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

  • 9 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.

  • 9 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.

  • 9 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.

  • 8 hours ago · Quote · #4884


    Haha, I actually did watch that infinity video again.

  • 8 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.


  • 7 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.

  • 7 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.

  • 99 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".

  • 90 minutes ago · Quote · #4889


    Elubas quite well described some of my points, pointed out my perspective where my thoughts were not well organized. I need to formulate my "theory" of probabilities using clearer terms and presentation.

    In response to the "infinite or infinity" question, in my view it is a "concept". Does it exist? Only in mathamatics.

  • 83 minutes ago · Quote · #4890


    The mind thinks "what is beyond the horizon, there must be something smaller/bigger, time can not end and so invents the concept of the infinite. This too can not be compreheded, but works well in the realm of numbers.

  • 41 minutes ago · Quote · #4891


    I just read the points on the previous page made by Elubas and 011 regarding my statements, their interpretations and objections. Many of the issues brought to light are spot on, I have no major disagreements, accept the criticism of my views.

    Maybe I can present my view somewhat in a clearer light regarding probabilities. I agree with the math. The chanches of a 50/50 event occurring is one in two. The odds of the same event occurring (coin flips) keeps doubling. This is logical.

    But do numbers actually tell us the "reality" of such events occurring? So yes, it becomes a philosophical debate for me. A single event in time, where coins are flipped simultaneously, the chanches of a HTHT pattern emerging are dependant on the # of coins, then applying a mathamatical formula. I propose the odds are not necessarily the same (although the same formula must be applied) when a single coin is flipped over a period of time landing in the same pattern. Can it be proved? No. My reasoning is philosophical for lack of a better term. In the later case, other factors come into play, time being one of them (do we fully understand the forces of time?) Circumstances have changed, the universe has moved forward, the reality of an event recurring is different.

    The 2nd question I have is also a philosophical one. Do numbers (especially large ones) really describe the true nature of probability? Do the chanches really double when we're speaking of by example 10 vs 11?

  • 31 minutes ago · Quote · #4892


    Yes, I understand the practical use of statistics and probabilities and how they are applied. It represents a powerful tool of our understanding. That being said, I reserve my thoughts that numbers may not represent the true nature of a given event occurring in the future. To think in absolute terms is a mistake imo.

Back to Top

Post your reply: