I do wonder what people think my rating ought to be. If you could give me a rating based upon my "insights" (see immortal game thread), how far up there would it be?
About 743, though I would want to match you with a bright chimpanzee to be more certain.
I do wonder what people think my rating ought to be. If you could give me a rating based upon my "insights" (see immortal game thread), how far up there would it be?
About 743, though I would want to match you with a bright chimpanzee to be more certain.
At least you consider me bright by someones standards. I'll take that as a compliment. Did you see my other thread showcasing my immortal game? If so care to upwardly revise that rating any?
OP, you asked to be trolled ("huh ? What rating should I have ?"), you were trolled. Stop complaining for being so. Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans, as the jurists say.
In all honesty, and assuming your comments are "humoristic" and not genuine, I would rate you around 900 +/-300. Take 200 off if you believe in your comments. Take 100 off if you keep trolling on the forums.
Wow, Spanish is such a nice language!
I do wonder what people think my rating ought to be. If you could give me a rating based upon my "insights" (see immortal game thread), how far up there would it be?
About 743, though I would want to match you with a bright chimpanzee to be more certain.
At least you consider me bright by someones standards. I'll take that as a compliment. Did you see my other thread showcasing my immortal game? If so care to upwardly revise that rating any?
I did see it, and what's more I factored that into my estimate.
That was Spanish ? I thought it was Irish Gaelic,I'm pretty sure it is becuase it is often used in legal terms.
Hopefully everyone is joking and knows this is latin? It even links back to a page --- for latin legal terms --- if you did not know. I got the language but was beyond my ability to translate it; I came up with "the clownfish needs to go to the restroom".
No one can justify a claim based on illegal rulesets, implying that if a person, some imperfect idiot for instance, creates an illegal ruleset ('the elo rating system is biased, it does not give me enough points'), then will no one justify his claims based on his self designed, yet illegal ruleset.
Important principle. I once received a contract in which was stated that it was not allowed to go to court about issues in this contract once I had signed this particular contract. That was a laugh. I signed the contract without hesitation, knowing that whatever problems might arise, that person had a problem, not me. :-) The other contractant was in real life trusthworthy and honest, hence I had no reason to complain during the period of the contract nor afterwards.
This is how Irontiger deals with having no control over situations.
It's similar to an overly emotional female preemptively breaking up with her partner because she knows he's lost interest in her anyway. Or cutting off contacts so you can tell yourself they *can't* contact you when you know full well it's just that they don't care to.
Irontiger.. everyone is just.. not that into you bro.
And sexism runs rampant on the chess.com forums!
This is how Irontiger deals with having no control over situations.
[things a mod will delete someday]
Irontiger.. everyone is just.. not that into you bro.
I was tempted to copy-paste the comment and address it back to you. Or to anyone that contradicts me in the forums. And if they copy-paste it to me, we are gone for an infinite loop.
It surely spares thinking time to just insult others.
This is how Irontiger deals with having no control over situations.
It's similar to an overly emotional female preemptively breaking up with her partner because she knows he's lost interest in her anyway. Or cutting off contacts so you can tell yourself they *can't* contact you when you know full well it's just that they don't care to.
Irontiger.. everyone is just.. not that into you bro.
And sexism runs rampant on the chess.com forums!
Hardly. Talking about how an overly emotional female behaves does not imply that all women are overly emotional - just the particular one you're talking about. And if there are no overly emotional Faroese women, take it from me they exist in the rest of the world.
This is how Irontiger deals with having no control over situations.
It's similar to an overly emotional female preemptively breaking up with her partner because she knows he's lost interest in her anyway. Or cutting off contacts so you can tell yourself they *can't* contact you when you know full well it's just that they don't care to.
Irontiger.. everyone is just.. not that into you bro.
And sexism runs rampant on the chess.com forums!
Hardly. Talking about how an overly emotional female behaves does not imply that all women are overly emotional - just the particular one you're talking about. And if there are no overly emotional Faroese women, take it from me they exist in the rest of the world.
I think they just meant that using women as an object and looking down on them. I mean no doubt there have been some cases of ladies who protest too much, or are emotional, and they must be spoken to as individuals. But to use women as a class might be perhaps saying things like, 'that's overly jewish of you'....or 'you are being overly asian', or an indian-giver...etc...it can be construed as mildly racist....and so in this case it is considered sexist...
This is how Irontiger deals with having no control over situations.
It's similar to an overly emotional female preemptively breaking up with her partner because she knows he's lost interest in her anyway. Or cutting off contacts so you can tell yourself they *can't* contact you when you know full well it's just that they don't care to.
Irontiger.. everyone is just.. not that into you bro.
And sexism runs rampant on the chess.com forums!
Hardly. Talking about how an overly emotional female behaves does not imply that all women are overly emotional - just the particular one you're talking about. And if there are no overly emotional Faroese women, take it from me they exist in the rest of the world.
I think they just meant that using women as an object and looking down on them. I mean no doubt there have been some cases of ladies who protest too much, or are emotional, and they must be spoken to as individuals. But to use women as a class might be perhaps saying things like, 'that's overly jewish of you'....or 'you are being overly asian', or an indian-giver...etc...it can be construed as mildly racist....and so in this case it is considered sexist...
And again we're foundering on this notion that we were talking about women as a class, and not a hypothetical single instance. But eh, to be honest I'd be more interested in ragging on this idiot of an OP rather than getting deflected by this side issue.
I notice that some of the commentators on this thread have little or no bullet/blitz experience (on this site). That could explain some of the opinions offered. These same people I notice also turn down friend requests.
some people prob dont want a perfect idiot for a friend..
if we inflate all ratings the distance between your rating and a masters rating would increase too making it less rewarding say for example we doubled everyones ratings a master who was 2400(3 times rating of 800) doubled = 4800 while urs would only be 1600 so now your rating is distance is
3200 which is double 1600 previous distance
IMPORTANT:::::
Online chess is addictive and little by little the rating becomes more important than actual improvement of playing skill... it becomes an obsession with its own life.
I have seen supposedly normal people, men with jobs, kids, and responsibilities, taking some sick pleasure in playing enhanced blitz games (ie. cheating using Rybka 4.1) using a parallel interface, they raise their ratings from 1186 to 1450 in a few dozen games... then the guilt catches up and they then say "my actual rating is 1400 so its only fair, I slumped to 1186 because I was tired from work, you know how it is... blah, blah, blah"
When you get to this point I think its better you look for a healthier hobby like tennis instead of becoming a chess psycho. This is a true story so watch out people...
if we inflate all ratings the distance between your rating and a masters rating would increase too making it less rewarding say for example we doubled everyones ratings a master who was 2400(3 times rating of 800) doubled = 4800 while urs would only be 1600 so now your rating is 3 times lower instead of two times lower as before
Mate, you have an excellent understanding of arithmetic there. If I get you, you are saying that OP 800 is 1/2 of 2400. Double rating of everybody and OP becomes 1600, which is only 1/3 of 2400. Is that right?
Since you have such insight into non linear multiplication, I wonder if you can help me with a slightly more advanced non linear problem? Will More Joyous win next time it races?
Yours
Tom Waterhouse
PS for non Australians. Tom Waterhouse is a bookmaker in Australia who advertises a lot on television. He is currently involved in a scandal over a horse named More Joyous, which is trained by his mother.
Bookies, of course, prey on innumerate people
if we inflate all ratings the distance between your rating and a masters rating would increase too making it less rewarding say for example we doubled everyones ratings a master who was 2400(3 times rating of 800) doubled = 4800 while urs would only be 1600 so now your rating is 3 times lower instead of two times lower as before
Mate, you have an excellent understanding of arithmetic there. If I get you, you are saying that OP 800 is 1/2 of 2400. Double rating of everybody and OP becomes 1600, which is only 1/3 of 2400. Is that right?
Since you have such insight into non linear multiplication, I wonder if you can help me with a slightly more advanced non linear problem? Will More Joyous win next time it races?
Half-wrong, half-true remark.
Half wrong : the post stated that 1600 is one third of 4800 (which is true).
Half true : it indeed stated that mutipling everyone's rating by two would increase the ratio (my rating)/(master rating) which is obviously wrong (because a/b = 2*a / 2*b for all a and b). It increases the gap in absolute, but not in relative.
I notice that some of the commentators on this thread have little or no bullet/blitz experience (on this site). That could explain some of the opinions offered. These same people I notice also turn down friend requests.
If you want to play the rating game, I am afraid many persons of this thread have you severly outgunned.
no, not Hegel, a mistake; just to focus the debate, Hegel is this:
Phänomenologie des Geistes Die Wahrheitder Gewißheit seiner selbst
In den bisherigen Weisen der Gewißheit ist dem Bewußtsein das Wahre etwas anderes als es selbst. Der Begriff dieses Wahren verschwindet aber in der Erfahrung von ihm; wie der Gegenstand unmittelbar an sich war, das Seiende der sinnlichen Gewißheit, das konkrete Ding der Wahrnehmung, die Kraft des Verstandes, so erweist er sich vielmehr nicht in Wahrheit zu sein, sondern dies An-sich ergibt sich als eine Weise, wie er nur für ein Anderes ist; der Begriff von ihm hebt sich an dem wirklichen Gegenstande auf, oder die erste unmittelbare Vorstellung in der Erfahrung, und die Gewißheit ging in der Wahrheit verloren. Nunmehr aber ist dies entstanden, was in diesen frühern Verhältnissen nicht zustande kam, nämlich eine Gewißheit, welche ihrer Wahrheit gleich ist, denn die Gewißheit ist sich selbst ihr Gegenstand, und das Bewußtsein ist sich selbst das Wahre. Es ist darin zwar auch ein Anderssein; das Bewußtsein unterscheidet nämlich, aber ein solches, das für es zugleich ein nicht Unterschiedenes ist. Nennen wir Begriff die Bewegung des Wissens, den Gegenstand aber, das Wissen als ruhige Einheit, oder als Ich, so sehen wir, daß nicht nur für uns, sondern für das Wissen selbst der Gegenstand dem Begriffe entspricht. – Oder auf die andere Weise, den Begriff das genannt, was der Gegenstand an sich ist, den Gegenstand aber das, was er als Gegenstand, oder für ein Anderes ist, so erhellt, daß das An-sich-sein und das Für-ein-anderes-sein dasselbe ist; denn das An-sich ist das Bewußtsein; es ist aber ebenso dasjenige, für welches ein anderes (das An-sich) ist; und es ist für es, daß das An-sich des Gegenstandes und das Sein desselben für ein Anderes dasselbe ist; Ich ist der Inhalt der Beziehung und das Beziehen selbst; es ist es selbst gegen ein Anderes, und greift zugleich über dies Andre über, das für es ebenso nur es selbst ist.
well i admit it looks similar, but it is not.
..and no, not Heidegger either.
Huh?