A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?

Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.

Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.

If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.

Most people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

The hardest thing to understand in the world is the income tax.

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

From youtube comments:
Translation part 1: Referring to remark 6a to chapter 2 of the KN, the coustoms administration has additionally (first laugh)published the? so called swiss explanation (second laugh) to the tariff (repeat). Accordingly certain products get assigned to chapter 2, which has added spice during the production, aslong as the nature of the product is not changed. (third laugh) Open bracket for example Bü- (fourth laugh) for example BÜNDERFLEISCH!

Translation 2: Excluded of this chapter is meat, where spice spread on all surfaces of the product, and visible to the naked eye.

A. I am against Federal Government regulations.  States could do whatever they want.

Q. Why are you against the federal regulations?

A. Because if they are wrong (and they often if not always are) they can bring the entire country down.

Q. What is wrong with the current regulation of banks?

A. Money is a product that can be saved, created, bought and sold, the same as potato. We created federal monopoly on production of this particular product and we regulate its price. This way money could be passed to the special interest under the disguise of a loan. If the true price, the market price of the loan is much higher, it’s not as apparent but is equivalent to passing money from taxpayers to special interest for help in reelection, future jobs, and consulting fees for politicians and members of their families. Such practice of legalized theft of taxpayers money  is the main source of politicians power.

Q. But everybody agrees that current regulation will decrease systemic risk?

A. Not everybody. I coauthored a paper that proves that any regulation of risk increases risk.

Q. Maybe we just need global financial regulation?

A. No, global regulation just increases the risk, the same way as federal regulation increased the risk compared to the state regulation. And it also helps politicians to redistribute money from taxpayers to politicians global special interests. This is often done not as a loan but as a swap. We’re making swaps in trillions of dollars for euros. The word “swap”sounds innocently enough, as if it is a fair exchange. Only few people understand that any swap has a price, and because our counterparty enters in a swap with us, it means we offer it for a cheaper price. With this swaps and loans from IMF we are channeling American taxpayers money in 100′s of billions to special interests around the Globe.

Say you have two conflicting hypotheses, H1 or H2. Statistics says you have to design a critical region, such that the probability of getting there under only one of the hypothesis, say H1, is small. If we still get there, we reject H1.

How do we apply this to the bailouts? If we ignore all hysterical statements, I am aware of only one quantitative prediction that proponents of bailouts put forward with the first bailout in October 1 2008: they said that if we didn’t pass the bailout, the Dow would plunge a few thousands points.

Rep. Brad Sherman on the first bailout bill: “Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill… that the sky would fall, the market would drop 2000-3000 points the first day, another couple thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.”

Well, since the first bailout passed, we are down a few thousands points. The Dow was then between 10,500 and 11,500. Today it closed at 7,115. Which proves that the whole bailout idea was wrong.

The tournament consisted of five games. Because I chose to play 2-day option (there was also a 3-day option), I played the first three games with a shortened time control: 1 hour for the entire game for each player. THe fourth and fifth games I played with normal time control: 90 minutes per 30 moves and then 1 hour for the rest of the game for each player.

In my first game I played against James Hiltunen. He had a better position from the opening, but then I “showed” him a pawn which he took. That gave me a strong initiative, Under pressure he made a non-obvious error, which let me make a small combination in a style of ‘find the best move.” I won the game. It turned out that after that game my opponent kep winning all his game until the last round where he lost to Lawinger.

In my second game I faced James Crenshow, a strong player, but not too confident in himself. All the game I had a better position and kept pressure, but there was nothing decisive. James was defending well, but it was taking him a lot of time. He lost this game on time, in a position where I still had some advantage.

In my third game, I played aganst Daniel Lawinger. He chose an unorthodox opening, on which I didn’t react the best way. After he forced exchange of Queens, I still had a small advantage though, due to controlling greater space. I kept this advantage almost until the end of the game. My game was also easier to play but he didn’t have clear weaknesses and defended well a-la Petrosian. I couldn’t find any break-throughs and after exchanges the game simplified. A draw.

The fourth game showed an opening battle with Haizhou Xu, which I didn’t handle well and ended up in a worse position. To get out of a bind I gave up a pawn (computer says that there was no bind, and that I shouldn’t have given up the pawn – see my comments.) AFter than Xu had a small advantage, but because of opposite-color bishops I was able to equalize. Another draw.

In my first game, I took a score sheet from the organizer’s table and after I won the game, I went afain to the organizer’s table, noticed a cartoon box there labeled “Chess Games,” took an extra score sheet, went back to my table, copied the game, and put the score sheet into the box. I did the same thing with my second game. Before my third game, I decided to save a trip to the organizer’s table, and took two score sheets. I wrote down the moves on one of them, but becaue it was a draw, I thought it was not worth the trouble to copy the game for the game box, so I’ve thrown away an empty score sheet. THe same happened during my forth game. Another draw, and I didn’t need the extra score sheet.

For my fifth game I got the pattern. I took a single score sheet. After I won the game, I went to the organizer’s table, took another score sheet, went back to my table, copied the moves on the new score sheet and put it into the games box. I played that game against Daniel Pomeranz who wanted to simplify the game and avoid all complications at all costs. With each exchange his postion was getting a little worse. I had a small advantage in the endgame when he made a natural and useful move which turned out to be a fatal mistake. I won the game and became NY state cochampion.

One final comment. That was the first tournament in my life to which I haven’t done any chess preparations. On the other hand, I just came back from a silent retreat where I meditated and kept silent for two weeks. Make the conclusion yourself.

YOU CAN LISTEN ONLINE BY CLICKING HERE AROUND 8:15am.