Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:04:37 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 16:53:03, Drazen Marovic wrote: [snip] >You are obviously ignorant,hard headed and foolish. My IQ is well above average, and I had a 3.5 GPA in college. Hardheaded, I will admit to readily. Foolish is a subjective thing, but I have definitely been that from time to time. >Further you are a person >who can't accept your own obvious loss. People who accept losing are making the wrong choice. > There is no such thing as a >mathematical GM! No, but there is such a thing as proving, mathematically, what an ELO rating is. >You are the only person bringing up such an idea. The count of people demonstrating logic is irrelevant. If the logic is correct then it is correct, and if not, then it is faulty. >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. If they did not demonstrate their "feelings" with some sort of sensible backing, yes, I would. I also have grave doubts about much that is considered "expert testimony" for that matter. >Further >undeniably and unquestionably a person can become a GM in ten games by merely >winning their national Title. Not according to FIDE rules. They must pass the requirements laid out in the FIDE bylaws. In fact, such a result is not even enough for a provisional rating in the USCF. Not sure about FIDE. >They could play 3 tournaments and get the title. This is possible. However, their strength would mathematically be in doubt. Future contests would prove -- one way or the other -- that they were or were not of the supposed strength. >They would be GM strength. You are (again) assuming the fact before it has been demonstrated. Horrible logic I am afraid. >They wouldn't be this construct that only exists in >your head, and only you are talking about of a mathematical gm! Not at all. Only that strength can be mathematically proven. Until it is proven, the strenght is unproven. Is this really such a difficult concept for you? That does not mean that the STRENGTH DOES NOT EXIT or even that THE STRENGTH IS NOT OF GM LEVEL. What it means is that it has not been PROVEN TO BE OF GM LEVEL. [Emphasis mine ;-)] >There would >however be no question by anyone that in fact they were the real thing known as >GM strength! I am someone. I question the strength. Therefore, I have just PROVEN, mathematcally, that your argument is invalid. ;-) By the way, I don't expect you to understand that last sentence because you obviously are not a mathematician. That is good, because the world probably has enough of them already. They are a dry lot and always walk around proving theorems and wearing different colored socks. I bet GM's get that right, at least.
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.