Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Are you more strictly logical or intuitive in your thought processes?

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #121


    A couple more points: First, Optimissed, I guess there must be some definition you're referring to where experts are said to be as skilled in their field as theoretically possible. I don't know about you, but I hear phrases all the time like "these dozen people, all experts in the field, disagree on such and such." In fact it's nearly impossible to actually master anything -- even Carlsen will always have things he can't do. Even if he learns to play a perfect classical game, we'll just say he can't play a perfect blitz game, and if he does that, then he can't play a perfect bullet game, and so on. Does this mean we should just never use distinctions like "expert" or "master?" Some could argue that, although then we would just keep saying stuff like "this guy is really good, this other guy is really really good, and this guy is really really really good" -- I'd rather just give them a few cool names :)

    There are also some other ways to interpret our terminology for distinctions in skill. For example, maybe when we say a 2200 is a "master" we are thinking more like "master in the basics of the game," as opposed to the whole game -- he is a master in some sense but perhaps a grandmaster can show a master "how little he really knows," how the "master's mastery" is only with regard to a limited amount of features of the game, and when we see a better player come along, we realize there is more to mastery than what first appeared and so want to upgrade it by inserting a "grand."

    Well, again, I kind of like that, and probably most people do, even if it's a little arbitrary. Perhaps you don't, which is fine, but the point is, people have other considerations for their terminology other than just their absolute literal meaning.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #122


    take a look at this, it has many well thought comments


  • 14 months ago · Quote · #123


    Anybody heard of the word FUN on this thread ?

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #124


    <<When I say mass, do I mean the mass of something in grams or going to church? Look at the context.>>

    Snore ...

    Incidentally, the philosopher Schopenhauer apparently listed 38 methods of winning arguments, one of which was to use alternative meanings, for words, than those your opponent intended. So he wants to use words out of context. If it was in a philosophy group I'd probably just throw Schopenhauer out for being a bolshy idiot.

    Another method he recommended was to make his opponent angry. I wonder how he would react to a boxing of his ears? Is there a "philosophical rule" that says you can't execute someone for being a troll? Obviously you'd be subject to wider laws but ..... I was once thrown out of a chess congress for calling someone a prat. A bit harsh, one might think ... and it wasn't during a game and also it was in retaliation to being picked on. However, the FIDE arbiter who threw me out didn't like me and also the FIDE arbiter was a completely biassed and pompous idiot. What do we do with authority, eh? :)

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #125


    I would imagine you are getting at something, but I don't know what -- clarify it if you want me to know, because I'm not going to spend a long time digging for your point deep in the sand.

    If you want I can elucidate my rather simple thesis right now: Yes, we are putting fun words like "grand" in front of "master," pretending in some non-literal sense that there is a rank above mastery. And that doesn't make me upset :) Maybe it makes you upset, ok, so now we know what we think :)

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #126


    kaynight wrote:

    Just close your eyes and hope for the best.

    DOH! I keep forgetting to close my eyes. Mucho gracias.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #127


    It would be like talking to treacle.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #128


    Yes, when people make comments like that it must be a sign of their great arguments, because not just any random person could make such simple comments like that!

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #129


    Sorry, I foolishly imagined that the word "expert" was being used in its normal sense ... that of , well, being an expert, with all nominal distinctions like GM, IM, FM and God knows what just forgotten for the time being in the interest of simple communication. After all, "Grandmaster" or "Chessdullard" weren't used as a counterpoint to "expert" so I'm afraid I foolishly imagined that someone was speaking English and not Chessese. OK I was wrong.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #130


    You're not foolish for preferring what you prefer. Although I don't think everyone who doesn't prefer your way is foolish either.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #131


    Incidentally, I'm right and you are wrong. If you want to use Master as a title indicating ability, you capitalise it. Similarly, you should capitalise Expert, to distinguish it from the normal usage of expert. It wasn't capitalised and so my assumption should have been accepted as correct! Now, be told! :P

    Bleedin idjits!! 

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #132


    I tend to be more logical in my thought processes while playing chess (and in general), perhaps because I have developed more strategy over time, though I have developed tactics as well (tactics seem to be more intuitive).

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #133


    I'm not going to capitalize just for you, Optimissed, since you are the only chess player on the planet for which it is a problem :)

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #134


    Well then you can hardly expect others to know what you're talking about if you can't even follow simple and generally accepted conventions regarding communication, now can you?

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #135


    Yeah, assume that I don't because I can't. That sounds plausible.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #136


    Lovely talking to you.


Back to Top

Post your reply: