Author: Drazen Marovic
Date: 13:53:03 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 16:44:57, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 11, 2001 at 16:32:30, Drazen Marovic wrote: > >>On January 11, 2001 at 16:05:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On January 11, 2001 at 16:00:40, Drazen Marovic wrote: >>> >>>>On January 11, 2001 at 15:46:54, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 11, 2001 at 15:41:31, Drazen Marovic wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 11, 2001 at 13:39:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 11, 2001 at 11:43:10, Drazen Marovic wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The sad thing is, if rebel had lost by a measly half point countless here >>>>>>>>would still try to deny comps gm strength. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There is not enough evidence to confirm or deny the assertion either way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The 1/2 point swing in the other direction (for the comp) is no different. But >>>>>>>in any case, there are certainly not enough games to make a logical statement. >>>>>>>Only an emotional one. >>>>>> >>>>>>False. I have something you don't. The experience of grandmaster play. A life >>>>>>time of the study of the game. Non GM's do not beat experienced GM's in 6 game >>>>>>matches Especially by what should have been by 2 full points, if not for the >>>>>>graciousness of Schroeder in giving the last round draw. Sure it could have >>>>>>been luck, an amazing flip of the coin. If you believe in that unlikelyhood. >>>>>>There's nothing to talk about >>>>> >>>>>I'm afraid that you simply have a poor grasp of mathematics. >>>>> >>>>>And weaker players do beat stronger players by preparation. I'll leave it as an >>>>>excercise for you to find examples. >>>>> >>>>>Consider this you HAVE NO, NONE,NOT a CLUE what GM STRENGTH IS. By your faulty reasoning and not understanding what GM strength is. You disqaulify countless GM's from ever being GM strength. Pillsbury, Sultan Khan, And a good number of current day GM's as well. >>> >>>I think it's time for you to get a grip. >>> >>>I know what GM strength is. I have played against one, in fact. >> >>played 1 ooh i'm impressed, i was one probably before you were born. > >I was born in 1957. Could well be. > >>But I am >>>talking about mathematical demonstration >> >>As i said you are not talking about GM strength. When the world of experts on >>the subject of chess,(i.e GM's)judge Pillsbury's play,to be GM strength, When >>the world of GM's judge Morphy's play to be GM strength. No one disagrees, >>apparently not even you! Are they the other thing, that you are confused and >>thinking we are talking about? This made up construct which does not even exist >>a mathematical GM, no! Today and in the past a person, could win their >>country's national championship never having played before in a tournament they >>would be granted the GM title! Many times such tournaments are only 10 rounds! >>No one would be walking around saying the person wasn't GM strength. Gm strength >>has definitely been demonstrated. > >Not mathematically. Just emotionally. I see that you are an emotional person, >and I respect your view of things. But mathematcally, you are ignorant. You are obviously ignorant,hard headed and foolish. Further you are a person who can't accept your own obvious loss. There is no such thing as a mathematical GM! You are the only person bringing up such an idea. You would tell all the courts and logicians in the world that the use of the judgement of experts on a subject is not based upon rationality, but emotion. Further undeniably and unquestionably a person can become a GM in ten games by merely winning their national Title. They could play 3 tournaments and get the title. They would be GM strength. They wouldn't be this construct that only exists in your head, and only you are talking about of a mathematical gm! There would however be no question by anyone that in fact they were the real thing known as GM strength!
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.