On Feb 19, 11:00 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Volition is not Adorjan's point at all. I think he means that in terms of
available money in the game at any one time, 30 to 50 players can earn it at
chess.

So, you are suggesting that all the people I've
played -- none of them in the top-50 in the world
-- were starving, or else they had some other
sources of income? I find that rather silly; it
looked to me that they were not merely getting
by, but traveling the country -- including the
really boring parts, like here. OTOH, most of
these events take place on the weekends, so
who knows but that some folks can manage a
"day job" AND still find time to travel and play
chess?


I didn't know the Russkies gave titles for C players? Or is it B?

Sure are a lot of uninformed people around
these parts! In the Gulag, you get a title
just for being strong enough to sit at a chess
board and push the pieces around; they are
made from the bones of rats, which of course
is the primary source of protein. The boards
are drawn by hand in the dirt-- the one thing
in abundance there. Class B is a pipe
dream; half the pieces are eaten before a
game can end (calcium, you know).


You sometimes remind me of one of those historiy of the navy fans who use
rather more naval terms than do real sailors.

Hard to larbard! Full speed ahead!
All engines full ahead. Whats that?

Oh, yes of course, I forgot-- cast off!;
untie is from the dock thingies, errr...


That is an interesting point of view. Will it stagger you to learn that it
is not Agassi's own?

I am not so much interested in what these
folks *say*, as in the hard facts as indicated
by what they *do*. This is a key difference
betwixt thee and me.

Example: a fellow named Gary Kasparov
*said* he did not release his Knight; yet the
cameras proved he in fact did release it. I
am impressed by the fact of his release, but
you are probably still stuck on GK's denial of
the fact. Stuck, like a stick in the mud, you
can't grok the proved fact of his cheating.


Fischer survived all-play-all and Swiss tournaments because he could come on
strong after playing in. But many modern tournaments are knowck out type,
and best of 3. This would mean he would have lost in the first round to
Spassky, and been eliminated.

No, it means he would have refused to play,
on account of his FEAR of being knocked out.
(And why should he be paired against BS in
the *first* round, pray tell? I say pair him
with Arnold Denker or Art Bisguire.)


Would rather depend how few and how recent. But again, whose opinion is
this? Since I am perhaps considerably stronger than you

You can bench 100 kilos? I can't see it;
not long ago you said you were three (?)
kilometers tall, so how do you even fit on
the bench? Probably all leg... .


I must mediate your
idea from your level of play with seriously hairy great Russian GMs

This can only be a reference to one man:
the renowned girl-cheater, Gary Kasparov!
If he thinks you're strong, then okay.


An interesting illustration is Tony Miles whose 'outrageous play' brought
down the world's top GMs - even the W. Ch a couple of times.

Was it really his funky play which
prevailed-- or his good moves later on?

Look at my brilliancy against the GC
Master level; I did not win because of
my silly first move, 1. a3, but because
I followed it with moves which were
superior to the Master level's. Look
/deeper/.


I notice the middle game comes between the opening and the end. Certainly at
Corus I didn't see anyone fumbling the opening and surviving the middle
game. Did you?

I was big game hunting in the arctic at the
time; sorry. Thank goodness for those bear-
scare fireworks! And of course, bear mace.
(You can't legally kill or beat-up a bear, even
in self defense, because they are endangered.)


But the real test is not speculate on Rybka, but to see if
what you say is true or no without books or gimics.

The pawn odds matches told a tale; even
with a huge opening advantage AND a pawn,
some GMs lose like carrots to Rybka in the
middle game.


How does the concert pianist virtuoso [you must imagine him without
sheet-music] know the exact weight to apply to his little finger at the
10,000th note?

A: He doesn't. A machine can play better
(i.e. more precisely) than any human can--
just as with chess.


One might add to 'weight', speed, timing/tempo, and other factors.

Consumer Reports blindfolded several
"expert" wine tasters, and the result was
that they could not reliably tell white from
red. (Much ado is the old story of The
Emperor's New Clothes.)

How much is presumption of perfection,
and how much is /measured/ perfection?


Now consider 3 things:

a) do you /know/ the answer or guess at it?

I prefer to guess; it's more fun, you see.


and if not, would you prefer to ask a

a) concert pianist
b) a cognitive psychologist who studies concert pianists

I would prefer to know the question, then
decide on the appropriate action.


-- help bot