batgirl wrote:
:-D
Do you agree or disagree?
Or is that the face of a troll?
Steinitz vs Morphy
Sort:
Mar 8, 2014
0
#163
she is trolling you since you claim to understand syntax and history better than her, and you are trolling because you have no understanding of these yourself... the orignal question implied that any responce the he, was clearly the pronoun refering to the antecedant Morphy.
Jetfighter, there was never any claim that Morphy was a World Champion.
The question: "If Steinitz could hold on to his WC title until his fifties, why couldn't Morphy do the same?" is asking an IF question.
IF questions do not make statements.
It's amazing how uneducated some people are about context in language, even when they claim to be experts...
Was Morphy WC? No, hence why the sentence is using an IF type of question.
Otherwise I would have just made a clear statement, without the extra info.
1. Morphy could hold on to the crown as World Champion into his fifties.
2. Morphy could hold unto his crown if he was World Champion.
Neither statement is claiming that Morphy is WC.
I guess great chess players never really met each other at their peak.
Mar 8, 2014
0
#168
Yereslov wrote:
Jetfighter, there was never any claim that Morphy was a World Champion.
The question: "If Steinitz could hold on to his WC title until his fifties, why couldn't Morphy do the same?" is asking an IF question.
IF questions do not make statements.
I may be no expert in language, but I am the leading authority on what I say, I never once said anything about a statement unless it was in referece to something later on.
If you expected a responce where we explained that Morphy didn't want to play chess publically, would you be happy if we just used his name instead of the pronoun he. The reason the pronoun he is utilized is because the question is asking about Morphy not Stientz, if there was no distinction then it would be nececary to use Morphy and not the pronoun used.
sorry if you forgot pronoun antecedant rules.
konhidras wrote:
I guess great chess players never really met each other at their peak.
1. Euwe vs. Alekhine (rematch).
2. Kasparov vs. Karpov (rematch).
3. Spassky vs. Fischer (1972).
A few examples.
jetfighter13 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Jetfighter, there was never any claim that Morphy was a World Champion.
The question: "If Steinitz could hold on to his WC title until his fifties, why couldn't Morphy do the same?" is asking an IF question.
IF questions do not make statements.
I may be no expert in language, but I am the leading authority on what I say, I never once said anything about a statement unless it was in referece to something later on.
If you expected a responce where we explained that Morphy didn't want to play chess publically, would you be happy if we just used his name instead of the pronoun he. The reason the pronoun he is utilized is because the question is asking about Morphy not Stientz, if there was no distinction then it would be nececary to use Morphy and not the pronoun used.
sorry if you forgot pronoun antecedant rules.
In the context of the conversation, "he" does not require an antecendent.
Example: "He was World Champion until 1921" makes it obvious who I am talking about.
Language is a bit more complex than you kake it out to be.
And I don't remember using the pronoun "he."
I refered to them by name.
Notice how I mention "them" without an antecedent, yet everything is still clear as day?
Mar 8, 2014
0
#172
Yereslov wrote:
jetfighter13 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Jetfighter, there was never any claim that Morphy was a World Champion.
The question: "If Steinitz could hold on to his WC title until his fifties, why couldn't Morphy do the same?" is asking an IF question.
IF questions do not make statements.
I may be no expert in language, but I am the leading authority on what I say, I never once said anything about a statement unless it was in referece to something later on.
If you expected a responce where we explained that Morphy didn't want to play chess publically, would you be happy if we just used his name instead of the pronoun he. The reason the pronoun he is utilized is because the question is asking about Morphy not Stientz, if there was no distinction then it would be nececary to use Morphy and not the pronoun used.
sorry if you forgot pronoun antecedant rules.
In the context of the conversation, "he" does not require an antecendent.
Example: "He was World Champion until 1921" makes it obvious who I am talking about.
Language is a bit more complex than you kake it out to be.
yes that is true, with one person being used, but in the question it was stated that Morphy was being asked about and you were finding problem in that you assumed Stientz was the person Batgirl was refering to. Now I assume it was a well intentioned mistake, and I know the english language is more complex than I said, even with regards to the rules about pronoun antecedant, but your real problem is that you are just looking for Pidly Bull#&$^ to complain about.
Mar 8, 2014
0
#173
Yereslov wrote:
And I don't remember using the pronoun "he."
I refered to them by name.
Notice how I mention "them" without an antecedent, yet everything is still clear as day?
you may not have, but Batgirl did, and I implicetly stated that the question it was refered to by name, giving you the credit of being specific, but Batgirl utilized a pronoun without an antecedant, now grow up and learn to read.
Yereslov wrote:
konhidras wrote:
I guess great chess players never really met each other at their peak.
1. Euwe vs. Alekhine (rematch).
2. Kasparov vs. Karpov (rematch).
3. Spassky vs. Fischer (1972).
A few examples.
Kasparovs peak was in 2005, Karpov ?
Fischer 2785 (correct me if im wrong) Spassky at 2660
Euwe was handpicked by alekhine (it would have been better if it was Capa).
So they never really met each other at their peak.
No, she skewered my comment to fir her own opinion of me.
She made the mistake. Not me.
I don't care how many blogs she has written. A mistake is a mistake.
Spassky had an undefeated record against Fischer until 1972.
Euwe was picked because he was doing extremely well at that time. Even after the rematch, he gave Alekhine some trouble.
Like Botvinnik, Alekhine's strength was his preparation.
Kasparov was in his prime when he took the crown away from Karpov.
Yereslov wrote:
Spassky had an undefeated record against Fischer until 1972.
Euwe was picked because he was doing extremely well at that time. Even after the rematch, he gave Alekhine some trouble.
Like Botvinnik, Alekhine's strength was his preparation.
Kasparov was in his prime when he took the crown away from Karpov.
Kasparov was in his rise but not in his prime yet when he beat Karpov.
Spassky was on his way down in 1971. (Alekhine Memorial won by Karpov). I think his peak was in the 1966-69 years when he defeated the likes of Tal, Geller, Larsen, Keres.
And of course Botvinnik? Well...he never really was able to defend the title..he won em by rematch. except of course against bronstein who (until now) baffles me why he didnt see the obvious winning move which could have won him the crown.
Carlsen was at his peak while Anands was on the downhill.
But to answer the thread..i still think Morphy would beat Steinitz hands down.
Mar 8, 2014
0
#178
Wow. Batgirl made one slightly ambiguous statement and Yereslov goes on for pages about how his willful misreading of that statement was justified, and how Batgirl, not he, is the troll.
Gotta admit, that was well played. Yereslov should teach classes on how to be a troll.
Smyslov, what did I misread exactly?
Mar 8, 2014
0
#180
SmyslovFan wrote:
Wow. Batgirl made one slightly ambiguous statement
I made a posting the other day in which I put a game that I transcribed from a written game score. In the game score Black's 12 move was written 12...Nbc6 because there was a Knight on e7 that was also eying c6 and the author was trying to avoid ambiguity. But the Knight on e7 was pinned, so I immediately decided that writing Nbc6 was unnecessary and Nc6 would have been perfectly fine. The ambiguity that the author was trying to avoid stemmed only from his own perspective and what seemed ambiguous to him wasn't really so when more closely examined.
:-D