thegreat_patzer wrote:
too late.
I'm already attracted.... and if there's anything that I am. "mediocre" is me!
It is never too late to give up.
Chess should be an elitist game
Sort:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
thegreat_patzer wrote:
too late.
I'm already attracted.... and if there's anything that I am. "mediocre" is me!
It is never too late to give up.
lol!
its too late for me! 
Dec 5, 2016
0
#24
thegreat_patzer wrote:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
thegreat_patzer wrote:
too late.
I'm already attracted.... and if there's anything that I am. "mediocre" is me!
It is never too late to give up.
lol!
its too late for me!
You might be addicted to chess...well, we must get rid of you in order to make chess elitist again.
I suggest taking a look at these threads:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-addiction-the-cure-i
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-addiction-the-cure-ii
kingofshedinjas wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
I did not mean elitist as "only GMs should play chess". My point is that we should not try to attract mediocre people with no intellectual interests to chess.
I see. What about those people who like the company and sense of belonging to a chess club? Shall we ruthlessly root them out? do you have a specific rating floor in mind?
you have to personally come into my chess club, if you want me to give up on chess, Mr King.
cuz otherwise I'm just enjoying the group even If I always lose and have no talent at this game.
I'm assuming this thread is an attempt to joke about the way that some people consider themselves elite if they play chess to a reasonable standard? I learned to play at seven yrs old, went to school in one of the rougher area's of Liverpool where many of us learned to play the game. Maybe it's the snobbery amongst some that puts off many potential GM's. 'How many Picasso's in the back streets of Naples' springs to mind here.
Dec 5, 2016
0
#28
robbie_1969 wrote:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
I did not mean elitist as "only GMs should play chess". My point is that we should not try to attract mediocre people with no intellectual interests to chess.
I see. What about those people who like the company and sense of belonging to a chess club? Shall we ruthlessly root them out? do you have a specific rating floor in mind?
Expelling players with a rating lower than a certain number is not the correct method to clean the game from mediocre people, as we would be rooting out some beginners with real talent. Having a low rating for a long time is a more accurate sign of mediocrity.
Dec 5, 2016
0
#29
thegreat_patzer wrote:
you have to personally come into my chess club, if you want me to give up on chess, Mr King.
cuz otherwise I'm just enjoying the group even If I always lose and have no talent at this game.
Mediocre people like you have no interest in improving. Fortunately, not everybody is like you, some of us want to achieve something in our lives (not necessarily chess related).
Seems like I'm destined to mediocrity. Pdela used to be the most liked Spaniard on the site, and you are trying hard to become the most hated.
I can't believe he's serious. If he is, then he's so bad that it's funny :-)
Sadly he doesn't understand the implication that firstly, he's obviously stupid and secondly, he says that stupid people shoudn't play chess. So why's he here? Answer ... because he's probably too stupid to understand what he's saying.
Games are the best way to learn. People who play chess get a taste of thinking in abstract fashion. It's a good mental excercise whatever level it's played at and that's reason enough to promote the game for all.
Dec 5, 2016
0
#34
I agree. I am certain my chess career vaults me into an elite position within my community. When averages ask to play me I'm revolted.
kingofshedinjas wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
The topic is not about open tournaments vs closed ones.
But I want to see how you demonstrate that open tournaments are more "exciting".
The reference was not given to demonstrate a difference between open and closed tournaments. It was given to demonstrate that chess should not be elite. How you failed to grasp this I have really no idea.
What was actually claimed was that open tournaments are more exciting than super grandmaster closed tournaments and the reason for this is that because there is a greater spectrum of players this sometimes leads to giant killings where a notable player is put under pressure by a lesser light or where an unset occurs when a player of lesser strength overcomes a much stronger player. Also open tournaments provide a much broader range of openings because once again there is a much larger pool of players prepared to try different ideas. These dynamics are entirely missing in closed super grandmaster tournaments like the Grand chess snore.
I suspect that if you had thought about this you may come to the same conclusion yourself.
I did not mean elitist as "only GMs should play chess". My point is that we should not try to attract mediocre people with no intellectual interests to chess.
I agree. If mediocre people really want to get involved in chess, they should get a job at factories that produce boards and pieces for the true intellectual elite to play with. They need not and should not concern themselves with playing the game that they produce, and anyone who teaches them the rules should be punished for threatening the already precarious position of the intellectual class, by further blurring the boundary between the elites and the rabble.
Optimissed escribió:
Sadly he doesn't understand the implication that firstly, he's obviously stupid and secondly, he says that stupid people shoudn't play chess. So why's he here? Answer ... because he's probably too stupid to understand what he's saying.
Games are the best way to learn. People who play chess get a taste of thinking in abstract fashion. It's a good mental excercise whatever level it's played at and that's reason enough to promote the game for all.
Geezz, this thread is all for the lolz, brah.
Actually macer's comment reminded me of the scenario described on Wells' "The time machine". That shouldn't end well.
Dec 5, 2016
0
#38
Pulpofeira wrote:
Actually macer's comment reminded me of the scenario described on Wells' "The time machine". That shouldn't end well.
It reminded me more of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".
And here in chess.com we have a bunch of epsilons, trying to feel important, but the alphas will always prevail.
But those were stoned the whole day, nothing to complain about.
too late.
I'm already attracted.... and if there's anything that I am. "mediocre" is me!