I took it meaning self-referential, like I had been responsible for all 5000 posts or posted most of them myself. Sorry if I got it wrong but I don't see what other context you may have meant
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
Sep 9, 2016
0
#4803
I thought it was rather clever and lucky that you made the comment. This is the context in which I used the word....
adjective
1.
pertaining to or noting a story, conversation, character, etc., that consciously references or comments upon its own subject or features, often in the form of parody:
"because it is unprovable, can not ever be verified by observation or experiment."
Well, that's kind of crappy. Then, what, do 1 in 10000 chances not exist because they don't happen often, so you can't prove that it might happen? Well, that sucks when it might be useful to speak of such chances, e.g., for public policy.
I get your concern, but come on, we don't make the world. What we can observe doesn't control what there is. But we can deduce a lot of things that we can't directly observe -- otherwise our learning would be extremely limited.
"There is no evidence a multiverse exists"
Maybe you are looking for a particular kind of evidence, but this would certainly be disputed by some. There would be no point in coming up with the theory if it was just totally arbitrary.
ModestAndPolite wrote:
Can we stop this stupid "discussion" now?
You'd think so, but the answer is a resounding no. In all seriousness though I still often enjoy talking about it. If you don't like it you can just not participate, it really is that simple.
But yes, there will always be people who just think 1300 vs. 2700? No way. That ain't happening. That's like if [insert sports analogy]
chessking1976 wrote:
I thought it was rather clever and lucky that you made the comment. This is the context in which I used the word....
adjective
1.
pertaining to or noting a story, conversation, character, etc., that consciously references or comments upon its own subject or features, often in the form of parody:
I apologise fully and sincerely. I am giving up smoking and it seems this makes me super irritable. No excuse though
Elubas wrote:
But yes, there will always be people who just think 1300 vs. 2700? No way. That ain't happening. That's like if [insert sports analogy]
A 400 point rating difference means the stronger player should beat the weaker one almost all the time. 1700 beats 1300, 2100 beats 1700, 2500 beats 2100. 2700 is 3.5 classes stronger than 1300. It is out of sight.
I think many people on this site have no idea how strong 2700 is, and how weak 1300 is. It would be like sending a toddler into the boxing ring with a heavyweight champion. It would be like sending a 100lb weakling naked and unarmed against a trained commando with body armour and a machine gun.
Those aren't really good analogies. For sports that might work. But in chess, one blunder can literally lose the game. And even beginners know a few mates in one.
Elubas wrote:
Those aren't really good analogies. For sports that might work. But in chess, one blunder can literally lose the game. And even beginners know a few mates in one.
They are not supposed to illustrate similar opportunities to make a rare slip up. They are supposed to give the clueless a mental impression of the enormous gulf in strength between 1300 and 2700.
ModestAndPolite wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Those aren't really good analogies. For sports that might work. But in chess, one blunder can literally lose the game. And even beginners know a few mates in one.
They are not supposed to illustrate similar opportunities to make a rare slip up. They are supposed to give the clueless a mental impression of the enormous gulf in strength between 1300 and 2700.
Fair enough, then. It does do that.
Maybe so but it gives an innacurate impression. In chess you start with equality. perhaps better would be some fat bloke who happens to fall into heavyweight vs world champion.
Sep 10, 2016
0
#4815
DavidPeters2 wrote:
chessking1976 wrote:
I thought it was rather clever and lucky that you made the comment. This is the context in which I used the word....
adjective
1.
pertaining to or noting a story, conversation, character, etc., that consciously references or comments upon its own subject or features, often in the form of parody:
I apologise fully and sincerely. I am giving up smoking and it seems this makes me super irritable. No excuse though
----
Not necessary, but thanks! congratulations and good luck.
Sep 10, 2016
0
#4817
Elubas wrote:
Those aren't really good analogies. For sports that might work. But in chess, one blunder can literally lose the game. And even beginners know a few mates in one.
-----
I like the analogies. As it has been discussed here, a 2700 can overcome a severe blunder vs a 1300. Losing Q in first 5 moves, no problem and 2700 cruises to easy victory.
He could blunder mate in 1, which probably involves a similar inattentiveness as blundering one's queen (you just forget to check it).
There is no equivalent to a mate in 1 blunder in any serious sport that I can think of. Other than maybe, the person gets injured and has to quit. But of course that's not a good equivalent because that's about their condition, separate from the game itself.
Elubas yazmış:
There is no equivalent to a mate in 1 blunder in any serious sport that I can think of.
- Ace in Tennis?
- Allowing a knockout punch in Box?
- Wrongfully breaking an initial four-of-a-kind in your hand by replacing some cards in Poker?
...
If I were a 1300 with a must-win against a 2700, prob the only real chance is to snag him on a rules violation. One of my 5000+ ideas [At this point, I must issue a "start of joke" warning for the incredibly gullible]: