"Kenneth Sloan" wrote

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

It is so obvious that a rating of 1000 is not a rank beginner. I'm
incredulous that some of you insist it is. Is this some sort of "big lie"
post or what?

That's right. Everyone who disagrees with you is a liar.

You win.

I did not mean that you were a liar -- how could your original statement be
a lie when you presented it as an opinion?

What I meant was that it's sometimes easier to convince people of something
outrageous than something that's only slightly off.

If you meant that the rating of one who just knew how pieces moved rules
*could* or *might* be 1000 given other adjustments to the rating scale (e.g.
Kasparov @ 15,000) then I misunderstood you. If you meant under the existing
system, with Kasparov at 2800, then you are clearly wrong.

Note, you did not take the "DePalma Challenge." All those individuals were
rated 1000, and all were "experienced" to some degree.

Angelo