Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:30:26 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 14:54:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>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? Yeah, you messed up, bigtime there. > I knew that you were not worth even the >slightest response. A bachelor. Oh. Dream on. You are a waste of carbon Rolf. I can't put it simpler. >>>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. THIS is calling me stupid Rolf! >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. You can't achieve great strength without talent, obviously, but talent doesn't mean great strength, so in the end the strength is the only interesting and measurable parameter. >> 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. Okay, that is a valid opinion. I wouldn't go as far as saying "Period" though, it is far from obvious who is right. Computers do help in testing new variations. >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. Maybe, but I never entered into that particular discussion, even though you did your best to drag be in there a few times. >>>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. ;) Now you can speak for everybody? The only one with difficulties in normal human behavior here is YOU. >>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? I don't know, it is guess work, your specialty not mine. I have to rely on what stronger players say about that. >> >>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. Yes you do, over and over and over..... I'm still waiting for some kind of proof other than "hand waving". :) >> >>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. > And of course you have plenty of statistics to back this up, being a good scientist and all. So you don't mind showing it to me of course. Good, I'm waiting.... >>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. You have a short memory nasty Troll, you keep telling me how I don't understand things, only dumb people don't understand things you know!! Q.E.D. > >>then you back off and pretend to be a victim when > > >DONT parrot me! That was my argument against you. But it is so much better suited on you. >You cant play on both sides of >the court, evil liar. Where did I call you stupid, liar? Practicly everywhere nasty Troll. >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! Dang, again. How slow are you???? >I repeat tell me where I called you stupid! You can't! Then you are a liar. >Period. zzzzzzzzzz, you bore me Rolf. >>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. Actually most of the posts were about mean rating drifting, but I suppose that was way over your head. >This is my last post in this thread, liar! Unless you apoligize for your lying. Earth calling, repeat please. _I_ should apologize???? Joke of the year. -S. >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.