So it helps to be a man then eh? In that case I'm well on my way!
How many here actually believe?
Sort:
I'm hoping to reach 2200 in my lifetime. Beyond that - not likely. I think that busting your butt working at it can get pretty much anyone to 2200, but beyond that.... you need some brilliance and an early start.
Jan 1, 2011
0
#44
uhohspaghettio wrote:
ivandh wrote:
So it helps to be a man then eh? In that case I'm well on my way!
It's because women can't kick as hard under the table.
I dispute that assertion: impolitic comments in the presence of guests have got me kicked very hard by Mrs NickYoung5 in the past
woodshover wrote:
It'll be a miracle if I ever make 1300 on Chess.com.
lol..not at you but with you. I finally got to 1300 about a month ago but im at 1280 atm. I remember when I first started about 6 months ago i was barely beating 800's and 1000's were like masters to me. Hopefully I'll be looking back on this moment in another 6 months and i'll be at 1600. Grand master ever? Prolly not.
I
GM, not a chance but I may get up to around GM playing strength some day, but that's not the same as becoming a GM.
-Grown up with a family, how to get to all the big tournaments? You need to play many, many tournaments facing many titled players, you need the rating and the GM norms.
Even if you actually have the GM strength, it's still hard to get the title!
uhohspaghettio wrote:
NickYoung5 wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
ivandh wrote:
So it helps to be a man then eh? In that case I'm well on my way!
It's because women can't kick as hard under the table.
I dispute that assertion: impolitic comments in the presence of guests have got me kicked very hard by Mrs NickYoung5 in the past
lol.
I'm sure Mrs NickYoung5 does kick very hard, but this is just a very general, average thing, and you can pick out specific examples where it's not true. Just like how black people are generally more skilled than white people in basketball.
I did suspect there'd be a lashback to the statement, and I know the feminists would be up in arms over it, but nevertheless I'm sticking to my theory of it being a slightly weaker point of the female game.
Of course, males are particularly vulnerable and sensitive to kicks in a certain area.
MyCowsCanFly wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
NickYoung5 wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
ivandh wrote:
So it helps to be a man then eh? In that case I'm well on my way!
It's because women can't kick as hard under the table.
I dispute that assertion: impolitic comments in the presence of guests have got me kicked very hard by Mrs NickYoung5 in the past
lol.
I'm sure Mrs NickYoung5 does kick very hard, but this is just a very general, average thing, and you can pick out specific examples where it's not true. Just like how black people are generally more skilled than white people in basketball.
I did suspect there'd be a lashback to the statement, and I know the feminists would be up in arms over it, but nevertheless I'm sticking to my theory of it being a slightly weaker point of the female game.
Of course, males are particularly vulnerable and sensitive to kicks in a certain area.
Let's not forget that high heels are dangerous and can cause severe pain, when they hit one's body or wallet.
Jan 1, 2011
0
#50
skogli wrote:
GM, not a chance but I may get up to around GM playing strength some day, but that's not the same as becoming a GM.
-Grown up with a family, how to get to all the big tournaments? You need to play many, many tournaments facing many titled players, you need the rating and the GM norms.
Even if you actually have the GM strength, it's still hard to get the title!
Yeah, that's my excuse 
(Actually, I agree with skogli's comment. But I'll never be strong enough for it to matter.)
I waffle on whether I'll ever make Class A.
Atos wrote:
chompman2 wrote:
Crazychessplaya wrote:
Not I!
To use the words 'Not I' is correct, though it is very formal. 'Not me' is also correct in this context, and is more informal. In this context, 'Not me' is more suitable, though it's up to you.
They are not the same grammatically.
"Did you go out last night ? Not I !"
"Did that guy punch you ? Not me, he punched my friend !"
"Me" is correctly used to replace the object, not the subject.
The issue here is that the two-word answer is ambiguous.
The question "Who believes they will be a GM someday?" can be broken down into the declarative and then diagrammed by sentence role.
"Who" is the subject.
"believes" is the verb.
"(that) they will be a GM someday" is a clausal noun acting as an object in this sentence. I'll shorten it to "(that)..." for the rest of this post. The "that" is implied, and even though it is dropped for a sentence like this, it still plays a vital syntactic role in signifying the beginning of a clausal noun.
The answer "Not I" is clearly a shortened form of another answer, and until we have the full answer, there's no way to break down whether the personal pronoun is in the subjective or objective case.
It could be:
"(That)... is not (the person answering)."
In which case, "(That)..." is now acting as a subjective noun clause. That leaves "is not" as the verb phrase and "(the person answering)" as the direct object. The objective case "me" would be correct."
It could be:
"(The person answering) do not believe (that ...)"
In which case, (that...) has taken on an objective role and our personal pronoun should now be in the subjective case. Here, it would be "Not I."
So either are correct, and refer to semantically equivalent implied statements.
/former professional copy editor laying down the law :)
I think I'll make NM one day
electricpawn wrote:
This may seem like a bold claim, but I think I can achieve BM by the end of the day.
Your greatest achievement yet!
uhohspaghettio wrote:
It'd be almost a miracle if I made master.
I don't think I could make GM if I was told my whole family and I would be vapourized in 15 years if I didn't make it by then.
If you don't have the talent, it doesn't matter what you're threatend with, you won't make it.
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
MM78 wrote:
Rob625 wrote:
Crazychessplaya wrote:
Not I!
"Not me!" is correct.
- Teacher
wouldn't "Not I" be correct :-)
Yes, in this case "Not I" is correct, and "Not me" is incorrect. To determine which to use, rephrase the sentence and see whether you would use "I" or "me". He was answering that he did not believe he would be a GM, so his full sentence would have been "I do not believe . . . " and not "Me do not believe . . . ", so the appropriate short version is "Not I!"
Ronald Reagan always got those types of sentences wrong, sayng things like "They were very nice to my wife and I". In that case you determine whether to say "I" or "me" based on how you would say it if you were the only one in the sentence. They were very nice to me (not they were very nice to I), so the proper form is They were very nice to my wife and me.
In contrast, I had a good time (not me had a good time), so My wife and I had a good time is proper.
Point this type of thing out to people in public and you'll be a hated person!
Nice lesson.
I agree with Orangehonda, and others who have the common sense to realize it takes work AND talent.
Do I believe I'll ever be a GM? Absolutely not. I just don't have that much time for chess between working towards a naval architecture degree and life savings. However, when I first joined chess.com, I was about 1100. I thought 1200 was an unreachable goal. Then I managed to get to 1200, and almost 13. Fell back down to 1150, then went up, over 13. Thought I could never get to 1400. Etc. Etc. I'm at around 1500 now, with a max of 1580 I believe. GM? No. Will I continue to improve? I think so.
What people often misunderstand about chess is that it's not about accumulated knowledge, it's about acquired skill.
You can't just memorize a bunch of rules about how to play in various positions, no matter the source, and be at that level. It's about training your mind to recognize patterns in certain ways.
Btw, there are 1278 male GMs in the world now and 24 female (now and in history in general).