Monthly Archives: August 2022

Ron Weasley plays great chess, better than Voldemort.

Leave a reply

Every now and again a book or movie includes a chess game. Generally, it’s in a story where death is on the line. It’s a literary device used to indicate high mental acumen of the people involved, particularly the one who wins. As an example, in “Sherlock Holmes, A Game of Shadows”, 2011, Holmes plays Moriarty, each calling out moves far advanced for the 1800s. It emphasizes these individuals’ super-smarts. Holmes wins at the end, of course. The Ingrid Berman film, “The Seventh Seal” is similar, with the chess game played against death himself. The knight shows himself a more-than-worth opponent. And that brings us to Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, book 1 of the series, and movie, Ron Weasley is presented as a sort-of fool throughout the series. He’s mostly as source of background information about wizarding, but in one episode standout, he plays brilliantly with giant-size chess men against a magical intelligence, and wins. After the game, one that is described as one of the best ever, Ron goes back to being the goof-ball he was throughout. His chess skills don’t come up again, or do they. It’s a well written series, so what’s the point of including the game?

Position of pieces in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s stone (movie).

To see how brilliant Ron’s play is, recall that Ron is eleven years old in book 1. He, Harry, and Hermione enter a mysterious room filled with menacing statues. Ron immediately realizes it’s a chess board, and infers that they must win as black to pass through. He further infers that the piece representing Harry must make the checkmate. Two or three pieces are missing, and Ron infers that Harry’s character must replace one of these and become the mating piece. If you’ve ever played a decent computer, you know it’s very hard to win as white (in the 90s you could still win). This ghost intelligence plays quite well, and it’s almost impossible to win if you need to have a particular minor piece make the mate. In the movie, Ron plays as black and reaches the position shown with Harry as the king’s bishop and Hermione as a rook. He is down in material, but has laid a very good trap. The white queen captures the “free pawn” on d3, violently threatening the Harry-bishop. Ron interposes the rook to c3 forcing the white queen to take the rook. At this point, Ron could win by B-c5+, QxB, N-h3 mate, but that would sacrifice Harry and leave Ron as the winning piece. Both Ron and Hermione realize this, and Ron causes Harry to make the checkmate by N-h3+, QxN, B-c5+, Q-f3, BxQ mate. Ron is injured when QxN — a sacrifice in both senses of the word.

Death plays chess, painting by Albertus Pictor, 1480

It’s an impressive display of chess skill, and Dumbledore is right in saying it’s one of the best games. No normal player could manage a game like that, certainly no eleven year old. Normally such a display would be used to present Ron as the group brain, or at least as a very deep thinker. If so, why does the author have Ron revert to his care-free, stupid persona with chess never showing up.

We see that Voldemort, the arch villain, won his game too, and only lost a few pieces doing it. That Voldemort is good at chess is no surprise; it goes with his deep-thinking persona. We don’t see Voldemort’s game, but I can infer that he won via the Trailer gambit. It’s a fairly tricky win, but the only way that I know where you win as black losing only a kings bishop, a rook, and a knight, the pieces that Ron and his friends replaced. The Queen is the winning piece, though, and that’s a lot simpler than winning with a bishop. Ron’s win is far more sophisticated, a surprise given Ron’s behavior and how he is treated.

Perhaps it’s just bad writing, or an effort to show Ron is good at something, but I thought to do a quick re-read of Ron’s early appearance in book 2. Here I find that Ron is bright and motivated, but overshadowed. Early in the book, we find 12 year old Ron picking a lock using a hat pin, and driving a flying car reasonably well. We don’t think this is exceptional because his brothers do all this first, but it is exceptional: imagine tryin to drive a regular car with no instruction at 12. Later we find that Ron learns the fine points of Quidditch without native skill or a coach, just using a book, and we find that Dumbledore picks him to prefect, instead of Harry, a job he does well. Finally, we find that Hermione prefers Ron to Harry. It’s a somewhat surprising turn because she’s supposed to be the brains of the trio. How could she stand to be with Ron? Perhaps she is one of the few people who sees that Ron is bright. Dumbledore is too.

Viewed this way, the chess game becomes the first of the examples of Ron’s brainpower, and becomes an important foreshadowing to a surprise at the end of the last book/movie, to the final battle against Voldemort. In that battle, while everyone else is throwing hexes, Ron is the one who realizes that, to win the war, he must go to the basement chamber and collect basilisk teeth. It’s chess thinking: he’s focused on the king, on Voldemort, while everyone else is dealing with side threats. In a sense, it’s Ron who defeats Voldemort. The chess game is a foreshadowing, and fits with Hermione’s choice of Ron over Harry.

Robert Buxbaum, August 26, 2022. If you like chess puzzles, find some here. And in “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey,” 1991, the brilliance idea is sort-of reversed. Bill and Ted play against death in battleship, twister, and clue, and win. It’s used to show that death is sort of random, and sort of stupid.

Arctic Ice has shrunk 1.5% since ’99 and Gore’s inconvenient truth. Is this bad?

2 Replies

At the 1999 Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, Al Gore announced an inconvenient truth: “There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” It was a bold prediction, part of a campaign that got Mr Gore a Nobel Prize and motivated the US to devote billions to stopping global warming. Supposedly 98% of scientists agreed with Mr. Gore and his remedies. Prince Charles and Bill Gates too. Twenty three years later there is still arctic ice, 98.5% as much as in 1999. Two questions arise: 1. Is the ice loss bad? and 2. Why were those 98% of scientists so wrong?

Arctic sea ice extent 1999-2021
Arctic sea ice extent when Al Gore spoke (1999) and since. Not much change, nor clearly for the worse

The second question is far easier than the first: the 98% number was bogus, a lie, like many other climate lies that followed. it was effective at stopping argument, and could not be checked immediately. It bullied scientists who argued that global warming wasn’t bad, or wasn’t man-made, and it gave do-gooders the ability to label their opponents “liars” and “science deniers”. The claim of 98% was used to silence scientists with long, prominent careers. Deniers lost their funding and were no longer published. Other scientists learned to keep quiet. Twenty years later, when the arctic ice wasn’t gone and antarctic ice hit a record extent, the deniers’ careers largely were gone.

Scientists are not stupid, nor independently rich, for the most part. They are dependent on government funding and their employers, the universities are too. As a group they (we) are incapable of stemming the tide of public opinion. This week Biden signed a nearly 1 trillion dollar bill to stop climate change. Every scientist with a chance to get the money will go for it. Whether or not they think a colder earth is good, they will claim it is in their proposals, and imply that their work can stop the natural chaos that is climate. They will ask for their share of the $1T to study the appropriate things: solar cells, corn-based power, and wind turbines. The proposals will not mention the huge costs in mining or land use. Scientists already know they can not get funded for nuclear power, though it works and produces no CO2, nor should can scientists benefit by criticizing China, as the largest source of CO2. That is seen as undermine the green effort at home. When we stop manufacturing at home, BTW, we end up buying the same materials manufactured in China, where they really generate lots of pollution. When asked about this, Biden’s climate chief said not to worry about it, we had to do our part, and Biden would speak to the Chinese. The result is the biggest buildup in coal-fired power plants in the world, with more coming on line.

This second question is at least as important as the first one: is less arctic ice bad? Or, asking more generally, is a warm earth bad? It’s an opinion question; it’s in no way science, impossible to answer definitively. Cold weather is bad for food production, and that’s bad for people, in general. Most people prefer to live where it’s warm, I find. Supposedly polar bears prefer it cold, but I don’t know for sure. I’m not keen to go back to the climate of the ice ages, 10,000- 100,000 years ago when ice covered Canada and you could walk from France to England. I’m not convinced that life was better when the world was 1°C colder. The sea was lower in 1900, but had been higher in the year zero. Less arctic ice means easier shipping. For all I know we may want to make a Northwest Passage. More food and a easier shipping are the convenient truths about global warming.

Robert Buxbaum, August 19, 2022. If you believe any of what I said about Gore/Biden’s green energy, you may like a movie by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans, see it here. The political greens are not saving energy or cooling the planet, and they know it. It’s a money maker.

Atenolol, not good for the heart, maybe good for the doctor.

1 Reply

Atenolol and related beta blockers have been found to be effective reducing blood pressure and heart rate. Since high blood pressure is a warning sign for heart problems, doctors have been prescribing atenolol and related beta blockers for all sorts of heart problems, even problems that are not caused by high blood pressure. I was prescribed metoprolol and then atenolol for Atrial Fibrillation, A-Fib, beginning 2 yeas ago, even though I have low-moderate blood pressure. For someone like me, it might have been deadly. Even for patients with moderately high blood pressure (hypertension) studies suggest there is no heart benefit to atenolol and related ß-blockers, and only minimal stroke and renal benefit. As early as 1985 (37 years ago) the Medical Research Council trial found that “ß blockers are relatively ineffective for primary treatment of hypertensive outcomes.”

End point. Relative risk. 95% CI. All-cause mortality Cardiovascular mortality MI Stroke Carlberg B et al. Lancet 2004; 364:1684–1689.

There lots of adverse side-effects to atenolol, as listed at the end of this post. More recent studies (e.g. Carlsberg et al., at right) continue to find no positive effects on the heart, but lots of negatives. A review in Lancet (2004) 364,1684–9 was titled, “Review: atenolol may be ineffective for reducing cardiovascular morbidity or all cause mortality in hypertension” (link here). “In patients with essential hypertension, atenolol is not better than placebo or no treatment for reducing cardiovascular morbidity or all cause mortality.” It further concluded that, “compared to other antihypertensive drugs, it [atenolol] may increase the risk of stroke or death.” I showed this and related studies to my doctor, and pointed out that I have averaged to low blood pressure, but he persisted in pushing this drug, something that seems common among medical men. My guess is that the advertising or doctor subsidies are spectacular. By contrast, aspirin has long been known to be effective for heart problems; my doctor said to go off aspirin.

The graph at right is from “Trial of Secondary Prevention with Atenolol after transient Ischemic Attack or Nondisabling Ischemic Stroke”, published in Stroke, 24 4 (1993), (see link here). a Thje study involved 1473 at-risk patients, randomly prescribed atenolol or placebo. It found no outcome benefit from atenolol, and several negatives. After 3 years, in two equal-size randomized groups, there were 64 deaths among the atenolol group, 58 among the placebo group; there were 11 fatal strokes with atenolol, versus 8 with placebo. There were somewhat fewer non-fatal strokes with atenolol, but the sum-total of fatal and non-fatal strokes was equal; there were 81 in each group.

“Trial of Secondary Prevention with Atenolol after transient Ischemic Attack or Nondisabling Ischemic Stroke”, published in Stroke, 24 4 (1993).

Newer beta blockers seem marginally better, as in “Effect of nebivolol or atenolol vs. placebo on cardiovascular health in subjects with borderline blood pressure: the EVIDENCE study.” “Nebivolol (NEB) in contrast to atenolol (ATE) may have a beneficial effect on endothelial function …. there was no significant change in the ATE and PLAC groups.” My question: why not use one of these, or better yet aspirin. Aspirin is shown to be beneficial, and relatively side-effect free. If you tolerate aspirin, and most people do, beneficial has to be better than maybe beneficial.

Among atenolol’s ugly side effects, as listed by the Mayo Clinic, there are: tiredness, sweating, shortness of breath, confusion, loss of sex drive, cold fingers and toes, diarrhea, nausea, and general confusion. I had some of these. There was no increase in heart stability (decrease in A-fib). My heart rate went as low at 32 bpm at night. My doctor was unconcerned, but I was. I suspected the low heart rate put me at extreme risk. Eventually, the same doctor gave me ablation therapy, and that seemed to cure the A-Fib.

Following my ablation, I was told I could get off atenolol. I then discovered another negative effect of atenolol: you have to ease off it or your heart will race. If you have A-fib, or modest hypertension, consider aspirin, eliquis, ablation, or exercise. If you are prescribed atenolol for heart issues and don’t have symptoms of very-high blood pressure, consider other options and/or changing doctors.

Robert Buxbaum, August 14, 2022

Curing my heart fibrillation with ablation.

1 Reply

Two years ago, I was diagnosed with Atrial fibrillation, A-Fib in common parlance, a condition where my heart would sometimes speed up to double its normal speed. I was prescribed metopolol and then atenolol, common beta blockers, and a C-Pap for sleep apnea. None of this seemed to help, as best I could tell from occasional pulse measurements with watch and a finger pulse-oxometer. Besides, the C-Pap was giving me cough and the beta blockers made me dizzy. And the literature on C-Pap did not impress.

So, some moths ago, I bought an iWatch. The current versions allows you to take EKGs and provides a continuous record of your heart rate. This was very helpful, as I saw that my heart rate was transitioning to chaos. While it was normally predictable, it would zoom to 130 or so at some point virtually every day. Even more alarming, it would slow down to the mid 30s at some point during the night, bradycardia, and I could see it was getting worse. At that point, I agreed to go on eliquis, a blood thinner, and agreed to a catheter ablation. The doctor put a catheter into my heart by way of a leg vein, and zapped various nerve centers in the heart. The result is that my heart is back into normal behavior. See the heart-rate readout from my iWatch below; before and after are dramatically different.

My heart rate for the last month, very variable before the ablation treatment, 2 weeks ago; a far less variable range of heart rates in the two weeks following the treatment. Heart rate data is from my iPhone and iwatch — a good investment, IMHO.

The reason I chose ablation over drugs or no therapy was that I read health-studies on line. I’ve go a PhD, and that training helps me to understand the papers I’ve read, but you should read them too. They are not that hard to understand. Though ablation didn’t appear as a panacea, it was clearly better than the alternatives. Particularly relevant was the CABANA study on life expectancy. CABANA stands for “Catheter ABlation vs ANtiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation – CABANA”. https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/clinical-trials/2018/05/10/15/57/cabana.

2,204 individuals with persistent AF were followed for 5 years after treatment, 37% female, 63% male, average age 67.5. Prior hospitalization for AF: 39%. The results were as follows:

  • Death: 5.2% for ablation vs. 6.1% for drug therapy (p = 0.38)
  • Serious stroke: 0.3% for ablation vs. 0.6% for drug therapy (p = 0.19)
  • All-cause mortality: 4.4% for ablation vs. 7.5% for drug therapy (p = 0.005)
  • Death or CV hospitalization: 51.7% for ablation vs. 58.1% for drug therapy (p = 0.002)
  • Pericardial effusion with ablation: 3.0%; ablation-related events: 1.8%
  • First recurrent AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia: 53.8% vs. 71.9% (p < 0.0001)

I found all of this significant, including the fact that 27.5% of those on the drug treatment crossed over to have ablation while only 9.2% on the ablation side crossed to have the drug treatment.

I must give a plug for doctor Ahmed at Beaumont Hospital who did the ablation. He does about 200 of these a year, and does them well. Do not go to an amateur. I was less-than impressed with him pushing the beta-blocker hard; I’ll write about that. Also, get an iWatch if you think you may have A-Fib or any other heart problem. You see a lot, just by watching, so to speak.

Robert Buxbaum, August 3, 2022.