On Feb 24, 3:00 am, "Jason__911" wrote:

The problem is a 1300 rated moron like you is that you're incapable of
learning, Rob. If you had any intelligence and learning ability at
all, you wouldn't be a 1300 to begin with. You can get all the
"whoopings" you want, you'll always be a weakling and a loser.

This sort of comment reveals nothing if not the utter state
of ignorance in which the "Jason Repa" creature wallows.

In fact, a 1300 rated player typically knows a good deal
about the game, and is well ahead of, say, a 1000 rated
player in several different areas. Focusing on adults and
leaving out children for a moment (sorry, JR), it is safe to
say that while a typical 1000-rated player may be familiar
with the basic rules and how all the men can move, he is
invariably the victim of every conceivable type of tactical
trick: forks, skewers, back-rank mates, etc.

In comparison, a typical 1300 player is at least aware of
the many problems which have befallen him, over and over,
on his way up to the lofty heights of thirteen-hundred-dom.
And while I might expect a player such as Gary Kasparov,
for instance, to insist there is no significant difference, I
should hope the more grounded humans to be able to at
least grasp what lofty immortals cannot: that 300 points
is significant, even way down among the lowly commoners.

Now, anyone who may have started out at, say, 1000 or
lower, and yet who improved to 1300+, obviously has
demonstrated an ability to learn and to improve their play.
In fact, I see no reason whatever that Rob Mitchell could
not easily reach the 1500 mark, in due time -- regardless
of any imagined limitations based on mental capacity.
You see, chess involves mainly the ability to think and to
see things geometrically, or mathematically if you prefer.
Simple math, in many cases, is sufficient to carry the day,
and there is no need of calculus or a mastery of probability
and statistics.

In fact, one of the biggest factors which can hold a
player back is psychology -- his inability to see things in
a rational, a mathematical manner. A man who is enraged,
say, by the way in which his opponent screwed the piece
into the board, is unlikely to give an effective answer, and
this problem may end up holding him back by several
ratings classes. IMO, a half-mastery of tactics is sufficient,
almost of itself, to launch even a 1300 player to the greater
heights of 1500-dom, perhaps higher.

No, the creature is quite mistaken in suggesting that any
1300-rated player cannot learn or cannot improve, simply
because his progress thus far has been limited. This principle
does not apply along any section of the ratings curve, except
perhaps between zero and nil.

-- help bot