Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 16:43:25 02/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2003 at 15:47:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 09, 2003 at 13:12:30, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 09, 2003 at 12:27:31, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On February 09, 2003 at 11:34:57, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>On February 08, 2003 at 14:53:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 08, 2003 at 07:50:07, Albert Silver wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>We should not leave away the CC aspect of the debate here! The point is that in >>>>>>>>>their eternal impostering comps play that way. And Bob claimed that in his view >>>>>>>>>GM played in that same style. At times! I said No! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>GM Mecking did this in his first come back match. He saw a game that appealed to >>>>>>>>him, and on the spot decided he would use that line. GM Darcy Lima is known >>>>>>>>widely to often do his preparation for only some 20 minutes before a round. He >>>>>>>>is the president of the federation so he is quite busy and that is >>>>>>>>understandable to a degree, but it is common for him. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>IMO it is a form of being slow-witted to give these two examples. Because they >>>>>>>both do NOT prove what they allegedly could. >>>>>> >>>>>>Prove what they could? I don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sorry Albert, I didn't want to reveil your lingual difficulties with the English >>>>>language. My sentence is crystal clear! Let me repeat: You gave examples. For a >>>>>specific reason. I said these two do NOT prove what you want them to prove. >>>>>Please try to ask for a local help if you still cant understand. >>>> >>>>Suggesting I have linguistic difficulties and that I should seek help is the >>>>epitome of pompousness FYI. >>> >>>Nope and I must seriously warn you now to behave. You are a moderator and you >>>should behave here. Please try to give a good role model for those who insult >>>all the time. In a long thread I could only see one last possibility and that >>>was language. >> >>1)Here are your words: >> >>"The question was to provide examples for a dumb GM who 1) took some >>lines (he did never check) and then who 2) played down the lines in a _serious_ >>game without checking. >> >>For both cases above that has NOT been shown resp. proven." >> >> >>Based on my understanding Albert Silver claims that he know examples when it >>happened. > >Uuhm, so he knew a 'dumb GM'? Fine. But seriously, Uri, to understand what I >said and the whole content, reading helps but is apparently not sufficient. >Because already two readers did not understand. I'm also sure that you don't >really like me. Because you think that I could write easily rejectable nonsense. >But you both became victims of your own weaknesses. > >1) You know dumb GM? Ok, tell me. If not ---- > >2) You know what a GM really is? What are his talents? Compare with 1)! > >3) You knew that GM are eidetics? What does that mean - resp. speed? > >Again, what does all that mean? > >Look, Uri, if you like, if you organize a GM who then plays a serious game on >that base of a 'dumb' GM, would that refutate my thesis? Because what would that >mean if a genial GM, and every GM is in a way genial [would you deny that?], >would behave like a 'dumb' patzer? Do you understand now the meaning of my >thesis? There is no such thing as a 'dumb' [never checking] GM. > >Now comes Albert: > > - but I saw it, he did it > > - but he told me, that he did it > >and he gives the name of Mecking. A chess genius and a human tragedy. Where is >the concrete game of Mecking? Where is the data about the "line" he adopted >without analysis? [etc pp.] > > >> >>Did you think that it is possible that your theory is simply wrong? > > >Impossible. Not this one. Because I don't know dumb GM. You do? Ok tell me and >give exact data. Lines. Game and exact testimony. I have time. You can also find >it in 5 months, if you can. I know that you can't. > > > >> >> >>2)I do not think that there was a language problem but >>I can add that if there is a language problem and people do not understand what >>you say then it also does not mean that they have problem in understanding and >>you may also have a problem in explaining because english is not your first >>language. > >Impossible. I know for sure that I am able to make such basic statements. I >studied and made a lot of such theses [real hypotheses, this here is not a >authentic thesis, it's more a trap, to make it dangerous for Rolf bashers] > >:) > >and this here is really a trivial case, so, no, never wrong, always correct. > > > >> >>personally I find your posts harder to understand then posts of most people >>here. > > >But do not believe that this is due to my English! I know one expert who >_always_ understood what I said here. So that proves that I can be understood. > > > >> >>I do not want to try to help by giving examples for correct english because >>english is also not my first language but I am used to a different way of using >>words. >> >>The next paragraph is an example for a paragraph that is not trivial to >>understand. >> >> >>>Because the content of the topic is normaly for a real expert - >>>and you seem to be an expert - not to miss. Why you now try to make such a >>>language guess into ///something/// [I correct in SUCH] a horrible insult is >>beyond my imagination. As I >>>said you are moderator and I call you to behave. >> >>If I understand correctly the first sentence in free translation then you say: >>Albert is an expert > > >No, I said "seems" because Albert claimed that, so I took it face value. > > > > >>and if there is no language problem he could understand and >>agree with you. > > >Of course. Yes. > > > >> >>For the second sentence: >>"Why you now try to" is not correct english >> >> >>"Why do you try to make a guess of language misunderstanding to a horrible >>insult is beyond my imagination" >>Is better english. > > >Hehe, excuse me. Nope, that is not what I [wanted to say] said. "Why do you ... >is..." that is impossible English. But I could have said: > ><<Why you are now trying to make... etc - that is better English. > >:) > > > > >> >>Note that english is not my first language so it is possible to write it in >>better english. > >Therefore I never corrected you, here it was a little game. I hope you liked it. > >I really hope for some data about 'dumb' GM, Uri! > >God! I forgot to mention an extremely important part of my thesis, that you had >forgotten to quote. I said DUMB GM but _not_ drunken, so, data about drunken GM >in serious games do NOT count. :) > > >Rolf Tueschen > > >> >>Uri I'm having trouble following this thread. Would someone, other than the principals in this discussion, please explain what in the world they're talking about? Lost, Bob D.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.