrong! You don't obtain different results in years, millenia, decenia, whatever years related, by means of thinking which order something comes, or how many time periods are we counting.

5. Of course any counting of units that includes 0 as an unit yelds 10 units when we gether 0 to 9. And a dozen is yeld at 11, of course. But as I said (on my VERY first post on this) (and you couldn't do more than confirm!), for the calendar that is only posible with a modern and artificial time counting system. (BTW, Next time someone asks your age, or at what age one should comemorate two decenia, don't answer rushily! :-) )

6. There is no such thing as an "old way" (in which, you imply, 1973 would mean something strange), and a "modern way" (in which "1973" means 1973). That's pure fantasy! 1973 means the 1973th year, whatever turns you try! This is the ordinal view, as well as the cardinal view! 1973 is the year coming after 1972, and there are 1973 years completed when 1974 begins.
That is as "modern" as could be, because we're talking about THIS counting system, NOT some other created just for certain goals.
Sure, maybe the counting was somewhere in the past slightly confused, and Jesus really was born some years later or earlier, but the thing the calendar is to is to mark how many time passed since his birth. Pedantic is otherwise.

Castro's picture

(conclusion)

7. The "Gregorian Calendar" was not "the original"! What a confusion!
The Gregorian operation just dealt with the accuracy of it, nothing else (and dealt very engeniously, BTW). It has NOTHING to do with what we're talking here. The meaning of the (this) calendar stayed as before (and will remain forever, no matter what confusions are tried. It's COUNTING time. THAT is "the logic of it".

8. "...the astronomical year. In fact, the ISO 8601 standard of recording time assumes this practice (with a year 0)"
In fact, as I said, that is done with certain specific scientific goals. That is not meant to substitute any "old" system! BTW, I repeat, our calendar is not "old" in that sense. What makes sense to MARK is (decimal) portions of time PASSED over certain event.
0, as an unit (also then being imposible to consider in the past), can nothing but deny that concept! (It can serve other noble concepts, but those are as strange to this as it would be strange to count your own first year of existence as "zero").

9. Of course I'm not an "Arthur C. Clarke", but this brilliant man made the CLASSIC MISTAKE. (a most basic one, I must say, but human isn't perfect) In fact, I'm glad you brought that here! His analogy is good to refute him!
The "scale on your grocer’s weighing machine", as your thermometer, as your velocimeter (and so on) begin at (or have) zero but AS A MARK, AS AN INSTANT, NOT AS AN UNIT, because otherwise you couldn't "be happy when he claimed he’d sold you 10 kg of tea"! That's because! Having zero as an unit would precisely falsify the thing we wanted to be less falsified! The counting, the real measure.

10. "This is of course when the 9 becomes a 0 because psychologically this change is much more dramatic than from 0 to 1."
This is the ONLY apreciatable argument! That and the number of believers, maybe!
But I'm sure everyone will agree (after some time pondering, maybe?) that this one argument has one fatal defect. It is profoundly anti-scientific. It's, as I said, a very understandable confusion and refuge, similar to that of the people afraid to get into a car, or satisfied with the Earth being flat. There are contextes where (and people for whom) this notions can even be useful, and reasuring some basic PSYCOLOGICAL situations.
If they want that, let them have it! I never said that religion should be banned!
One thing is for sure: Passing that fear and ignorance wall, even they would benefit!

11. Ok, and what a releaf! By your definition, I'm really not that pedant, not even by your (anounced, but for others!) standards!

Arne Moll's picture

Well, Castro, what can I say? The entire world is wrong and Castro is right. Mathematics is apparently the only way to approach this problem. Of course, it remains a possibility that there's more to life than mathematics, and that, for instance, the concepts of ordinal and cardinal numbering can also refer to linguistics...
Not to be a bad sport, but I've had enough, it's impossible to reason with someone who insists on formality beyond all reasonable excuses.

Castro's picture

:-)
Hehe I'm somewhat aware of linguistics too. Bad luck, Arne!
No, not the entire world is wrong (and Castro is right). And sometimes Castro is wrong, and sometimes (if that's the case) he even ask for forgiveness!
So you see, only with religious or fanatic faith your image of ME (of course! Who else?) being pedantic and know-it-all hardly stands.
And yes, people begin to have a handful of your bad excuses (bad sport, until it ceases): My bad english, my formality, my previsibility, my being lonely saying something, my unreasonability... All mine!
Well, keep everything as you which, then. (Though allowing others to speak has some risks on that rotten peace).
Better wishes for the 2010th year!

Castro's picture

*...as you wish...

Rothschild's picture

@Moll and Castro. What happened here? I can't read your posts because they are very long and seem to be about... narcissism and... calendars? Quick summary pls?

Castro's picture

@Rothschild

Sorry, no quick summary available :-) (unless if you'd stick to your sugestion: narcissism and... calendars.)
Anyway, I'd strongly the full version.
For better and for (not much) worse, it's all in comments sectoins, and almost all in off-topic mode.

Part 1 (Intro): The two last comments on Arne's "Computer Skeptic No More" (no need to reed the column itself for this purpose);

Part 2: Arne+Castro comments on this very Arne's article (beggining with "Castro on December 27th, 2009 9:42 pm");

Appendix (incredible bonus track): Sumit Balan, Castro and Amos comments (1+2+1) on the "Grischuk & Galliamova Champions" article.

I know, one hardly wants to go such a way, but believe me, it worths to do all that reading!

Castro's picture

*"strongly recomend", of course.

Hatsekidosi 2's picture

Castro must have a lot of spare time

Castro's picture

Some spare time is better than using any few time to produce such a useless comment :-)

Your comment

By posting a comment you are agreeing to abide our Terms & Conditions