Carlsen only wishes.........
Sort:
toiyabe
Nov 21, 2013
0
#141
letsgohome wrote:
helltank wrote:
letsgohome wrote:
helltank wrote:
Carlsen only wishes....
... that Chess.com has a test to filter out idiots....
well, im in the top 91 percentile brah on live standard, so I would past brah. Get your ratings up brah with hard work you can accomplish anything. I truly believe in your abilities. And in this world of withheld permissions may you fly higher my future chess rating brah.
That may well be true, except for the fact that you're too stupid to get into the top 91 percentile. Therefore, you must be lying.
lmao. buy a membership and go to my stats brah. LOL, yes I am lying and no one brought it up but you. LOL. So you are saying that you are smarter than the over 1000 people that have seen this thread. LOL
No, they didn't bring it up because they're having the time of their life mocking you in the thread.
Also, you don't have proof that you didn't read chess books etc.
I think you try too hard constantly bumping your thread. You have to learn to troll softly.
Nov 22, 2013
0
#146
Fear_the_Queen wrote:
BMeck wrote:
Your average opponents rating is 1211.... your rating is inflated.
That doesn't mean he has an inflated rating at all. Okay, so he scores ~50% against an average opponent of ~1.2k. What this means is that over the last 14 months his mean rating has been ~1.2k. The overwhelmingly likely cause of this is exactly what he claims - that he is new to chess and has improved a lot over the past year.
You do not understand statistics my friend
Nov 22, 2013
0
#148
The way chess.com works is you could play lower rated players and still gain a considerable amount rating points....
You can't tell if a rating is inaccurate by just looking at the average opponent stat... that's silly. Although if it's a new account, or otherwise has not many games played, then it may mean something.
If they've had the account a long time then it's hard to tell. Speed games accumulate so fast. If you play 1000 games against 1300s, then take a break from blitz and get better, your average opponent stat will show 1300 for a very long time... and probably be much lower than your rating unless you play 5000 additional games.
Nov 22, 2013
0
#155
Wanna play letsgohome? A long game?.... and nothing really happened. fear the queen showed his or her ignorance and wafflemaster just approached me with a different point of view, which was fine. We have differing opinions, welcome to the real world
Nov 22, 2013
0
#156
BMeck wrote:
You do not understand. This is futile.
Bmeck I find it funny that you continue to post, but still have not answered my questions on post 144-146. Brah, I am begging you to finish your journey
Nov 22, 2013
0
#157
I can not answer those questions because I am a free member. I could only go back so far into your games...
Nov 22, 2013
0
#158
BMeck wrote:
I can not answer those questions because I am a free member. I could only go back so far into your games...
LMAOo. Do the same thing that you did to find out how the last game I play against a sub par 1300 player? Troll harder brah you are almost there
Nov 22, 2013
0
#159
Fear_the_Queen wrote:
letsgohome wrote:
You keep using this phrase "within a year" yet your account is well over a year old as I have pointed out twice already. Are you saying that if I keep posting that you are going to fail to disprove anything that I say and reply upon me to defend you by humiliating myself? I won't save you against myself, not that I could anyway because I haven't given anybody anything significant to correct me on. The rest of your post is so far beyond stupid that I wouldn't know where to begin finding new ways of telling you that these arguments are just as moronic and wrong as they were the last time you reused them....reached the 91st percentile within in a year... And I suggest you stop posting before you end with the same fate as Bmeck on this thread
In My quote what you are using is mere semantics brah mere semantics. For it was a red herring that you focused way too much on. For your attempts I will give you a 38%. Here is the rubric on how I evaluated you if you wondering why the low grade. To get a passing grade you would had to have stated just one of the following two things:
1. Had to point out that he was disinterested in chess when he was first introduced
2. That a 9+ has a higher mental capactiy compared to 5-6 year kid.
Therefore, you have failed because if spent too much time focusing on a red herring and refused to form a more intellectual argument. Furthermore, you thought that I was initially talking about a 8 year Carlsen rather than a 5-6 year old. Also, using your "intuition" is not a valid argument, you might as well use magic which I think would had been a more acceptable answer than your "intuition" lmao. Very nice way to formulate an argument. I will use that on my thesis in the future. LMAO