Hello,

I am a PhD in Engineering (from Duke University), originally from
Russia, a USCF master, but my rating should drop currently a bit below
2200 as I did poorly in the last tournament.
I don't want to tell my last name as it gets too heated in these
groups, and I regretted signing with my name before. I just would like
to tell my opininon.

1.) The main reason why there are so many foreigners in your (US)
engineering grad schools as opposed to liberal studies is financing.
By doing research with professors, we - foreign students - could be
supported via professors grants.
India, China, Russia have decent science schools. You have the money,
we would like to come if get accepted by a school, enjoy your country
and study in a good university, do research. Many of us try to stay
afterwards. In liberal arts getting a scholarship is much more
difficult. Currently my colleagues are mostly Americans and they are
very good at our engineering science.

2.) There are plenty of people playing chess in America, but definetly
not as many as in Russia. It is natural that you don't have chess
traditions as developed as in the former Soviet Union, as, for
example, Russia doesn't have the same traditions playing basketball.
Chess GM's from there do come and teach people here (along with your
own GM's) a lot more these days, so I think your chess will only go up
in the future (unless some other significant negative processes in
American chess take place), but it may take generations for it to have
an effect.

3.) Bobby Fisher was great, and I don't see a reason why there could
not be more like him in the US, but the likelyhood is higher where
there are more people playing chess.

Denis

Denis...Denis...lemme think...master, Russian, engineer.

I KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!

Only kidding.

Good post.

"Denis" wrote in message
m...
Hello,

I am a PhD in Engineering (from Duke University), originally from
Russia, a USCF master, but my rating should drop currently a bit below
2200 as I did poorly in the last tournament.
I don't want to tell my last name as it gets too heated in these
groups, and I regretted signing with my name before. I just would like
to tell my opininon.

1.) The main reason why there are so many foreigners in your (US)
engineering grad schools as opposed to liberal studies is financing.
By doing research with professors, we - foreign students - could be
supported via professors grants.
India, China, Russia have decent science schools. You have the money,
we would like to come if get accepted by a school, enjoy your country
and study in a good university, do research. Many of us try to stay
afterwards. In liberal arts getting a scholarship is much more
difficult. Currently my colleagues are mostly Americans and they are
very good at our engineering science.

2.) There are plenty of people playing chess in America, but definetly
not as many as in Russia. It is natural that you don't have chess
traditions as developed as in the former Soviet Union, as, for
example, Russia doesn't have the same traditions playing basketball.
Chess GM's from there do come and teach people here (along with your
own GM's) a lot more these days, so I think your chess will only go up
in the future (unless some other significant negative processes in
American chess take place), but it may take generations for it to have
an effect.

3.) Bobby Fisher was great, and I don't see a reason why there could
not be more like him in the US, but the likelyhood is higher where
there are more people playing chess.

Denis

Welcome Denis.

I enjoyed your post, and sorry to hear about your poor treatement here by
some.

Jane

"Denis" wrote in message
m...
Hello,

I am a PhD in Engineering (from Duke University), originally from
Russia, a USCF master, but my rating should drop currently a bit below
2200 as I did poorly in the last tournament.
I don't want to tell my last name as it gets too heated in these
groups, and I regretted signing with my name before. I just would like
to tell my opininon.

1.) The main reason why there are so many foreigners in your (US)
engineering grad schools as opposed to liberal studies is financing.
By doing research with professors, we - foreign students - could be
supported via professors grants.
India, China, Russia have decent science schools. You have the money,
we would like to come if get accepted by a school, enjoy your country
and study in a good university, do research. Many of us try to stay
afterwards. In liberal arts getting a scholarship is much more
difficult. Currently my colleagues are mostly Americans and they are
very good at our engineering science.

2.) There are plenty of people playing chess in America, but definetly
not as many as in Russia. It is natural that you don't have chess
traditions as developed as in the former Soviet Union, as, for
example, Russia doesn't have the same traditions playing basketball.
Chess GM's from there do come and teach people here (along with your
own GM's) a lot more these days, so I think your chess will only go up
in the future (unless some other significant negative processes in
American chess take place), but it may take generations for it to have
an effect.

3.) Bobby Fisher was great, and I don't see a reason why there could
not be more like him in the US, but the likelyhood is higher where
there are more people playing chess.

Denis

I will second 'Denis's' opinion and add in the following. He is right
in claiming that foreigners come here because US universities provides
financial support in Engineering /Mathematics/Physical Science based
disciplines and not in others. However, in explaining the relative
lack of American chess players in the top echelons, I would contend
that it is perhaps more a symptom than a cause. BTW, like Denis, I am
not originally from this country either and got a Ph.D. here in
Engineering from a top five school.

First, let's see why the US Universities are forced to hire foreign
students for the above mentioned programs. There are just too few
American students attracted to Engineering and other predominantly
quantitative field. I do not believe this has anything to do with
competency. The few that are there, does as well as any other.
Engineering and the physical sciences simply pays much less than the
skill it demands, especially compared to say law and medicine that I
would rank of comparable difficulty but with significant higher
payback. It is even more strange with Business Schools. I can
personally vouch that after I transferred as a faculty in one of the
top three business schools, my pay increased by more than fifty
percent and the job got less demanding! (Clearly, I am not using my
real name, ‘cause my colleagues will burn me for this!)

Apart from a dedicated, extremely sharp group of Americans who
contribute handsomely to their discipline, the *average* American
seems to be quite uninterested in these predominantly analytical
fields. That carries over to pastimes like chess (bridge, backgammon
you name it). BTW, I am not into video games, but my limited
experience tells me that the popular ones are not analytical either
(although I would welcome a second opinion here). There is of course
nothing wrong with this trend. Only, I just don't see chess getting
the critical mass of support it requires to produce champions - unless
another Bobby Fischer is out there in the horizon.

-Victor





(Denis) wrote in message om...
Hello,

I am a PhD in Engineering (from Duke University), originally from
Russia, a USCF master, but my rating should drop currently a bit below
2200 as I did poorly in the last tournament.
I don't want to tell my last name as it gets too heated in these
groups, and I regretted signing with my name before. I just would like
to tell my opininon.

1.) The main reason why there are so many foreigners in your (US)
engineering grad schools as opposed to liberal studies is financing.
By doing research with professors, we - foreign students - could be
supported via professors grants.
India, China, Russia have decent science schools. You have the money,
we would like to come if get accepted by a school, enjoy your country
and study in a good university, do research. Many of us try to stay
afterwards. In liberal arts getting a scholarship is much more
difficult. Currently my colleagues are mostly Americans and they are
very good at our engineering science.

2.) There are plenty of people playing chess in America, but definetly
not as many as in Russia. It is natural that you don't have chess
traditions as developed as in the former Soviet Union, as, for
example, Russia doesn't have the same traditions playing basketball.
Chess GM's from there do come and teach people here (along with your
own GM's) a lot more these days, so I think your chess will only go up
in the future (unless some other significant negative processes in
American chess take place), but it may take generations for it to have
an effect.

3.) Bobby Fisher was great, and I don't see a reason why there could
not be more like him in the US, but the likelyhood is higher where
there are more people playing chess.

Denis

Victor and Denis,

Do either of you gentlemen have a perspective on the effect of media in the
USA compared with elsewhere?

It seems to me that a lack of analytic skill or interest, is a result of
watching linear television shows where no decisions need be made even in the
imagination (the director's imagination provides that), unlike even
book-reading.

Rather than make determinations about one's next step in any critical way,
the TV generation is unused to this experience and almost entirely passive
to someone else's presentation.

When I was a teenager I and my contemporaries completely ignored television
as being of such low-content it was rarely worth while to watch. These days
its production is technically much better and more seductive; but from a
content level almost any 1-hour program at a factual level can still be
reduced to 2 minutes of text-reading.

So... Do you credit this hypnotic media phenomena as a generational change
in culture since the late 60's [from almost zero hours per day to something
like 6 hrs/day now], and thereby causative in self-determined critical
choice making? From the experience of your native cultures, is it similar
there?

Cordially, Phil Innes

[Incidentally, my son is an engineering student.]

"Victor Moss" wrote in message
om...
I will second 'Denis's' opinion and add in the following. He is right
in claiming that foreigners come here because US universities provides
financial support in Engineering /Mathematics/Physical Science based
disciplines and not in others. However, in explaining the relative
lack of American chess players in the top echelons, I would contend
that it is perhaps more a symptom than a cause. BTW, like Denis, I am
not originally from this country either and got a Ph.D. here in
Engineering from a top five school.

First, let's see why the US Universities are forced to hire foreign
students for the above mentioned programs. There are just too few
American students attracted to Engineering and other predominantly
quantitative field. I do not believe this has anything to do with
competency. The few that are there, does as well as any other.
Engineering and the physical sciences simply pays much less than the
skill it demands, especially compared to say law and medicine that I
would rank of comparable difficulty but with significant higher
payback. It is even more strange with Business Schools. I can
personally vouch that after I transferred as a faculty in one of the
top three business schools, my pay increased by more than fifty
percent and the job got less demanding! (Clearly, I am not using my
real name, 'cause my colleagues will burn me for this!)

Apart from a dedicated, extremely sharp group of Americans who
contribute handsomely to their discipline, the *average* American
seems to be quite uninterested in these predominantly analytical
fields. That carries over to pastimes like chess (bridge, backgammon
you name it). BTW, I am not into video games, but my limited
experience tells me that the popular ones are not analytical either
(although I would welcome a second opinion here). There is of course
nothing wrong with this trend. Only, I just don't see chess getting
the critical mass of support it requires to produce champions - unless
another Bobby Fischer is out there in the horizon.

-Victor





(Denis) wrote in message
om...
Hello,

I am a PhD in Engineering (from Duke University), originally from
Russia, a USCF master, but my rating should drop currently a bit below
2200 as I did poorly in the last tournament.
I don't want to tell my last name as it gets too heated in these
groups, and I regretted signing with my name before. I just would like
to tell my opininon.

1.) The main reason why there are so many foreigners in your (US)
engineering grad schools as opposed to liberal studies is financing.
By doing research with professors, we - foreign students - could be
supported via professors grants.
India, China, Russia have decent science schools. You have the money,
we would like to come if get accepted by a school, enjoy your country
and study in a good university, do research. Many of us try to stay
afterwards. In liberal arts getting a scholarship is much more
difficult. Currently my colleagues are mostly Americans and they are
very good at our engineering science.

2.) There are plenty of people playing chess in America, but definetly
not as many as in Russia. It is natural that you don't have chess
traditions as developed as in the former Soviet Union, as, for
example, Russia doesn't have the same traditions playing basketball.
Chess GM's from there do come and teach people here (along with your
own GM's) a lot more these days, so I think your chess will only go up
in the future (unless some other significant negative processes in
American chess take place), but it may take generations for it to have
an effect.

3.) Bobby Fisher was great, and I don't see a reason why there could
not be more like him in the US, but the likelyhood is higher where
there are more people playing chess.

Denis

Victor,

Your comment about these fields not paying commensurate with the effort
required to study them is true but misses a subtle point. If we did not
create a new immigration category for students, or if we limited foreign
students the way we limit immigrants, the marketplace would take over and
salaries would rise substantially. You can bet your ass that a starting
salary of $145,000 would divert a lot of would-be lawyers and MBAs into the
hard sciences or engineering. In my opinion that's what a PhD chemist is
worth, but you have to work 40 years to make that much (if you're not
downsized first).

After my post-doc and one year in industry I realized I was competing with
people whose fathers earned the equivalent of $30 or $50 a month back in
India or China. Many of these guys lived together 4 or 5 to an apartment, or
with relatives. God bless them, but after 25 years of school I was not going
to live worse than my parents did when they got married in 1951. So I left.

Although they're generally underpaid, this class of over-educated people is
the fountainhead of all wealth and prosperity in this country. Very few
people appreciate that without scientists and engineers we'd still be living
in the stone age: There'd be no paper for overpaid CEOs to push, nobody for
the lawyers to sue. We've devised an economic system where the guy who
invents a life-saving drug makes $40/hr (plus benefits), and the guy who
injects it into the patient gets $200 for two minutes' work.

Angelo

"Victor Moss" wrote in message
om...
I will second 'Denis's' opinion and add in the following. He is right
in claiming that foreigners come here because US universities provides
financial support in Engineering /Mathematics/Physical Science based
disciplines and not in others. However, in explaining the relative
lack of American chess players in the top echelons, I would contend
that it is perhaps more a symptom than a cause. BTW, like Denis, I am
not originally from this country either and got a Ph.D. here in
Engineering from a top five school.

First, let's see why the US Universities are forced to hire foreign
students for the above mentioned programs. There are just too few
American students attracted to Engineering and other predominantly
quantitative field. I do not believe this has anything to do with
competency. The few that are there, does as well as any other.
Engineering and the physical sciences simply pays much less than the
skill it demands, especially compared to say law and medicine that I
would rank of comparable difficulty but with significant higher
payback. It is even more strange with Business Schools. I can
personally vouch that after I transferred as a faculty in one of the
top three business schools, my pay increased by more than fifty
percent and the job got less demanding! (Clearly, I am not using my
real name, 'cause my colleagues will burn me for this!)

Apart from a dedicated, extremely sharp group of Americans who
contribute handsomely to their discipline, the *average* American
seems to be quite uninterested in these predominantly analytical
fields. That carries over to pastimes like chess (bridge, backgammon
you name it). BTW, I am not into video games, but my limited
experience tells me that the popular ones are not analytical either
(although I would welcome a second opinion here). There is of course
nothing wrong with this trend. Only, I just don't see chess getting
the critical mass of support it requires to produce champions - unless
another Bobby Fischer is out there in the horizon.

-Victor





(Denis) wrote in message
om...
Hello,

I am a PhD in Engineering (from Duke University), originally from
Russia, a USCF master, but my rating should drop currently a bit below
2200 as I did poorly in the last tournament.
I don't want to tell my last name as it gets too heated in these
groups, and I regretted signing with my name before. I just would like
to tell my opininon.

1.) The main reason why there are so many foreigners in your (US)
engineering grad schools as opposed to liberal studies is financing.
By doing research with professors, we - foreign students - could be
supported via professors grants.
India, China, Russia have decent science schools. You have the money,
we would like to come if get accepted by a school, enjoy your country
and study in a good university, do research. Many of us try to stay
afterwards. In liberal arts getting a scholarship is much more
difficult. Currently my colleagues are mostly Americans and they are
very good at our engineering science.

2.) There are plenty of people playing chess in America, but definetly
not as many as in Russia. It is natural that you don't have chess
traditions as developed as in the former Soviet Union, as, for
example, Russia doesn't have the same traditions playing basketball.
Chess GM's from there do come and teach people here (along with your
own GM's) a lot more these days, so I think your chess will only go up
in the future (unless some other significant negative processes in
American chess take place), but it may take generations for it to have
an effect.

3.) Bobby Fisher was great, and I don't see a reason why there could
not be more like him in the US, but the likelyhood is higher where
there are more people playing chess.

Denis

Phil,

I wouldn't beat around the bush at all about this. I think television -- and
I don't care if it's PBS or ABC, Animal Kingdom of Animal House -- is the
worst ****ing thing you can have in your home. Watching TV is like plugging
yourself into a huge marketing-propaganda machine. I have more respect for
heroin addicts than for people who watch six hours of TV a day. You can get
more news from a newspaper in 5 minutes that Peter Jennings can deliver in
half an hour. I haven't owned a TV set since my wife threw our portable at
me in 1986. None of my three kids miss it one bit.

Angelo

"Chess One" wrote in message
...
Victor and Denis,

Do either of you gentlemen have a perspective on the effect of media in
the
USA compared with elsewhere?

It seems to me that a lack of analytic skill or interest, is a result of
watching linear television shows where no decisions need be made even in
the
imagination (the director's imagination provides that), unlike even
book-reading.

Rather than make determinations about one's next step in any critical way,
the TV generation is unused to this experience and almost entirely passive
to someone else's presentation.

When I was a teenager I and my contemporaries completely ignored
television
as being of such low-content it was rarely worth while to watch. These
days
its production is technically much better and more seductive; but from a
content level almost any 1-hour program at a factual level can still be
reduced to 2 minutes of text-reading.

So... Do you credit this hypnotic media phenomena as a generational change
in culture since the late 60's [from almost zero hours per day to
something
like 6 hrs/day now], and thereby causative in self-determined critical
choice making? From the experience of your native cultures, is it similar
there?

Cordially, Phil Innes

[Incidentally, my son is an engineering student.]

"Victor Moss" wrote in message
om...
I will second 'Denis's' opinion and add in the following. He is right
in claiming that foreigners come here because US universities provides
financial support in Engineering /Mathematics/Physical Science based
disciplines and not in others. However, in explaining the relative
lack of American chess players in the top echelons, I would contend
that it is perhaps more a symptom than a cause. BTW, like Denis, I am
not originally from this country either and got a Ph.D. here in
Engineering from a top five school.

First, let's see why the US Universities are forced to hire foreign
students for the above mentioned programs. There are just too few
American students attracted to Engineering and other predominantly
quantitative field. I do not believe this has anything to do with
competency. The few that are there, does as well as any other.
Engineering and the physical sciences simply pays much less than the
skill it demands, especially compared to say law and medicine that I
would rank of comparable difficulty but with significant higher
payback. It is even more strange with Business Schools. I can
personally vouch that after I transferred as a faculty in one of the
top three business schools, my pay increased by more than fifty
percent and the job got less demanding! (Clearly, I am not using my
real name, 'cause my colleagues will burn me for this!)

Apart from a dedicated, extremely sharp group of Americans who
contribute handsomely to their discipline, the *average* American
seems to be quite uninterested in these predominantly analytical
fields. That carries over to pastimes like chess (bridge, backgammon
you name it). BTW, I am not into video games, but my limited
experience tells me that the popular ones are not analytical either
(although I would welcome a second opinion here). There is of course
nothing wrong with this trend. Only, I just don't see chess getting
the critical mass of support it requires to produce champions - unless
another Bobby Fischer is out there in the horizon.

-Victor





(Denis) wrote in message
om...
Hello,

I am a PhD in Engineering (from Duke University), originally from
Russia, a USCF master, but my rating should drop currently a bit below
2200 as I did poorly in the last tournament.
I don't want to tell my last name as it gets too heated in these
groups, and I regretted signing with my name before. I just would like
to tell my opininon.

1.) The main reason why there are so many foreigners in your (US)
engineering grad schools as opposed to liberal studies is financing.
By doing research with professors, we - foreign students - could be
supported via professors grants.
India, China, Russia have decent science schools. You have the money,
we would like to come if get accepted by a school, enjoy your country
and study in a good university, do research. Many of us try to stay
afterwards. In liberal arts getting a scholarship is much more
difficult. Currently my colleagues are mostly Americans and they are
very good at our engineering science.

2.) There are plenty of people playing chess in America, but definetly
not as many as in Russia. It is natural that you don't have chess
traditions as developed as in the former Soviet Union, as, for
example, Russia doesn't have the same traditions playing basketball.
Chess GM's from there do come and teach people here (along with your
own GM's) a lot more these days, so I think your chess will only go up
in the future (unless some other significant negative processes in
American chess take place), but it may take generations for it to have
an effect.

3.) Bobby Fisher was great, and I don't see a reason why there could
not be more like him in the US, but the likelyhood is higher where
there are more people playing chess.

Denis

C'mon! I live in Northern NJ. Near Connecticut. Your just upset
that UConn is becoming the POWER over Duke. ADMIT IT!!! YOUR JEALOUS
THAT UCONN IS #1. THAT'S WHY YOU WON'T POST YOUR NAME!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

THE TRUTH COMES OUT DOESN'T IT!!!!

Excuse me............time for my medication.

EZoto

Oh, I like TV . My life is TV...

(not really, but I do have my TV on a lot in the backgroud). I am
becoming a little bit brainwashed, too - I find myself wanting to be
entertained now as opposed to watching a serious or artsy movie
as I used to be. You probably don't really need my opinion on the TV
influence - it's all over the media: Kids watch it from almost age 1
(more than 1h average for a one year old in the US they said on CNN
last week, and the number grows rapidly as they get older). This
causes them not to like getting information in a slow deeper way from
books or classes when they get to age 6-7. I think parents just don't
understand this in many families.

So, Phil, you asked about Russia and books vs TV. In the 80's when I
was in school (7-17 year old) every summer when the school is off, we
had a list of books to read. Our schools were all the same in this
respect. The number of books for a summer was huge - close to 100.
Being a good school boy, I tried my darnest to read them unlike many
of my classmates, so did a few other pupils. Usually in the summer
children are sent to their grandparents somewhere in a village. Mine
was in Ukraine. A very nice place to be in the summer with a book.
So yes, we read a lot. To add to that our TV was even worse than yours
- 1 or 2 channels. Although I would argue our movies and cartoons were
actually not bad -kind and peaceful with some foreign films as well +
some propaganda, of course. In Moscow subway before perestroika
everybody was reading, many people still do today, but most have other
problems now. BTW, in our schools we all go through the same classes,
and a literature class is there
from grade 4 till 10 - so we were exposed to a lot of Russian and
world literature, even if some of us didn't read it carefully. Same
about other subjects: you may not want it, but you have to take
chemistry, biology, geography, algebra, geometry, physics, etc - no
choice. That is why on average I would say a person is better overall
educated by the time he/she enters a college in Russia. It is in the
grad school where the US leaves everybody behind - too much brain
power here, money, everything is so well organized.
Your professors are great, too - very educated friendly people (you
can run into a grumpy busy one, but that is rare). In Russia they are
just as wise and smart, but
it is all too dark there, no quick turn around using email and
visiting hours. Most professors have dificulty supporting their
families. A rare professor in Russia makes decent money using his main
occupation.
That is why you are on the leading edge of almost all sciences, but we
do have a few very good universities on par with MIT, etc.

Russia is becoming western in many respects, and getting information
via multi channel TV is certainly one of them. Lots of Hollywood
movies, tons of them, American music along with Europian and Russian.
Many teens want to act/look american. Fundamental sciences are losing
people to immigration - this will hurt the country soon. If the
economy does not get better in the next decades, Russia will be in
trouble I think.

I would argue your students can't think analytically. I think many of
them are very bright and they study very hard. I think it all depends
on their families
prior to college.

You have a good country - look at how your disabled and minorities are
treated.
Women certainly much more equal to men then anywhere else.
It is a sign of a very developed society to me, but your do have
problems. As you pointed the money dependent TV culture causes a lot
of problems. Movies are designed to make money, so is the news
coverage (in a way via adds) - therefore a lot on TV is aimed at cheap
attention grabbing of an average person. There is little interest to
know what happens in the rest of the world and little programing
supported by other mechanisms than a profit making one. And God please
stop those attractive chearful McDonalds and Wendy's comercials - they
are killing your children's health. I could not belive my eyes when I
landed in an American mall, but I guess I should not critisize so
much...

Anyway I hope I was helpful.

Denis

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

Phil,\

Angelo,

I wouldn't beat around the bush at all about this. I think television --
and
I don't care if it's PBS or ABC, Animal Kingdom of Animal House -- is the
worst ****ing thing you can have in your home. Watching TV is like
plugging
yourself into a huge marketing-propaganda machine. I have more respect for
heroin addicts than for people who watch six hours of TV a day.

That is the average for a teenager, and by the time they graduate they have
witnessed, according to ex-President Clinton, is it 60,000 or 80,000
murders? eg. Some people think this may be brutalising.

You can get
more news from a newspaper in 5 minutes that Peter Jennings can deliver in
half an hour. I haven't owned a TV set since my wife threw our portable at
me in 1986. None of my three kids miss it one bit.

I watch a few hours per week. Often a BBC thing. As a medium TV is solidly
set in the stone-age. Yet this is the _primary_ medium of information for
citizens USA, one third of whom are functionally illiterate in English,
thereby?

It is such a prevalent and accepted medium that it is culturally 'invisible'
to almost everyone. A narcotic 'momma', and perhaps as you mention the same
debilitating spiritual effect as shooting horse.

Its relevance to chess is that in contradistinction; the game requires
something other than passivity, and is some mixture of abstract spatial
planning and deeply critical thinking.

I ask you to consider the plite therefore of American chess players, who, to
large degree, are counter-cultural.

Soberly, Phil



Angelo