Common <1300 Profound Insights

Sort:
Yereslov
Irontiger wrote:
Yereslov wrote:

I managed to reach move 55 in a drawish endgame against a player near 2000+, so I'm not a patzer.

If you lost it, maybe it was not so drawish after all ?

I could also probably reach move 55 in a 'drawish' position against Anand if such was my aim. (king vs. king+queen is drawish, right ?)

 

As for "rating do not measure strength, but past performance"... Hum...

So past performance is not a good indicator of strength ? What is then ?

Umm... No. It was a rather easy draw, but in fact I shoulde have won on move 48. My opponent admitted he got lucky.

And why are you so apt to use Anand in every post? Anand would crush you like a grape before move 30.

Yereslov
Irontiger wrote:
Yereslov wrote:

I managed to reach move 55 in a drawish endgame against a player near 2000+, so I'm not a patzer.

If you lost it, maybe it was not so drawish after all ?

I could also probably reach move 55 in a 'drawish' position against Anand if such was my aim. (king vs. king+queen is drawish, right ?)

 

As for "rating do not measure strength, but past performance"... Hum...

So past performance is not a good indicator of strength ? What is then ?

The quality of chess is an indicator of strength, not the performance. I had a string of five losses and my ratings jumped 15 points.

SmyslovFan

Why don't you show us that easy draw, and explain why you didn't play it if it was so easy.

Yereslov
SmyslovFan wrote:

Why don't you show us that easy draw, and explain why you didn't play it if it was so easy.

All I had to do was move the king to the queen-side. I mentioned this during analysis after the game, and we both agreed that it would be a draw after Kd1-Kc1-Kb1, but the opponent managed to blunder around move 45. and I got a decent position. After the pawn marched down the board support by the rook in front, I had 52. Ka3! aiming for a2, but instead I blundered by playing 53. Rxh5 and the pawn managed to queen.

Yereslov

I will post the game next time. It's too much effort at the moment, and I don't feel like justifying myself in front of weaklings.

Irontiger
Yereslov wrote:

I will post the game next time. It's too much effort at the moment, and I don't feel like justifying myself in front of weaklings.

Lol.

 

As for the fact that Anand (or Carslen, or Kramnik, or...) would have a won game against me by move 30, it's almost certain. But it is also almost certain that if my only aim is to delay checkmate as long as possible, I could last 55 moves without a problem. Including 20 moves where I should have resigned before of course. The fact is that I challenge your conception of 'easy draw', based on your previous posts.

GambitExtraordinaire
Yereslov wrote:
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:

Yereslov:

I hope you realize that by being

In fact, I should probably go ahead and add "The ratings suck and the rules should be changed" to the list!

I have the right to make an argument without being argued against with an ad hominem. You should probably learn to use fancy phrases correctly. Being under 1300 rating is entirely relevant to the argument.

I never claimed that the rules should be changed, and I never said that chess "should" have no ratings. It was implied.

I claimed that we would be better off using the 17th century chess model. You made no such claim.

If ratings were an indication of skill, why does a 1500 lose against a 1045 rated player in 32 moves?

The big bolded word "indicates" your answer. Not only that, but in any competition there are always upsets that can be explained by bad days or food poisioning or... any number of reasons.

Ratings measure performance. There is no argument there.

I'm sure there could be an argument there, but rather I will just say that "skill" is normally perceived as merely sustained performance. If I have skill at frisbee golf, I am really saying my performance is frequently above average, enough so that I could claim to be above average myself. Ratings ARE a good indicator of skill.

Yereslov
Irontiger wrote:
Yereslov wrote:

I will post the game next time. It's too much effort at the moment, and I don't feel like justifying myself in front of weaklings.

Lol.

 

As for the fact that Anand (or Carslen, or Kramnik, or...) would have a won game against me by move 30, it's almost certain. But it is also almost certain that if my only aim is to delay checkmate as long as possible, I could last 55 moves without a problem. Including 20 moves where I should have resigned before of course. The fact is that I challenge your conception of 'easy draw', based on your previous posts.

I'm sorry, but you are just full of yourself. You wouldn't be a serious challenge for the likes of Anand. You're just an average online player.

Yereslov
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:

Yereslov:

I hope you realize that by being

In fact, I should probably go ahead and add "The ratings suck and the rules should be changed" to the list!

I have the right to make an argument without being argued against with an ad hominem.

I never claimed that the rules should be changed, and I never said that chess "should" have no ratings. I claimed that we would be better off using the 17th century chess model.

If ratings were an indication of skill, why does a 1500 lose against a 1045 rated player in 32 moves?

Ratings measure performance. There is no argument there.

I don't exactly see any reason why anyone clone a post...

SmyslovFan

Kudos to GambitE! 

You have created a thread that not only mocks trolls, but attracts them too! 

Yereslov
SmyslovFan wrote:

Kudos to GambitE! 

You have created a thread that not only mocks trolls, but attracts them too! 

How am I trolling? Do explain. You overuse the word without actually getting the meaning.

Yereslov
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:

Yereslov:

I hope you realize that by being

In fact, I should probably go ahead and add "The ratings suck and the rules should be changed" to the list!

I have the right to make an argument without being argued against with an ad hominem. You should probably learn to use fancy phrases correctly. Being under 1300 rating is entirely relevant to the argument.

I never claimed that the rules should be changed, and I never said that chess "should" have no ratings. It was implied.

I claimed that we would be better off using the 17th century chess model. You made no such claim.

If ratings were an indication of skill, why does a 1500 lose against a 1045 rated player in 32 moves?

The big bolded word "indicates" your answer. Not only that, but in any competition there are always upsets that can be explained by bad days or food poisioning or... any number of reasons.

Ratings measure performance. There is no argument there.

I'm sure there could be an argument there, but rather I will just say that "skill" is normally perceived as merely sustained performance. If I have skill at frisbee golf, I am really saying my performance is frequently above average, enough so that I could claim to be above average myself. Ratings ARE a good indicator of skill.

1. The term was used properly. Instead of creating a logical argument, you used my rating as the base of attack.

2. It was not implied. What is implied is implied by the author, not the reader. 

3. I think it's quite obvious if you have a decent understanding of chess history. Visit your local library.

4. A healthy player has never lost a game.

5. You argue against yourself with point four.

Yereslov

GambitExtraordinaire is a sign that a high rating is not equivalent to a high IQ.

Irontiger
Yereslov wrote:
Irontiger wrote:

 

As for the fact that Anand (or Carslen, or Kramnik, or...) would have a won game against me by move 30, it's almost certain. But it is also almost certain that if my only aim is to delay checkmate as long as possible, I could last 55 moves without a problem. Including 20 moves where I should have resigned before of course. The fact is that I challenge your conception of 'easy draw', based on your previous posts.

I'm sorry, but you are just full of yourself. You wouldn't be a serious challenge for the likes of Anand. You're just an average online player.

I never claimed that I would pose a threat to Anand (or whoever).

I claimed that if I play, not to win, but to last 55 moves before checkmate, I will do it. Simply because even totally lost endgames (eg rook + a and b pawn vs rook) take 30 moves before checkmate, and I would take 25 moves to go into one.

The 55 moves was a reference to your post of "drawn at move 55" where I suspected it is not so drawn. Please post the game, so we can know.

 

As for #129 :

1- ad hominem means literally 'against someone in particular', but the real meaning is 'against someone in particular on unfair bases'. Yes, a rating is relevant to the discussion.

2- When you write "ratings are crap", I also read "Ratings should not be used or changed". Even if, maybe, that was not what you meant, it looks like the obvious continuation.

3- First, I doubt the 17th century system was best. Remember, that's a time where they did not even have clocks. Second, GambitE did not say that this is wrong, he said you did not write it before (which is true).

4- and 5- No contradiction. The fact that one game and the subsequent rating performance is biaised because of extra-chess considerations, does not mean that the rating which is an average of all this is subject to that fluctuations : on the average, they cancel out. This is the basis of all statistical reasonings.

EDIT : the rating is subject to fluctuations due to bad form etc. and the subsequent performance fluctuation, but the fluctuation on the average is smaller than the fluctuation on each particular performance.

SmyslovFan
Yereslov wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:

Kudos to GambitE! 

You have created a thread that not only mocks trolls, but attracts them too! 

How am I trolling? Do explain. You overuse the word without actually getting the meaning.

Yet somehow, you knew that I was referring to you. Cool, eh?

GambitExtraordinaire
Irontiger wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Irontiger wrote:

 

As for the fact that Anand (or Carslen, or Kramnik, or...) would have a won game against me by move 30, it's almost certain. But it is also almost certain that if my only aim is to delay checkmate as long as possible, I could last 55 moves without a problem. Including 20 moves where I should have resigned before of course. The fact is that I challenge your conception of 'easy draw', based on your previous posts.

I'm sorry, but you are just full of yourself. You wouldn't be a serious challenge for the likes of Anand. You're just an average online player.

I never claimed that I would pose a threat to Anand (or whoever).

I claimed that if I play, not to win, but to last 55 moves before checkmate, I will do it. Simply because even totally lost endgames (eg rook + a and b pawn vs rook) take 30 moves before checkmate, and I would take 25 moves to go into one.

The 55 moves was a reference to your post of "drawn at move 55" where I suspected it is not so drawn. Please post the game, so we can know.

 

As for #129 :

1- ad hominem means literally 'against someone in particular', but the real meaning is 'against someone in particular on unfair bases'. Yes, a rating is relevant to the discussion.

2- When you write "ratings are crap", I also read "Ratings should not be used or changed". Even if, maybe, that was not what you meant, it looks like the obvious continuation.

3- First, I doubt the 17th century system was best. Remember, that's a time where they did not even have clocks. Second, GambitE did not say that this is wrong, he said you did not write it before (which is true).

4- and 5- No contradiction. The fact that one game and the subsequent rating performance is biaised because of extra-chess considerations, does not mean that the rating which is an average of all this is subject to that fluctuations : on the average, they cancel out. This is the basis of all statistical reasonings.

EDIT : the rating is subject to fluctuations due to bad form etc. and the subsequent performance fluctuation, but the fluctuation on the average is smaller than the fluctuation on each particular performance.

It feels good to have allies, when fighting such a massive and dangerous troll.

I couldn't have responded better. Thanks irontiger.

Irontiger
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:

It feels good to have allies, when fighting such a massive and dangerous troll.

I couldn't have responded better. Thanks irontiger.

That's not about alliances. That's about the truth.

 

Next time I will just quote Hume, I just read it and it applies good to trolling : Next to the ridicule of denying an evident truth, is that of taking much pains to defend it.

bigpoison

"If I have skill at frisbee golf, I am really saying my performance is frequently above average, enough so that I could claim to be above average myself. Ratings ARE a good indicator of skill."

Bull!  You're just one lucky SOB.

Yereslov
Irontiger wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Irontiger wrote:

 

As for the fact that Anand (or Carslen, or Kramnik, or...) would have a won game against me by move 30, it's almost certain. But it is also almost certain that if my only aim is to delay checkmate as long as possible, I could last 55 moves without a problem. Including 20 moves where I should have resigned before of course. The fact is that I challenge your conception of 'easy draw', based on your previous posts.

I'm sorry, but you are just full of yourself. You wouldn't be a serious challenge for the likes of Anand. You're just an average online player.

I never claimed that I would pose a threat to Anand (or whoever).

I claimed that if I play, not to win, but to last 55 moves before checkmate, I will do it. Simply because even totally lost endgames (eg rook + a and b pawn vs rook) take 30 moves before checkmate, and I would take 25 moves to go into one.

The 55 moves was a reference to your post of "drawn at move 55" where I suspected it is not so drawn. Please post the game, so we can know.

 

As for #129 :

1- ad hominem means literally 'against someone in particular', but the real meaning is 'against someone in particular on unfair bases'. Yes, a rating is relevant to the discussion.

2- When you write "ratings are crap", I also read "Ratings should not be used or changed". Even if, maybe, that was not what you meant, it looks like the obvious continuation.

3- First, I doubt the 17th century system was best. Remember, that's a time where they did not even have clocks. Second, GambitE did not say that this is wrong, he said you did not write it before (which is true).

4- and 5- No contradiction. The fact that one game and the subsequent rating performance is biaised because of extra-chess considerations, does not mean that the rating which is an average of all this is subject to that fluctuations : on the average, they cancel out. This is the basis of all statistical reasonings.

EDIT : the rating is subject to fluctuations due to bad form etc. and the subsequent performance fluctuation, but the fluctuation on the average is smaller than the fluctuation on each particular performance.

1. You are a tad too weak to reach the endgame against Anand.

2. It was an ad hominem. It is illogical to assume that my rating is an indication of my knowledge or strength. In an argument you do not attack your opponents status, but his arguments themselves (as they are). I suggest you take a critical thinking class.

3. That was not the obvious continuation, and I never implied it. 

4. There is a contradiction. In fact, some players get a higher rating when they play worse. In reality, ratings tend to be inaccurate, unless the difference is at least 500-1000 points.

Yereslov
Irontiger wrote:
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:

It feels good to have allies, when fighting such a massive and dangerous troll.

I couldn't have responded better. Thanks irontiger.

That's not about alliances. That's about the truth.

 

Next time I will just quote Hume, I just read it and it applies good to trolling : Next to the ridicule of denying an evident truth, is that of taking much pains to defend it.

It's funny that you quote Hume, since he would never accuse anyone of being a troll simply based on subjective opinion. He was rational to the core. You are simply a "sensitive nancy", if that's a term.