Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Common <1300 Profound Insights


  • 15 months ago · Quote · #121

    SmyslovFan

    Yereslov wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    Kudos to GambitE! 

    You have created a thread that not only mocks trolls, but attracts them too! 

    How am I trolling? Do explain. You overuse the word without actually getting the meaning.

    Yet somehow, you knew that I was referring to you. Cool, eh?

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #122

    GambitExtraordinaire

    Irontiger wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    Irontiger wrote:

     

    As for the fact that Anand (or Carslen, or Kramnik, or...) would have a won game against me by move 30, it's almost certain. But it is also almost certain that if my only aim is to delay checkmate as long as possible, I could last 55 moves without a problem. Including 20 moves where I should have resigned before of course. The fact is that I challenge your conception of 'easy draw', based on your previous posts.

    I'm sorry, but you are just full of yourself. You wouldn't be a serious challenge for the likes of Anand. You're just an average online player.

    I never claimed that I would pose a threat to Anand (or whoever).

    I claimed that if I play, not to win, but to last 55 moves before checkmate, I will do it. Simply because even totally lost endgames (eg rook + a and b pawn vs rook) take 30 moves before checkmate, and I would take 25 moves to go into one.

    The 55 moves was a reference to your post of "drawn at move 55" where I suspected it is not so drawn. Please post the game, so we can know.

     

    As for #129 :

    1- ad hominem means literally 'against someone in particular', but the real meaning is 'against someone in particular on unfair bases'. Yes, a rating is relevant to the discussion.

    2- When you write "ratings are crap", I also read "Ratings should not be used or changed". Even if, maybe, that was not what you meant, it looks like the obvious continuation.

    3- First, I doubt the 17th century system was best. Remember, that's a time where they did not even have clocks. Second, GambitE did not say that this is wrong, he said you did not write it before (which is true).

    4- and 5- No contradiction. The fact that one game and the subsequent rating performance is biaised because of extra-chess considerations, does not mean that the rating which is an average of all this is subject to that fluctuations : on the average, they cancel out. This is the basis of all statistical reasonings.

    EDIT : the rating is subject to fluctuations due to bad form etc. and the subsequent performance fluctuation, but the fluctuation on the average is smaller than the fluctuation on each particular performance.

    It feels good to have allies, when fighting such a massive and dangerous troll.

    I couldn't have responded better. Thanks irontiger.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #123

    Irontiger

    GambitExtraordinaire wrote:

    It feels good to have allies, when fighting such a massive and dangerous troll.

    I couldn't have responded better. Thanks irontiger.

    That's not about alliances. That's about the truth.

     

    Next time I will just quote Hume, I just read it and it applies good to trolling : Next to the ridicule of denying an evident truth, is that of taking much pains to defend it.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #124

    bigpoison

    "If I have skill at frisbee golf, I am really saying my performance is frequently above average, enough so that I could claim to be above average myself. Ratings ARE a good indicator of skill."

    Bull!  You're just one lucky SOB.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #125

    Yereslov

    Irontiger wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    Irontiger wrote:

     

    As for the fact that Anand (or Carslen, or Kramnik, or...) would have a won game against me by move 30, it's almost certain. But it is also almost certain that if my only aim is to delay checkmate as long as possible, I could last 55 moves without a problem. Including 20 moves where I should have resigned before of course. The fact is that I challenge your conception of 'easy draw', based on your previous posts.

    I'm sorry, but you are just full of yourself. You wouldn't be a serious challenge for the likes of Anand. You're just an average online player.

    I never claimed that I would pose a threat to Anand (or whoever).

    I claimed that if I play, not to win, but to last 55 moves before checkmate, I will do it. Simply because even totally lost endgames (eg rook + a and b pawn vs rook) take 30 moves before checkmate, and I would take 25 moves to go into one.

    The 55 moves was a reference to your post of "drawn at move 55" where I suspected it is not so drawn. Please post the game, so we can know.

     

    As for #129 :

    1- ad hominem means literally 'against someone in particular', but the real meaning is 'against someone in particular on unfair bases'. Yes, a rating is relevant to the discussion.

    2- When you write "ratings are crap", I also read "Ratings should not be used or changed". Even if, maybe, that was not what you meant, it looks like the obvious continuation.

    3- First, I doubt the 17th century system was best. Remember, that's a time where they did not even have clocks. Second, GambitE did not say that this is wrong, he said you did not write it before (which is true).

    4- and 5- No contradiction. The fact that one game and the subsequent rating performance is biaised because of extra-chess considerations, does not mean that the rating which is an average of all this is subject to that fluctuations : on the average, they cancel out. This is the basis of all statistical reasonings.

    EDIT : the rating is subject to fluctuations due to bad form etc. and the subsequent performance fluctuation, but the fluctuation on the average is smaller than the fluctuation on each particular performance.

    1. You are a tad too weak to reach the endgame against Anand.

    2. It was an ad hominem. It is illogical to assume that my rating is an indication of my knowledge or strength. In an argument you do not attack your opponents status, but his arguments themselves (as they are). I suggest you take a critical thinking class.

    3. That was not the obvious continuation, and I never implied it. 

    4. There is a contradiction. In fact, some players get a higher rating when they play worse. In reality, ratings tend to be inaccurate, unless the difference is at least 500-1000 points.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #126

    Yereslov

    Irontiger wrote:
    GambitExtraordinaire wrote:

    It feels good to have allies, when fighting such a massive and dangerous troll.

    I couldn't have responded better. Thanks irontiger.

    That's not about alliances. That's about the truth.

     

    Next time I will just quote Hume, I just read it and it applies good to trolling : Next to the ridicule of denying an evident truth, is that of taking much pains to defend it.

    It's funny that you quote Hume, since he would never accuse anyone of being a troll simply based on subjective opinion. He was rational to the core. You are simply a "sensitive nancy", if that's a term.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #127

    Yereslov

    mendez1996 wrote:

    dont argue with Yereslov, just another >1300 scrub who thinks he's so bvdass becuase he occasionaly draws a 1500's lol kids a joke

    "Occasionaly"?

    I have gone to the club the five past weeks. Result: Two wins (1500's), One draw (1670), one loss (1900+), and another loss this week (1650).

    Barely the result of luck. And what does my rating have to do with the argument? Argue against the argument itself. Attacking me based on my rating is by definition a logical fallacy.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #128

    Yereslov

    SmyslovFan wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    Kudos to GambitE! 

    You have created a thread that not only mocks trolls, but attracts them too! 

    How am I trolling? Do explain. You overuse the word without actually getting the meaning.

    Yet somehow, you knew that I was referring to you. Cool, eh?

    I'm not exactly sure how that implies anything. "Troll" is a commonly used word on the internet.

    You seem to think that the logical implication is that I am a troll simply because I assume that you mean me.

    Can you not sense what's wrong with that type of argument?

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #129

    Irontiger

    Yereslov wrote:

    1. You are a tad too weak to reach the endgame against Anand.

    2. It was an ad hominem. It is illogical to assume that my rating is an indication of my knowledge or strength. In an argument you do not attack your opponents status, but his arguments themselves (as they are). I suggest you take a critical thinking class.

    3. That was not the obvious continuation, and I never implied it. 

    4. There is a contradiction. In fact, some players get a higher rating when they play worse. In reality, ratings tend to be inaccurate, unless the difference is at least 500-1000 points.

    1. If you were better at chess, you would know any decent player can get to a endgame if it is his only objective. Yes, the endgame will be lost, but he won't be checkmated with more than half the pieces on the board. You would also know that more than half of the real games (ie when you try to win, not to last the longest possible) between players >2000 are decided in the endgame.

    2. Oh, another avatar of "rating do not measure strength". I suggest you take a chess class (see 4. too).

    3. Pardon us for having brains. (How that, I just implied you have none ? I never wrote it !)

    4."Ratings tend to be inaccurate [and meaningless under a 500 point difference]" : yet, somehow, they are used by FIDE and other federations for access list to tournaments etc., and somehow, they manage to get paired players of similar strength even when the width of a rating category is 200. Strange, huh ? Probably it's just a big lucky streak that lasted for fifty years. How happy I am that this streak continued in all tournaments I participated in !

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #130

    _36darshan--

    GambitExtraordinaire wrote:


    Dear Chess.com Forums

    I am a >1300 player and I have a profound insight into the game of chess that I absolutely must share with the world! I copyrighted it though because it's MINE.

    In advance, I would like to completely disagree with all higher rated players who don't praise my finding. I would also like to insult their mothers.

    My insight is one of the following!


    The rules annoy me and need to be changed I have invented the best opening EVER I have discovered that chess is too easy/difficult and the rules need to be changed to fix this
    I have discovered a universal one-stop method of winning chess Chess is too different frin other games like World of War Craft, and thus the rules need to be changed I have a very impressive game to show everybody that should shed some light on the beautiful complexities of Chess. Ignore the queen my oponent dropped on move 6. The players on chess.com don't behave properly and the rules of chess etiquette should be changed The well known and respected [insert name here] opening played by hundreds of GMs for decades and decades is flawed! It's so bad! I beat it with this strategy! Ignore the mate my opponent missed on move 7
    CARLSEN IS TEH BEST and on a side note, I've been thinking this for a while but... The rules need to be changed.

     

    What are your thoughts? Remember, unless you praise my findings as holy baby jesus, you are dead to me. DEAD TO ME.

     


    I would also like to insult their mothers.

    LOL!


Back to Top

Post your reply: