Best chess player ever
Sort:
RFJWC, I am done with our arguement. Think what you want about this, but my opinion is still the same-Kasparov and Capablanca are the two best chess players the game has ever seen.
By the way, you are blocked, so I will not get messaged when you comment.
"No, that's just your arbitrary, unprovable opinion; you have no fact to support it, therefore it's wrong. I don't need fact to support my arbitrary, unprovable opinion because I know for sure that it's true."
I only stated facts... the fact remains on top of the obvious, people who hate Fischer are likely to attack anyone who tells facts about Fischer's record.
ibeatU throws one last hand grenade, and scurries for cover. Typical.
RJFWC wrote:
Fischer wanted a match of victories... no denying that, and it's a great way to play a match.
He also wanted the tie-breaker edge that all Champions always maintained. A 9-9 conclusion would result in a draw, (tiebreak going to the Champion).
Fischer feared no chess player at the board.
A 9-9 conclusion would lead towards Fischer winning the match, according to his rule. this leads to an unfavorable position, because the challenger needs to win 10-8 or better to win the match instead of 12.5-11.5 in the old system. Fischer's system is absurd and unfair the way he demanded. his opponent would have to play at least 40 points elo above Fischer's level to attain the win.
It doesn't lead to Fischer winning the match (9-9), the match would be a draw.
World Champions always retain titles upon a draw.
Fischer wanted only what he earned. Spassky had the advantage in his match too. Fischer beat him, 7 wins to 2.
Absurd and unfair is what you clowns issue as comment, in your desperate twist to downgrade the man you hate for being the best, and for me daring to state the case clearly.
As to the mathematics of edge, try this...
A typical match of 24 games, and a challenger wins 12.5 to 11.5. He actually had to play 8.7% better than his rival (the Champion) to take the crown.
Fischer wanted a match of 10 wins deciding.
Typical win % is about 30% of games are won, 70% of games are drawn.
So, assuming a 10-8 challenger victory, how many games were probably drawn?
42. Do the math.
So, 60 games were played most likely.
Challenger score would have been 31, Champion would have been 29.
See where this goes? Divide 31 by 29... = 1.069
Challenger had to play 6.9% better by the race to 10 wins method, by normal result.
Look at the first Karpov Kasparov match for likely win %.
So quit your bitchin noob and fess up... your arguments don't hold water.
RJFWC wrote:
Absurd and unfair is what you clowns issue as comment, in your desperate twist to downgrade the man you hate for being the best, and for me daring to state the case clearly.
Please tell me you're trolling.
I'm not arguing over two points... two points proves my argument.
Nobody here has any math background but me?
RJFWC wrote:
I'm not arguing over two points... two points proves my argument.
Nobody here has any math background but me?
- Exactly.
- Pulling an arbitrary 70% draw rate out of your head and acting like you understand statistics doesn't constitute a math background.
51.67 / 48.33 = 1.069... I already stated this.
52.08 / 47.92 = 1.087... I stated this too.
A player does NOT have a "absurd edge" as champion, expecting drawn matches to be decided in his favor, due to a "race to 10" versus a "best of 24".
Trolling are the clowns throwing stupidity mudballs.
Thank you for proving all of my points, but don't mischaracterize it again be saying we're "arguing over two points".
My fact (as argument) is that a race to 10 wins is perfectly in keeping with previous WC match protocols. Champion retains title on a drawn match. The advantage is even less for Fischer in 1975 than Spassky had in '72.
It's not arbitrary.
How many draws when Karpov and Kasparov raced to 6? Count them. Far more than 70% of the games.
Since your arguments are worse than a leaky latrine bucket for validity, I'd say go learn some basic arithmetic.
I have no opinion on the subject or any idea what this has to do with it, and am here primarily to mock those who do.
RJFWC wrote:
Since your arguments are worse than a leaky latrine bucket for validity, I'd say go learn some basic arithmetic.
- I've made no arguments.
- I have a middle school diploma.
RJFWC wrote:
Trolling are the clowns throwing stupidity mudballs.
Thank you for proving all of my points, but don't mischaracterize it again be saying we're "arguing over two points".
You're obviously a dunce when it comes to logic.
The argument was (made by the noob), that Fischer was absurd to request a race to 10, expecting 9-9 drawn match to be retaining of the title.
Since I disproved the fallacy, and even though you almost got it (but fell short, parroting my math by plugging into someone else's algorithm, which verified my analysis, and then you still misunderstanding what it told you), and then took an absurd tack by failing to acknowledge the whole truth, it's obvious what you are.
RJFWC wrote:
You're obviously a dunce when it comes to logic.
The argument was (made by the noob), that Fischer was absurd to request a race to 10, expecting 9-9 drawn match to be retaining of the title.
Since I disproved the fallacy, and even though you almost got it (but fell short, parroting my math by plugging into someone else's algorithm, which verified my analysis, and then you still misunderstanding what it told you), and then took an absurd tack by failing to acknowledge the whole truth, it's obvious what you are.
I find it hilarious that you think we're arguing.
I'm not arguing, I disproved a fallacy... you piggy backed onto the fallacious one, and threw up more mud. The fact that your name is oinker makes it even more ludicrous. How appropriate.