Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 06:30:07 01/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 17:04:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. > FIDE regulations to get a GM title have changes over the time. GM Albin Planinc became a grandmaster without even previously having a FIDE rating, just by impressively winning a super tournament! Drazen is fully right in this point. José. >>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 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.