Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:54:22 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 12:28:50, Sune Fischer wrote: >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.... Interesting. I say that I come as close as possible to you to uderstand you and you call this a case for the moderation? I knew that you were not worth even the slightest response. A bachelor. Oh. Dream on. > >>>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, You see? You have not a bit of understanding, but you are a bachelor in physics, dream on. Then you would understand me. Strength <---> Talent/Genius (not talking about patzers like us) Of course Talent must develop its strength, I described it that it took several years. But the talent defines the strength in the end. > 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! We did not discuss that. Uri and also you are telling us that today with comps played better than yesterday. I say like Bob: that doesn't matter to the ranking list and the average. Period. Of course it is trivial to construct a case where someone trained with comps lilke Kramnik prior to his match against Kasparov, but Kasparov could have done the same. So what is your point? Today all have comps. What I say is this: Fischer or Alekhine TODAY also with comp training would be better than Kasparov! Tatatatata. > >>Bob listened and said the same. > >You didn't even understand Bob's point then. Dream on. We all could see your difficulties in the dozens of posts. ;) > >>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? That is a fixation Frederic Friedel has, but nobody else. Kasparov has NOT the personality of a Alekhine despite his addiction. >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. What are you talking about??? Fischer reached his full potential, he beat Spassky all alone against a whole army of helpers for Spassky. Fischer simply is the best of all time. Yes, that is a real pain for you, am I right? >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. I doubt that. Either India or a European like Fischer. :) > >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. Hehe, but then your dream is over. I say that Fischer is the best of all times. > >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. Best is not sufficient my friend. You must be dedicated like a maniac. > >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. How? I tell you. Bullet makes you weaker. It sucks. > >>>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, Evil liar! Where did I call you stupid, you character assassin! I never did it. >then you back off and pretend to be a victim when DONT parrot me! That was my argument against you. You cant play on both sides of the court, evil liar. Where did I call you stupid, liar? >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. Would will? I take a spineless twit who tells the truth 100x to a liar who tells evil lies. Remember that! Where did I call you stupid, liar? Prove it! > 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. I repeat tell me where I called you stupid! You can't! Then you are a liar. Period. > >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.... And because you understood Bob, Bob wrote 10 postings to explain to you how he meant what. Dream on. This is my last post in this thread, liar! Unless you apoligize for your lying. Rolf Tueschen > >-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.