Miscellaneous desk
< May 11	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 12

What the heck is this thing?

Anyone have any good guesses (or, heaven forbid, actual knowledge) of what this thing is going to be? My best guess so far is a resonator instrument of some sort (though I haven't found such a thing with two resonators, or what is that second inscribed circle on the thing?) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's just going to be a standard resonator guitar, aka Dobro. The upper circle doesn't look like its going to house a resonator (look at the bottom circle, already cut out, and see the reinforcing braces to receive the resonator, the upper part doesn't have that). I think the upper circle is just a guide for finishing the top part of the instriment; i.e. they aren't going to cut another hole, it's just there to guide the shaping of the guitar. --Jayron32 04:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another picture. Reso guitar kinda thing was a first guess. Interestingly, I'm visiting to the National Reso-Phonic Guitars factory on Tuesday; I'll ask the guys there. You're right about the shaping, I think. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a banjo to me, with the top part scheduled to be cut off, and the circular hole added, to make another (smaller) banjo. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the utter lack of any banjo-like features other than roundness, I guess that's a feasible suggestion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... They wouldn't make it curve perfectly into the upper half if they were gonna make two, they'd cut the top out before assembling the pieces. Plus the nails/screws are in already. Definitely something designed to make a louder sound. Whether its an instrument or perhaps some fancy looking speaker, can't tell at this point. However, based on the scale of nearby objects in the second photo, the body itself looks to be 3 feet tall at least, and the pear shape is very unusual for a guitar. Lute? Cello? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, lutes are not shaped look anything like that; nor do cellos. I guess I should have asked for informed guesses, not just throwing out words and seeing if they stick. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did ask heaven to forbid answers from anyone who has any actual knowledge of the thing. Be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Capablanca Chess (10x10 version) vs Go:Which is more complex?

[I originally put this in computing reference desk by mistake. It probably could belong in entertainment or mathematics.]

Capablanca experimented with at least two larger boards...I'm asking about the 10 by 10 board here. The snap (and perhaps correct)answer is that Go is more complicated than Capa chess, but I'm not so sure. Thanks in advance for your responses.Rich (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Go. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very probably Go. If I calculate correctly, Capablanca chess has 38 opening moves. Go has 362 (19x19+passing). Even in the best case, Capablanca chess will have no more than 36 (queen)+8(king)+4*18 (rooks and bishops)+2*8(knights)+2*18(new pieces)+30 (pawns)+(maybe)2 castling possible moves at any time, i.e. less than 200 (and that's a generous estimate). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right then. But shouldn't the opening 360 be divided by 8? (To get 45+1+1 opening moves, counting passing) The other thing, perhaps i'm grasping at straws, is game length--if for some reason Capa chess could take far more moves than regular chess, longer perhaps than the middlegame of Go, which according to article becomes more straightforward in its endgame. The base would be smaller but the exponent larger.Rich (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not played Capablanca Chess, but I have played Shogi, and it wasn't considerably more complex than western chess. The issue is what you mean by complexity. Go has one piece, with which you can do one thing. You put a stone on a spot on the board. That's it. It is a very simple game from a gameplay standpoint. Chess (and shogi, and others from the family) is a more complex gameplay in the sense that there are several pieces which you have to keep track of what they do, how they move, and weird quirks (like castling and en passant and stuff like that). So chess games are more complex in the sense that there's just more rules and moves to keep track of. Go is fantastically simple in that way. However, in terms of strategy, Go is way more complex because there are just so many more ways a go game can play out. Chess is still fairly complex, in the sense that it still hasn't been "solved" (every possible board position played to every possible end game), but go has more possible board positions, even though its gameplay is so basic. --Jayron32 04:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I cannot give a research answer on this, I can assure you that Go would remain more complex, although as pointed out, it depends on your measure of complexity. Basically, computers can only play a tolerable game of Go, whereas I see no reason to doubt they would be able to master Capa chess within a reasonable time, if it took off. The rules are basically the same; it is just chess with a couple of different pieces. There would be many quirks distinguishing the two "chesses", owing to the new pieces and the size of the board, but these would not fundamentally alter the complexity of the game (or so I would assume). Another way of looking at it: one measure of complexity I have come across is to use the ( Elo) rating difference between an expert and a beginner. That for Go is greater than that for chess, as far as I am aware, because of the deeper structural nature of Go. An expert must pass through many levels of understanding in Go, whereas a chess grandmaster can spend much of his time memorising openings. Chess is based on relatively simple repeating patterns, and once a grandmaster has memorised the 100,000 or so basic positions, there isn't much more to be done than to fine-tune the skills, and build an opening repertoire. I see no reason why Capa chess would be fundamentally different from chess in this regard. IBE (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems two me you are misunderestimating the profounditude of regular Chess. For Capa 10x10 chess I think there will be further structure because of greater distances (also, more nooks and crannies) leading to somewhat disconnected battles. (BTW, I'm actually interested in a Capa type chess with more shortrange knights rather than the longer ranged archbishops, to increase the distance effect.)Rich (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intimate webcam meetings

Greetings! I have never had a girlfriend, even though that has always been my highest wish. This has led to a lot of hospitalisation (due to depression), and for many years now I am on SSRIs. The impact on my every-day life has always been profound (since the age of seven or so). For instance, today I cannot even read the news or watch TV because I cannot stand to be reminded about the fact that people my age and younger “already” have started to have sexual relationships. (I am 24 years old.) One way for me to get rid of some anger and sorrow, and to get some amount of female intimacy, is to be naked while a young woman (of my age) is watching via streaming video (webcam chat). However, I have realised that it is almost impossible to find women that are willing to watch. So, to my question: is there an online service (website), not necessarily free, where you can find such persons (in my case, women)? --81.170.174.36 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

www dot livejasmin dot com is one such website. --84.112.145.34 (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I know about this site, but was under the impression that it is mainly (or only?) about watching the models, not the other way around (that is, being watched by ... the models?). In addition, if both "modes" are available, do you pay for a membership and hope to find someone able to watch, or are you basically guaranteed to get someone to watch? Thanks again. --81.170.174.36 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't know the answers. Just browse the site and you may find what you are looking for. I was under the impression two-way webcam was possible, but maybe not. You don't pay for membership as such, you buy credit which gets used up as you go along. If you pay for a one-to-one session then you can dictate the terms of it. --84.112.145.34 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could join www dot ypmate dot com , just ask the model if she likes two way cam, many do. There is also the option of travelling to a neighbouring nation where prostitution is legal... Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just tried the first suggestion, LiveJasmin, and it seems to work very well (although it is very expensive). I will check out the latter one, too. As for travelling, well, Denmark is very close to Sweden, so I have thought of that as well. But doing such a journey regularly would be rather expensive. --81.170.174.36 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved