"help bot" wrote in message
...

One last comment on this from Adorjan, was ~ in fact, it was a question I
obtained from him in presenting an interview to Mickey Adams~

if the top 200 or 300 players should all take part in a 13 round
tournament, would you expect the result to accord with Elo?

Adorjan didn't think so, somewhat echoing Khalifman's comment in 1999,
and
Khalifman proved it!

You mean, like an exact arrangement, as per
the FIDE list? That is silly. The unique thing
about such an event would be that the number
of participants would preclude a thorough
openings preparation for any particular opponent.

Are you agreeing with Adorjan?

You see, if most of the players at Corus at now at Morelia, then this 'test'
of his thesis is not being met. So what happens if you can't prepare for 300
possible opponents - how will it all end?

Instead of "TNs" prepared for particular players,
we would see TNs which are prepared for just
anybody.

Sure!

I don't think it is wise to mollycoddle those
who may be in denial of the validity of ratings;
to readily adopt their unique interpretations on
this to comfort them, or those who make such
comments regarding chess as an art, rather
than a sport.

That is a bit too far here. Since I assume your agreement, let's not rush to
any rash conclusions, and neither excuse nor condemn why it is. One thing to
do at this point is to cast the question around to some other people, and
attend on their views, pro and con and dunno - and then actually assess the
consequences.

Certainly Adorjan has plenty more to say on this topic - like, does he think
that the chess public only consider the top 30 players to have any genius
and creativity in the game, and 970 other GMs are not even worth inviting?

When some many draws abound, whether this is fair comment or not, some
indication exists that it might be looked at a little closer, no? To end by
emphasising a point of your own - are the top class of 2700 players simply
innured to each other's play to such degree that creativity goes out the
window while draws come in the back door?

Phil Innes

It is clear to me that had such
players won, some would likely be among
the nasty types who deride their opponents'
characters or laziness, but because they
have lost, they have a certain /need/ to explain,
to justify the (partial) failure.

Let us instead try to remain objective. Prove
that the winners, the world champions and so
forth, were lacking in "art"; prove that these
"losers" had lots more of it, or of superior
quality; prove this *objectively*, my friend.

As for me, I have my own opinions regarding
which players were artful or creative, and it
seems to have nothing to do with their relative
success in competition, except that by being
successful, I was more likely to later see and
study their games, after the fact. A few of the
real artists were world champs-- just accept it.


-- help bot