Things I didn't know #6

I know next to nothing about Victorian and Regency novels. Austen, the Brontës, Eliot, Dickens, Hardy, all that Englishness. Give me The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy any day. I know enough to possibly get by in a pub quiz but that's it. I don't care who Heathcliff was.

Hadley Freeman wrote in today's Sunday Times about Wuthering Heights in a manner which led me to wonder what on earth a "wuther" was. Turns out it's not a wuther, it's to wuther. 

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines wuther as "to blow with a dull roaring sound". Which pretty much sums up my feelings about Victorian novels.

Someone reads my blog

In June I wrote a blog post about women in chess and in particular why competing only in women's sections of major chess tournaments might inhibit players' progress:

I'd like to see some of the talented young women - and there are many - electing to play Open tournaments rather than taking the "easy way" against their fellow women. And some tournament organisers issuing invitations to women to play against men in a single section rather than a separate section.

And perhaps someone took note. This week and next, a major tournament, the Grand Swiss, is taking place in Samarkand. Which is in Uzbekistan - I had to look that up. That may seem out of the way but not in the chess world - the country has 24 Grandmasters. The "Swiss" by the way refers not to the country but to the tournament format; I've mentioned it before as familiar to croquet players - you play a match then for the next round get paired against someone with the same results/score; eventually the cream rises to the top. Rising young Indian (of course) star Divya Deshmukh, 19 years old, already a Grandmaster and recent winner of the Women's World Cup, elected to play in the Open section.

The Indian Express newspaper reports Divya saying:

Even if I lose all the rounds, I think I will be fine if I learn. Every loss hurts a lot. When you play stronger players continuously, you learn so much even if you lose. You learn about yourself, you learn about what you should and should not do. For me, the result is not that important, more than what I take back from this tournament. This is definitely the strongest open tournament that I have played, I don’t want to say that I am used to getting beaten by these players. I truly enjoy playing in open tournaments, As much as they are difficult, I think it’s a must-have experience and it makes you much, much stronger when you play against people who are way stronger than you to begin with. You learn so much about yourself at such events: like where you’re lacking, where your weaknesses are and how you can improve on those.

Remarkably, Divya is only ranked 14th of the world's top women players but this is clearly a breakthrough season. Having won the World Cup, she has already qualified for the Candidates, the preliminary tournament to decide who challenges reigning world champion Ju Wenjun in 2026. The Grand Swiss is another qualifying competition so I'd guess that normally she'd have played the women's section to attempt to qualify. But she doesn't need to do that so can take this bold step. I'll let you know how she gets on.

As requested, flags

I think if I did a survey close to where I live, there'd be more Cornish flags

than English or British being displayed. We have our own language and rugby team - the Pirates.

Aargh me hearties. Shiver me timbers. Pieces of eight. 

Flags are fascinating, like national anthems and, in my opinion, intrinsically performative. I look at a flag from an artistic point of view and I blogged about this a few years ago. And from that point of view the Cornish flag is simply awful - just four black blobs; what's that about?*

But the recent explosion (if that's what it is) of flag flying by English households (there has been no reporting of similar outbreaks in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as far as I can tell) seems to be  driven by (a) it's August (or at least it was) and the media have very little to report on (Trump hasn't threatened to annex Cuba) (b) Reform UK and its leader have been ramping up nationalistic fervour and (c) people are dusting off their flags after the Womens' Euros and in anticipation of an England World Cup victory next summer.

In some ways it's anti-British. We see flag fetishes in other countries, notably the USA, where it seems to be seen as a test of national virility and comes close to a statement of weakness, implying a kind of bunker mentality: the old Millwall chant of "No one likes us, we don't care!". Traditionally we Brits are more reserved, keeping our patriotism to ourselves. We feel it but don't feel the need to say so and therefore you might see flag-waving (other than in military or sporting victories) as a sense of desperation that "fings ain't what they used to be".

Because of flag displays seemingly connecting with anti-immigrant sentiment, flags can perhaps be seen as relatively (as opposed to say bows and arrows) inoffensive challenges to foreigners: "you're not welcome here" and we're going to wave our flags at you (but less so physically drive you out). A statement of weakness and frustration.

The conscription of the flag of St George as if it (and it's adherents) represent the whole of our four nation union is of course pretty offensive.  Maybe for some it's a deliberate anti-union statement: "our" borders are Hadrian's Wall and Offa's Dyke.

The biggest problem for me is the tribal nature. If you don't fly or acknowledge the flag, you're not of our tribe and we don't want you - or maybe even want to vote for you. Hence a great rush of politicians draped in the flag, proud to say they have an England flag in their living room, etc. Grow up!

Of course we all remember Emily Thornberry who sneered at a terraced house draped in three England flags and resigned as Shadow Attorney General. So no sneering please - but don't keep your thoughts to yourself! If possible don't do so Anonymously.

* CORNISH NOTE: our flag is NOT four black blobs, it's a white cross on a black background, perhaps the black background signifying the rich mineral deposits from its tin mines and the white cross representing the purity of St. Piran. Obviously.

Singapore Slings

I spent 8 months working in Singapore once. Interesting country, drinks in the Long Bar at Raffles surrounded by discarded peanut shells, Night Safari at the Zoo, Sentosa island, hawker centres.

And.

Top of the charts for the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in maths, reading and science. With other Asian countries in top places too, it's Estonia that leads the way for the West followed by Finland and Ireland. The UK is in 14th place, higher ranked than most EU countries.

In 2022 PISA introduced a creative thinking assessment. Singapore came top of that too. Maybe less expected.

I liked my time there, could have stayed longer but I felt it just wasn't my kind of culture. And equatorial weather is pretty stressful.

Previously, in or around 2001, I travelled by train from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore. It was a relaxing, scenic journey although pretty slow, 7 hours or so. Not one of the world's grand, exotic rail journeys. Since then a high speed rail link has been proposed, agreed and cancelled a number of times due to cost concerns and changes of government in Malaysia. An agreement in 2013 should have led to completion and operation in 2026 but it's now back to 2031 I think. Shades of the UK's HS2. And a similarity in distance: Singapore to KL is about the same as London to Manchester. There's a joke about bats in there somewhere but I can't quite work it out; any suggestions?

BTW, just in case you want to know, a Singapore Sling contains gin, cherry liqueur, orange liqueur (Cointreau or Grand Marnier), an herbal liqueur like Benedictine, pineapple juice, lime juice, grenadine, bitters, and is topped with club soda, garnished with a cherry and orange slice. Yes please!

I did some research and sourced some bottles and cans of this cocktail. Pretty pricey and definitely not the same experience as ready mixed at a bar. I need to find an occasion. Maybe transiting Singapore on the way to Australia.

The wonders of the House of Lords

As reported in today's Times, Lord Wei proposed an amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, on its way through the House of Lords.

Lord Wei is described as a "social entrepreneur", although there is no evidence put forward as to what that means or who (perhaps himself?) describes him as such. Anyway, his amendment addresses the Bill's requirement for the UK's children to register as home-schooled if their parents opt to do so rather than sending them to school. It's surprising that such a requirement doesn't already exist; although schools have to notify the local authority if a child is withdrawn from school to be home-schooled, there is no such requirement if a child is never sent to school in the first place.

I'm going to set aside considerations of home schooling (not something I would have relished as a parent) and focus on Lord Wei's amendment, which states

"A child who has achieved chess grandmaster status shall be considered to be receiving a suitable education and shall be exempt from registration under section 436B."

Section 436B outlines the new requirement for all children of compulsory school age ((basically up to 16) to be placed on a register if they are not attending school. Lord Wei, who was not present in the House to propose his amendment in person - perhaps home schooling his kids? - sent a message:

“This amendment recognises that children who attain chess grandmaster status demonstrate exceptional intellectual achievement. It automatically treats them as receiving a sufficient education.”

This is obviously a bit weird and begs the question of how many of these geniuses are there? Something the Times reporter hasn't bothered to explore - or maybe it got cut out by the sub-editors for lack of space. I, however, am like a dog with a bone and I did ask.

At the time the amendment was discussed in the House on 1st May (something the Times article today didn't point as therefore old news, I'm disappointed to say) the answer was: one. Shreyas Royal (born 9 January 2009, so currently 16 years old) officially earned his Grandmaster (GM) title in 2024 at age 15 years and 7 months, becoming the youngest British GM ever. 

However, Shreyas ceased to be of compulsory school age on the last Friday in June, so the current answer to the ("how many?) question is: none.

So Lord Wei was seeking to create a legal opt-out for one person at the time. This seems an odd way to make law. I naturally asked ChatGPT whether it could find any connection between Lord Wei and Shreyas - that's the cynic in me - and the answer came: no. And no connection to any chess bodies that I could find.

I checked out Shreyas' FIDE (the world chess federation) data. His FIDE rating is 2501, one point above the GM threshold (ratings go up and down as you win or lose matches but you only have to get to 2500 once to get the title). He has competed around the world in tournaments and I suppose that means home schooling (perhaps travelling with a parent) is an appropriate way to get educated.

Perhaps, if we'd like Britain to become a chess powerhouse to compete with the pesky Indians and the powerhouse Chinese, Shreyas and his contemporaries need to be supported.

But I still don't see why you would want such a person to be exempt from a national register which seeks safeguarding through oversight, reporting, and potential interventions. What's the problem, Lord Wei?

Anyway, good luck to him  (Shreyas, not Lord Wei). I've added him to my Favourites list on the Take Take Take app, so I'll let you know if he's in a tournament; I'm sure you'll want to know.

You have to help AI

One of the best things about ChatGPT is....you can actually have a chat. Meaning that it remembers the previous contributions to the existing conversation, which is something traditional search engines don't do. However, you have to have some degree of scepticism about what it tells you.

I recently asked ChatGPT "Which of arsenal's first team squad are 6 feet or more tall?" [why? I hear you ask; good question]. It came up with a dreadful set of answers which I knew to be out of date because previous players were included. Now here's another good thing about ChatGPT: it tells you where it got its data from. In this case it quoted Ladbrokes, the bookmakers. Now no-one in their right mind, trying to answer this question, would dream of using Ladbrokes as the source material for the answer. So, in attempt to educate the AI, I followed up with "Some of this is out of date. Try alternative source". The conversation continued "You’re right — that source was stale. Pulling from ESPN’s current 2025/26 Arsenal squad page, here are the players listed at 6'0" (183 cm) or taller as of 30 Aug 2025". And that was that; I got my info, well sourced.

I wanted to persist with my annoyance: "can i ask you not to use ladbrokes next time?" and got the response "Got it — I’ll steer clear of Ladbrokes as a source for squad info. ESPN, Transfermarkt, the Premier League’s official site, and Arsenal’s own page are much more solid anyway."

Questions remain:

• If it knows those sites are "more solid", why did it go to Ladbrokes in the first place?
• Will ChatGPT retain my "Ladbrokes ban" for future conversations or just this one?

I didn't know the answers so I simply asked. "If you know those sites are "more solid", why did you go to Ladbrokes in the first place?"

Answer: "Fair point. Honestly, it comes down to how the search engine serves results. When I did that first fetch, Ladbrokes had a nicely formatted squad list that showed up high in the rankings, so I pulled from it. Problem is, betting sites often copy data from older feeds and don’t always keep it fresh — which is exactly what you spotted. The more reliable places (ESPN, Transfermarkt, official Premier League/club sites) sometimes sit lower down in search results or behind trickier layouts, so they don’t always surface on the first pass. I should have gone straight for them once you asked about something as specific as player heights."

So there you have it - this version of ChatGPT goes for speed of response ahead of accuracy. I'm still like a dog with a bone so I ask "Do you have settings where I can optimise accuracy rather than speed?"

Answer: "Not in the sense of a toggle you can flip, Nigel. There’s no “accuracy mode” vs “speed mode” built into me. What actually happens is:

• By default, I try to balance speed and reliability, which means sometimes I grab whatever structured data surfaces quickest (like that Ladbrokes squad list).

• If you’d rather I always prioritise accuracy, you can just tell me explicitly: “only use official or trusted sources (ESPN, PL, club site, Transfermarkt)” — and I’ll go that route, even if it takes a bit longer to fetch and verify. Think of it less like a setting, more like giving me marching orders for how thorough you want me to be."

Finally, I asked the key question "If I say 'only use official or trusted sources', does this apply to this conversation or all future conversations?"

Answer: "Right now it would only apply to this conversation unless you tell me to remember it. If you want it to carry over into all future chats, I can save a note in your profile (something like “Nigel prefers that football info comes only from official or trusted sources like PL, Arsenal site, ESPN, Transfermarkt”). That way I’ll automatically follow it without you needing to remind me every time. Do you want me to make that a standing rule for you?"

Yes, I said.

"Updated saved memory. All set — I’ll stick to those trusted sources for football info going forward."

I'm baffled where and in what form this "saved memory" is; will it be accessed by my conversations on a different device? So I asked and was told "Yes — the memory I’ve saved for you is tied to your account, not the device. So whether you’re on your desktop, phone, or anything else signed into your ChatGPT account, I’ll carry over that preference about using only trusted football sources."

I end the conversation with a completely superfluous "Thanks". Basically because I like to feel I'm conversing with a sentient being and, in conversation with a human, that's what I'd do.

I think you have to not only learn how the AI works but also how to help it come up with the right answers. Just thought you'd like to know.

Incidentally, this is all from ChatGPT's free version. If you want, you can get "advanced reasoning" for £20 p.m. or "pro reasoning" for £200 p.m. Not for me.

Also incidentally, most of the regular search engines now include AI responses, so the ubiquitous verb to "google" is no more.