AND THIS IS WHERE I SCREAMED AND CRIED AND LOST MY OLDSKOOL SHIT
CLARA FOR THE MOTHERFUCKING WIN 4-EVA
(Source: misteroswald, via crystalsoulslayer)
Castrovalva→The Name of the Doctor
(Source: goodandbeautifulperi, via alltheplacesidreamof)
(Source: dangerousordinary, via thecaptainjacksparrow)
(Source: whypairodocs, via volextus)
Wait, but they were considering making Irene a mathematician or a logician (which, um, is a mathematician - sometimes they sit in philosophy departments but they are essentially doing math) but decided to make her a painter because it “perfectly combined creativity and intellectualism”. Which I respect, and I love what they did with Irene, and art thief!Irene was great.
But can we talk about a lost fucking opportunity.
Like first of all, easy throwback to the original Moriarty. Second of all, I will never not have lady mathematician feels. (Men don’t have a monopoly on murder, and they don’t have a monopoly on math either. If any of you are familiar with the play Proof, there’s this scene where protagonist talks about being a kid and reading a book about Sophie Germain and how she had to pretend to be a man to be taken seriously as a mathematician. That could have been Irene.)
Irene loves the idea of mathematical beauty - math as art if you will. Because if you want to talk about combining creativity and intellectualism, you can get that in math. What you need is a sound, rigorous proof, but what you want is a beautiful proof. Irene loves how math is all about putting puzzle pieces together, really, and the more neatly you put them together, the better you’re doing.
Irene is fascinated by Fermat’s Last Theorem. It can’t be right, she thinks, that such a simple statement has such a complicated proof. She spent at least a year studying Wiles’s proof, becoming one of the very few (think possibly single digit number) of people who truly understands it. She’s been working on coming up with a simpler proof. It’s sort of a side project, but she thinks she’s getting somewhere. And, no, she isn’t falling into one of the pitfalls that amateur mathematicians who think they’ve proven Fermat’s Last Theorem always fall into, one of the pitfalls that she’s become increasingly convinced Fermat fell into himself. You know that thing where you send them your proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem and they tell you what you did wrong? She runs that.
She loves Erdos’s idea of The Book, a book containing the most beautiful proof for every theorem. But Erdos was wrong. God doesn’t write the book. Irene does.
(Source: sandandglass, via heyfunniest)
howto-kissdistinctly-american:
This is relevant to pretty much all of my interests.
Ha.
A leafs fan? He must really know nothing.
(Source: jhermann, via liamdryden)
Imagine if we’re all still on Tumblr in our sixties.
the third time I’ve broken my hip this week
YOLO
“Screw the new version of ‘Harry Potter.’ EMMA WILL ALWAYS BE MY HERMIONE”
“Introduced the grandkids to Avatar today. They now know why their daddy’s name is Aang.”
“Just bought Adele’s newest album ‘Adele 74’!!”
“Can’t wait for series three of Sherlock.”
(Source: kisscolfer, via sincerelysola)
Question from a friend
So a friend asked me “How many moves ahead can you see in a chess game?”
Here is my response:
So the reason it’s a long answer is because it deals with a fundamental difference of how computers and humans play chess. And it comes from the fact that the human brain is an ultra super duper computer, but simply not designed for chess.
What I mean by that is that the mind evolved to help humans better adapt to its surroundings, and in almost any function evolution has decided that searching for patterns is the most efficient way of preforming tasks varying from how we are able to see to reading words, to understanding emotions and remembering certain train of thoughts and ideas.
And that’s how experienced grandmasters play chess. They don’t sit and analyze every move starting from just all the moves that are possible, if that were the case great games would last weeks. Instead they find a good balance between being able to count every possible move but short distance and seeing a particular pattern that had occurred in a previous game and hence getting a feel for a position. The latter being a long distance vision. In that sense, you can look at a position and know pretty much whats gonna happen 20 moves down the line simply by looking at a few subsystems in the game if you please, but not specifying precisely the order of the moves to take it there unless you analyze it very well.
First computers actually tried to just brute force every move, but especially in openings they always lost because of the sheer amount of possibilities. Instead they ended up relying on historical data of past games to construct different opening moves.
That was the long answer.
The short answer: The question isn’t super valid (refer to above), but if I understand what you’re trying to ask, I’d have to answer that it depends on the position a lot, some are super easy to read, others there are many different interesting paths the game could take. Also it varies if you’re asking how many I see while playing the game like each move, or how many I’m able to see in general.
To answer how many I generally look at on average before every move I make, approximately, 5 moves, (but like I explained before, mainly relying on the positional analysis, and not looking for every possible combination of 5 moves)
The answer how many I am able to see, if I could spend a while on every turn, I would say 9 moves is somewhat accurate if I’m not interpreting your question literally.
*I warned her it was a long answer.
P.S. I think she fell asleep while reading it.
