And evidence is the last refuge of the logical positivist. 
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
Chess is a mental game so intelligence is necessary. A weakling can't win a powerlifting contest and a fatty can't obtain a respectable marathon time.
You're welcome.
Thanks for the... horrible analogy.
BTW guys, discounting what a guy is saying based on his title or lack of title is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. You may disagree with him, and he may even be wrong, but the fact that he does not have a title does not make him wrong.
Feb 28, 2015
0
#225
DrCheckevertim wrote:
BTW guys, discounting what a guy is saying based on his title or lack of title is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. You may disagree with him, and he may even be wrong, but the fact that he does not have a title does not make him wrong.
A philosopher! Cool!
Yes, I sit home all day thinking about what is better, the bishop or the knight? Also whether or not forum posts are logical. Then I speak in my best teacher voice after asking myself, how do I reach these kids?
On the whole "is NM a real title" thing, it must be said the US players are as a general rule drastically underrated FIDE wise. There are really not many FIDE rated tourneys here. Look at the difference between my USCF and FIDE for example.
Morphy or Steinitz didn't read My System, but they already had an intuition of Nimzovitch ideas.
Pawns chains, prophylaxis, passed pawns, open files were already used in the 19th century (in fact, Philidor had given the first strategic bases of chess in the 18th century).
Nimzovitch did not came in a strategical desert.
DrCheckevertim wrote:
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
Chess is a mental game so intelligence is necessary. A weakling can't win a powerlifting contest and a fatty can't obtain a respectable marathon time.
You're welcome.
Thanks for the... horrible analogy.
I think it works (albeit in a somewhat crude manner) because if someone is physically strong they can lift heavier weights, if they have better cardiovascular systems they're better at running, so why not apply the same logic to chess? There's even the infamous peak strength. A midget can never, ever make it to the NBA so why should an idiot be expected to obtain a title? Chess involves memory recall, logic, and information processing, to break a position down into its smallest individual units and see how they're interrelated, and of that information determining what is most relevant.
No one said Nimzovitch came in a strategic desert but he did revolutionize and greatly advance chess.
Feb 28, 2015
0
#230
Haha. Good one!
HueyWilliams wrote:
there once was a joker named chyss
for whom talking turkey was bliss
with you in his sights
he would throw lefts and rights
(little caring if they'd hit or miss)
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
I think it works
Chess ability is not equivalent to mental ability.
For example: You are a better chess player than I am. I am better at logic than you.
Feb 28, 2015
0
#232
HueyWilliams wrote:
there once was a joker named chyss
for whom talking turkey was bliss
with you in his sights
he would throw lefts and rights
(little caring if they'd hit or miss)
I like it, though I confess I've no idea what 'talking turkey' is.
Feb 28, 2015
0
#233
If that's really true then your rhyme doesn't work nearly as well. Couldn't you change it so that that line includes a critical and disparaging version of the suggestion that chyss likes to present potentially valid arguments without checking whether they are helpful or just destructive.
Feb 28, 2015
0
#234
One day three logicians walked into a bar. The bartender asked "Do you all want a drink?". The first logician said "I don't know."..The second logician said "I don't know.". The third logician said "Yes."
DrCheckevertim wrote:
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
I think it works
Chess ability is not equivalent to mental ability.
For example: You are a better chess player than I am. I am better at logic than you.
Feb 28, 2015
0
#235
chyss wrote:
Couldn't you change it so that that line includes a critical and disparaging version of the suggestion that chyss likes to present potentially valid arguments without checking whether they are helpful or just destructive.
Why do you talk in the third person?
Feb 28, 2015
0
#236
HueyWilliams wrote:
Must be one of those Bob Dole things.
We are not pleased.
Feb 28, 2015
0
#237
How about:
There once was a joker called chyss,
a pedant for whom conflict was bliss.
With you in his sights,
he would throw lefts and rights,
little caring if they'd hit or they'd miss.
To be fair though even accounting for USCF inflation an NM is 100 points lower than a FIDE CM (CM = 2200 FIDE, NM = 2200 USCF) which is still quite strong.
Twenty years ago, this 100 point gap was commonly ub=nderstood to be accurate. I don't think the stats today support it, however.
The USCF's efforts to fund itself from the pockets of chess parents has deflated ratings a bit.
There's was some discussion a few years ago at http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1205850860. Unlike most of what transpires here at chess.com, evidence was presented in that discussion.
I agree the gap is no longer as big . My FIDE rating is actually higher than my USCF rating in fact . I think the gap now is in the 50 point range .