You should probably not use the phrase "my mother" and "lying" in a question.
Has chess mentor help your playing ability?
Sort:
trysts wrote:
woodshover wrote:
trysts wrote:
Yes, but I left him anyway.
You seem to have a bit of chess talent. You should use it.
I have no chess talent whatsoever, woodshover. I got in an accident and was stuck in bed for a spell, so I really started learning the game. Then I lived with a guy who was chess-obssessed, so I played and learned some more. Then whenever I was on the computer reading, listening to interviews, lectures, and the news, I played. And I don't like drinking so much in public(too dangerous), so I drink at home, so I play chess. I've played thousands of games for years and years, and that accounts for my rating. I think I told you before, it took me about 5 years just to break 1300 on the internet. So, no talent, just lots and lots of playing
Since I am older than Tryrts and a self-confessed certified bonehead, maybe there is hope for me yet?
She is being modest, claiming not to have the talent that she knows does not exist.
mrguy888 wrote:
I only ever said that winning games shows that you are better than the opponents you beat. Nothing more. I suspect trysts just brought it up to dodge the issue of whether wins are objective proof of being better than the person you beat assuming sufficient sample size.
To be clear, the word "better" is subjective. The phrase, "wins are objective proof of someone being better than someone else", is up for debate, because the word "better" is subjective.
In the sentence, "You have an arm", one can demonstrate that you have an arm just by pointing at it. This can be seen by everyone who chooses to look at you. But, in the sentence, "You are better than me at chess, because you won that game", this can not be demonstrated, it can only be agreed upon. If you say, "But I won, so I'm better", that can be disputed without questioning someone's sight. The word "better" is subjective, so someone may say, "Actually, I am better, I just made a mistake in that game". The criteria changes from person to person for words like, "better", "great", "awful", etc.
So, to see an "arm", one need only sight, but to see "better", one needs to agree.
I knew nobody could claim to be "better" than me in anything, but didn't know how to prove it. Thanks, trysts. I'd say you are better at creating logical coherent arguments, but you'd have already refuted me.
dannyhume wrote:
I knew nobody could claim to be "better" than me in anything, but didn't know how to prove it. Thanks, trysts. I'd say you are better at creating logical coherent arguments, but you'd have already refuted me.
Ryan390 wrote:
Can we just agree to disagree? As this is getting a little ridiculous now.
I don't agree with this at all!
How 'bout gettin' back on topic?
trysts wrote:
mrguy888 wrote:
trysts wrote:
Really? So you're saying that we can't know if anyone has "innate abilities" until they actually grow up, then we can look back at their birth and "reasonably" assume they were born with it? That's silly, and hardly demonstrable.
You can't know if someone has natural ability before they attempt to use it. I was saying that when someone puts much less time, interest, and work into developing a skill than someone else and yet surpass them by a large amount, it demonstrates someone having a superior ability to aquire and apply pariticular skills. That ability to get good at something is talent.
If this is not the case, then maybe you should read my previous posts in this thread, since I clearly state that calling people "talented", or not, is a subjective evaluation, just like you (don't?) seem to think an I.Q. test measures anything beyond the test itself.
I think you missed a word there.
It is objective to say that Paul Morphy was better than any other player at his time. He won the vast majority of his games against the top players. It is objective to say that he had much less experience than the top players of his time.
That makes it objective that he was better with less experience, does it not?
You also appear to imply, just like woodshover, that what you call "talent", "art", or "poop", is what everyone would call it. This is wrong.
Where?
The word, "better" is not an "objective", it is a subjective evaluation. Do you understand that? Do you know what a "subjective evaluation" is? Morphy was not an "objectively better" player than anyone else in his era, you just think he was "better" than anyone else. It's the same thing as you saying that you "like" him more-- a "subjective evaluation".
On your other point of how much interest, work, etc., someone puts into learning something in comparison with someone else, this is NOT measurable. I have already addressed this in previous posts on this thread, mrguy888. Far too many variables involved. This is why people can argue from here to eternity about it. Not because people are necessarily dumb, stubborn, or uneducated, but because it falls under the heading of undemonstrable opinion.
Really? So, just because my record against Prawny is something like 1-80-2, he's not better than me at chess?
I'd call a record, such as the one above, objective and quantifiable.
Am I wrong or am I just an asshole?
[edit: I opened my big yap before reading the last couple of pages where this was addressed...sorry.]
an asshole 
What if Prawny simply has your number and is lower-rated and does worse against common opponents than you?
You play him, dude, and tell me what you think.
I'd have to play you too and if I lost to both of you, I'd say "so and so is better" and people would say "you are just 1 person, a crappy player, and statistically insignificant, and [player-I-think-is-better] just knows more traps and played suboptimal moves against you to beat you quicker than the real better player, who played GM-worthy moves", that sort of thing.
One game isn't enough, Mr. Hume.
trysts wrote:
To be clear, the word "better" is subjective. The phrase, "wins are objective proof of someone being better than someone else", is up for debate, because the word "better" is subjective.
How is "better" subjective? I might as well say "subjective" is "subjective" and call it a day because you can't say something is "subjective" because "subjective" is "subjective". Go read a dictionary if you don't know what "better" means.
In the sentence, "You have an arm", one can demonstrate that you have an arm just by pointing at it. This can be seen by everyone who chooses to look at you. But, in the sentence, "You are better than me at chess, because you won that game", this can not be demonstrated, it can only be agreed upon. If you say, "But I won, so I'm better", that can be disputed without questioning someone's sight. The word "better" is subjective, so someone may say, "Actually, I am better, I just made a mistake in that game". (I have stated many times that a sufficient sample size is required. Pay attention.) The criteria changes from person to person for words like, "better", "great", "awful", etc.
So, to see an "arm", one need only sight, but to see "better", one needs to agree.
bigpoison wrote:
One game isn't enough, Mr. Hume.
Even if I played each of you 10,000 games and rendered my opinion, the same arguments would apply, since I am only one opinion and not skilled enough to distinguish the play of a 1700 from an expert.
mrguy888 wrote:
trysts wrote:
How is "better" subjective? I might as well say "subjective" is "subjective" and call it a day because you can't say something is "subjective" because "subjective" is "subjective". Go read a dictionary if you don't know what "better" means.
Do you know where the terms, "subjective", and "objective" derive from? It's a famous philosophical problem which has moved through the history of the language we are speaking. In grammar, it refers to the "subject", and the "object". The "subject" is you. The "object" is that thing you are looking at. The subject(you) has their thoughts and opinions about the object. Those thoughts and opinions are not in the object you are looking at, they are in you(the subject). An ashtray is an object. An ashtray in front of you, that you can sense(see, feel, touch, etc.), is an "objective fact". If you(the subject) thinks the ashtray is "good", or "better" than other ashtrays, that is your opinion. Your thoughts and opinions belong to you, not the ashtray.
trysts wrote:
mrguy888 wrote:
trysts wrote:
How is "better" subjective? I might as well say "subjective" is "subjective" and call it a day because you can't say something is "subjective" because "subjective" is "subjective". Go read a dictionary if you don't know what "better" means.
Do you know where the terms, "subjective", and "objective" derive from? It's a famous philosophical problem which has moved through the history of the language we are speaking. In grammar, it refers to the "subject", and the "object". The "subject" is you. The "object" is that thing you are looking at. The subject(you) has their thoughts and opinions about the object. Those thoughts and opinions are not in the object you are looking at, they are in you(the subject). An ashtray is an object. An ashtray in front of you, that you can sense(see, feel, touch, etc.), is an "objective fact". If you(the subject) thinks the ashtray is "good", or "better" than other ashtrays, that is your opinion. Your thoughts and opinions belong to you, not the ashtray.
Very good, very interesting!
Okay, but that is the origins not the current definitions of the words. The definition of the word better is is unrelated to what you said.
I suspect trysts just brought it up to dodge the issue of whether wins are objective proof of being better than the person you beat assuming sufficient sample size.
I still do.