Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Posers and Puzzles

Posers and Puzzles

  1. 20 Nov '09 17:01 / 4 edits
    the following was posted in the Sports Forum by uzless. But no one there seemed interested in solving the puzzle. So I have started the same thread in this forum. Let's see if we can prove uzless wrong. Just for fun.

    Originally posted by uzless
    Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.

    Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.

    YouTube&feature=related


    if anyone wants to take issue with uzless's claim that non-players can't understand the game, there are a couple threads about this in the Sports Forum. Please don't debate about this issue here.
  2. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    20 Nov '09 21:27
    I will post my views on WHY the goal was score after enough people have commented.

    Keep in mind, the idea is to watch the clip once and then give your comments right away. Don't replay the clip over and over and analyse it again and again. This defeats the purpose. We are trying to simulate a real game that you are watching on tv.

    (you see the play live, you see one replay, and then someone asks you, "Hey, why did that goal go in?"
  3. 23 Nov '09 16:08 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by uzless
    I will post my views on WHY the goal was score after enough people have commented.

    Keep in mind, the idea is to watch the clip once and then give your comments right away. Don't replay the clip over and over and analyse it again and again. This defeats the purpose. We are trying to simulate a real game that you are watching on tv.

    (you see the play live, you see one replay, and then someone asks you, "Hey, why did that goal go in?"
    You didn't mention this before. I was going over the clip in super slo-mo.

    But the main thing I saw was the original defenseman who made the pass suddenly disappeared from the play (I think he went to bench to change shifts). But I didn't notice this until after I had gone through the play over and over.

    On the other hand, if I have still missed key elements, why not just allow us all to analyze the play in any way we wish? The correct answer seems less than obvious. It might be like a very experienced chess player might see the right move immediately while we could spend hours analyzing the position without clearly seeing the best move.

    At the most superficial level -- the puck went in because the goalie moved away from the right corner of the net, and the sliding Ovechkin was able to "hit it were he aint".

    We can then ask - why did the goalie move away? - why was Ovechkin able to get his stick on the puck - why didn't the defender just clobber Ovechkin to keep him from shooting - why didn't the goalie come out to stop the play? -- but none of this really answers "why did the puck go in?" So was there something more to the specific act of scoring than the goalie leaving an opening and Ovechkin seeing it, and putting the puck into that opening?
  4. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    23 Nov '09 18:42
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    So was there something more to the specific act of scoring than the goalie leaving an opening and Ovechkin seeing it, and putting the puck into that opening?
    Absolutely.
  5. 23 Nov '09 20:00 / 3 edits
    approaching the question from the opposite angle. If this play had not resulted in a goal, there would have been a number of possible reasons why there was no goal.

    1. The defender cross-checked Ovechkin away from the puck. Penalty shot perhaps, but no goal.
    2. The puck slid under (or away from) Ovechkin when he fell and he couldn't get at it.
    3. Ovechkin was able to wave his stick at the puck, but missed.
    4. Ovechkin hit the puck, but it hit the post and bounced away
    5. The puck would have gone in, except that the goalie kicked the puck away before this happened
    7. Someone bumped the net off its moorings before the puck could go in.
    8. There was a divot in the ice, which caused the puck to bounce away from the goal at the last instant.
    9. The referee called a penalty on Ovechkin's team


    But since none of these things happened, the result was a goal.

    I assume there was something else that could have happened to prevent the goal that I didn't think of?
  6. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    25 Nov '09 19:39 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    approaching the question from the opposite angle. If this play had not resulted in a goal, there would have been a number of possible reasons why there was no goal.

    1. The defender cross-checked Ovechkin away from the puck. Penalty shot perhaps, but no goal.
    2. The puck slid under (or away from) Ovechkin when he fell and he couldn't get at it.
    3. Ove there was something else that could have happened to prevent the goal that I didn't think of?
    I appreciate the effort here, dont' get me wrong.

    But you are still looking at it from the perspective of WHAT happened. I'm trying to get across the point here that to truly understand WHAT happened, you have to know WHY it happened. And to know WHY it happened, you have to know what the players are thinking WHEN they do WHAT they do.
  7. 25 Nov '09 23:23
    It was a goal because the puck went over the line, hurray
  8. 27 Nov '09 23:30
    didnt notice it get over the line (too fast for me). As a complete non player, what is teh rule when a player delib moves the goal posts?
  9. 29 Nov '09 22:54
    Originally posted by uzless
    I appreciate the effort here, dont' get me wrong.

    But you are still looking at it from the perspective of WHAT happened. I'm trying to get across the point here that to truly understand WHAT happened, you have to know WHY it happened. And to know WHY it happened, you have to know what the players are thinking WHEN they do WHAT they do.
    don't get me wrong, but considering melanerpes' effort and the fact no one seems particularly able to, in your eyes, give a thorough enough description of what's going on... can we get your take on what happened? i'm really interested to hear what elements are missing in what's already been said, and the effect they have on the play in question!
  10. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    30 Nov '09 03:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Aetherael
    don't get me wrong, but considering melanerpes' effort and the fact no one seems particularly able to, in your eyes, give a thorough enough description of what's going on... can we get your take on what happened? i'm really interested to hear what elements are missing in what's already been said, and the effect they have on the play in question!
    Why isn't it clear? The last replay angle clearly shows the puck going in followed closely by a player who disturbed the goal but it seems to me (admittedly a non-player) that like in chess, if you check the king, it doesn't matter if you can get checked in return, you still have the puck in the goal. Not sure why there is a debate here.
  11. 30 Nov '09 14:50 / 2 edits
    I would imagine that any sport as fast-moving as hockey doesn't really give players a whole lot of time to "think". The reason why these guys practice the many many hours that they do is so that when situations arise such as the Ovechkin clip, the players can just "react".

    If you asked Ovechkin what he was thinking during the play, he'd probably say that he "was trying to score" - and beyond that it was all just instinct.

    There wasn't any time for him to think "okay -- the defender just tripped me. I'm sliding to the ice. Where's the puck? Oh there it is...can I hit it with my stick? Well whaddya know..it's right there in front of me..now where there's goalie?...should I loft the puck over his left shoulder?...no, can't do that when I'm lying on the ice...oh wait, I think I see a little sliver of room to the goalie's right..if I shoot the puck JUST right I might be able to sneak it in there...but if I shoot too far that way, it'll bang off the post..so I'll have to be very careful and SLIP it in there."

    There wasn't any time for him to even think "okay..where's the puck?" It was all probably just automatic pilot developed from putting in his "10,000 hours"
  12. Standard member TheMaster37
    Kupikupopo!
    01 Dec '09 20:01
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    I would imagine that any sport as fast-moving as hockey doesn't really give players a whole lot of time to "think". The reason why these guys practice the many many hours that they do is so that when situations arise such as the Ovechkin clip, the players can just "react".

    If you asked Ovechkin what he was thinking during the play, he'd probably say t ...[text shortened]... ably just automatic pilot developed from putting in his "10,000 hours"
    Sometimes this is called "luck".
  13. Standard member afx
    01 Dec '09 21:58
    Sometimes you have the same situation in chess.
    Two samurai cross the swords Game 6930735
    and after two seconds (7 moves) one of them is beheaded
    ( berooked? ). But like chickens he runs around without
    head (rook ).
    No comments please, the headless/rookless game is still running
  14. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    02 Dec '09 04:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    I would imagine that any sport as fast-moving as hockey doesn't really give players a whole lot of time to "think". The reason why these guys practice the many many hours that they do is so that when situations arise such as the Ovechkin clip, the players can just "react".

    If you asked Ovechkin what he was thinking during the play, he'd probably say t ably just automatic pilot developed from putting in his "10,000 hours"
    10,000 hours eh? Hmm, that's the 2nd time i've heard this this week. The first was from another rhp'er. I wonder what goes on behind closed doors.
  15. 03 Dec '09 16:38 / 1 edit
    Perhaps you're not aware of the "10,000 hour rule". I've been seeing it mentioned a lot lately in various places. It's the theory that it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to fully master a complex set of skills.

    http://www.ehow.com/how_5065117_use-hour-rule-achieve-success.html