text:
Friday, December 26, 2014
Follow us:
Southern Tier
Time Warner Cable video customers:Sign in with your TWC ID to access our video clips.
Sign in
Free Video Views Remaining
To get you to the stories you care about, we are offering everyone 10 video views per month.
Watch Video
Access to our video is always free for Time Warner Cable video customers who login with their TWC ID.
To view our videos, you need to
install Adobe Flash 9 or above. Install now.
Then come back here and refresh the page.
Located in Southern Lewis County, the Town of Turin is an outdoor lover's paradise, especially in the winter months. It's not a bustling metropolis, but up on the Tug Hill that great snowfall brings snowmobilers from all over the country and the skiing is some of the best in the state. And with great trails for hiking and ATVs, a picturesque golf course and lots of music, it's starting to draw warm weather visitors as well. In fact, the area as a whole is on its way back to recapturing the glory days of old. In this edition of Your Hometown, Brian Dwyer and photojournalist R.D. White braved the snow and cold to take us to the heart of the Tug Hill.
TURIN, N.Y. -- First settled by the Iroquois, up high on the Tug Hill, the Lewis County town of Turin was originally thought to be too wild and useless for settlement. The elevations and terrain too much.
But investors and capitalists from Europe had other ideas. Businesses started popping up around Mill Creek: Water power.
"Condensories, for instance, where they condensed milk and sealed it so it could last long periods of time. We had here cheese factories. We had a woolen mill. We had quite a variety of other industries," said Turin Village Trustee Bill Paczkowski.
One of the most famous settlers was Turin's first Sealer of Weights and Measures, Giles Doud. He's part of the lineage of Mamie Doud, the wife of President Dwight Eisenhower.
Paczkowski said, "Every little village or every little town has that kind of hidden history that people even in the village or town don't know about that are things to be proud of."
In fact, at one point, Turin was so popular there were actually more people here than the Village of Lowville, which is Lewis County's biggest community today.
"We even had the county fair here. Some of the pictures that are interesting in some of the publications about Turin show hot air balloons," Paczkowski said. "It must have been an interesting place."
Now if you're thinking to yourself, 'Gosh, Turin sounds kind of familiar.' That might be because it is. Think back about seven years ago, the 2006 Olympic Games. Well they were held in Turin. Turin, Italy.
"It was built up as a real connection, even though there wasn't a direct connection and never has been to Turin. It's kind of one of those mysteries as to how we got our name," Paczkowski said.
But while Turin, New York and Turin, Italy may not have a connection, Turin and the Olympics do, thanks to Snow Ridge Ski Resort, the slopes where 1960 Olympic skier Renie Cox got her start.
"Renie little by little became outstanding at the races that were held here and nearby schools and New England eventually. She was one of those people that was gifted in skiing beyond what we were," Paczkowski said.
The folks in Turin, of course, know all about winter sports. Snow Ridge is not only one of the oldest ski areas, but is still one of the most popular in the state.
"The elevation and the steepness of the hills gives you a real challenge. I think that's why people like it. We also have a lot of skiing out in the back woods. When we get the powder, which a lot of places don't get, they come for it," said Michael Sabatini, Snow Ridge Ski Resort Manager.
And while it's not the same draw it once was, thanks in part to fake snow, on those good days when Snow Ridge and its 27 trails can draw thousands, it makes a huge impact on the community.
Paczkowski said, "Especially in these times, the economic times. To me, it's been a real boom to the area. I think people are realizing that now."
But as the seasons change, the fun doesn't melt away with the snow. In fact, Snow Ridge keeps the people coming with some huge summer concert festivals, including the massive moe.Down.
"Moe.Down is very successful for the whole area. It's renting room and the restaurants are all full and gas. Just having the traffic," Sabatini said.
"That's the type of thing that an area like this can promote as far as helping a community. People sometimes overlook that," Paczkowski said.
It's a festival that went away for a few years, but found its way back. A story that Turin hopes is someday written about itself.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
© 1999-2014 Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Web design and web development by Tipit.


text:
The Top 10 Reasons I Don't Believe in God
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
The following is an excerpt from Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless by Greta Christina. The book is available electronically on Kindle, Nook, and soon in print.
"But just because religion has done some harm -- that doesn't mean it's mistaken! Sure, people have done terrible things in God's name. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist!"
Yup. If you're arguing that -- you're absolutely right. And the question of whether religion is true or not is important. It's not the main point of this book: if you want more thorough arguments for why God doesn't exist, by me or other writers, check out the Resource Guide at the end of this book. But "Does God exist?" is a valid and relevant question. Here are my Top Ten reasons why the answer is a resounding, "No."
1: The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.
When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Like a steamroller. Why the Sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being. I could go on and on.
All these things were once explained by religion. But as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like a steamroller. The number of times that a supernatural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.
Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural one? The number of times humankind has said, "We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it's caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul"?
Exactly zero.
Sure, people come up with new supernatural "explanations" for stuff all the time. But explanations with evidence? Replicable evidence? Carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence? Internally consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources? Again -- exactly zero.
Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don't have a thorough explanation -- human consciousness, for instance, or the origin of the Universe -- will be best explained by the supernatural?
Given this pattern, it's clear that the chances of this are essentially zero. So close to zero that they might as well be zero. And the hypothesis of the supernatural is therefore a hypothesis we can discard. It is a hypothesis we came up with when we didn't understand the world as well as we do now... but that, on more careful examination, has never once been shown to be correct.
If I see any solid evidence to support God, or any supernatural explanation of any phenomenon, I'll reconsider my disbelief. Until then, I'll assume that the mind-bogglingly consistent pattern of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones is almost certain to continue.
(Oh -- for the sake of brevity, I'm generally going to say "God" in this chapter when I mean "God, or the soul, or metaphysical energy, or any sort of supernatural being or substance." I don't feel like getting into discussions about, "Well, I don't believe in an old man in the clouds with a white beard, but I believe..." It's not just the man in the white beard that I don't believe in. I don't believe in any sort of religion, any sort of soul or spirit or metaphysical guiding force, anything that isn't the physical world and its vast and astonishing manifestations.
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Chatting with the stars of the innovative new musical about the Nigerian Afrobeat king.
What an episode! Take a look at the cast of Honeymoon in Vegas rehearsing for their Thanksgiving Day parade performance. Plus, Brynn O'Malley chats with Jason Robert Brown about music and hot flat irons.November 27, 2014
To celebrate the new Side Show, we went back in time with original stars Alice Ripley, Emily Skinner, Hugh Panaro, Jeff McCarthy & Norm Lewis as well as creators Robert Longbottom, Henry Krieger, Bill Russell & Emanuel Azenberg.November 14, 2014
On the Town's Alysha Umphress takes some very fashionable photos of her friends in her dressing room and gets ready for opening night!October 21, 2014
Recording a cast album is fun! Recording in a big fancy ballroom with a huge orchestra is better! This week Alysha Umphress and her fun-loving On the Town friends lay down the tracks and the jokes.November 11, 2014
Get a sneak peek of Anything Goes with the national tour commercial!May 1, 2014
Check out these clips from the brand-new Broadway revival of the classic musical Les Miserables featuring Ramin Karimloo, Will Swenson, Caissie Levy, Nikki M. James and more!March 24, 2014
Paul Wontorek sits down with Into the Woods stars James Corden and Emily Blunt and learn the super-British way they first met, why Broadway fans terrify them and their five-year Broadway plan!November 28, 2014
The funny 20-year-old breakout star of Pitch Perfect is making them laugh in Broadway's The Book of Mormon. He stopped by Show People to talk about his already-standout career.August 28, 2014
Alysha Umphress sings on Seth Rudetsky's Sirius XM radio show and invites her friend Jeff Blumenkrantz backstage at On the Town to chat about their latest collaboration.November 18, 2014
Elphaba of "Wicked" sings "Defying Gravity"January 20, 2010
Get a sneak peek at the national tour of Elf.January 1, 2013
Get a sneak peek at the national tour of Once.September 3, 2013


text:
- Home
- Sports
- NHL Tickets
Get the most for your money when you buy Florida Panthers vs Tampa Bay Lightning tickets for the April 4, 2015 home game by carefully examining the following Bank Atlantic Center information.
The doors at the home of the Florida Panthers will open one hour before the puck drops at center ice.
You can find Florida Panthers handicap tickets in both the Lower Level and Upper Level. We strongly suggest you book your accessible seats as far in advance of the game as possible as availability is limited.
Group Selector:


text:
Simple, step-by-step diagrams make it easy to create a one-eyed centipede; a scowling, four-legged fright that's literally all head; and 28 other comical creatures. Barbara Levy's fun-filled, how-to guide is designed for youngsters but will equally delight aspiring cartoonists of all ages. Paperback book measures 8 1/4 in. x 11 in., 32 pages. Dover, 2004. ISBN 0486438384
Ask a question about How to Draw Funny Monsters Ask a question about this product
Be the first to write a review on this product!
Please wait...
You May Also Like...
How to get VIP Club Prices
Anyone can be a VIP Member with:
Only $25/year
Ask a Question About How to Draw Funny Monsters
Your email will not be shared. We will only use your email address to respond to your question. When asking your question, please be as descriptive as possible, it will allow us to give you the most accurate answer possible.
Please wait...
Please wait...


text:
M.D.C. Holdings Announces 2012 First Quarter Earnings Release Schedule And Conference Call
DENVER, April 12, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: MDC) will release its 2012 first quarter earnings before market open on Thursday, May 3, 2012. MDC will host a teleconference the same day at 12:30 pm ET. The live teleconference will be available by calling 866-816-5116 and entering Conference ID #56524316. A replay of the teleconference will be available through June 3, 2012 by calling 855-859-2056 and entering Conference ID #56524316.
A webcast of the teleconference will be available live at
www.mdcholdings.com, and beginning two hours after the call, a replay of the webcast will be available on the website.
About M.D.C. Holdings, Inc.
Since 1972, MDC's subsidiary companies have built and financed the American dream for more than 165,000 families. MDC's commitment to customer satisfaction, quality and value is reflected in each home its subsidiaries build. MDC is one of the largest homebuilders in the United States. Its subsidiaries have homebuilding operations across the country, including the metropolitan areas of Denver, Colorado Springs, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, Riverside- San Bernardino, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Washington D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, Jacksonville and Seattle. The Company's subsidiaries also provide mortgage financing, insurance and title services, primarily for Richmond American homebuyers, through HomeAmerican Mortgage Corporation, American Home Insurance Agency, Inc. and American Home Title and Escrow Company, respectively. M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "MDC." For more information, visit www.mdcholdings.com.
SOURCE M.D.C. Holdings, Inc.
Select the service that is right for you!COMPARE ALL SERVICES
Action Alerts PLUSTry it NOW
Jim Cramer and Stephanie Link actively manage a real portfolio and reveal their money management tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
- Weekly roundups
TheStreet Quant RatingsTry it NOW
Only $49.95/yr
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
- Upgrade/downgrade alerts
Stocks Under $10Try it NOW
David Peltier, uncovers low dollar stocks with extraordinary upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
- Weekly roundups
Dividend Stock AdvisorTry it NOW
Jim Cramer's protege, David Peltier, identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Alerts when market news affect the portfolio
- Bi-weekly updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Real Money ProTry it NOW
All of Real Money, plus 15 more of Wall Street's sharpest minds delivering actionable trading ideas, a comprehensive look at the market, and fundamental and technical analysis.
Product Features:
- Real Money + Doug Kass Plus 15 more Wall Street Pros
- Intraday commentary & news
- Ultra-actionable trading ideas
Options ProfitsTry it NOW
Our options trading pros provide daily market commentary and over 100 monthly option trading ideas and strategies to help you become a well-seasoned trader.
Product Features:
- 100+ monthly options trading ideas
- Actionable options commentary & news
- Real-time trading community
- Options TV


text:
Free standard shipping over $ 95.00LOGIN
$ 60.00
Approximate size: 0.27 x 0.43 x 0.43 inches
Just the right amount of flash! This beautiful sterling silver bead is embellished with a ring of sparkling crystal pavé. It is available in five fashion colors: Light Rose, Peridot, Aquamarine, Amethyst or clear crystal. This product is part of the Swarovski Chamilia collection.
Article no.: 1125472


text:
Find out about exhibitions, activities, tours and talks at Birmingham Museums
Aston Hall, Blakesley Hall and Soho House provide a choice of spectacular and elegant locations for your dream wedding.
6th January 2010
In mid 2009 Birmingham's Museum Collections Centre was approached by The Austin Counties Car Club, who asked if we would be willing to display the famous 'Indianapolis' Atlantic A90 car on their stand at the Classic Car Show, NEC Birmingham.
You can follow news from this museum through the RSS 2.0 feed.


text:
Quick Links
Shop All Jewelry
*Select UPS NEXT DAY at Checkout
RG10415 In Stock Absolutely No Delay on Personalization!
*Select UPS NEXT DAY at Checkout
This puzzle style ring is a fun addition to your wardrobe. This stainless steel ring measures 5mm wide. The Black plated puzzle design is a nice touch to the steel band. Wear it with any casual outfit!
Eve's Addiction.com wants you to be a happy customer. We want you to be completely satisfied with the sterling silver jewelry that you receive from us, as we only sell high quality silver and cubic zirconia cz jewelry. We do understand that you may not like your purchase for some reason.
You may return or exchange your jewelry within 60 days of purchase if you are not satisfied with it. The jewelry must be returned in its original condition for a refund or exchange. Engraved, personalized, photo, monogram, name and initial, and clearance items are not returnable or exchangeable. To return jewelry to EvesAddiction.com, please follow the steps at the following link.


text:
Who do you think looks best today? (5 photos)
The best street style from London Fashion Week: http://ow.ly/p48HS via @StyleCaster
Beauty Products We Love
Our holiday fragrance lineup just got more decadent thanks to #Marni's...
WHAT SHE WORE Newly engaged Chung wasn't afraid to show some skin. She wore a black deep-plunge beaded Julien Macdonald lace gown with a thigh-high slit. Her shoe of choice? Black strappy heels.Read MoreLess


text:
USA - English
Canada - English
Canada - Français
BROAN offers the widest variety of ventilation fans in the industry. For the latest high-performance, ENERGY STAR® qualified solution to today's green building requirements, or ultra quiet operation for a comfortable environment, BROAN offers stylish options to fit any situation from a retrofit to a new build out. As the leader in residential ventilation, we will confidently meet your needs.
The leader in home ventilation, BROAN offers the broadest line of kitchen ventilation products in North America, providing choices, style, value and a name you can trust.
Air in your attic can reach 150°F during the summer, warming your home, increasing the load on your air conditioner, and adding to your energy bill. In winter, ice dams can result from poor ventilation, and moist air in the home can condense on attic surfaces causing mildew, rotting wood and wet insulation. BROAN has the solution!
It's quite simple. You may use some rooms only briefly, such as the bathroom, as you get ready for work in the morning. Heating the entire home for this purpose is pointless. Instead, opt for spot heating, which will effectively heat the area you need – when you need it.
As the industry's leader in providing Balanced Ventilation Systems for residential construction, BROAN sets the bar in standards of innovation and excellence. We are continually seeking ways to provide the best quality, technology, style and care to our customers.
No one really talks about the waste can under the kitchen sink. It's a necessary evil, or so they say. But that all changes with a BROAN Elite Trash Compactor. BROAN has been designing and producing these convenience appliances for nearly 40 years, refining the product while defining the category. And the result? A line of products that is the perfect complement to today's high-style appliances, and environmentally-conscious homeowners.
Designed of brushed corrosion resistant stainless steel to ensure long life in outdoor patios or lanais, this hood will remain a beautiful addition to your outdoor kitchen for many years to come. The extra deep 27" design can be extended to 30" with the optional wall extension, allowing even greater cooktop coverage for better capture of smoke and cooking odors. Flue covers are also available and attach to the top of the range hood shell. Flue covers come in 3 sizes to adapt to your specific design needs. Deeper flue covers are also available for hoods using the 3" wall extension. All of these attributes are what makes the Pro Outdoor EPD61 the BEST-IN-CLASS for capture and performance.
Range Hood Make-Up Air Specifier
Code compliant make-up air solutions for domestic range hoods in family dwelling units
To help you determine your make-up air needs, Broan-NuTone has developed this on-line tool. With our Make-Up Air Specifier you can be confident that the products you choose will meet the latest codes and regulations and satisfy the home's needs. Use this tool to make your specification job easier.
Let's get started by selecting the state where the dwelling unit will be located. CLICK HERE
Whole House Mechanical Ventilation (WHMV) Specifier
Code compliant solutions for one and two family dwellings and townhouses up to three stories
To better serve you in determining your customers' whole house mechanical ventilation (otherwise known as continuous ventilation) needs, Broan-NuTone has developed this on-line tool. With our CodeKey Specifier you can be confident that the products choose will meet the latest codes and regulations. Use this tool to make your specification job easier.
Take a few minutes and tell us about your experience on our Web Site.


text:
Information Collection, Use and Access Notice
We collect and use the information provided to us (on this form, via a web page, via a web application or by email) in order to provide advice, information, services, or assistance. We are authorized to collect information for this purpose by section 8880 et seq. of the California Government Code. We recommend you do not provide any personal information not specifically requested.
When contacting us by email, we recommend that you only provide the personal information that you think we need to respond to your concern. If, however, you do not give us enough information, we may not be able to contact you or help you resolve your concern.
It is the policy of the California Lottery to share your personal information only as strictly necessary to provide services or assistance. This may include disclosing your personal information to Lottery affiliates and to other government agencies. We also could be required to disclose the personal information that you provide in the following circumstances:
You may review the records we maintain that contain your personal information, as permitted by the Information Practices Act. For questions about this notice, our Privacy Policy, or access to your records, contact the Lottery Privacy Coordinator at email@example.com or write to: The California State Lottery - Attention: Privacy Coordinator. 700 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95811.
Who We Are
Corporate Social Responsibility
Welcome Guest
Sign In |
See all »
Inglewood Mega Millions® Ticket Worth $274,000 Claimed!
Inglewood Mega Millions® Ticket Worth $274,000 Claimed!
'I Was Grinning Like an Idiot'
'I Was Grinning Like an Idiot'
$1.6 Million Powerball® Ticket Claimed!
$1.6 Million Powerball® Ticket Claimed!
$180 Million Mega Millions® Jackpot Winner Claims Fortune in Riverside County
$180 Million Mega Millions® Jackpot Winner Claims Fortune in Riverside County
See all »
Golden Greeting TV Commercial
Duration: :30
California Lottery News: Ep. 9 – November
California Lottery – Jackpot Winner Tells Quite a Story!!
Duration: 2:06
Burbank High Achievers Score Big With Lottery Funds
Duration: 3:39
Fulfilling Our Mission
In 1984, Proposition 37...
Get the full story»
California Lottery Benefits California Schools
Since the first lottery...
Get the full story»
We've teamed up with partners to create opportunities for students and educators.
See all »
Highlighting the Reach of California Lottery Funding- Johanna Boss High School
Duration: 3:04
Every Little Bit Counts - Tiny East San Diego County School Relies on Lottery Funding.
Duration: 3:42
Burbank High Achievers Score Big With Lottery Funds
Duration: 3:39
Coronado High School (Coronado, San Diego Co.)
Duration: 3:52
Easily search for Lottery retailers that have paid out large amounts of prizes to players.
Find a Lucky Retailer near you »
There are more than 21,000 Lottery retail locations across California.Find a Lottery retailer near you.
Search »
From Scratchers games vending machines to draw games terminals, learn about more ways to purchase Lottery tickets.
See more ways to buy »
Hello Guest, already have an account?
Sign In
No problem. Sign up to get full access to:
Winning Numbers
Scratchers tickets, Fantasy 5, and SuperLotto Plus each offers a 2nd Chance to win!
See how to enter your non-winning Scratchers tickets into 2nd Chance for more chances to win big!
Go To 2nd Chance »
You can enter Scratchers 2nd Chance codes, Fantasy 5 - 2nd Chance codes, and SuperLotto Plus 2nd Chance codes up to a combined 1,000 times per calendar month!
See 2nd Chance CodeSubmission Policy »
All Scratchers games and the Fantasy 5 and SuperLotto Plus draw games are eligible for the 2nd Chance program.
Sign in to your account or register to submit your 2nd Chance ticket codes.
Your submitted code automatically places entries into all applicable draws, either one or more times. There are three types of draws.
All 2nd Chance winners are posted on Results & Winners.
Play $5 or more on a single ticket to receive a separate voucher with a 2nd Chance code. You can receive up to ten codes ($50).
Play per the instructions on your Scratchers ticket. Non-winning tickets can be entered into 2nd Chance draws.
Play $1 or more to receive a 2nd Chance code on your SuperLotto Plus ticket. This code is good for 1 (one) draw entry per $1 played. For example, play $3 for a code worth 3 entries.
Enter the 20-digit Fantasy 5 - 2nd Chance entry code on your voucher
Scratch the entire ticket to reveal the 19 or 20-digit entry code and Ticket ID. Enter your code.
Enter the 13-character code printed on your ticket. Always submit your code before redeeming a winning ticket.
All 2nd Chance codes are entered into separate Pool Draws specific to their games: Scratchers 2nd Chance, Fantasy 5 - 2nd Chance and SuperLotto Plus 2nd Chance.
All Scratchers 2nd Chance codes are entered into End of Game Draws in addition to the Pool Draw.
Entries from specific games may be included in additional draws based on Lottery promotions.
Visit My Submissions to see the number of draw entries per code submission.
You'll receive a notification on your My Account page when you sign into your account. Also, all 2nd Chance winners are posted on Results & Winners.
Your original submission may be in multiple draws. So even if it wasn't chosen in one draw, it could still have a chance to win in another. Check My Submissions to see your entries.
You can continue to submit codes for entry into all open draws up until the deadline. See open draws and deadlines on Draws & Prizes.
Your session has timed out due to inactivity. This helps to ensure that your information remains safe.
If you want to submit codes into a 2nd Chance draw, you'll need to sign in again.
A new verification email has been requested to be sent to
The California Lottery wants you to have the very best possible experience at calottery.com.
You may want to update your browser to the most current version to insure that you can enjoy all the features on this site.
You are currently using
Internet Explorer
There is a newer version of Internet Explorer. Update Now
There is a newer version of Firefox. Update Now
There is a newer version of Chrome. Update Now
There is a newer version of Safari. Update Now
The California Lottery wants you to have the very best possible experience at calottery.com. We suggest you use one of the supported browsers listed below to enjoy all the features on this site.
If you choose to download a new internet browser, please select one of the following browsers to download.


text:
**Note: where events are oversubscribed we maintain a reserve list in case of subsequent cancellations (click here for contact details).
Date: Sunday, 28th October 2012.
Time: 5:15pm to 8:00pm.
Cost: £115 per RX 390.
The 3* Iron Man One Hour Endurance is a one man, one hour test of stamina for fit and experienced drivers.
A 10 minute qualifying session is followed by a straight one hour dash to the final flag.
Trophies to top three finishers at each round and superb series trophies.
Ideal for drivers who are fit and have experience of outdoor kart racing. This is an 8 round Championship of which the best 6 results will count.
One off entries more than welcome, there is no need to commit to the whole series.
17:15 Arrival sign on and suit up
17:45 Driver briefing
18:15 Practice/qualifying session
18:45 Start of 1hr race
20:00 Presentation and club bar
Please note: All drivers must be at least 16 years of age. Booking is essential. Full payment required on booking. For experienced drivers who are fit and have stamina.


text:
In the Sukkot department you will find everything you need to make for a beautiful Yom Tov. From Flags to your actual Sukkah, Lulav and Ethrog (aka Esrog, esrogim, and ethrogim.) Wash cups, Decorations,Challah Covers and much much more.
Rebbe Alter CD SuccosList Price: $15.99
Eichler's Price $14.99
Save 6%


text:
The eternal argument
Chess, of course, is an abstract game. Its ultimate, objective truth is probably more mathematical than intuitive. Still, the game has so many subjective sides that it's almost impossible not to have arguments about the relative aspects of chess, such as the value of moves, variations and even rules. Which is just great.
The Creation of Adam, a section of Michelangelo's fresco Sistine Chapel ceiling painted circa 1511 In a recent blog post on ScienceBlogs, evolutionist David Sloan Wilson compares creationists who "protest that it is unfair for them to be ignored" to a chess player who "insists on continuing after his king has been taken." After all, according to Sloan Wilson, science, like chess, is a "contest situation":
The idea that it is unfair to be declared a loser and to be made to retire from the field profoundly misunderstands the nature of fairness in all contest situations. (...) In the ideal scientific contest, alternative hypotheses make different predictions that can be tested with empirical observations. When the predictions of a hypothesis are not confirmed, it is declared a loser and is made to retire from the field. New hypotheses are always welcome to enter the competition, including modified versions of rejected hypotheses, but science without losers would be as pointless as chess without checkmate and basketball without the final buzzer.
First off, I wholeheartedly agree with the above reasoning in principle: a discussion can actually - despite possible good intentions - be lost on pretty objective grounds. It's possible to rule out a perspective even though that perspective may be, in the eye of the beholder, noble or even religious dogma. Even so, I couldn't help thinking of the numerous times I've heard chess players (including myself) proclaim a win (usually by the opponent) to be totally "unfair". I've always felt that declaring a win to be unfair is a bit like declaring that losing itself can be unfair. The truth is, of course, that chess players -much like creationists - continuously lose despite good intentions. In fact, they often lose despite superior play! Imagine the last time you threw away a beautifully played game by one silly inaccuracy and you know what I'm talking about. The difference, I think, lies in the fact that chess, while ideally comparable to science in certain key aspects, is most definitely not only an objective enterprise at all. It is also a game of human emotion where justice and fairness can take on different meanings. (There are even chess players who claim it's "unfair" not to resign in a lost position.) In fact, I consider this one of the greatest beauties of playing chess: the constant tension between objectivity and subjectivity. Of course, it's easy to dismiss any talk of "unfairness" after a (lost) game as simply being a case of cognitive dissonance. After all, the winner is always right, no? Well, that's a valid point of view to a certain extent, but it's also a rather one-sided perspective. I once read an article by the philosopher Bill Martin in which he claims that if a chess player wins with the theoretically "absurd" move 1.h3, the result somehow makes this opening move less "absurd": an extreme case of the "winner is always right" position. Any chess player, of course, knows that things just aren't that simple. A more realistic approach would be the well-known assertion that he who makes the last mistake loses, but in any case, I think "unfairness" in chess is not such a straightforward concept as Sloan Wilson assumes it is. The idea that the course or the result of a game can influence our perception of its past is, of course, quite common in chess, and it's often a useful approach in the development of opening theory (though not when applied in the manner Martin applies it). But there are also wonderful situations in chess where the past and future are so intermingled that it's impossible to make a distinction between the two. The type of study where this idea plays a central role is retrograde analysis. I first got acquainted with this type of chess study after reading Tim Krabbé's superb book Chess Curiosities. The following position is featured in his book. Mate in 2 W. Langstaff 1922 In chess studies, castling is in principle allowed, unless it can be shown to be illegal. However, capturing en passant is only allowed if it can be demonstrated to be possible. Langstaff's study is based on this principle. White would like to play 1.Ke6 followed by 2.Rd8 mate, but then Black plays 1...0-0! and there is no mate. But wait, if Black can still castle, then what was his last move in the diagrammed position? It couldn't have been with the king or the rook (otherwise he wouldn't be able to castle!) so it could only have been 0...g7-g5 (the pawn had to come from g7 because from g6 it would check White's king.) So, White can just play 1.hxg6, right? Then 1...0-0 allows 2.h7 mate. Not so fast. After 1.hxg6 Black simply says his last move was 0...Rh7-h8 and there the legality of the en passant capture cannot be demonstrated. This of course shows White could have played 1.Ke6, but then Black simply castles and claims 0...g5 was his last move, ad infinitum. In Krabbé's words:
This leads us to the baffling conclusion that if Ke6 is the key, hxg6 isn't - but if hxg6 is, Ke6 is not. If White attempts one solution, Black has a defence which shows the other would have worked. Or to put it differently again: it is perfectly true g7-g5 and Rh7-h8 cannot both be Black's last move, but White (or the solver) has no way of determining which one was. Whoever feels giddy now should consult his local syllogism breaker.
(Langstaff's problem is actually filed under "partial retrograde analysis." The most famous composer in this genre is no doubt Nenad Petrovic, whose crazy 1965 study is heavily discussed in Krabbé's book. Those interested in retrograde analysis should definitely try to get their hands on Raymond Smullyan's two books The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes (1979) and The Chess Mysteries of the Arabian Knights (1981). They may also want to take a look at the Retrograde Analysis Corner website.) The relative side of chess is also felt, in a more mundane way, in chess annotations and publications. When does a move deserve an exclamation mark or a question mark? In the light of the "ultimate truth", it's tempting to assume a move is either losing, drawing or winning. A different point of view would be that a move either maintains the current status quo, or changes it, and that the degree to which the move changes the evaluation of the current situation determines whether the move should get !, ?, !?, ?! or even ? or ??. Others maintain that the symbols we attach to moves should also be used to explain entirely subjective aspects of the game: in this case, a perfectly normal move can be "bad" even though it doesn't spoil a winning position, simply because it makes the win harder or because it allows the opponent to set one final practical trap. (Yet another perspective is the one often chosen by kibitzers on internet chess servers, namely to attach question marks to any move not directly recommended by their engine.) In the end, it's all largely a matter of taste. Indeed, this is what makes chess such an attractive game for me: we're all allowed to have our own opinion on these matters. Personally, I think a chess commentator should try to be as "objective" as possible while not neglecting subjective or psychological aspects of the game's progress - but it has to be done with caution, and in moderation. People who reward their own moves with many exclamation marks and their opponent's moves with many question marks, and somehow manage not to win the game in Kasparov-like style, are definitely suspicious in my book. But there are many exceptions - some have to do with the credentials or the credibility of the commentator, some have to do with style. Alekhine and Karpov, for example, have a reputation for praising their own moves more than the ones made by their opponents. It's easy to forgive them, but with lesser gods we may not be so lenient. (I tremendously enjoyed a recent discussion on ChessVibes about this very topic, even though the commenters didn't reach a conclusion in the end.) Things seem to become less personal - less subjective - however, when the rules of the game are involved. Aren't the rules of chess fixed and undebatable? Not really. Anyone who's ever read International Arbiter Geurt Gijssen's column An Arbiter's Notebook on ChessCafe should know this is another huge misconception about chess. A rule may be fixed in that it is written out in the FIDE Handbook, but its interpretation is often subject to heavy debate. Chess rules have evolved over time, too. What's now considered to be rude or even against the rules may once have been perfectly acceptable. Just a few days ago I saw a great example of this phenomenon in a video released by the Dutch TV broadcast corporation VPRO showing Max Euwe and Efim Bogolyubov playing blitz in 1928. I noticed that not only did the two giants forget to press their clocks on several occasions, but that they also - shamelessly, we would now add - used both hands while moving the pieces and pressing the clock. Next time someone complains about this as a clear case of bad sportsmanship, it might be an idea to refer him back to the habits of the Fifth World Champion. Even some of our chess rules are largely subjective. Isn't there anything objective in chess, then, except its ultimate (and hitherto unknown) Truth? Surely the massive body of chess opening theory based on knowledge accumulated since the early 1500s - arguably the most impressive achievement in chess history - radiates more objectivity than anything else? But even here, things become fuzzy once you start thinking about it. What do we really know about chess openings? Can we finally say that the Ruy Lopez is "better" than the Italian or the Scotch? Isn't it all, again, just a matter of taste? Many years ago, a World Top Ten player told me the Ruy Lopez was "just a draw" after 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5. This was, of course, the latest fashion then. I'm sure he thinks differently now. How many times has the King's Indian Defence been declared refuted? Doesn't the QGD always turn up in World Championship Matches, despite its unpopularity in tournament practice? Isn't it just a matter of time before the elite starts playing the Nimzowitsch Defence (1.e4 Nc6), as one of my club members likes to say? I don't want to belittle the progress we've made so far, but it seems to me those favouring Fischer Random chess are simply wrong when they make the argument that modern opening theory has killed our ancient game. There's still plenty of room for creativity and, indeed, subjectivity. Why don't they all just start playing - well, perhaps not 1.h3, but 1.Nh3 which, contrary to what Bill Martin thinks, doesn't strike me as "absurd" at all. The well-known Dutch master Philip DuChatel was quite successful with this move in the 1970s and 1980s. Surely the fact that nobody plays it currently, doesn't mean it should be regarded by definition as inferior? I think anyone who annotates it with ?! either isn't being objective or is simply being unfair. And the good thing is: we can keep arguing about this for as long as some supercomputer doesn't solve the game for us. What a great thing to look forward to.
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
good article, I would have prefered it if the author somehow generalised the ideas to life in general, and not focused on just chess, since the lessons we learn from chess are easily applicable to that of life.
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
Very pleasant reading so soon after the new year hangover. Happy/creative 2011!
- Log in to post comments
Yes, your revolt is understandable. You are right, but not because you can have two turns at solving it! :-) That's an hilarious good answer to those malicious confusion-throwers! But...
(Please see the discussion down...)
- Log in to post comments
The anti-anti-confusion hilarious counter-argument could be "If you can have two goes at solving, I can have two (also different) goes at defending, and now I say my last move was g5". Then you would be allowing entering the autor's "ad infinitum" confusion wish. I prevent that.
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
Chess is a result driven game. The goal is to mate the opposition. He who succeeds wins. Deservedly.
The confusion over 'unfair' results comes from the fact that each game involves a number of moves, about 40 on average. People who feel the result is 'unfair' probable payed on average better moves for a large part of the game. But a blunder, or a few second rate moves ruins the average over the entire game, resulting in a game played worse.
From my own experience I know it felt unfair if I was better during most of the game. I often ruined games having mentally already chalked up the point. That felt unfair. But this is merely subjective and actually delusional.
Mate, flag or surrender ends the game. Not the belief it was already won. The lower quality of the moves as a result of this faulty mindset is not unfair. It is a handicap that must be worked on.
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
Congratulations on your text. First class reading and a food for thought too!
I admit that myslef I regar chess as a highly objective game. Now I see its a bit more complicated than that.
Still I would not agree with few comments you made. Primarily with this statement:
"In fact, they often lose despite superior play!"
This is simply wrong to me. Its like saying that a driver who beat all the guys on the long rally but he made a childish mistake on the last very simple turn is somehow better. Truth is - this mistake cost him more than all he did to be ahead of the field. Its the same in chess. What you really need is to "add" all mistakes. If you make one which impact is much bigger than the impact of all of your beautiful ideas before you just lose.
Think of it in another way. If top GM blunders a piece despite playing an otherwise good game is he considered a moral winner? No, everybody is just saying that he made an extremely stupid move. Why we dont measure amateurs in the same way? Why amateur who played a good game and then spoiled it with one blunder is suddenly said to play this game better than his opponent?
"better despite blunder" theory also neglects one very important aspect of chess (and any other game). As much as knowledge and experience are important they are not the only qualities of a good chess player. Determination and focus are just AS IMPORTANT as pure chess skill.
- Log in to post comments
White allowed mate ten times but black never noticed. Black allowed mate once and gets mated. Who played the better game?
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
Errr, white. If black missed mate ten times he clearly deserves to get mated himself.
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
This isn't even an argument! The player who wins played the better game. Period. That's why he is declared "the winner." He may not have played well, but in order to win you MUST have played better than your opponent, else your opponent wouldn't have lost.
- Log in to post comments
There are other ways of looking at it. for example, if you have a better position out of the opening, and a winning position after the middlegame, it can be said that you played these phases of the game better than your opponent, even if your opponent wins because you blundered in the endgame. The opponent played the better game because he won, but you played the better opening and middlegame. Its a struggle between the subjective power of the many superior moves you make and superior positions you acheive vs. the one, solitary, game losing blunder.
- Log in to post comments
Using both hands to play, is not only "bad sportsmanship", it is a violation of FIDE rule 4.1. And even chess rules that are "largely subjective" (which are all of them!) have to be followed!
- Log in to post comments
The rule might not have been in place yet. If it was, it might not have been very widely known, seeing as FIDE was formed in 1924, just 4 years before this game. It was the 1920's, its not like they could just announce the rules on their webpage.
- Log in to post comments
Interesting about the relativism of chess openings.
One shouldn't be too dogmatic about the 'best openings', but be willing to study it's possibilities both objectively and as a door-opener to tactical play.
In this respect, among the top-players, Magnus Carlsen seems to do quite a lot of research, and is certainly willing to follow this relativistic approach.
- Log in to post comments
If you and Arne are right about the actual wording of the rules, then the problem should indeed be accepted as normal direct mate-in-x problems (and with a unique solution also), by the folowing reasoning: Castling is allowed, because it can't be proven to be illegal. Ok, that implies en passant to be proven to be legal, but that is precisely what the demand of 0-0 being legal whenever not impossible does! That could never be at Black's will! :-)
In fact, those rules are not ok. As I tried to explain, the rule that makes sense is no-castling-no-en-passant-unless-stated (and never in conflict, of course), and save exotic curiosities for exotic fields.
If, by "castling in the solution is allowed unless it can be proven to be illegal" is to be understood as "If not impossible, legitimacy of castling is uncertain", THAT would make things even more absurd, and it seems what is incredibly happening! Otherwise this problem should be considered "normal", by those rules.
- Log in to post comments
In chess problems and endgame studies neither black or white has a will. The composer has. He makes it interesting for the solver: castling seems possible in a given position, but can you deduce that it is really so? En passant capture looks possible, but can you prove that black's last move was g7-g5? Many wonderful compositions have come out of this. Chess puzzles have a right to eccentricity, they thrive on it!
And when that does lead to inconsistencies, even better, that leads to philosophical mind breakers like the Langstaff problem.
- Log in to post comments
No one is denying those pleasures! I do love those eccentricities, you misunderstood me.
It's somewhat difficult to me to fully explain my idea, so I'll just say an example:
Do you remember those marvelous problems with some pawn promoting to an opponent's piece, or castling verticaly with a never moved, newly promoted rook?
Do you defend that the rules of chess should have remained that unclear? Have you heard about fascinating "chess" puzzles that require other pieces?
When the rules have issues, you get more than you expect. That can be good, but just for amusement. And I hope they'll never end!
The rule "0-0 and no e.p." is not a good one. It may amuse, but is contrary to reason, logic and economy.
Exactely! This Langstaff (and other) position(s) are precisely exploring the flaw in those rules. They prove what makes sense, namely that there are legal chess positions with "0-0 implying e.p.", which is the exact negation of the rules that absurdly seem to be "0-0 and no e.p. by defect".
In a (serious/legal) problem position, every legality of moves should be straightforward, and that is only achieved by forbiding special possibilities not literaly stated.
Leaving 0-0 as legal if not disproven by the position is asking for trouble, like if having a 3-fold repetition unless disproven in a draw study: White simply has to prove that the starting position could have happened for the third time, and claim a draw without moves :-)
Once Breyer published a position and asked the readers "Who stands better?" After long and difficult analysis, they discovered Black should win, but then Breyer informed that White (to play) draws, by "simply" demonstrating that there must have been 50 previous moves without a capture or a pawn move!
- Log in to post comments
There is a clear difference between a possible en passant capture and possible castling in a composition: in the first you have to prove that something did happen to use it in the solution, which is doable, in the latter that something did not happen - normally impossible, because you can invent prove games either with or without rook or king moves.
For the rest: There is journalism, like competition chess, there is science, like in opening theory, there is prose, like in endgame studies, there is poetry, like in problems and there is experimental poetry, like in fairy chess problems, helpmates and even serieshelpstalemates (they really exist, look at the christmas puzzles of chessbase.com).
All have their own rules and conventions, and all have their own beauty (and can be excessively difficult...). In the end, when it comes to compositions, it's the composer that sets the rules. If the result is pleasing to anyone, the composition is a succes.
- Log in to post comments
1. Beautiful analogy with writing! Only in what you call prose and poetry (studies and problems) you mustn't have conflicting rules. If you simply say that special possibilities are NOT there, by defect (that is, unless stated), you stand no chance of confusion.
2. "0-0 unless disproven" conflicts with every objectivity, namely with "no e.p. unless proven (or stated)", as Langstaff briliantly proves. Its a real FLAW in the rules!
If the rules are "0-0 AND no e.p.", it is potentialy possible (pleonasm? :-) ) to set a legal position where one of them depends from the other by a conflict-generator implication, namely "0-0 IMPLIES e.p" or, the same, "no e.p IMPLIES no 0-0", or, identicaly, "e.p OR 0-0". These 3 forms are identical, and Langstaff could materialise them. They are the NEGATION of the rules' demand, because that demand is absurd. There is a reason for having rules by default, with no ambiguity, and NO need to disprove anything.
One could ask GM Navara. He probably knows, as he studies Logic. I know I'm right!
3. In fact "0-0 unless disproven" conflicts with EVERY other rule about special posibilities, not just with "no e.p. unless proven"! It also conflicts (potentialy) with "no 3-fold repetition unless proven" and with "no 50 moves unless proven". What may be difficult is to find a position in which 0-0 IMPLIES one of those other special possibility that (as should be) is forbiden by default. Then the flaw would also manifest itself.
But even if, in practice, we were never to find real, concrete examples (imagine that even the Langstaff didn't exist, or even COULDN'T exist). It would always be a FLAW in the rules (for the serious discipline of problem solving, that is!) to mantain ANY uncertainity over which are the legal moves.
4. Retrograde analysis is other thing. There, other things are seeked. It is not acceptable that some problem reaches there DUE TO the rules for direct mate in x problems being incorrect!
5. Your 1st paragraph:
"There is a clear difference between a possible en passant capture and possible castling in a composition"
Apart from the obvious, you seem to be right, but you should't, in what rules is concerned.
Sorry my English, my repetitions, and my limitations in trying to expose things.
- Log in to post comments
"e.p OR 0-0? (the 3rd form) is wrong, and should be
"e.p OR no 0-0?
- Log in to post comments
Completely misunderstood!
OK, last try. Sorry for this seemingly arrogant recomendation: If you please, and wish, read very VERY attentively.
1. "we're not there to suit the rules, the rules are there to suit us"
Fully agree! That is not the question and, if it is, it's you the one forgeting that!
2. Neither "guilt" has nothing to do, here. The law analogy does not refer to the issue!
3. You seem to believe I'm already not understanding how things work. OK, the rule says that 0-0 (inversely of all other special situations) should be considered possible, unless proven impossible from the very position (or the composer so states). I understand exactely the consequences, and also the beauty of the consequences! And it's not like this kind of beauty must end! Never! (more further down on this)
4. That ruling is (please read carefully) WRONG.
It STRONGLY should change, I assure you. (for chess tradicional "mate in x" solving). And with NO beauty loss whatsoever!
This is not an opinion, this is not philosophy, this is not a radical formalism or excess of rigour!
The situation is EXACTELY ( you read well) as when the rules for playing the game were vague enough for alowing (for instance) "enemy's piece promotions".
Should they have remained that vague (e.g. because of fear of losing beautiful studies exploring that theme? Of course not! Rules are enhanced, precisely to "suit us"!
Did we loose those studies or that beauty? Again, of course not!
They became recognised as belonging to a "Meta-theory", a "meta-chess", a "fairy" theme. Something along the lines "supose the rules have this reading..." And, meanwhile, the rules became (more) relyable!
That's how things go. Sure, of course there are good reasons (historical, logical unknown or others) explaining why we still have, until now, in traditional chess problems, "0-0 posible unless disproven". But it must change, because it makes for non-chess (really another game!) (which can be amazing and enjoyable, sure).
5. There are no composer or solver issues involved, let alone "criminal" ones! I'm glad there were this kind of rule flaws, and that it was (and will ever be) through beautiful compositions that they became recognized. And there will always be rules to enhance! Not doing it is childish, and it is NOT chess. Note that the Langstaff CAN NOT EVEN be presented as a legal chess POSITION (because 0-0 is neither legal nor ilegal!). And that impossibility is stupid.
It could (and certainly should) be both a fantastic "meta-chess"/fairy puzzle AND also a legal chess position (with few interest other than an easy mate in 2, ok, but still). It only becomes chess when you erradicate it from it very nature. The difference is having or not having good, chess, rules for chess problems, now that we conquered the beatiful theme (as many other before).
- Log in to post comments
Last try.
In most law systems, you're innocent untill proven guilty. You don't have to prove that you haven't done anything criminal, that would be absurd. But when the other party can prove you've done it, you will hang.
When castling seems possible, you don't have to prove you've done something 'criminal', like moving your king or rook. So castling by the solver is only punished if the composer can prove the fact.
Now if the composer has done something 'criminal' by producing a position where black's last might have been a double pawn move, you're the one to prove the fact.
In the mean time, have some fun. Langstaff did, he found the only kind of position where law doesn't work. But we're not there to suit the rules, the rules are there to suit us.
- Log in to post comments
Hi... a single question, which thrilled me from your comment "…Do you remember those marvellous problems with some pawn promoting to an opponent's piece, or castling vertically with a never moved, newly promoted rook...?"
How is this last case possible (the castling with a newly promoted rook)?, as I have never seen such thing.
- Log in to post comments
:-) Glad you ask!
The position is: White Ke1, Rh1, Re8; Black Kc1
Mate in 1!
The key is 1. 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 mate! (The rook had just appeared on the board by promotion, previously! It is a never-moved rook!)
In the past, the rule was vague. It was (something like) "Castling is consists of moving the king two squares towards the rook, and the rook is positioned next to the king, in the opposite side. For castling to be legal it is necessary that neither the king, nor the rook, have already moved. ;-) Nice rule flaw, and nice exploration, right? ;-)
- Log in to post comments
Sorry, I just wrote a string of "0-"s.
The move is 1. 0-0-0-0-0-0 mate (of course!)
- Log in to post comments
At least in my adaptation, the move has number 1. It's immediate mate (nothing too much demmanding :-) ).
Also, anyway you can (or even ought to) use "0-0-0-0-0-0" (six 0s), because each one stands for each empty square between K and R, right? (Of course one can use 4, meaning "the next", or "bigger" castling, but that is subverting the original meaning of the notation. One could, as well, use any other number, for instance "the age of the person who thought of that castling for the first time"... :-) )
By the way, as you're a "man of thought", and a real "man of chess", could you contribute to the discussion Frits/Castro with your (pls, very pondered) opinion?
Have you read it? I think it is of fundamental importance, and maybe you could help reaching it's conclusions to the right people?
- Log in to post comments
You mean 3.0-0-0-0, Castro. The phenomenon was first suggested by the same Tim Krabbe in a (rather ingenious) study back in a 1972 in the Dutch magazine Schaakbulletin and was named "Pam-Krabbe castling". Krabbe writes in Chess Curiosities: "The FIDE rules nowadays do not speak of 'a rook' but of 'either rook on the same rank'."
- Log in to post comments
I duno, Castro, it's a complicated subject. Do you know Petrovic's study that I mention in my article? It will give you guys more food for discussion for months to come. About 15 years ago I was really into these matters and had very interesting opinions about it, but to be honest I forgot them all. For what it's worth, my opinion is that without the ambiguity in the rules we would never have had those crazy problems so that alone is worth it in my book!
- Log in to post comments
But that is precisely one of the things I said! Glad there WAS ambiguity in the rules! Once conquered, one must seek different ones. Not losing anything, and (of course) correcting the rules. Or would it also be good to mantain the ambiguity about the rooks being (or not) of the first rank, or promoted pieces of our colour?
And notice that these two examples of mine, if not dealed with, would just have brought to our days chess as a slightly different game (maybe a good, interesting one!), whereas the Langstaff-type is worse (for chess problem solving). They make chess problem solving NOT related to chess itself, as played by rules that (obviously) leave no doubt about the full (and mutual exclusive) sets of legal and illegal moves in every position.
For instance, there is no legal chess position without, at least, both kings, right?
But why do you say that? Aren´t there puzzles without kings? Sometimes it's just a knight! Yes, but that AREN'T CHESS positions! And so, the CORRESPONDENT puzzle CANNOT belong to chess problem solving! (at least, from the moment the flaw is discovered.
If, as you say, they categorized (and very well, I suppose) these puzzles as belonging to "partial retrograde analysis", then (by the same move) they should imediately (the sooner the better :-) ) correct the rules.
For something's sake, my English cannot be that bad!
- Log in to post comments
Which rook gives mate doesn't matter to the notation! :-)
As the notation itself, either you didn't read my answer to Arne, or you're forgeting that 1. Either one wants to be in coherence with the notation, and it's meaning (and the number of zeros must be 6), 2. Or "anything goes". At least every integer different from 2,3 would serve, the meaning being ad libidum. For instance, 5 if it would be the fifth rook apearing on the board, 8 because of the opponent's eye movement caused, and so on. Have you though about why the king-side (the minor) castling isn't noted by one, a single, zero, meaning "the basic one"?
- Log in to post comments
Well, the 1.0-0-0-0# note was to support your notation on that (for the "number 1" matter) unlike Arne´s 3.0-0-0-0, which I did not know what he meant with the "3". As for the four or six zeros issue, you may be right, I don't know, perhaps each zero does mean those empty spaces before the castling move; I simply followed that Wiki article and Arne´s reference about it, I guess for a simplicity sake (I study economy BTW, so likely was biased to). Eventually, I don't consider that important (the notation), but I do the potential inclusion of the rule. We tend to forget but sometimes happens that a quite late castling move decides the game. I remember some old Anand-Svidler in a Grunfeld where Vishy mated Peter with 0-0 passed the 30th move –and I am sure the record should be way higher, and someone king enough may be able to find it-, so why not passed, say, the 60th move.
- Log in to post comments
Sorry, forgot to add:
... And so, I was wrong when (some posts ago) I said those were rule-flaws of EXACTELY the same type. They aren't. I could live with 0-0-0-0-0-0, and opponent's piece promotions in chess (in fact, in some glorious way I do). :-)
- Log in to post comments
Ah, ok! You thought Arne erred the numbering! But he didn't he was refering to the seemingly original puzzle (note that I don't say "chess problem". But I could, if the rule stood as before that rule correction/enhancement!).
It was a mate in 3 composition (after all, haven't you follow Arne's links?), and the position before mate is similar to mine. Castling mates.
In fact, and contrary to Langstaff-dismounted flaws issues, we could have mantained that unclearness about castling, in chess (and that mate could still be a legitime chess problem). One thing is having "chess" as a slightly different game than we thought before: Other, unbearable, is chess not having a genuine, it's own, problem solving department (as the one that exists still imposes, as we found, positions where the legality of moves are not defined, hence not chess).
As for the record, I don't know, but my record is well above move 30, that I know!
- Log in to post comments
Your point is: "castling allowed unless disproven" in studies leads to contradictions with other special case rules like "no e.p. allowed unless proven", and is therefore flawed.
However, your alternative: "no castling allowed unless proven" would obliterate the use of castling in studies, since it is impossible to *prove* that castling is allowed (that is: to *prove* that there was no previous K or R movement) because - as Frits Fritschy pointed out - you can always start a proof game by moving your Rooks (just do 1.Nc3... 2. Rb1... 3. Ra1...4. Nb1 and this in all four corners to reach the starting position with no castling possible ever again).
So you have a choice: Rule out castling from all studies and problems altogether, or allow a paradox in some few extreme cases. Which do you prefer?
- Log in to post comments
So, could THAT be the problem (for you)? Well then it would be case imediately and easily dismissed!
The answer (I thought was already obvious) is: NONE of those!
Just procede like with any other special posibility, and just as BOTH logical rule-making praxis AND plain good sense demands:
The things that demand BY DEFAULT definitions are defined as having, BY DEFAULT the most trivial, basic, common, unspecial, etc. form.
(Note: Even way before knowing Langstaff-type "refutations", I was tought --- not so well, in a sense, it seems --- that castling was not allowed in problems, unless(...) And I also STRONGLY AGREED! Trying to teach me otherwise would have mean trouble, even if I wouldn't, still, be suspicious of a forced existence of a refutation. It would simply "stink"! :-) )
Of course castling must (from now on, don't be afraid!) be defined as non-legal, unless demanded by the very (chess --- it must be chess!) position, including in "position" the full information the composer may add, for instance "white queen-side castling valid". (This is as "Ruling out castling from all studies and problems altogether" as the corresonding for en passant, have you noticed?)
Don't be scandalized!!! That is made with every other special posibility!
Ok, luckily, the historical fact is that the castling rulling flaw was the one responsible for the exact type of beauty we came across (since Langstaff), and without which we would "merely" have it's (dozens of) similars in other fields. But that mustn't prevent us to correct flawed rules, which, by the way, is the ONLY way human kind really and fully apropriates the said beauty and logical meaning!
On the contrary!
Someone begun the right process: Sending the discovering, materialization puzzles to some kind of (suposedly right) "meta-theory". But didn't give closure! It's like not understanding!
Have you thought about the amount of themes (more precisely, of chess materializations of logic known themes) you are denied (beauty included) because of en passant being "non legal, unless stated or otherwise demanded"??
BY DEFAULT, "normal" rules must rule. And as good as we can make them! Uncovering flaws is a normal, sometimes endless, and usualy beautiful process. Mantaining them is the very negation of it! It points us to stupidity!
- Log in to post comments
Ok, understood. I do have two issues though, one practical, one more theoretical and along the lines of Frits's law-analogy.
Practical: Every study/problem with castling part of the solution needs to have an extra accompanying statement that castling is in fact allowed. Cumbersome, will be omitted, will spoil some of the solving fun, especially with retrograde problems. Not a big deal perhaps, but the general rule of castling allowed until disproven is more elegant and economical.
Theoretical: you state each definition should have the most trivial, basic, common form. There is a difference between castling and the other special cases you mentioned which I think make the current rules the most logical choice:
e.p. is possible *only* if something specific has happened
3-fold claim is possible *only* if something specific has happened
50-move claim is possible *only* if something specific has happened
Castling is possible only if something specific has NOT (yet) happened
If we get a study or problem position we are given no information about any specific events that led to it. Therefore it is logical and intuitively right (in my opinion) that we can make no inferences about any specific events unless they can be proven from the position (for instance by retrograde arguments).
This then implies that e.p., 3-fold, and 50-move are not allowed unless they can be proven, and that castling is allowed unless it can be disproven.
My point is, that a single, logical premisse (namely: we are given no information on the past) leads to a different treatment of castling compared to the other special cases.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your taste) this does lead to paradoxes in a problem/study niche. But "fixing" this paradox by obligating the composer to explicitly include information about the past with his study/problem is IMO a cure worse than the disease. But again, this is probably a matter of taste.
- Log in to post comments
Arne may not have been completely clear about the rules for solving problems and endgame studies. They are as follows:
- castling in the solution is allowed unless it can be proven to be illegal, i.e. from the starting position it can be deduced that either the king or rook must have moved;
- en passant capture in the solution is only allowed when it can be proven that the last move was a double pawn move.
It comes down to that you can't solve this problem, within the accepted rules for solving, unless you know black's last move.
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
Interesting article!
- Log in to post comments
Oh, come on, no-one of you ever had the experience, after winning or drawing against a much stronger player, of having been sleepwalking on the edge of a vulcano? That you hadn't seen a tenth of what your opponent had seen? That after a forced sequence of moves, surely leading to a loss, to your own surprise there was a sudden way out? Don't you dare to call that intuition!
Chess is a game of chance, becoming less so when you're getting stronger, but even then.
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
The Langstaff problem is interesting but ultimately solveable. Ke6 ist not the key move (Black answers o-o) but hxg6 is the key, since if Balck claims hxg6 is illegal, because his last move was Rh7-h8, we calmly set the pawns back and play Ke6 with mate to follow.
- Log in to post comments
I could write pages (in my so beloved style, english and opinions :-) ) about such an interesting article. Lots of things to say, believe me. But I'm in the mood for just one minor point, now:
I have learned that, in a study, BOTH castling AND en passant MUST be anounced as (if) legal. If not anounced, by defect they are NOT legal.
As it is given, the wonderful problem given simply shouldn't be a problem :-) . Note that also, even if things were as you put it, the syllogism is easily broken (I'd say self-broken): Castling would be legal (because both not disclaimed and not disproven, right?). So, black's last was g7-g5, no doubt about it, and no Rh7-h8 move claim is possible! So the key is 1.hxg6 e.p., and 2.Rd8# or 2.h7#. Quod eram demonstrandum.
In spite of all beautiful and amusing compositions we all have known, exploring the unobservation of the above mentioned convention (no castling, no en passant), it is the one that avoids all misunderstandings, and hence the only scientific one (and in fact the only one that makes true sense).
Congratulations, great entering the decade, Arne ;-)
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
So everything is debatable and "lost" positions are not, in fact, lost. Someone should inform the grand evolutionists they aren't as brilliant as they believe. Science, religion, and chess...bring on the scotch!
A shame the third-rate introduction coloured an otherwise intriguing text on chess relativism.
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
Why can't we have a thumbs up/down function on articles?
- Log in to post comments
3 years 11 months ago
All very interesting stuff! You could make dozen of articles by expanding the ideas exposed in this article!
One excellent french forum (for those reading french, it is the fantastic France-Echecs.com) suggested that we should not speak of "opening theory". As you point out, all this aspect of the game has nothing in common with a "theory", but more with fashion, belief, mimetism with the top, hypothesis: some player rehabilitate lines, some refutate lines, somes variations are considered trustfull, somme suspicious "according to a certain experience", certain games, or certain analysis done by a top player.
This "according to" does not define a theory: rather, this is a jurisprudence.
The real theoretical aspect in chess is at the other side of the game: in the endgame. Take Muller&Lamprecht, Dvorestky, or Nunn's book and here in these endgames with ultra restricted material you will have a real theory of the game, all scientificaly confirmed by the tablebase (for instance, the Lucena or Philidor positions). That is that you reach of stage in the game where you can mathematically demonstrate the outcome and in indifferently evaluate the position, not by giving nuanced evaluations such as white might have/has a slight/tangible/strong/major advantage, "white should win" (all subjective and still to be contested as the game proceeds) but by asserting "white wins".
- Log in to post comments
You are asserting that theory=truth, as certainly is the case with mathematics.
However, the term theory is used quite differently in other areas of science - like 'hypotesis' or even 'evaluation'.
So in this sense, chess is on common ground talking about opening-theory.
But of course, endgame-theory is closer to your deterministic understanding of the term.
- Log in to post comments
Great article..! It remembered me that, chess, as a matematical system, MUST be in accordance with Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Based on the absolutelIy defined axioms of the pieces moves and board geometry, you will never be able to create an infinite set of positions free of paradoxes! I loved to find this chess paradox..! Thanks...!
- Log in to post comments
"Based on the absolutelIy defined axioms of the pieces moves and board geometry, you will never be able to create an infinite set of positions" PERIOD! ;-)
Gödel's incompleteness theorems has nothing to do with chess in that way. Everithing about the rules is finite, here. Mixing theory with meta-theory always yelds trouble, even with tic-tac-toe!
- Log in to post comments
... which, by the way, is of the exact same mathematical/logic nature as chess.
- Log in to post comments
Pls, read again my last post....I did not say, for the "demonstration" of my statement, that the board is finite! I assumed that the Langstaff's problem can be presented even if you consider an infinite board, which infinite columns x rows origin is placed just at the upper right square...! Remember that our beloved FIDE (real) chess game, mathematically speaking, is just a finite "window" of an infinite two dimensional game (or even multi-dimensional game), even if you assume the existence of a finite set of pieces and their corresponding finite moves rules (a limited set of axioms applied inside an infinite field or n-dimensional universe of squares). Mathematics is like this: Its is not possible to have any set of rules capable of creating a full consistent and complete logical system, because the universe is aways infinite and this also lead to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. So some judgement error can occur in this case, because people do not realize that the a.m. problem belongs in fact to an infinite 2D board....
- Log in to post comments
Latest articles
6 months 6 days ago
6 months 1 week ago
6 months 1 week ago
6 months 1 week ago
6 months 1 week ago
6 months 1 week ago
6 months 1 week ago
6 months 1 week ago
6 months 2 weeks ago
6 months 2 weeks ago
6 months 2 weeks ago
6 months 2 weeks ago
6 months 2 weeks ago
6 months 2 weeks ago
6 months 2 weeks ago
6 months 2 weeks ago
6 months 3 weeks ago
6 months 3 weeks ago
6 months 3 weeks ago
6 months 3 weeks ago


text:
7/07 in Yankee History
2007: The 61st Annual Old Timers' Game takes place at the Stadium. 1998 World Series MVP Scott Brosius takes part for the first time, and joins Paul O'Neill, Don Mattingly, Darryl Strawberry, Jim Leyritz and Brian Doyle. In the game that follows, Roger Clemens mkakes one of his best starts of the year, matching Anaheim ace John Lackey by allowing one run on five hits through eight frames. But in the top of the 12th, Brian Bruney surrenders a leadoff double to Howie Kendrick, and a double error by Miguel Cairo at first on a bunt play gives up the deciding run in a 2-1 loss.
2005: A familiar pattern continues to develop as the Yankees place Carl 'American Idle' Pavano on the 15-day disabled list with right shoulder tendonitis.
In other roster changes, backup infielder Rey Sanchez is transferred from
the 15-day to the 60-day disabled list. And although his initial
two-week stay in the bigs would not be good, the purchase of the
contract of outfielder Melky Cabrera from AAA Columbus would prove to be a good move for the club.
1991: Bernie Williams makes his Major League debut. Though the Yankees fall to the Orioles 5-3, the rookie displays his strengths by driving in one run from each side of the plate. After delivering one tally on a sac fly off lefty starter Jeff Ballard, Bernie strokes an rbi single off righthanded closer Greg Olson in the ninth inning.
1987: The numerologists would have a field day… Trailing the Twins 7-0 in the 7th inning on 7/7/87, the Yanks score 7 runs to tie it. Mike Pagliarulo and Rickey Henderson homer and Don Mattingly, Dave Winfield, Claudell Washington, and Gary Ward single in succession, for 7 straight safeties. A Claudell Washington home run highlights the five-run 8th that follows, and the Bombers emerge with a 12-7 victory.
1982: Jumpin' Joe Dugan, third baseman for the great Yankee teams of the 1920s, dies at the age of 85.
1978: Ron Guidry's historic winning streak comes to an end at the hands of Milwaukee's Mike Caldwell, who shuts out the Yankees 6-0 on. This is the second ofzzthree shutouts the Brewer lefty will record against the Bombers this year, and sends Gator's record 'plummeting' to 13-1.
1977: Catfish Hunter four-hits the Indians for an 8-2 win, completing a three-game series sweep at the Stadium.
1970: Mel Stottlemyre pitches well, but gets a no-decision as his undergunned Yankee mates fail to provide much run support against the Orioles. Stot leaves the game in the eighth with the score tied at 2, and Lindy McDaniel allowed a Brooks Robinson 10th-inning grand slam for a 6-2 Baltimore walkoff win.
1968: Chuck Knoblauch is born. Happy 43rd to one of the standouts from the Torre glory years!
1966: Mired in a 1 for 17 slump, Mickey Mantle comes up in the bottom of the 9th with the Yankees tied with the Red Sox 2-2. The Mick belts a 3-run homer for the walkoff win.
1951: At Fenway, Clyde Vollmer of the Red Sox connects for a grand slam to chase Yankee starter Allie Reynold. The final score is 10-4 for Boston, with Ellis Kinder going the route for the win. Mickey Mantle's leadoff blast in the 9th completes the New York scoring .
1937: Lou Gehrig leads the AL to victory in the All Star Game, pacing the junior circuit attack with 4 RBI on a home run and a double.
1915: Connie Mack's 'fire sale' in Philadelphia continues, as the A's sell Bob Shawkey to the Yankees for $18,000. Shawkey will go on to win 175 games in pinstripes.
1904: Jack Chesbro is bested by the Boston Americans 4-1 at Hilltop Park for one of only 6 losses the Highlander ace will suffer in a season in which he establishes a Major League record of 41 victories that still stands.
1903: In a game with the Highlanders at New York, White Sox outfielder Danny Green is called out at first in a close play by arbiter John Sheridan (shown below). After returning to the bench, the Chicago player continues to yell at the ump. Sheridan finally rushes the bench and hits Green in the head with his mask. The offended player then punches the umpire, who is taken from the grounds in handcuffs and locked up on charges of disorderly conduct. An hour later he isreleased after bail is posted by Highlander president Joseph Gordon.


text:
Rapid Tooth Loss
13 comments:
- AnonymousJuly 12, 2012 at 8:38 AM
Ella shouldn't save her teeth. The Tooth Fairy keeps them to build her Tooth Fairy Castle, Silly:)lol I have my Wisdom teeth and I have my daughter's teeth. I think they are cool! Maybe someday scientist will be able to use them to somehow help our bodies:)ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM
Stem Cells found in baby teeth!:) Check it out:)ReplyDelete
wow! interesting. good find!!Delete
- AnonymousJuly 17, 2012 at 7:13 AM
There are a couple of companies that now offer the service:Delete
(We used store-a-tooth for our daughter Gabriella)
just found my wisdom teeth in a little bowl with rings and earrings (I have not touched it for years, so there they are... (o:)ReplyDelete
I'm with you on this one, Sharon. My kids teeth go in the garbage- yuck!ReplyDelete
Hi, I've been reading your blog for a few months now after I came across it on A Cup Of Jo, I love all of your adventures! Anyway I just thought I'd say hi and let you know that you better watch out for when Ella is a teenager, she is so gorgeous and soon enough she will have boys chasing her left, right and centre! Of course your boys are so cute too!ReplyDelete
Love your blog. I cut my 2 year old's hair for the first time and felt I should save it because I couldn't bear to throw out hair she had since she was born, but then I looked at the swept up rice krispies and milk in it from the breakfast floor and thought that was pretty gross.ReplyDelete
I could see saving the first one, but not all. That's just macabre lol.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 12, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Ha! Here is website for all of you who are just throwing your precious teeth in the garbage can:) Donate to a good cause!ReplyDelete
I just found this amazing website~National Dental Pulp Laboratory, Inc. They would gladly take any teeth you would like to donate:) They are doing extensive research on stem cells and teeth:) Here is the website if anyone is interested:)Donate!
That's awesome! Will do.Delete
- GeraldineJuly 18, 2012 at 9:54 PM
I keep everything! I have nail cuttings from the first time I cut my son's nails (please don't judge me), a tiny bit of his newborn baby hair, his first lock that was cut when he was 10 months old, first socks and the list goes on. i will certainly be keeping his teeth (I have mine that my mother kept for all these years). I'm not normally a hoarder but find it hard to throw out anything relating to my 3 year old! We have a lot of keepsake boxes :)I love your blog by the way, I too found you through cup of jo.ReplyDelete
She is so beautiful, and even look more cute without her toothReplyDelete


text:
Wedding Beauty & Health near granville,oh
Other Wedding Vendors near granville,oh:
|Wedding Band (51)
|Wedding Beauty & Health (186)
|Wedding Catering (175)
|Wedding Ceremony Music (61)
|Wedding DJ (215)
|Wedding Dress & Attire (122)
|Wedding Event Rentals (81)
|Wedding Favors & Gifts (59)
|Wedding Flowers (198)
|Wedding Invitations (112)
|Wedding Jewelry (107)
|Wedding Lighting & Decor (31)
|Wedding Officiant (137)
|Wedding Photography (621)
|Wedding Planning (153)
|Wedding Rehearsal Dinner (37)
|Wedding Transportation (49)
|Wedding Travel Agents (39)
|Wedding Venue (396)
|Wedding Videography (78)
You've chosen the maximum (5) items in this category. Compare your items or remove and replace with another.Compare Now
0 Vendors Selected. Select up to 5 vendors to compare in one of the following categories: Venues, Bands, Catering, Photography or Videographers.
Grandview Aesthetic Center
Grandview Heights , OH | 614-421-7546
Welcome to Grandview Aesthetic Center, where you can come to look and feel your best. We are centrally located in Grandview Heights, minutes from...(more)
Amazing Grace Productions8 Reviews
Powell, OH | 614-805-8328
Amber's love of makeup began at a young age. She began her journey as a professional makeup artist shortly after graduating from Aveda Institute...(more)
Columbus Traveling Beauty Team22 Reviews
We bring the Beauty to YOU!!!
Columbus, OH | 614-316-6475
WE BRING THE SALON TO YOU! Ever since Christine "Chris" Carpenter was a little girl, she had the passion to want to do hair and...(more)
Simply Makeup & Hair llc144 Reviews
Winter Specials
We are a strong team of the regions top makeup & hair stylists with over 25 years of combined experience & training. Our artists range from salon...(more)
Contact Us Website
Book in the month of April and receive complimentary lashes and a touch up gloss.
Wedding Hair of Ohio LLC30 Reviews
On-Site Wedding Hair and Make-Up
Columbus, OH | 614-500-3924
Professional Makeup Artist in the 614.(more)
Virtue Salon LLC5 Reviews
Columbus, OH | 614-725-2329
Styles For The Aisle-Onsite Updos and Airbrush make-up12 Reviews
Lewis Center, OH | 614-332-6470
We are decated professionals with seventeen plus years experience. We come to you, on your special day. Updos range from 50-55 dollars(additional...(more)
Nurtur The Salon5 Reviews
Columbus, OH | 614-487-3033
NURTUR THE SALON'S MISSION STATEMENT Our mission at Nurtur the Salon is to inspire and educate our Team Members and our guests about beauty...(more)


text:
SEARCH INDIAN MARKET : Emerging Economic Superpower ::
Get a free online business listing
A free Listing & start advertising your business online Free.
Advertise your trade banner Free
Submit your business to our free B2B directory & manage your own listing...
Copyright 2014 Indiabizleads.com,
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of material from any indiabizleads.com
pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.


text:
Remember Me
Remember Me
Forgot your password?
Haven't registered yet?
12/19/2014NACCE Names President of North Iowa Area Community College to Board
12/10/2014Miami-Dade- Fostering Entrepreneurial Spirit in a City of Immigrants
11/28/2014Entrepreneurs of all ages sought for Hormel competition at McCook Community College
10/11/2015 » 10/14/2015NACCE 2015 Conference - Save the Date!


text:
Marisa Cropped Pants in Graphic Leaf Jacquard
Marisa Cropped Pants in Graphic Leaf Jacquard
$34 .88
 Done in phenomenally textured graphic leaf jacquard, this cropped pair makes an amazingly chic statement. Fits smoothly from waistband through to hips. Front zip with hook and bar closure. Back welt pockets. 26" inseam.
Style #301374
63% Cotton, 34% Polyester, 3% Spandex


text:
NFPA 25: Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems and Handbook Set, 2011 Edition
|Item # 25SET11
Consult the 2011 NFPA 25 Set to test and maintain sprinkler systems, diagnose problems, and schedule repairs.
Update your NFPA 25 references so you can inspect, test, and maintain water-based fire protection systems with confidence. NFPA®'s money-saving NFPA 25: Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems and Handbook Set has everything you need to answer questions and ensure system performance and operational readiness:
- The 2011 NFPA 25 with the latest requirements for the care of sprinkler systems including fixed water spray and foam-water systems, standpipe and hose systems, fire pumps, piping and appurtenances, and water storage tanks. Major changes in this edition include updated testing frequencies, clarification of responsibilities for building owners and their designated representatives, and new terms that define "critical deficiencies" and "noncritical deficiencies" to help maintainers determine corrective actions and prioritize repairs. (Softbound, Approx. 106 pp., 2011)
- NFPA's 2011 Water-Based Fire Protection Systems Handbook presents full NFPA 25 text along with insights on application, 100+ visuals, updated case studies, and more. A special insert with full-color photos prepares you to spot the warning signs of corrosion and other problems. Also includes five in-depth Supplements, and a URL for access to online forms you can customize for inspecting, testing, and maintaining multiple systems. (Hardbound, Approx. 480 pp., 2011)
Keep essential data at the ready with the 2011 NFPA 25 Set!


text:
Socks by Sock Dreams
We offer FREE USPS shipping on all US orders!
back to » home » DreaM Stockings
Browse By
- Argyle
- Artistic
- Baby & Kids
- Bamboo
- Bootsocks
- Cable Knit
- Cashmere
- Compression Socks
- Cotton
- Critter Socks
- Cronert
- Cuban Heel
- Dahlgren
- DreaM Stockings
- Dreamer Socks
- Eco Friendly
- EG Smith
- Fishnet
- Floral
- Geeky & Nerdy
- Gumball Poodle
- Hand Made and Altered
- Indulgences
- Lace
- Larger Feet
- Lightweight
- Made in the USA
- Men's Socks
- Niqkita's Stash
- Non-Constrictive
- Novelty Socks
- Openwork
- Plus Sized
- Polka Dots
- Polonova
- Rainbows
- Ribbed
- RocknSocks
- Scrunchy Socks
- Sheer To Waist
- Silk
- Slipper Socks
- Small Feet
- Sock It To Me
- Solid
- Sport Socks
- Stripes
- Sweet Marcel
- Tabbisocks
- Tabi
- Terry
- Tie Dyed
- Trouser Socks
- Tube Style
- Vices
- Victoriana
- Warm!
- Wool
- Woven Toe Seam
Diamond Rib Knee Socks
Great for men and women - these make a fantastic kilt sock and are super-cute with sock garters (which will help them stay up). They can be worn comfortably at the knees, including a nice cuff. Shorter legs might even be able to wear them over the knees. Made in the USA.
One unisex size: fits best on women's US shoe size 7- 11 and men's US shoe sizes 5-9. Smaller feet could wash these in hot water and run them through the dryer and they should shrink just a bit. The body of these socks stretches to about 17 inches and the tops stretch to about 15 inches. Approximately 22 inches from heel to top, unstretched.
Additional Info: These do not stay up perfectly on their own but do look cute a little slouched down or worn over tights. If you use sock garters they will stay up really well.
Fiber Content: 80% recycled cotton, 15% acrylic blend, with 5% Lycra® for stretch.
Machine or hand wash in cold to cool water, tumble dry low or hang dry.
Label: Dream Stockings
Would these fit as cuffed knee socks for a 22-inch calf? Thanks!
Good middle of the night! I don't suppose there is any chance these socks would fit a US size 5 foot? I think they are absolutely lovely, but I'm afraid my pixie-sized feet would swim in them. Thanks!
When will your navy and hunter green knee socks be back in stock?
Will you be bringing back the rust-colored diamond rib socks?
I am so glad that Sock Dreams has models of varying sizes and proportions to model their socks and stockings. Especially the looooong ones
~ @twotone


text:
Mary Leigh and Ed Anderson
Mary Leigh and Ed Anderson have a long history together here in Louisville. Those who know the couple know every bit of that history thanks to Ed, who loves to tell stories and jokes to family, friends and anyone who will listen.
A 1943 graduate of St. Xavier High School, Ed has worked hard to build a tradition of St. X graduates in his family, sending his four sons to the school, who then sent their sons to St. X. Though he's highly dedicated to his alma mater, his greatest devotion lies with his wife of 64 years.
Ed and Mary Leigh sat down with me, their granddaughter, to talk about their history together and to tell a few of Ed's favorite stories, as well.
How did you meet?
Ed was only on his third day of leave from the service, when a life-threatening automobile accident sent him to St. Joseph's Infirmary hospital in Louisville. There, Mary Leigh was working as a nurse and was assigned to help Ed through his injuries.
"I lost 27 days of leave because I was in the hospital," Ed said. "I'll tell you when it was – 5:30 in the morning, March 1, 1944."
Lying on the hospital bed, bandaged completely with just one eye showing, Ed joked, "She fell in love with my left eye."
How did he propose?
"Gosh, I'm trying to think," Mary Leigh said. "I don't know."
After 64 years of marriage, it can be hard to remember that far back in time. But, Ed is certain he knows the answer: "I know. Right there under the mailbox. You said, 'I'm not going to wait any longer. Either now or forget it.' I said, 'OK, will you marry me?'"
"I swear I don't even remember that," Mary Leigh chuckled. "Isn't that something."
How do you make it work on a day-to-day basis?
When it comes to arguing, Ed simply won't do it.
"Anytime I want to argue he gets up and leaves the room." Mary Leigh said with a grin. "I cannot get a good argument going. It would make me so mad sometimes. He would just get up and leave the room, and I had no alternative but to just stop."
The couple would always settle their disputes quickly, often because they simply forgot why they were arguing to begin with. "We just let it go until both of us cooled down and it was forgotten," Ed said.
How do you divide up household chores?
"She was a great housekeeper, and a great cook, no question," Ed said. "I was working three jobs at one time. She had to do all of it."
However, since growing old together, Ed has begun to share in the household chores.
"He grows vegetables outside and does the grocery shopping," Mary Leigh said. "He takes me where I don't feel like I'm capable of driving. He has really tried to help me a lot."
Where do you like to go when you're out 'n' about?
With several grandchildren involved in sports, Mary Leigh and Ed have spent years attending their grandkids' baseball, soccer, football and volleyball games. Currently, they keep busy watching their grandson Eric's St. X baseball games as well as their granddaughter Taylor's gymnastic competitions.
"We do anything that involves the kids," Mary Leigh said. "We've watched all the grandkids in something I think."
What is one thing you always do as a couple?
"We go to church together every Sunday," Mary Leigh said. "It's been our faith in God that has pulled us through everything."
What is some advice you would offer couples – new or old – who desire to walk through life in tandem?
This question brought the couple to a brief pause. "Wait a minute now, I'll have an opinion," Ed assured. "Before you act, sleep on it."
Mary Leigh offered slightly different advice: "Overlook the little things and pray that you'll be able to conquer the big things."
"I like mine better." Ed joked.
Ed: "I hang up my clothes every morning and clean up the bathroom."
"You do?" Mary Leigh questioned. "When was that?"
Mary Leigh: "Don't pick for every little thing that irritates you."
"But you complain all the time," Ed teased.
"Well I'm just giving advice for the future generation," Mary Leigh said with a laugh.
Wedding Date
April 10, 1947
Mickey, Lynn, Denny (deceased), Kevin, Gary and Karen. The couple has 12 grandchildren (one deceased) and four great-grandchildren.
The Highlands
Ed was an IRS agent for seven years before becoming a self-employed tax accountant for 61 years. Mary Leigh described her occupation: "64 years of housewife – excellent housewife."
Cats or Cards?
Category: In Tandem
About the Author (Author Profile)
Ashley spends half her time writing stories at The Voice-Tribune office and half her time out on the town conducting interviews, while occasionally dressing in wild outfits to fully immerse herself in the experience (aka Princess Leia at Comic Con). Ashley is a huge UofL fan and loves the Yankees and the Boston Celtics (she is fully aware of the irony). She hopes to one day outshine Erin Andrews on ESPN and enjoys running, Bardstown Road/Fourth Street, Breaking Bad and reality TV (she's not ashamed to admit that).
Comments (4)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
I find the article intertaining and truthful. They are a couple in life's journey, soulmates indeed.
I have to admit I have never seen them get into a argument and I have seen them at Ashley's, Matthews, and Eric's games. Both are great people and fun to be around. If you are in the room they make sure everyone gets involved in the conversation. Go Cats.
I loved the article!! Not sure whose daughter you are, Ashley, but you hit it right on! I adore Uncle Stan(that's what we call him) and Aunt Mary Leigh, they are the best of the best. We just don't see enough of them.
I'm privileged to have known them all my life…they are an inspiration! It has been one fun, crazy ride with them…the laughs never stop!