Respect to Mandela but that is a hilarious thread title.
Agh, I've been proved wrong! He IS a troll!!!
He just posted again, and there's no way he could be so stupid twice...
His new thread here: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/rip-morgan-freeman.
So touche everyone who called him a troll, you were right, I was wrong...joke's on me.
You have my full respect. :-)
The OP just closed his account;perhaps it was JohnClairlively or bean_Fischer in disguise.The Op must be waiting under a bridge for some passing goats.
Yes, and with this subhuman troll I think we know what he intends to do with those goats.
I think it's subhuman to so easily call someone subhuman as you do.
I can already hear Edvar Grieg's "In the Hall of the Mountain King" playing...
Another one of those idiotic threads this site is famous for.
"another one of those idiotic threads for which this site is famous" would be more correct. it's awkward to end sentences with prepositions.
It's also awkward to start sentences without capitalizing the first letter.
you know what is objectively speaking mediocre in terms of chess? everything up to 2200 believe it or not. perspective is a good thing.
Not accurate,you are mixing a subjective value(mediocre) with an objective measurement(elo).That makes as much sense as saying all sub-2200 chess is "evil". You clearly have something in mind,but I don't think thats the way to say it.
Mediocre is not a subjective value, it comes from "medium". A latin-origined word that means "middle". Mediocre stands for "average", a mathematical value rather than a subjective one.
No it doesnt..."average" stands for average.The first definition of "mediocre" deals with value,not mathematics.If one wishes to use a statistical/mathematical term then they should use it instead of mediocre, then there will be little room for misunderstanding.However,even with swapping "average" for "mediocre" in the above statement,the statement still makes no sense.
If this site could sell derivatives on it's idiotic threads, we'd all be billionaires.
When i first read ur thread i tended to agree, however when i went back and read again the previous postings it became clear what i meant. U are right to call "mediocre" a subjective value on it's first meaning. Or at least its most common meaning. However it seems to me that branks was using the word on its "second meaning", average.
Point taken,but I still think he could say it in a less ambiguous way.
Why the obsession?
a 1300ish calling carlsen mediocre....
I dont know if i should laugh or cry.
i agree, but online ratings don't matter much. Your rating is no better.
That is true. but i would never in a million years call carlsen mediocre, as much as i would call Kasparov or Tal a patzer.
And yes, mediocre in my book = a patzer.
My 2 cents, im done.
Damn... why do some people smoke the best things all by themselves...
Besides, we get to make fun of em. That's where the real fun lies!