Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:27:24 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 08:03:46, Sune Fischer wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 07:31:02, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 20, 2003 at 07:18:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2003 at 06:02:40, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>the moment you could understand that you are unable to understand what Bob is >>>>talking about, you are NOT more intelligent but you have learned how to give >>>>less unqualified statements. >>> >>>Rolf, the moment you would learn how to join a conversation.... >>>You start out by a rude condecending remark, completely without foundation. >>> >>>You are deliberately trying to pick a fight with me, well this time I'm not >>>falling for it. And please don't excuse by your english is not very good, I'm >>>not falling for that one either. >>> >>>I will leave you alone with your trolls. >>>We can talk when you've grown up. >>> >>>Take care now, bye bye. >>>-S. >> >> >>I apologize for having used the term intelligence in a thread about the >>difference between intelligence and performance. Yes I was making a logical >>argument of a very high smartness ad I had only one hope - that you might join >>Bobby and me. But now we've lost you, please be confirmed that I didn't want to >>lose you. I'd wished you would thank me for my efforts. Look, I had the thread >>before my eyes and I could see what you couldn't understand although Bob tried >>his best. But of course this is not on beginners level here. Otherwise Bob could >>always had said, no, you are wrong, go back to chapter one. This whole topic is >>NOT about language difficulties but about statistics. Basics of it. But don't >>worry, unless a little minority nobody has studied statistics. I HAVE. So that >>already proves you're wrong with your childish reaction. > >Childish reaction? >You really have no clue do you? > >You spew out insults upon insults (please tell me that you are aware of that), >and that sets the tone in the conversation. >How do you expect me to be polite and adress the real interesting topic when you >continuesly insult me, I see nothing but declarations of war in your posts, and >I'm not in the mood for your little war games. > >A conversation between two adult intellectuals is done by trying arguments and >_listening_ to the responses. Wrong. Intellectuals first should have the minimum of education. Listening makes no sense if you lack of education. I'm very happy that once and for all I ca prove how people like you are wrong when they call me to task for "my insults". How can lack of education justify people to call other people names? Your reply here proves beyond any doubt, that you never uderstood Bob nor me now. And the absolute hype is that you still are believing that you are well understanding and "just making a subtle point". What are you doing? Because of your subtle point Bob was writing his messages, but you don't get it. I will show you point by point... > >I know perfectly well Bob's point, that humans have not changed. But my subtle >point was that the average can still change, ie. take a look at the muscles on >the legs of football players 20 years ago and compare them with today. Fine, but that is NOT the point. That's why I tried to explain the IQ tests and also claimed that Alekhine could well be as strong as Kasparov. Chess has had its historic progress, but Alekhine today could still be better than Kasparov. The point of Bob is valid but you don't get it. Bob says and he is right, the average is NOT changing overall. And you are always making your subtle point that it does. Well - we see we have a seemingly contradiction. And I am saying that this is only understood by educated people. You can't find the answer yourself unless you are a little genius. But if you were you already had understood of what quality the seemingly contradiction is like. But you don't. QED. >When you >see the legs on old photage they look like boys legs, not like top trained >athletes. The best are better even though man and talent is the same. Nonsense. Youg Cassius Clay was a little boy agaist Sonny Liston. Just get some photos. But his speed was higher. Boxing is not about masses. Speed ad also a so called killer punch. Without these factors you can be as strong as a giant, you would lose. Look at the German Armin Hary, the first 10,0 runner over 100m. He was no Ben Johnson. Carl Lewis the same. But back to boxing. Prove that speed and punch has changed over the years. And prove how it could be "trained" if not "created". Of course you must train to become a good boxer, but you can't train and then suddenly have a punch. Truth is you either have it or not. The same with chess. The development has not changed from Alekhine's time up to now. You are very young + eidetics + you watch games + you "understand" + you play + you make progress top speed + you get the necessary training + ++ you become a master etc.... No matter how much you train, you need years to mature, namely, to play GM. You are completely confused with your assumption that the internet is help for MORE people to become masters or to make progress on their level. You are saying something the like: yesterday someone was bound to stay on level B, but today with all the tools he is A or better. Wrong! All a delusion! Period! > >It was not a big point and me and Bob practicly agreed. >I'm not interested in forcing my view on people, I am content if they will >consider my point as I do theirs. You strike me as being very different in that >respect, not knowing the basic rules for having a good interesting dialog. Ok, begin to cry. You were wrong and Bob did NOT agree with you. Don't try to hide your own faults. Even here in the most actual message you were wrong. How could you be right and Bob then agree? Basically our conflict here is characterized by a lack of respect on your side. I have great respect for you, in special when I give you the necessary corrections. But you are without respect for people who prove you wrong. At least your internet incarnation tries to twist the correction into a "sadistic torturing", which is a joke in itself. With such a nonsense you can close all schools immediately. It is dishonest to appeal to "adult talking" and then not even respect the basics of a serious debate. Namely the corrections of simply false statements. NOTE: Debates are no democratically elected procedures for sissies. Debates can be pretty strict or call it Darwian. If you are wrong or badly educated then you simply lose all the time. Every day. Month by month. You had only one chance and that is listening and understanding what better qualified people explained. BTW did you also learn to cry at chess? Rolf Tueschen > >-S. >>Rolf Tueschen
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.