Has chess mentor help your playing ability?

  • #101
    Ryan390 wrote:

    MrGuy, I've shared my input on the subject quite openly and honestly, a few posts back....

    EDIT: Let's not forget the actual topic: 

    Has Chess Master helped your ability?

    Get used to the fact that topics may drift. I think their discussion is fine.

    PS: I was born with talent and I developed it over the course of my life: I can drink beer like no one I've ever met.

  • #102

    It still takes hard work to attain a high level. Yes, perhaps some find it easier than others. Stating that a regular person will never be able to surpass them though, is not facing reality. Sheer determination and willpower, the drive to succeed and annihilate all obstacles, this mindset is very difficult to stop.

    If the more 'talented' person eases off the gas, the more determined person will surpass them.. and quickly. It's easier to understand once you have actually put your heart and soul into something, gone balls deep in it, then come out the other side as a victor..against more 'naturally talented people'

  • #103
    Ryan390 wrote:
    trysts wrote:
    Ryan390 wrote:

    MrGuy, I've shared my input on the subject quite openly and honestly, a few posts back. I'm not sure if you bothered to read it or not, that's up to you. I just feel this is getting out of hand and people are using it as a base to start trolling.


    Do you always cry when people speak to each other?


    Yes, Rivers! 


    Oh, okay. Well...maybe you can close your eyes?

  • #104
    trysts wrote:
    Ryan390 wrote:
    trysts wrote:
    Ryan390 wrote:

    MrGuy, I've shared my input on the subject quite openly and honestly, a few posts back. I'm not sure if you bothered to read it or not, that's up to you. I just feel this is getting out of hand and people are using it as a base to start trolling.


    Do you always cry when people speak to each other?


    Yes, Rivers! 


    Oh, okay. Well...maybe you can close your eyes?


    Maybe you can stop trolling, and show people some respect? Wink

  • #105
    woodshover wrote:

    I think anybody who doesn't believe that different people have different innate talents simply are not facing reality. No common sense whatsoever.


    Hmmm...are angels real, woodshover?

  • #106
    Ryan390 wrote:
    trysts wrote:

    Maybe you can stop trolling, and show people some respect?


    http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_411/1245601551255338.jpg

  • #107

    You have womanly hands! Laughing

  • #108
    trysts wrote:
    woodshover wrote:

    I think anybody who doesn't believe that different people have different innate talents simply are not facing reality. No common sense whatsoever.


    Hmmm...are angels real, woodshover?


     Cripes! you're the one who keeps bringing up angels. Has nothing to do with this subject.

  • #109

    I was going to address that guy but you seem to have taken care of him for me. Thanks trysts! Tongue out 

    In other news...

    In this case "better" is objective because of the results of the games. The fact that Paul Morphy was better has been quantified.

  • #110
    mrguy888 wrote:

    I was going to address that guy but you seem to have taken care of him for me. Thanks trysts!  

    In other news...

    In this case "better" is objective because of the results of the games. The fact that Paul Morphy was better has been quantified.


    Then address me, when you have actually achieved something with your life, and can talk from a personal experience, then come back. Children trying to push there half baked reasoning's hold no power whatsoever. You all talk like you've been there and done it, yet I see no evidence of it.

    The truth is, life is what you make it, and what you put in you eventually get out. if you want to go through life thinking people are born geniuses and can never be surpassed than go ahead. My philosophy is we should at the very least give it a damn good try. 

  • #111
    mrguy888 wrote:

    I was going to address that guy but you seem to have taken care of him for me. Thanks trysts!  

    In other news...

    In this case "better" is objective because of the results of the games. The fact that Paul Morphy was better has been quantified.


    It was my pleasure, mrguy888Laughing

    If the criteria for, "better" is the quantity of wins one has, in chess during the era Morphy played, then "better" would still have to be "judged" by the "quality" of the opponents faced. Plus there will be more variables added to the word, "quality". This appears quite endless to me.

  • #112
    Ryan390 wrote:


    Then address me, when you have actually achieved something with your life, and can talk from a personal experience, then come back. Children trying to push there half baked reasoning's hold no power whatsoever. You all talk like you've been there and done it, yet I see no evidence of it.

    The truth is, life is what you make it, and what you put in you eventually get out. if you want to go through life thinking people are born geniuses and can never be surpassed than go ahead. My philosophy is we should at the very least give it a damn good try. 


    http://www.mumsnet.com/cms/uploads/content/crying.jpg

  • #113
    trysts wrote:
    mrguy888 wrote:

    I was going to address that guy but you seem to have taken care of him for me. Thanks trysts!  

    In other news...

    In this case "better" is objective because of the results of the games. The fact that Paul Morphy was better has been quantified.


    It was my pleasure, mrguy888

    If the criteria for, "better" is the quantity of wins one has, in chess during the era Morphy played, then "better" would still have to be "judged" by the "quality" of the opponents faced. Plus there will be more variables added to the word, "quality". This appears quite endless to me.


    You sound so ridiculous mate, I've never seen anyone talk as much gibberish in all my life. It would help if:

    A: It made sense,

    B: It was actually going somewhere,

    C: You had any kind of evidence to backup your theories.

    You seriously need to think about what your saying.. It's just complete nonsense! Undecided

  • #114
    Ryan390 wrote:


    You sound so ridiculous mate, I've never seen anyone talk as much gibberish in all my life. It would help if:

    A: It made sense,

    B: It was actually going somewhere,

    C: You had any kind of evidence to backup your theories.

    You seriously need to think about what your saying.. It's just complete nonsense! 


    http://www.babycare-basics.com/show_image_NpAdvSinglePhoto.php?filename=/2011/01/baby-temperature.png&cat=17&pid=1&cache=false

  • #115

    I'm done arguing with someone who obviously has serious issues, and clearly demonstrating their inferiority to put a point across seriously or maturely..

    One day you may achieve something then realise how stupid you sound mate. Laughing

  • #116
    Ryan390 wrote:

    I'm done arguing


    http://www.thehappybabies.com/wp-content/uploads/11_5_orig.jpg

  • #117

    God you must be broody! Laughing I hope that's your child your hugging..  

  • #118
    Ryan390 wrote:

      I hope.... your hugging..  


    http://www.newbornbabyzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Burping-a-Newborn.jpg

  • #119

    hi

  • #120
    trysts wrote:

    It was my pleasure, mrguy888

    If the criteria for, "better" is the quantity of wins one has, in chess during the era Morphy played, then "better" would still have to be "judged" by the "quality" of the opponents faced. Plus there will be more variables added to the word, "quality". This appears quite endless to me.


    The criteria for better is the quantity of wins. And the quantity of wins is large enough and across enough players that there is no problem with the sample size. The variable were accounted for by actually play many games. Just because there are a lot of variables does not mean the the wins were subjective.

or Join

Online Now