@ kenpo I have to disagree with you my GPA is 3.8, and I've never been able to break 2100. It is much more challenging to reach 2200 than to score a 3.0-3.3 GPA.
Not to mention GPA doesn't mean all that much. Almost any idiot can get a 3.0 GPA. Do you realize how many dumb people have 4.0s, too?
An educated idiot is still an idiot?
In a world where everyone played chess several hours per day... ok, sure, MAYBE then the average skill would be that of what we see in a 2000 player.
exactly.
No, not exactly. In this world, 2000 is far from average. What sense is there in debating a population of players that doesn't exist?
Bigpoison, you can stop with mockery right now. My feelings are far from hurt. He is offfensive, rude, and rubs me the wrong way, and if I want to get this off my chest, it is well within my rights to do so. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you deal with it.
No. You are just oversensitive.
Why do engine users habitually challenge the character of IM @Pfren?
This is about the fifth time a thread like this has run through the forums.
@Bollyshoi, is you can only muster 1400-1600 ratings on Chess.com, you ain't no Expert Level USCF player. Nuff said?
And @BigPoison is right. The Mensheviks make you look like a pussy. 
Maybe this is a language barrier, but you're using the words objectively and average incorrectly.
If you are better than 99% of players you cannot be average. That is a fact, no matter what any chess professional may tell me.
Why do engine users habitually challenge the character of IM @Pfren?
+1
hahahahahaha
That's sheer nonsense. 4...Qc5 is just about the most stupid move one can play: putting the queen on a square she threatens nothing, and can be harrassed even on the very next move, with a loss of a precious tempo. Factly, it is a clear sign that the player playing Black does not know yet the absolute fundamentals of the game.
Are you using exagerration to make a point? Perhaps you would show us the continuation you had in mind?
Also I can't see a reasonable "very next move" from White that would harass Black's Queen ?
Why do engine users habitually challenge the character of IM @Pfren?
+1
hahahahahaha
Indeed. His jig is up.
@ kenpo I have to disagree with you my GPA is 3.8, and I've never been able to break 2100. It is much more challenging to reach 2200 than to score a 3.0-3.3 GPA.
Not to mention GPA doesn't mean all that much. Almost any idiot can get a 3.0 GPA. Do you realize how many dumb people have 4.0s, too?
3.0 is average. although I suppose you prefer to refer to such people as "idiots".
and "how many dumb people have 4.0s" yeah, now that would almost certainly be bullshit 99% of the time. unless you are referring to street smarts or something along these lines, then it might be true.
The point is -- school isn't hard. For at least half the majors out there, you can just do mindless work -- and if you do your work -- and do what you are told -- you will get good grades. I know so many people who do good in school that would be horrible chess players.
In a world where everyone played chess several hours per day... ok, sure, MAYBE then the average skill would be that of what we see in a 2000 player.
exactly.
No, not exactly. In this world, 2000 is far from average. What sense is there in debating a population of players that doesn't exist?
And here's the clencher, kenpo.
You could argue that in a world where everyone was a runner, and potentially meeting their greatest potential, a 6 minute mile would be average. But in reality, right now, it's not even close to average. It's pretty fast.
Perhaps no one is smart enough to understand what kenpo meant?
I am going to suggest by average he isn't comparing the amount of people in the world and their ratings.
He is comparing everywhere between reasonable players (who can really call themselves chess players, from their dedication and caring about the game) to the best of the best.
Maybe this is a language barrier, but you're using the words objectively and average incorrectly.
If you are better than 99% of players you cannot be average. That is a fact, no matter what any chess professional may tell me.
I assure you scottrf I know what average means and of course realize what you are saying.
you, however, for whatever reason, don't seem to want to acknowledge the truth that 2000 is average in chess. of course it's not the mathematical average of ratings of everyone in the world.
It's not even average in chess! The average in chess tourney players is probably around 1500 or whatever. I think maybe you're trying to use the word mediocre. But even then I'd still disagree... but what do I know....
Perhaps no one is smart enough to understand what kenpo meant?
No.
The word has a specific meaning. It can't be used without qualification for the point he's trying to make.
If he qualified it, I wouldn't have a problem, but he keeps saying it's average in chess. It's not.
Maybe amoung people who can dedicate full time study, but then it's subjective until we see some stats.
In a world where everyone played chess several hours per day... ok, sure, MAYBE then the average skill would be that of what we see in a 2000 player.
exactly.
No, not exactly. In this world, 2000 is far from average. What sense is there in debating a population of players that doesn't exist?
And here's the clencher, kenpo.
You could argue that in a world where everyone was a runner, and potentially meeting their greatest potential, a 6 minute mile would be average. But in reality, right now, it's not even close to average. It's pretty fast.
that's the "clencher"? ok.
Pardon my blunder. I'm only around 2200 in English. We make mistakes too you know!
Perhaps no one is smart enough to understand what kenpo meant?
No.
The word has a specific meaning. It can't be used without qualification for the point he's trying to make.
If he qualified it, I wouldn't have a problem, but he keeps saying it's average in chess. It's not.
Maybe amoung people who can dedicate full time study, but then it's subjective until we see some stats.
Please refer to my above comment. Remember now, this is my educated guess.
Well, Well, Chess is a matametical argument,no doubt obout it. there is no need to make more of it.
It really doesn't take scientific evidence to make this observation. It is commomn sense, and I probably could prove it if I felt like it but have wasted enough time on your tomfoolery