Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 18:01:14 12/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
>On December 24, 1999 at 18:26:19, John Warfield wrote: >>On December 24, 1999 at 05:48:58, John Warfield wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Since these games are 40/2 Will this count in perdicting Rebels rating? I >>>assume that It will count. <snip my prior reply> > > >Yes you voiced alot of philosophy which I think is very unneccesary since my >question was very simple, and not addressed to anyone in particular, but to the >CCC Community at large. I am one member of the CCC community at large. There is not a clear consensus on what games should >count on what hardware, some believe that the rebel game against hoffman should >count and others believe that it shouldn't. Then there is something suitable for discussion, don't you think. I think it is important to know >that if rebel scores 6-0 against russek, will the CCC heavyweights like Robert >Hyatt and the Rest Accept Rebel new elo which should be well over 2500. I don't think this is important to know (perhaps interesting to some, but not important to know). Do you want opinions about the results of a test, *before* the test is completed and the results published, including description of conditions hoped for as well, perhaps, as conditions that actually prevailed during the match? I reserve my final opinion until I know the facts that are under inquiry, I don't form a final opinion merely on hypotheticals. After >all; these games would not have much meaning if the majority of CCC did not >accept them as legitamate. I don't believe CCC has a monopoly on 'meaning' these days. My question was designed to get a feel for how these >games will be recieved. I understand this and accept it. But please don't chafe and bridle at getting one person's opinion (mine) when you are given the feedback you are looking for. I see nothing at all rhetorical in the question, since >some of your remarks shows that the answer is in no way clear, Then please accept a somewhat differing opinion without irritation. already there is >a disagreement. You don't think they should count and I think they should. I wasn't disagreeing with *you*--I was philosophizing in general (that's why I said no need to reply). My >reason is this: Based on some of the remarks I have read, it appears that many >assume that money is the only real motivation to play good chess, I think Most >chessplayers, especially titled players have alot of pride in their chess, I agree. I merely raised the factor of motivation as one possible factor that affects a person's decision whether to count or not count certain games. I certainly don't have any reason to doubt the motivation of IM Russek. Any >match which is in public view would be enough incentive for anyone to play their >hardest. Most USCF tournaments that I go to have very little money to offer, I play in many of these type events myself--for personal motivation--to see how well I can do, and to be entertained (win, lose or draw) by the challenge. >must people play for a rating, or for the opportunity to compare their abilities >to other players. What shall we say about the ratings that are achieved at these >tournaments? They are not real because money was not involved? Sometimes pride >is an even stronger motivator then money. I agree. No disagreement there. So I think this match should by all >means count. Just because ED Schoeder is not overseeing the match is no reason >the match should not be counted. Rebel Does not need Schoeder standing over it >to be rebel. A match is a Match, a Win is a Win, 40/2 is 40/2. Our differences in opinion are not that large. You 'assume' the games will count. I am unwilling to skip the dialog and reasoning stage to reach that conclusion, especially a priori (in advance) of the actual experiment. Merry Christmas! Peace and Good Will to all on Earth! --Steve Boak
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.