Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 February 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< February 7 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 9 >
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.


Contents


[edit] February 8

[edit] What is the recipe for Gordo's Beans or Gordo's Beans with Cheese?

The author of the now-defunct comic strip Gordo once published the recipe for Gordo's Beans with Cheese. It's a wonderful recipe, but I can find it nowhere. Please help. Bbklly (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear online, apparently, but it can be found in the book Accidental Ambassador Gordo: The Comic Strip Art of Gus Arriola, which your local library may have or may be able to get for you. Arriola died just a couple of days ago, to the sadness of comic lovers everywhere. Deor (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operating a motorized boat

What is the term giving when operating a motorized boat? For example, driving a car, flying a plane, sailing a sailboat. Acceptable (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally if a boat is large enough to be referred to as a ship or a yacht it is correct to say sailing, regardless of its source of power. When referring to a motorboat, we usually hear driving the boat. You also paddle a canoe or a kayak and row a rowboat. Piloting and operating are also used as more generic terms. —BradV 03:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about boating.... schyler (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That works in one way: I'm going to go driving; go piloting; go boating, but not in another: I'm going to drive my car; pilot my plane; boat my boat(?). It just sounds strange. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Does location matter? If I remember right when a cruise ship is out at sea the captain sails it, but when it comes into harbor a harbor pilot comes on board to dock it. So do captains sail and pilots pilot?--ChesterMarcol (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't refer to a captain "sailing" a ship. I must admit, I'm struggling to suggest an alternative (I guess he "commands") but to talk about "a captain sailing his boat" sounds almost like baby-talk.
The situation is slightly different in the case of the pilot, since he doesn't actually assume command when he comes on board. He advises the captain, often to the point that he's the one giving the helm orders, but the captain is still in charge. Also, any inshore "navigation", in which one refers to land features, bouyage, etc rather than stars, radio signals, GPS etc, is properly called "pilotage", whoever is doing it. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Las Vegas: 299 miles

How do highway sign-makers decide what part of town to measure to when giving distances? For most towns, it doesn't really matter, as they're only a mile or two across. But what about for big cities, like New York or Las Angeles? What about for towns that are off the highway: do they give the distance to the town, or to the road leading to it? --Carnildo (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the USA, but British Empire/Commonwealth countries usually measured to the central post office. This led to interesting situations, where the post office gave its name to the town (which, apparently was the source of Napier, New Zealand) Gwinva (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Within the States it can vary. Regardless of whatever the theoretical ideal is, I've often observed on the Interstate that the difference in miles-to-town from sign to sign is not the same as the difference between corresponding mile markers. — Lomn 03:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Paris, France, has a bronze cobblestone in front of Notre Dame cathedral that is the official starting-point for all distance measurements-- "Kilomètre Zéro". Perhaps other cities do the same? Rhinoracer (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In Helsinki, Finland, the city's measurement point is defined as the Erottaja square in the commercial centre area. JIP | Talk 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
From Charing Cross: ‘Charing Cross is officially recognised as the centre of London; distances to London are measured to the location of the original Eleanor cross’ -JoeTalkWork 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It is typically the distance to city center or downtown. So in very large cities you could actually already be in the city limits and still see signs saying x miles to wherever. The reason they choose the center rather than where the city starts at the city limits is due to the fact that the center doesn't change much and city limits could change dramatically over time, thus requiring them to change the signs. --Holderca1 talk 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, forgot the second part of your question, from my experience, the distance is in fact to city not the road leading to it. For example, it may say a city is 12 miles away, but the exit for the city is only 2 miles away. This can cause confusion in drivers when they see the 12 mile distance, than only a mile further down the road they see the sign for the exit to that city notifying them it is just a mile to the exit. --Holderca1 talk 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that this can vary. When I was young, I remember a highway sign in the town where I grew up reading "New York 50 miles". Then, at a certain point, a new sign was installed that read "New York 38 miles". The first sign measured the distance to New York City Hall. The second one measured the distance to the city limits at the edge of Queens. In retrospect, I suspect that this change was the result of lobbying by developers who wanted to entice home buyers with the prospect of a shorter commute than they would actually face. Marco polo (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a debate on this subject in the Reno, Nevada area 2 years ago due to a sign error incorrectly listing the distance from Carson City to Reno on the then brand new Carson City Freeway. If I recall correctly in one of the area newspapers a Nevada Department of Transportation official stated the NDOT standard is from downtown post office to downtown post office. You may search the area newspapers to see if you can find the story. It would be either the Reno Gazette Journal or Nevada Appeal.Davemeistermoab (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Found it .... see http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20051108/NEWS/111080052 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemeistermoab (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, it varies based on the state, or to be more specific, the agency placing the sign. MoDOT, which is the state roads agency of Missouri, appears to measure to the outer city limit, which would explain why the numbers tend to be revised down through the years. You can read the what the fascinating MoDOT Engineering Policy Guide has to say on the matter. If you want to know the specifics on a particular sign, I'd recommend that you contact the DOT that owns the sign. Most DOTs are quite friendly and happy to answer questions such as these. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why are there so many special operation units in the US?

Marine Corps Force Recon, Army Special Forces, and Navy SEALS

Aren't all of these units similar in capability and function?

Why not merge them all?

Or is there an advantage to so much redundancy?

Does Special Forces see action anymore?

Lotsofissues 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

army Special Forces is for infiltration behind enemy lines. One of the requirements to joining special forces is learning a new language (these days it is arabic). Navy seals are for amphibious warfare, and not sure about marines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goon Noot (talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They're distinct as a matter of history and pride, as much as anything. No service is going to quietly give up one of its most prized elite units in the name of consolidation, even if there is a vast degree of overlap in the various forces' capabilities. The diversity does allow for degrees of specialization -- it's nothing that couldn't be accomplished under one name, but the specialization would still have to exist, as no one soldier will be able to fill every possible role to the highest degree. Since you've got to specialize either way, it makes good sense to keep everybody happy and leave them separate. For the latter part, special forces certainly still see action on a regular basis. — Lomn 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel almost left out without any mention of Air Force Special Tactics units. There are six brands of Air Force "special forces" units, mostly revolving around the Air-Force specific tasks of supporting air traffic from uncomfortably outfitted locations, surviving after falling out of an airplane in hostile territory, and retrieving those survivors. While these Airmen train and often operate with their counterparts in other services, they all have unique skillsets which are not duplicated by Seals, Special Forces, or Force Reconners. They also don't have anything like the marketing savvy, so most people have never heard of them (of course, it's hard to make a cool movie about a combat weatherman). Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

When the US Army Rangers were set up in WW2 to copy the British Commandos, there was opposition from the Generals in charge of US armies, because they felt that taking the most warlike 100 men out of a division could cause a charge to stall in the face of fierce opposition, but a few heroes could lead the multitude of random soldiers to continue the advance, based on World War 1 and US Civil War experience. To overcome their opposition to "cherry-picking" the Rangers were supposed to be a training operation, with the men to be returned to their units. That did not happen. When the Rangers were shown able to pass through enemy lines and seize objectives from the undefended rear, as in North Africa, there was more support from on high. Edison (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well there somewhat organized under SOCOM, and they actually do most of the same things. The only differences i see is that each unit specializes in a different field of special ops. Like Navy SEALS amphibious, Force Recon, recon. BonesBrigade 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Language is a unique requirement of The US Army Special Forces program. If you are going to work with and train forces in other countries it helps if you can speak the language. That really is the "value added" feature of the Special Forces program, training other forces. In Phase V they get a go at language training. Arabic is not the rule, and in fact only targeted at guys in EUCOM or CENTCOM. Other languages include Russian, German, Czech, Hungarian, French, Polish, Chinese, Korean, Indonesian, Thai, Teglog, Spanish, Portuguese, Persian, Pushtu, and Urdu. - Hope that helps - SOF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.199.39 (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If you look at JP 3-5 (Joint SOF Operations) you will find only a few DEDICATED special operations units.

US Army. Special forces (SF), Ranger, Army special operations aviation (ARSOA), PSYOP, and civil affairs (CA) units.

US Navy. Sea-air-land team (SEAL), SEAL delivery vehicle team, and special boat team units.

US Air Force (USAF). SO flying (does not include USAF rescue/combat search and rescue units), special tactics, combat weather, and FID units. For those keeping track they are:

27th Special Operations Wing (SOW)- infiltration, exfiltration and re-supply of special operations forces; air refueling of special operations rotary wing and tiltrotor aircraft; and precision fire support.


1st SOW

The 720th Special Tactics Group (STG)- Special Tactics (ST) combat controllers (CCT), pararescuemen (PJs), special operations weathermen (SOWT). They organizes, trains and equips ST forces worldwide to integrate, synchronize, and/or control the elements of air and space power in the area of operations. It also provides long-range operational and logistics planning, and deploys command and control elements during special tactics force employment or deployment.

18th Flight Test Squadron evaluates aircraft, equipment and tactics in realistic battlespace environments to provide decision makers accurate, timely and complete assessments of mission capability. From concept development to system fielding, the unit's mission improves the survivability and combat capability of special operations forces worldwide.

352nd Special Operations Group (SOG) plans and executes specialized and contingency operations using advanced aircraft, tactics and air refueling techniques to infiltrate, exfiltrate, and resupply special operations forces

The 353rd SOG is the focal point for all U.S. Air Force special operations activities throughout the USPACOM theater. The group is prepared to conduct a variety of high- priority, low-visibility missions. Its mission is air support of joint and allied special operations forces in the Pacific. It maintains a worldwide mobility commitment, participates in Pacific theater exercises as directed and supports humanitarian and relief operations.

he US Air Force Special Operations School (USAFSOS) is a primary support unit of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), the Air Force component of the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The School is collocated with, and directly supports, USSOCOM's Joint Special Operations University.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.199.39 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeopardy

Why do people have to say "What is..." before the answer? MissingYes (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the blue card that is read from is in the form of an answer so the contestants "ask" the question. Take a look at Jeopardy. schyler (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a gimmick to make Jeapordy distinctive from all the preceding quiz shows on radio and TV. Edison (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The inspiration was the then-recent game show scandals where contestants on conventional quiz shows were secretly given the correct answers if the producers wanted them to win. Revealing the answer to start with was obviously something different from a conventional quiz show, right? (I know, not really, but it's a gimmick.) Hmm, that's interesting: despite the amount of detail in the article, this bit doesn't seem to be in it.
The original idea was that in a category like "Weights and Measures", the card would read "5,280" and the player would respond "How many feet are in a mile?"; but good questions of that type are hard to find, and so now we have "This unit is 5,280 feet" and players answer "What is a mile?", which is much easier to do.
Who is--Anonymous, 00:11 UTC, February 9, 2008.
That's what we'd all like to know. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never actually seen Jeopardy!, but what I have heard from it, makes the idea of "your answer must be in the form a question" completely useless. All they actually do is move the words "what is" from the question to the answer. It would be better if they were just like regular quiz shows. JIP | Talk 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Having tried out for Jeopardy, it actually adds an extra layer of difficulty to answering the questions. They advise you to go home and practice while watching the show. Your tendency is to just blurt out the answer, but you have to keep it in the forefront of your brain to phrase it as a question, not extremely difficult but it adds an extra wrinkle. Mad031683 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I assure you that if you watch the show for enough decades it eventually becomes natural. The game show Win Ben Stein's Money had a generally similar design with a different gimmick, and it used to happen regularly that one of its contestants would drop into Jeopardy! habits and say "Who is Bill Clinton?" instead of "Bill Clinton". In fact, it happened often enough that they developed a response for it: the answer would be accepted, if correct, but the contestant continue the game with a dunce cap on their head. --Anonymous, 00:20 UTC, February 15, 2008.

[edit] John Appleby, inventor of the "knotter"

One of the big problems for 10,000 years was the cutting and "binding into sheaves" (bundles" the cut grain. The perfection of the machine, called a "grain binder" was due to the invention of a "knotter," a device that tied a knot on a bundle of grain after it was cut by the grain binder's sickle bar. What was the input of John Appleby, who solved this major problem; for his "knotter" was used on various makes of grain binders, such as the McCormick grain binder? Appleby is the unsung hero who solved this great problem, but I need more information on him and the invention he offered. Mediapower (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)mediapower

United States Patent 90,807
Issued to John Appleby
Issue Date: June 1, 1869
Current U.S. Class: 56/455
Patent details. SWAdair | Talk 07:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] shares

what are second line shares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.112.64 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't give any context, but one usage means share issues that are in the second tier of a market in terms of market capitalisation. In the UK stock market, for example, second-line shares would be the "mid cap" share issues that are in the FTSE 250 index rather than in the FTSE 100 index [1] [2]. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ABS in snow/ice

Anti-lock braking system states that ABS increase braking distance on slippery surfaces such as gravel or ice, but increases driver control when compared to non-ABS brakes. Suppose one is an experienced driver with a car that has ABS that can be turned off and is driving on icy and snowy roads, should one turn off the ABS when trying to maximize safety? Acceptable (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I found this link http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=488594&i=20

and this one (see http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/124638/article.html

hope that helps 83.104.131.135 (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No you shouldn't turn it off (switching it off is rarely an option anyway). Also to help with your driving may I suggest you also look up "Cadence braking"? --WebHamster 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
My 1991 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro contained an ABS on/off switch and its owner's manual offered exactly the advice that Acceptable is describing. The argument went that in slippery conditions on light snow, the wheels might achieve better braking if they could lock and "plow up" a small amount of snow in front of the locked wheels. Having said that, I always drove with the ABS on and on my 2003 A8, the switch has disappeared (unless turning off "ESP" also turns off ABS, which I don't think is true).
Atlant (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note I didn't say it was impossible to turn it off, just that it's a rare option. There are very few cars on the market where it is an option. None of the cars I've ever had with ABS fitted allowed it to be turned off. I should also note that the effectiveness of ABS is because they do momentarily lockup the wheels thereby reaching maximum braking efficiency, also building up that layer of snow you referred to. As an advanced driver of over 30 years I can attest to the fact that rarely is there a situation when ABS will make things worse (unless of course one is performing reverse J spins or handbrake turns <vbg>) and all things considered it's best to leave the option switched on (if switching is an option). --WebHamster 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive Dismisal

In the above context, should one take action against the perpertrator before or after one has found a new position? by action I mean legal advise, or financial reconpence. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen - apart from Wikipedia NOT giving legal advice - in ANY jurisdiction (which you have omitted to nominate anyway), I can tell you that raisng an action (in UK Law) for Constructive Unfair Dismissal, was, for me at any rate, though successful in the end of the day, fraught with potential pitfalls and unexpected challenges from the (as you incorrectly put it) alleged perpetrator. Advice? See a Lawyer. 81.145.240.25 (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Something a little less bitey is our normal way of answering questions, 81.145. Answers: 1. Before or after - it is immaterial. 2. Lawyer or in the Uk Citizens Advice Bureau, or union recommended. There is probably a time limit before which you must start an action. As 81.145 noted, it will be stressful and the outcome always uncertain. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
... and note that the questioner is asking for legal information, not for legal advice. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Gandalf, but when I see the word "advise" in a question on Wiki, in the context posed here, I feel I am entitled to suspect that the questionner meant "advice". And I would appreciate, for future personal reference of course, the Wiki definition that separates "advice" from "information", when it might be uncertain from the OP what the questionner (possibly myself) actually seeks by way of response. Thanks in anticipation. 81.145.240.25 (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you guys are going to have an extended metadiscussion, please take it to the appropriate place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Helpful wikilink for those of us who don't live in the UK. (who's being country specific now?) Also I agree this is a request for legal information not for advice :D\=< (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In general, one should always seek legal advice sooner rather than later, and one should seek that advice from a qualified professional—not from random strangers on the internet. We cannot advise you on legal strategies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Earth

I am trying to find a high resolution image of earth that shows half of it in light, and the other half in darkness, but, I wish to see the lights from cities on the dark side, it does not have to be accurate, a photograph or realistic in anyway, just beautiful. I saw one a few years ago. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple of examples here. You might also find this page interesting. --Richardrj talk email 16:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, I was hoping for something more like link 1 but more photograph like, and was hoping for high res as I would like to use it for wallpaper. Thanks again for you effort, it was better than I could do. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There are some images such as [3] that show part of the world, also Image:Nightfall_europe-and-afrika_20050507-184500.jpg and it's well known variant [4] which was taken by the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia before it's ill-fated re-entry.[5] 86.21.74.40 (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but with all due respect, that could not have been taken by the space shuttle crew as it is not a photo, as ther is no cloud cover atall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It does say that, but they're obviously wrong (embarrassingly so, for any NASA site). Not only are there no clouds, but the topography of the ocean floor is visible -- utter nonsense. — Lomn 19:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you're going to get a real photo that shows both daytime and nighttime with lights. The light levels are so different that any single photo couldn't be exposed properly (at least, without use of a fairly epic Graduated Neutral Density Filter.) The examples you'll find, like the alleged Columbia shot above, are certainly composites, if not renderings. jeffjon (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, the OP did say that the image didn't have to be photographic or realistic. --Richardrj talk email 17:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at 'Earthlink' or 'EarthDesk'.--Johnluckie (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drain cover type identification...

This type of drain cover is used when a centralised sewer pipe is used (for example in a high rise residential building) and the vent pipe is a long way off. Due to this, the cover together with the water trapped in the container acting as a trap prevents the gasses from backflowing into the building and also traps insects with it's moist underside. During a drain clog, the back pressure on the pipe will force up the cover, acting as an early warning device. What is the nomenclature for this type of drain cover and which article should I put it in? --KLLvr283 (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You could start with plumbing here [6]; it's possibly a "backflow preventer". Nice clear pix in clever format by the way. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --KLLvr283 (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Stoned Age

I am trying to find info on a movie I saw in the early to mid 90's about two guys that drive around in thier car listening to hard rock music, smoking joints and trying to find women. It was very funny. and a parody of my high school life. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much everything you ever wanted to know about it can be found at The Stoned Age. --Richardrj talk email 16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pumped up stomach

On YouTube I have seen videos of fat men "pumping up" their stomaches. It is not clear how they do this, but they grow very large and "firm". Any idea what the hell is happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you send us a few links to the videos in question so we have a better idea of what you mean? The way I understood your question is that they somehow blow up their stomach like a balloon? --Emery (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Like this crap or this crap #2? --Ouro (blah blah) 11:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
IANAD, but it looks to me like these guys are just sticking their guts out while pretending to inflate them with pumps, kind of like how guys will seem to move their eyes from side to side by twisting their ears or fart by having someone pull their finger. They're just gags. 99.236.51.219 (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Whoops, forgot to sign in. Matt Deres (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hence the word crap in my question. I have thought so, too, but it'd be interesting to hear from the OP if what I found is what he found. G'nite, y'all. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] kevin trudeaus birthdate

Research finds Kevin Trudeaus birthdate to be February 6, 1963. In his book,"More Natural Cures Revealed, on page 17, last paragragh, he states he is seventy years old only looks in his forties. Which is the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.252.179 (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the source for the birthdate given on Wikipedia, but I see that Mr. Trudeau has a long history of making 'patently false' claims in his books and commercials. Algebraist 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
<BLP violation removed Corvus cornixtalk 23:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)> --98.217.18.109 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
WTF? Now we're not allowed to report on whether someone is a convicted felon for fraud and who is making patently false claims? Read my reply yourself—all the facts of it come from his page on Wikipedia, all of the interpretation is my own, and I don't think that's a problem. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeating Chess Matches?

Why don't chess matches between very good players often go the same way? If, judging by the prevalence of the chess puzzles in newspapers, in which readers are invited to guess at the recommended solution, there are usually a few distinguishable 'good moves' from a particular arangement, and many chess openings are standardised, why don't good chess players, who can be assumed to be able to identify these 'good moves' fairly well, lapse into games that have been played identically before?

Is there really so much variety that can be garnered from playing well (as opposed to making random legal moves), or does this in fact happen?

Thank you, Daniel (‽) 20:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article chess states that the game-tree complexity of the game is in the order of 10123. With that many possibilities it is very unlikely that two games would go the same way. —BradV 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer the question, though, because the thesis here is that each branch of the tree is far from equally likely. Of the 20 opening moves I can think of (2 each per pawn + 2 each per knight), there are preferred "good" moves. Consider, though, that each player might have differing styles and strengths, and that one difference will have a butterfly-in-China effect on future moves. The first couple of moves might often be the same, and moves from an identical midpoint might often be the same, but it takes very few moves to change the nature of the game completely. jeffjon (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This essay gives some examples of duplicated games. -- BenRG (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
One reason players may avoid repetition is simply that they'd find it boring. Also, if it became known that a particular player always played the same line, opponents who knew they were going to play him would study it and learn all the best counters for his usual moves. --Anonymous, 00:20 UTC, February 9, 2008.
The Chess problems you see in newspapers are specifically designed to have one optimum solution. Not only that, they usually feature very few remaining pieces. If a real chess game between two experts ever reached the point where it resembled a chess puzzle then the game would essentially be over, the outcome would be a forgone conclusion, and they might not even bother playing out those last few moves. APL (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry I can't find a reference for you (don't have time - someone might google it successfully) but I vaguely recall that in the history of chess there HAVE been complete games that 'went the same way'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.26 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Suppose there were a finite, small number of chess games that the 'experts' would play. At the board, one player would recognize that the particular opening being played would lead to a particular outcome—let us say that White would win. Black would also recognize this 'standard' game. Not wishing to lose, it follows that Black would choose to do something differently. As others have noted above, situations where there exists a single, unambiguous, clearly optimal move do not occur on every turn; Black would certainly choose a different move at one of these junctures. Once one player breaks from the 'standard' game, all subsequent moves will have to respond to that change, and a 'new' game is played. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, all Daniel (‽) 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)