What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today - Chess Forums - Page 24

millionairesdaughter

Mar 7, 2015

0

#461

he has a point. if you take Carlsen's chess knowledge away, he might become Justin Bieber.

batgirl

Mar 7, 2015

0

#462

chyss wrote:

I think there are insurmountable questions of personal identity inherent in your question. If you add some new knowledge to someone then it's quite feasible to claim it's the same person, because we see that around us - going on a course or reading a book or whatever. However, taking knowledge away from someone might mean they're no longer the same person. Thus, sending Carlsen back to the 1800 hundreds with no knowledge of anything that happened after that date would mean he wouldn't be Carlsen any more.

I think that sort of begs the question. Either way, the person isn't the sme person. For instance, the Morphy I know of would never apply himself in chess to the intensity of focus that modern masters do (and must do). To assume he would/could changes the very nature of the man. Trying to bring players into future realms seems as futile as trying to move modern players back in time.

U-P-G-R-A-Y-E-D-D

Mar 7, 2015

0

#463

think theyd ask us - aint you got anything better to do??

Ziryab

Mar 7, 2015

0

#464

Magikstone wrote:

You're right. My method is something recent. As I keep soaring, it will convince me even more that my method is the correct one. You can say you improved by studying grandmaster games, the truth is, I bet out of all the games you have played, you have not once employed a strategy you saw a grandmaster do against another grandmaster.

You lose. I could cite many examples, but one is enough to collect your wager.

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2011/03/playing-by-book.html

chyss

Mar 7, 2015

0

#465

No, I can't agree. When you learn something new you're still the same person. Begging the question is quite different: I've given a specific reason why the problem is uni-directional. Learning leaves you intact as a person - taking things away doesn't leave you intact as a person.

U-P-G-R-A-Y-E-D-D

Mar 7, 2015

0

#466

Right

Eseles

Mar 7, 2015

0

#467

chyss wrote:

<snip> Learning leaves you intact as a person <snip>

If that is true... We are mentally the same person from the day we're born... Everything we learn from our parents, friends, teachers, movies we watch, magazines we read... and so on and so forth goes to waste...

chyss

Mar 8, 2015

0

#468

Eseles wrote:

chyss wrote:

<snip> Learning leaves you intact as a person <snip>

If that is true... We are mentally the same person from the day we're born... Everything we learn from our parents, friends, teachers, movies we watch, magazines we read... and so on and so forth goes to waste...

I'm afriad you've misunderstood the concept of personal identity. There is an extensive literature on this. If you're interested begin with John Locke's work on this topic, then read the work of P.F. Strawson and Bernard Williams. You'll find Mackie, Nagel, and Nozick also have fascinating contributions to make. Parfit, Perry, and Shoemaker are also core reading on this topic. Ultimately of course, all of their contributions are basically a footnote to Wittgenstein, but his 'Philosophical Investigations' are somewhat intractible! :)

Eseles

Mar 8, 2015

0

#469

chyss wrote:

Eseles wrote:

chyss wrote:

<snip> Learning leaves you intact as a person <snip>

If that is true... We are mentally the same person from the day we're born... Everything we learn from our parents, friends, teachers, movies we watch, magazines we read... and so on and so forth goes to waste...

I'm afriad you've misunderstood the concept of personal identity. There is an extensive literature on this. If you're interested begin with John Locke's work on this topic, then read the work of P.F. Strawson and Bernard Williams. You'll find Mackie, Nagel, and Nozick also have fascinating contributions to make. Parfit, Perry, and Shoemaker are also core reading on this topic. Ultimately of course, all of their contributions are basically a footnote to Wittgenstein, but his 'Philosophical Investigations' are somewhat intractible! :)

listen... i don't have to read all this to understand how addition and subtraction work, lol

U-P-G-R-A-Y-E-D-D

Mar 8, 2015

0

#470

Think they'd start a boy band having a chess theme - maybe a bishop as there bands symbol showcased the bass drum

yureesystem

Mar 8, 2015

0

#471

Raw talent like a Paul Morphy will always be a top player no matter what era. Capablanca be will the same, he through his genius dominate his peers and had no trainer to guided him. Carlsen had trainers and ex-world champion (Kasparov) to guide him to become world champion. No, put Carlsen in the same time frame of Paul Morphy, it will be Morphy who will dominate not Carlsen. It all about talent and Carlsen has no talent except from his guidance from his trainers, but Capablanca pure genius. Carlsen learned from Capablanca to be world champion, but Capablanca taught himself to become world champion a big differrence. :) Morphy was pure talent and through his genius learned all about chess through a few books.

U-P-G-R-A-Y-E-D-D

Mar 8, 2015

0

#472

maybe a chess barber quertet?

millionairesdaughter

Mar 8, 2015

0

#473

It takes a lot of books to create a few neuron cross connections for chess.coms resident experts!

Magikstone

Mar 8, 2015

0

#474

My method is working guys. Yet again I win my section at my local club. And in one of my games, I reached a similar position I did playing right here on chess.com, and since I had gone through my game with an engine, I knew the best way to continue, and I won that game.

eciruam

Mar 8, 2015

0

#475

Magikstone wrote:

My method is working guys. Yet again I win my section at my local club. And in one of my games, I reached a similar position I did playing right here on chess.com, and since I had gone through my game with an engine, I knew the best way to continue, and I won that game.

And this is relevant to the thread how...?

millionairesdaughter

Mar 8, 2015

0

#476

Perform a statistical hypothesis test on an unbiased sample of plateau-top students.

Then get back to us and stop flapping your lips.

U-P-G-R-A-Y-E-D-D

Mar 8, 2015

0

#477

playing double dutch and calling out moves

SmyslovFan

Mar 8, 2015

0

#478

Magikstone wrote:

My method is working guys. Yet again I win my section at my local club. And in one of my games, I reached a similar position I did playing right here on chess.com, and since I had gone through my game with an engine, I knew the best way to c ontinue, and I won that game.

In the category of self-taught geniuses, let's hear it for Magikstone!

You have invented, completely independent of theory, the Najdorf Sicilian! Congratulations!

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1058937041

Please, tell what the purpose of your brilliant fifth move is! By the way, the only engines that will recommend 5...a6 are ones that are hooked up to databases.

millionairesdaughter

Mar 8, 2015

0

#479

is he busted ?

5iegbert_7arrasch

Mar 8, 2015

0

#480

Yes, hes busted :D