Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?

  • 8 hours ago · Quote · #4881


    He seems to not be making any specific response, just kind of rehashing, at a certain point, math starts to separate itself from how it represents the physical world. I agree, he's way too unclear on what his problem is. He seems to just randomly talk about physics and philosophy without a lot of organization, haha.

  • 8 hours ago · Quote · #4882


    It does kind of suck that you're taking the time to form your arguments so explicitly and he just dismisses them without giving you a clear idea of why.

  • 8 hours ago · Quote · #4883


    It's fine. I thought it would be interesting if more people would discuss this way (presenting a string of statements then finding where the disagreement is) so it was fun to give it a try during an actual disagreement.

  • 6 hours ago · Quote · #4884


    Haha, I actually did watch that infinity video again.

  • 6 hours ago · Quote · #4885


    I would say after watching Carlsen blunder a full piece anything is possible. 

    I would also reference the Sack of Rome where Szofia Polgar had a tremendous performance at age fourteen if I recall correctly (2900 equivalent or something to that effect) by which I suggest there may be more than meets the eye.


  • 6 hours ago · Quote · #4886


    This is the last infinity video I saw:

    He goes over it pretty fast, I remember not following it the whole way.

  • 6 hours ago · Quote · #4887


    Ah, I saw that one too. A few times actually. I enjoyed it a lot. It seems like you can always ask "why not go even further" no matter what you're talking about. Even with an infinite set, why can't there be something beyond that? And beyond that? You can even describe that phenomenon with some other number/concept, but why can't you even go beyond that? That seemed to be what he was getting at later in the video, but I dunno.

  • 3 minutes ago · Quote · #4888


    011 wrote:

    If you don't trust logic though... I mean... not to be rude, but it's not a matter of trust it's a matter of either you understand it or you don't.

    This is too the point and defines the difference of our individual positions. I can understand your logic without agreeing it is infallible. We all posses our own logic, but how open are we to accepting alternative explanations are possible? It goes well beyond the simple "it's not a matter of trust".

Back to Top

Post your reply: