10215 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 !
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.
The "Millenials" are the Greatest Generation!
by kaynight a few minutes ago
Mastery of Finishing Touch
by Ronald_Aprianto a few minutes ago
by LindaKock a few minutes ago
Was my chat disabled?
by LindaKock 2 minutes ago
Mass of dumb begineers
by astronomer999 3 minutes ago
Stalling in live match
by chris_17 7 minutes ago
4/21/2014 - One And Done
by mohandisusa 9 minutes ago
Losing in Chess gives more pain than losing in any other sport.
by dmxn2k 9 minutes ago
is there a win here?
by ophirsi 14 minutes ago
When / how was chess first "solved" by a software program?
by ChessBloodBathHouse 15 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!