Einstein v Oppenheimer (1933)

Sort:
EarthDragon420


  • Please be relevant, helpful & nice!
Sqod

Wow, is that real?! Great find! I'm surprised Einstein spent enough time at chess to know what a Ruy Lopez was, and to be able to find such powerful tactical moves. I've read that Einstein possibly wasn't really a genius, and I know that sheer intelligence does not mean a person is a good chess player, so such strong play surprised me.

----------

(p. 132)

   One might expect that Einstein's brain was far beyond an ordinary

human's, that it must have been huge, perhaps with areas that were abnor-

mally large. In fact, the opposite has been found (it is slightly smaller, not

larger, than normal). Overall, Einstein's brain is quite ordinary. If a neurolo-

gist did not know that this was Einstein's brain, he probably would not give

it a second thought.

   The only differences in Einstein's brain were rather minor. A cer-

tain part of his brain, called the angular gyri, was larger than normal, with

the inferior parietal regions of both hemispheres 15 percent wider than aver-

age. Notably, these parts of the brain are involved in abstract thought, in the

manipulation of symbols such as writing and mathematics, and in visual-

spatial processing. But his brain was still within the norm, so it is not clear

whether the genius of Einstein lay in the organic structure of his brain or in

the force of his personality, his outlook, and the times. In a biography that I

once wrote of Einstein, titled Einstein's Cosmos, it was clear to me that certain

features of his life were just as important as any anomaly in his brain. Per-

haps Einstein himself said it best when he said, "I have no special talents. . . .

I am only passionately curious." In fact, Einstein would confess that he had

to struggle with mathematics in his youth. To one group of schoolchildren,

he once confided, "No matter what difficulties you may have with math-

ematics, mine were greater." So why was Einstein Einstein?

   First, Einstein spent most of his time thinking via "thought experiments."

He was a theoretical physicist, not an experimental one, so he was continu-

ally running sophisticated simulations of the future in his head. In other

words, his laboratory was his mind.

   Second, he was known to spend up to ten years or more on a single

thought experiment. From the age of sixteen to twenty-six, he focused on the

problem of light and whether it was possible to outrace a light beam. This

led to the birth of special relativity, which eventually revealed the secret of

the stars and gave us the atomic bomb. From the age of twenty-six to thirty-

six, he focused on a theory of gravity, which eventually gave us black holes

and the big-bang theory of the universe. And then from the age of thirty-six

to the end of his life, he tried to find a theory of everything to unify all of 

physics. Clearly, the ability to spend ten or more years on a single problem

showed the tenacity with which he would simulate experiments in his head.

   Third, his personality was important. He was a bohemian, so it was natu-

(p. 133)

ral for him to rebel against the establishment in physics. Not every physicist

had the nerve or the imagination to challenge the prevailing theory of Isaac

Newton, which had held sway for two hundred years before Einstein.

   Fourth, the time was right for the emergence of an Einstein. In 1905, the

old physical world of Netwon was crumbling in light of experiments that

clearly suggested a new physics was about to be born, waiting for a genius to

show the way. For example, the mysterious substance called radium glowed

in the dark all by itself indefinitely, as if energy were being created out of thin

air, violating the theory of conservation of energy. In other words, Einstein

was the right man for the times. If somehow it becomes possible to clone

Einstein from the cells in his preserved brain, I suspect that the clone would

not be the next Einstein. The historic circumstance must also be right to

create a genius.

   The point here is that genius is perhaps a combination of being born

with certain mental abilities and also the determination and drive to achieve

great things. The essence of Einstein's genius was probably his extraordinary

ability to simulate the future through thought experiments, creating new

physical principles via pictures. As Einstein himself once said, "The true sign

of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination." And to Einstein, imagina-

tion meant shattering the boundaries of the known and entering the domain

of the unknown.

   All of use are born with certain abilities that are programmed into our

genes and the structure of our brains. That is the luck of the draw. But how

we arrange our thoughts and experiences and simulate the future is some-

thing that is totally within our control. Charles Darwin himself once wrote,

"I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in

intellect, only in zeal and hard work."

Kaku, Michio. 2014. The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind. New York: Doubleday.

boyd4891

Genius is an interesting subject, if you look at Einstein and someone I have been doing some work on recently, Alan Turing, both very clever men - but essentially the world lumps together all of the achievements in their field and gives it to them - Einstein's work had a lot of foundations in work done by other people.

Sometimes people really like the story, Alan Turing's team worked on the German enigma code in WWII - he was a Cambridge University Maths professor, working with other similar academic people; Tommy Flowers who created a far more sophisticated machine that broke the infinitely more complex German Lorenz cipher...never gets a mention, he was a post office engineer, not a professor.

For a long time the church in Rome kept the music for Miserere mei, Deus a secret - it is a truly amazing piece of music, almost magical; so the church did not want just anyone playing it, it was kept for very special occasions - as a 14 year old boy Mozart heard it once and was able to transcribe it out in full. Does a good musical ear make you a genius?

darkunorthodox88
Ripley_Osbourne wrote:

Leonardo Da Vinci and Jules Vernes were amazing visionaries, but never brought any true relief to Mankind's miseries and problems.

Albert Einstein proved unable to foresee dramas such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the incidents of Chernobyl (that came close to turn the whole of Europe into an inhabitable zone) and Fukushima.

For some reason, them (historical) "geniuses" are never wholistical geniuses. They see what others don't see, but only in very specific and limited directions.

For the reasons, I'm nor impressed by such, limited and somehow mechanical geniuses. They are like a motorbike, that goes sure faster than a bicycle, but also provide deadlier accidents along with faster travel possibilities.

True genius has to be more efficient in what it brings to Mankind, Life, and it's Future.

What a trite opinion, genius is genius, regardless of whether its work has any application at all. Other times, works are so far ahead of their time, they do not have applications until decades later.

discovering the vaccine for polio had an effect on far more lives than say, Magnus Carlsen's chess or the proof of the Poincare conjecture, No one should claim the discoverer was more a genius.  

LizardOil
Ripley_Osbourne wrote:

Leonardo Da Vinci and Jules Vernes were amazing visionaries, but never brought any true relief to Mankind's miseries and problems.

Albert Einstein proved unable to foresee dramas such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the incidents of Chernobyl (that came close to turn the whole of Europe into an inhabitable zone) and Fukushima.

For some reason, them (historical) "geniuses" are never wholistical geniuses. They see what others don't see, but only in very specific and limited directions.

For the reasons, I'm nor impressed by such, limited and somehow mechanical geniuses. They are like a motorbike, that goes sure faster than a bicycle, but also provide deadlier accidents along with faster travel possibilities.

True genius has to be more efficient in what it brings to Mankind, Life, and it's Future.

Science during both of their times did not have to consider duel use.  Science now does have standards and a methodology to consider duel use for research lines.  It is not unusual for institutions or governments to prohibit research because of duel use concerns or to take steps to prevent bad actors from having access.

PinkFluffyPuppydog28

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

PowerOfAFullPoint

1.e4e52.f4exf43.Bc4g54.Nf3g45.O-Ogxf36.Qxf3Qf67.e5Qxe58.d3Bh69.Nc3Ne710.Bd2Nbc611.Rae1Qf512.Nd5Kd813.Bc3Rg814.Bf6Bg515.Bxg5Qxg516.Nxf4Ne517.Qe4d618.h4Qg419.Bxf7Rf820.Bh5Qg721.d4N5c622.c3a523.Ne6+Bxe624.Rxf8+Qxf825.Qxe6Ra626.Rf1Qg727.Bg4Nb828.Rf71-0

Karl Marx vs. Meyer

not bad if you ask me!

Sred
Ripley_Osbourne wrote:

What an opinion, that means just nothing: "genius is genius" wotogenius, yeah sure, it's not a candy bar.

If it means nothing, how was I able to understand it?

PinkFluffyPuppydog28

Wow cool. I think your genius

PinkFluffyPuppydog28

No

chriiisclm26

2 brilliant moves is crazy and this is the only documented Einstein game right? also love the commentary on the board lol. edit: just found out it's probably not einstein that played but his son and a european artist named oppenheimer... https://www.chess.com/blog/ThummimS/albert-einstein-vs-j-robert-oppenheimer

brrrish

brrrish

I copied his game and he was 1000 rated

brrrish

oppenheimer was 450