Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:28:50 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 11:41:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>Easy one. As I said. I am educated in stats. Your serve. >> >>I'm bachelor in mathemathics and physics. >>Ball on your court. > >Yes, I understood. I repeat Statistics! Not in general maths and physics and a >bachelor. Statistics and social sciences to understand when we are talking about >chess strength. C'mon that was an Ace! And mine was a joker. Anyway, where have you used your ace? Isn't it time to put it in the table? >>Rolf you really are not listening one word to what I'm saying, please pay >>attention for one microsecond, do me that favor will you? > >I am listening and almost am craping into your mouth. Now tell me. Well at least the moderaters should be able to pick up on this one.... >>Once again... >>Assume talent is the same, man is the same, chess progresses => stronger top >>players. > > >Pardon me? Why stronger players? How? This is exactly the point where Bob >opposed you. And now stop to make a clown here, I listened and said that you >were wrong. Define stronger player. You say strength is equal to talent? I say strength is equal to the performance you can produce on the board, and if you give two equally talented players different tools to practise, one gets computers to assist his analysis and better more modern opening theory, then that one will be stronger at the board! >Bob listened and said the same. You didn't even understand Bob's point then. >The only thing you want to say is: >Kasparov today is stronger than Alekhine yesterday. But it makes no sense. Of course it makes sense. Is Kasparov the best player ever? You argue: No because back in time there was another guy with a similar talent, only he didn't have the right tools to reach his full potential. You might as well say: No because there is an uneducated buy in Africa with a bigger talent, unfortunately he doesn't even know the rules. If and if and if... It is too many if's here to make it interesting. Talent is _not_ the issue, performance is, we can't know how Alekhine would have performed today, we only know how he _did_ perform so we have to use that to do the comparison. Everything else is just pure guesswork. >Because chess progressed. But Kasparov isn't stronger. BTW would you say that >Georgie Bush is stronger than Friedrich the Great? <g> I'd wager Kasparov would have been weaker if he had lived in the 17th century, so he wouldn't have been the best ever, even though it would be the same person. If Fischer had been at his top now it would have been interesting, but again wishfull thinking. >>The average is a _different_ discussion, but same principle applies, though >>probably to a much lesser extent. > >Interesting. Tell me more. Is that the language of a mathematician? Which >principle? Why lesser extent? How extent at all??? To benefit from advanced opening theories you have to study it in the first place, and only the best really take the time to do that. Still I think playing on the net can help you to advance faster today. It is an added tool, if you don't like it don't use it, but I don't see how it can hurt. >>I can't understand mumbojumbo no, that is correct. >>But you claim to be an educated man, so PROVE me wrong. We don't need all this >>babble us two educated people, do we. Show me the math, prove me wrong. > >Perhaps Bob will join you again. I have made my point. The question here is more >a psychological one. Not mathematical. You had a point? What is it? >>You are amazing Rolf, don't you think people know how to read between the lines? >>That comment about lack of education, was that not intended for me? What the >>heck was it for then? > > >You are the name calling evil boy. Who wrote: Earth to Rolf. Who wrote: Rolfs >war game? You want to creat a case with you as a victim. What a nonsense when >you are the evil side. It is always like this with you, you ride in with lots of insults, calling people stupid and uneducated, then you back off and pretend to be a victim when people get angry. It's always like this with you Rolf, I know your rutine inside out. It goes like this. First you insult a person to get a fight going. Now you know you will get a response because only a spineless twit would will take that crap lying down. Now you have faith in you own abilities to maneuver the border of the charter, so you throw the lure as close to it as you can and wait. When some poor smock bites you pull and the fight begins. You continue the fight until the smock breaks the charter and you back off claiming to be the innocient victim. It is old Rolf, and you just got caught pants down. > I visited this thread to make reasonable logical >arguments. Let me know when those begin. >>>This thread here, >>>Sune, speaks for itself. From its beginning where I was NOT participating. >> >>What does it say Rolf, you've lost me. > > >No, I hold you by your hands, don't worry. It says that you already showed that >you couldn't understand when you were talking with Bob. At that time I wasn't in >the debate. You can't drive a wedge between me and Bob, we are out of your league. I'm clear on what Bob said, your ramblings had nothing to do with that, if only you could understand that.... -S. >Rolf Tueschen
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.