"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 11:09 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Are you agreeing with Adorjan?

No. IMO, what GM Adorjan and so many
others like him are doing, is reminiscing about
the "good old days".

Again you ignor whatever was the issue to raise your own. Did you already
forget the question was about ELO-related performance of the top 300
players? Perhaps if you didnt snip the question, then you could answer the
question, instead of free-relating on your own somewhat marked interest
which is at the expense of strong ches splayers?

Their commentaries are
nothing more than psychology-based attempts
to dismiss the modern, and pretend that all
things were better in their own heydays, back
when they themselves were in their primes.

I take a very different approach; even though
I am not fond of the way things are now, and
even though I don't particularly like many of
the changes which have occurred since my
prime-time years of old, I have no need to go
into a state of denial or pretend that things
were ever so hunky-dory way back when.


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?

How about taking a more scientific approach
to this "thesis" of his? You need to construct
a test which factors in things like chance, and
obviously, a counter-thesis which is equally
likely to be "confirmed" as his, if the results
fall a certain way. But the single most
important thing is to make the thesis and the
test of it known publicly /in advance/, and to
consistently follow up, no matter what the
outcome.

I think this cannot be resolved theoretically - but by /in vivo/ testing -
that is to say, have a huge GM-bash, and see what happens.

Otherwise you get what is known as cherry-
picking: the fine art of reporting one's hand-
picked successes, while remaining mum on
the predictions which have failed-- that sort of
thing.


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?

Why the need to filter /through him/? The
fewer these stages of "interpretation", the more
accurate and more realistic will be our picture
of the facts.

Because he was a W CH candidate, and his opinion is worth a lot on the state
of top level creativity, a lot more than mine. It is not an absolute thing,
but a relative thing - and his opinion is relatively more informed of the
nature of things by virtue of having done it.

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?

The only draws which seem to be truly
objectionable are the illegitimate ones, the
ones which are not contested but arranged
as such. Legitimate draws appear to be a
fundamental part of the game, and in my
own experience, are an excellent way of
providing an intermediate stepping stone
between the weak and the strong players.

?? I put a straight proposition to you, to follow your own point of a top
clicque players knowing overmuch about each others games, but you continue
as if to protest and protect the veracity of draws ?? Don't think it makes
some sense to establish what actually aqppear to be facts, before having to
rush to some pre-emtive defence of an opinion based on those facts?

Without legitimate draws, there would be
less incentive for weak players to compete
with the strong ones; they would feel even
more out-classed, and unable to compete
with their vast superiors (that's people like
me and I suppose, Larry Evans). :D

That is the opinion of people 'like you' about what you suppose of Larry
Evans.

Phil Innes


-- help bot