short answer: no
long answer: nooooooooooooooooo
Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?
Sort:
Jan 17, 2014
0
#2123
chess_gg wrote:
Elubas: Some linguists would say that an "only" statement could still be true even if no future GMs "can" become a GM. I think the world "only" merely serves to exclude other possibilities (for example excludes any other way a person can become a GM), but doesn't have to confirm anything. Although colloquially "only" is often used to imply "all and only."
We could quibble.
However, this is baffling to me: >>for example excludes any other way a person can become a GM<<
Also...
>>Some linguists would say that an "only" statement could still be true even if no future GMs "can" become a GM.<<
I am aghast, again. If we were to be in the future, said GMs "are" GMs. If we are in the past and know that they will be future GMs (time travel?), then we would say that they "will" be GMs. But we could also say "There are others who "could" (or "can") be a GM in the future but they won't. (They are the ones who "Coulda been a contenda.")
please stop talking and go help your mom son!
Elubas wrote:
chess_gg wrote:
Philo-Beddoe wrote:
Only future GMs can become a GM, so no.
Not that I care to quibble, but there is a glaring logical and semantical error here.
False: Only future GMs can become a GM...
Correct: Only future GMs will become a GM...
Some linguists would say that an "only" statement could still be true even if no future GMs "can" become a GM. I think the word "only" merely serves to exclude other possibilities (for example excludes any other way a person can become a GM), but doesn't have to confirm anything. Although colloquially "only" is often used to imply "all and only."
I don't understand, but maybe because I don't understand the first sentence. You say "the only statement" but he makes two only statements. You put the word can in quotes but I don't know what you're implying. And it seems you're saying even if no future GMs can become GMs then it still may be true that only future GMs can become GMs.
I'm sure you had some point to communicate, but I'm not getting it at all.
littledragons wrote:
chess_gg wrote:
Elubas: Some linguists would say that an "only" statement could still be true even if no future GMs "can" become a GM. I think the world "only" merely serves to exclude other possibilities (for example excludes any other way a person can become a GM), but doesn't have to confirm anything. Although colloquially "only" is often used to imply "all and only."
We could quibble.
However, this is baffling to me: >>for example excludes any other way a person can become a GM<<
Also...
>>Some linguists would say that an "only" statement could still be true even if no future GMs "can" become a GM.<<
I am aghast, again. If we were to be in the future, said GMs "are" GMs. If we are in the past and know that they will be future GMs (time travel?), then we would say that they "will" be GMs. But we could also say "There are others who "could" (or "can") be a GM in the future but they won't. (They are the ones who "Coulda been a contenda.")
please stop talking and go help your mom son!
"being is becoming; " who said that???
waffllemaster wrote:
Elubas wrote:
chess_gg wrote:
Philo-Beddoe wrote:
Only future GMs can become a GM, so no.
Not that I care to quibble, but there is a glaring logical and semantical error here.
False: Only future GMs can become a GM...
Correct: Only future GMs will become a GM...
Some linguists would say that an "only" statement could still be true even if no future GMs "can" become a GM. I think the word "only" merely serves to exclude other possibilities (for example excludes any other way a person can become a GM), but doesn't have to confirm anything. Although colloquially "only" is often used to imply "all and only."
I don't understand, but maybe because I don't understand the first sentence. You say "the only statement" but he makes two only statements. You put the word can in quotes but I don't know what you're implying. And it seems you're saying even if no future GMs can become GMs then it still may be true that only future GMs can become GMs.
I'm sure you had some point to communicate, but I'm not getting it at all.
To make it more precise I probably would have had to add a few more sentences, which I didn't feel like doing :)
When I say "an only statement" I mean any statement that involves the word "only," just in a general sense. The second part of my sentence kind of blends in that general point by applying it to his statement "Only future GMs can become a GM..." labeled as false by him. The word "can" was in quotes to distinguish it from "will," which he used in his second statement -- probably not grammatically correct on my part; just an idiosyncracy :)
"And it seems you're saying even if no future GMs can become GMs then it still may be true that only future GMs can become GMs."
Yes that's what I'm saying. Like I said though, not all linguists may agree on that. It's quibbling, but I wasn't the one who started it :p
So yeah, of course I knew what I was referring to in the first sentence (the one of mine that you put in red letters), but I should have made it more clear for those who can't read my mind probably :)
Oh, I see now, thanks for explaining it a bit.
Jan 17, 2014
0
#2128
No. Hard work along is not enough. If a person does not have the basic intelligence that allows them the ability to think strategically and visualize a multitude of possible scenarios, then no amount of practice will get them there. That's not to say that they should not try if they have the passion - some will succeed!
waffllemaster wrote:
Elubas wrote:
chess_gg wrote:
Philo-Beddoe wrote:
Only future GMs can become a GM, so no.
Not that I care to quibble, but there is a glaring logical and semantical error here.
False: Only future GMs can become a GM...
Correct: Only future GMs will become a GM...
Some linguists would say that an "only" statement could still be true even if no future GMs "can" become a GM. I think the word "only" merely serves to exclude other possibilities (for example excludes any other way a person can become a GM), but doesn't have to confirm anything. Although colloquially "only" is often used to imply "all and only."
I don't understand, but maybe because I don't understand the first sentence. You say "the only statement" but he makes two only statements. You put the word can in quotes but I don't know what you're implying. And it seems you're saying even if no future GMs can become GMs then it still may be true that only future GMs can become GMs.
I'm sure you had some point to communicate, but I'm not getting it at all.
I think I understand, only because I'm a cunning linguist.
Jan 18, 2014
0
#2130
From the mind and body now to the linguistic turn.
This thread will soon become an archaelogy of philosophy.
tubebender wrote:
chess_gg wrote:
The1899Club wrote:
There may be something to what you say, Waffllemaster. Although, saying such here may fall on deaf ears. The Anglophone peoples have such an ideological emphasis on the individual and on free will, I believe even more so in America than in Britain.
Hi, Haywood...
You know, I don't really care to quibble in forums. A good jousting every now and then, though, is fun.
Now, the subject of freewill vs. determinism just came up. That subject delves into not only the realm of philosophy (not to brag, but I got an A++...a 5.0 when I took that subject "back in the day". Too bad that on my G.P.A. the max allowed was 4.0).
I don't have anything of any importance, at the moment (obviously). So, here I will attempt to sum up in one sentence what I think about this subject.
Here we go...
We Homo sapiens live and die, all the while no one "upstairs" is counting the hairs on our heads (as the nuns had taught me), and "free will" is an artificial concept constructed by religiosos as a reason to show that a monster up in the sky is not sending you to eternal damnation but, instead, you have chosen that path for yourself by exercising your god-given "free will".
There. I did it in one long sentence. Now, excuse me...I am going to duck under my desk. INCOMING!!!
I like your philosophy! But what the Hell does this have to do with Chess? Some times I am as dumb as I look so please speak slowly, figurtively speaking. I am the enemy of all religions but I don`t go around killing nuns or burning down churches.
I don't subscribe to any particular religion, but declaring yourself "the enemy of all religions" is asinine. You are part of the problem: narrow-mindedness and intolerance. Some religious people are narrow and intolerant. Some non-religious people are narrow and intolerant. You belong to the latter category.
Jan 18, 2014
0
#2132
People People !!....Can we at least keep this remotely on topic ?
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
People People !!....Can we at least keep this remotely on topic ?
we have strayed just a bit haven't we :)
chess_gg wrote:
Elubas: Some linguists would say that an "only" statement could still be true even if no future GMs "can" become a GM. I think the world "only" merely serves to exclude other possibilities (for example excludes any other way a person can become a GM), but doesn't have to confirm anything. Although colloquially "only" is often used to imply "all and only."
We could quibble.
However, this is baffling to me: >>for example excludes any other way a person can become a GM<<
Also...
>>Some linguists would say that an "only" statement could still be true even if no future GMs "can" become a GM.<<
I am aghast, again. If we were to be in the future, said GMs "are" GMs. If we are in the past and know that they will be future GMs (time travel?), then we would say that they "will" be GMs. But we could also say "There are others who "could" (or "can") be a GM in the future but they won't. (They are the ones who "Coulda been a contenda.")
Too bad there are zillions of possible futures 
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
People People !!....Can we at least keep this remotely on topic ?
Please do not. The "topic" is dead. Be thankful that we aren't talking about it anymore.
chess_gg wrote:
ab121705 wrote:
I don't subscribe to any particular religion, but declaring yourself "the enemy of all religions" is asinine. You are part of the problem: narrow-mindedness and intolerance.
No, you just have a comprehension problem. I'd like you to show me where I declared myself "the enemy of all religions". What is your IQ?
I am not in the least anti-religion. I will admit to being a-religious. There is a huge difference. I have no doubt that you are unable to fathom the difference.
What anyone's religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. may be, I have absolutely and unequivocally no interest.
I would also like to point out that I did not bring up religion nor condemn it. Wafflemeister brought up the Philosophy 101 favortite subject of "free will" vs. "determinism". I simply expressed, in response, my personal philosophical perspective, in one sentence.
And, to stay on topic...no, "anyone" can not become a GM. It is an elite club. I have the highest respect for their skills and dedication to chess. I don't know why the recent generation has lost their admiration for these super chess players.
My speculation is that in the current extremely liberal school system, where "everybody is equal" so that D students don't "feel bad about their selves" and get an A or B that either they didn't earn or it is from watered-down tests...it spills over into the chess world.
To said parties, I would add: "Get a life, son".
(I like to say that because it ticks off a certain someone. )
As usual, I agree with chess_gg. Too bad he is too self aborbed and stupid to follow the conversation closely enough to remember who said what. The "enemy of all religions" was someone else. Do not let the fact that chess_gg is an idiot (sorry, son, but you are) who cannot simply look back and see who said what detract from his argument. Despite the fact that he is a judgemental racist moron who cannot follow a simple thread, he is right on this one.
If someone is mean to us we have to write a report?
Jan 21, 2014
0
#2139
chess_gg wrote:
Dream on, Haywood. This was rabid and slanderous to the max. And, not his first such attack on me.
I have never written a report on anyone since I've been on the internet in over 20 years. There is a first time for everything, I suppose. Done.
you abuse everyone else. but when someone says something to you, you start crying. you are just a troll.
Jan 21, 2014
0
#2140
chess_gg wrote:
You amuse me.
No...I can handle myself. The thing is, this guy wrote a thread slandering me, wrote a report on me and chases after me...stalking...and hurls vicious, slanderous lies. Again...and again...and again.
Now, son, show me where I ever did that to you or anyone.
listen this is for your benefit, but I don't think you will heed it. So you can take it or leave it. The thing is that you DO HAVE bad attitude. Now, I am not going to dig up the dirt, or what you wrote on my wall. But this so called persecution you claim about won't end, your attitude will attract more of the same. But if you can take it, as you say, then I suppose you are happy to live that way, then each to his own.
I am aghast, again. If we were to be in the future, said GMs "are" GMs. If we are in the past and know that they will be future GMs (time travel?), then we would say that they "will" be GMs. But we could also say "There are others who "could" (or "can") be a GM in the future but they won't. (They are the ones who "Coulda been a contenda.")
get a life, son!