"help bot" wrote in message
...
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 think you might stick to things you know about, like Sanny's computer, and
stop messing around with things you don't. since this is the 3rd correction
already to the same poing - this time you have introduced the term
'starving'.

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.

I see. Kennedy contra-mundam!

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.

Probably? Why do you even bother talking to other people - you are having
too much fun on your own.

Stuck, like a stick in the mud, you
can't grok the proved fact of his cheating.

Having introduced this straw-man argument - what would you like to do next,
please discuss it with yourself and let yourself know.

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.

Ha! having taken a dig at GK, Its now Fischer's turn, the same Fischer who
took on the World's strongest players. I have [laugh] never seen anyone play
chess with the black pieces like Fischer who didn't seem to give a damn
about making draws -- but I see you draw different conclusions from his
lifetime's play from everyone else. That of course doesn't mean you are
wrong.

(And why should he be paired against BS in
the *first* round, pray tell? I say pair him
with Arnold Denker or Art Bisguire.)

Though, while you opinion is not necessarily wrong, such petty wheedling
comments on singular issues are definitly not right to assess the player.
Its as if you wanted to bring GK and Fischer down to your level, but I think
you never climbed high enough up the mountain to even see the top, nevermind
attempt a perspective from it.

--------

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?

either or? How about both?

Look at my brilliancy against the GC
Master level;

no that, and your reference to it, are totally stupid.


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.

If you hadn't diverted yourself to such large extent, then perhaps you would
remember what it was - like the analogy of chess perception to the playing
of a 10,000th note by a virtuoso. But this was just yesterday Greg! And you
have come to grief against all sorts of people here recently based on dreams
memories and reflections of much older, more elusive materials.

Seriously, you might consier sticking to writing about what you can engage
others in as exploration of a topic, since otherwise it not only drains them
engaging you, but all sense goes down the drain too. I am just trying to be
helpful.

Cordially, Help Phil


-- help bot