Author: Mark Young
Date: 09:37:02 06/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2001 at 11:53:15, Albert Silver wrote: >On June 14, 2001 at 10:42:19, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 14, 2001 at 09:41:03, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On June 14, 2001 at 08:47:23, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On June 13, 2001 at 22:59:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 13, 2001 at 22:12:59, Mark Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 13, 2001 at 21:46:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 13, 2001 at 14:54:52, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What the hell are you talking about... I never said that. When Did I ever say >>>>>>>>ratings were """"""""ABSOLUTE""""""""""". I said you can calculate ratings for >>>>>>>>past players....and Ratings is the only measure we use in chess. I NEVER said >>>>>>>>RATINGS are ABSOLUTE.... Ratings are calculated for that pool of players, If you >>>>>>>>think the rankings are incorrect you better take a look at the past list because >>>>>>>>you will find what history tell us were the strongest players of the day are >>>>>>>>also RANKED #1 on the repective lists. The Rating numbers themselve don't mean >>>>>>>>anything 2700,2800,2900 etc. What matters is the point spread from one player to >>>>>>>>the next. Don't put words in my mouth and then tell me I don' >>>>>>>>t understand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Then why did you publish the "approximated Elo list" below? That implies >>>>>>>that you can take ratings from today, compute ratings for players active 20 >>>>>>>years ago, then take those ratings, and back up another 20 years, and repeat >>>>>>>the above, until you go back far enough to compute one of these whacko ratings >>>>>>>for the player that is under discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>>Your Wrong I did not implie that at all and you know it. If you look on what I >>>>>>posted it has a header "About these ratings" It tell how the ratings were made >>>>>>and what they mean at the site I posted....Did you take the time to >>>>>>look.........NO! That is your fault not mine that you are lazy if your arguement >>>>>>is you just don't understand what was posted. Typical Bob Hyatt tactics....:) >>>>>>Make up something I did not say and try to use it against me. :) >>>>> >>>>>I tried to be polite. That seems beyond your capability however, so, to >>>>>keep it succinct: >>>>> >>>>> buzz off... >>>> >>>>Why? It was your abuse....I only pointed it out and called your tactics. >>> >>>I'll just say that I didn't read any of this as some kind of agenda. As far as I >>>could tell, Bob understood one thing and made a comment based on what he >>>understood. You corrected this misunderstanding and that was that. Note that he >>>explained what he understood and apologized if this was incorrect. Or am I >>>missing something? >> >>I don't know. I'm I missing something. Where did Bob apologize? >> > >Here: http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?175072 > >"If I misunderstand what you provided below, then accept my apology for >interpreting it incorrectly..." > > Albert He did not apologize for what he did....It is not acceptable to quote something someone has *not* said. It would not be acceptable for me to start quoting you falsely would it? Then drawing false assuptions from the false quotes? Then to make everything ok I say "I apologize if I missunderstand you"... when I know I quoted you falsely. If you think this is acceptable...that is ok with me.
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.