On Mar 13, 3:16 pm, Larry Tapper wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" wrote:



wrote in message

...

Quick! What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating
list for OTB? Know it? Quick! What is the
approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+
ELO? Any chess person can answer the latter question
-- a strongish master.

Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.

While we're reminiscing about the halcyon days of rgcp, when the
average poster was marginally saner than today, I'd like to point out
that the original "weak" charge was made not by Sloan but by Parr
himself:

"Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this kind
of analysis." (5 June 2005, 1:31 PM).

This was the comment that provoked TK to protest that he was "a tad
better than weak". Not surprising that in the latest threads, Parr has
been portraying Sloan as the original provoker, a version of events
which Sloan is plainly happy to go along with. Makes a better story,
doesn't it?

Aside from this detail, I'd say that David Kane's take on the whole
matter is pretty much on the money.

LT

Thank you for pointing this out.

I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.

On the other hand, a 2550 rated chess player would be a "weak"
grandmaster when compared to Kasparov.

However, I believe that any rated expert and most class A and B
players would be strong enough to look at the position on my website
at:
http://www.samsloan.com/keres-bo.htm

and realize that the moves Keres played that just gave away the game
were so weak that it must have been a dump.

Also, the final game, the game that Keres won, was an obvious dump
too. At that point, Botvinnik had clenched first place. Keres needed
to win to tie for third with Reshevsky. That last game was so poorly
played that it looks like two drunk 1600 players bashing each other.

Sam Sloan

On Mar 13, 5:50 pm, samsloan wrote:

I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.

LOL! IMO, a typical 1600 player may know
several opening moves by rote, but it is
precisely his *lack* of depth of knowledge
which makes him an easy mark for really
good players (whoever they are).

OTOH, I keep reading about how some
Harvard-educated "geniuses" nearly brought
down our entire economic system, because
they basically gambled with leveraged
monies; a few of the writers who describe
those events seem to me to be far more
intelligent than other folks who are described
as Ivy-league school graduates.


On the other hand, a 2550 rated chess player would be a "weak"
grandmaster when compared to Kasparov.

However, I believe that any rated expert and most class A and B
players would be strong enough to look at the position on my website
at:http://www.samsloan.com/keres-bo.htm
and realize that the moves Keres played that just gave away the game
were so weak that it must have been a dump.

Rather than selectively choosing which
games to examine, /looking for/ the throwing
of games, how about we agree to a more
objective approach? We can set standards,
program them into a computer, and then abide
by its purely objective findings, okay? We can
start with a few games played by Mr. Sloan;
how many will be determined to have been
thrown on purpose, by our chosen standards?


Also, the final game, the game that Keres won, was an obvious dump
too. At that point, Botvinnik had clenched first place. Keres needed
to win to tie for third with Reshevsky. That last game was so poorly
played that it looks like two drunk 1600 players bashing each other.

And yet, there are plenty of games in which
two GMs have made stupid mistakes; just
fairly recently, world champion Kramnik
walked into a mate-in-one with plenty of time
on his clock. It's hard to top that.


-- help bot

On Mar 13, 4:50*pm, samsloan wrote:
On Mar 13, 3:16 pm, Larry Tapper wrote:





On Mar 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" wrote:

wrote in message

....

* * Quick! *What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating
list for OTB? *Know it? *Quick! *What is the
approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+
ELO? *Any chess person can answer the latter question
-- a strongish master.

Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.

While we're reminiscing about the halcyon days of rgcp, when the
average poster was marginally saner than today, I'd like to point out
that the original "weak" charge was made not by Sloan but by Parr
himself:

"Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this kind
of analysis." (5 June 2005, 1:31 PM).

This was the comment that provoked TK to protest that he was "a tad
better than weak". Not surprising that in the latest threads, Parr has
been portraying Sloan as the original provoker, a version of events
which Sloan is plainly happy to go along with. Makes a better story,
doesn't it?

Aside from this detail, I'd say that David Kane's take on the whole
matter is pretty much on the money.

LT

Thank you for pointing this out.

I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.

I would propose:

1400 - HS grad

1600 - BS

1800 - MS

2200 - PhD

On Mar 14, 12:46 pm, SBD wrote:
On Mar 13, 4:50 pm, samsloan wrote:

I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.

I would propose:

1400 - HS grad

1600 - BS

1800 - MS

2200 - PhD

Thank you for replying but I disagree.

How many holders of the PhD degree are there in America? I believe
that the number is in the tens of thousands.

By contrast, how many chess masters are there?

Sam Sloan

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:57:48 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
wrote:

On Mar 14, 12:46 pm, SBD wrote:
On Mar 13, 4:50 pm, samsloan wrote:

I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.

I would propose:

1400 - HS grad

1600 - BS

1800 - MS

2200 - PhD

Thank you for replying but I disagree.

How many holders of the PhD degree are there in America? I believe
that the number is in the tens of thousands.

By contrast, how many chess masters are there?

Sam Sloan

How many people try for the PhD versus try to get a 2200 rating ?

On Mar 14, 12:57*pm, samsloan wrote:
On Mar 14, 12:46 pm, SBD wrote:





On Mar 13, 4:50 pm, samsloan wrote:
I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.

I would propose:

1400 - HS grad

1600 - BS

1800 - MS

2200 - PhD

Thank you for replying but I disagree.

How many holders of the PhD degree are there in America? I believe
that the number is in the tens of thousands.

By contrast, how many chess masters are there?

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quite a few more, I should think.

14.03.2008 18:46, SBD:

I would propose:

1400 - HS grad

1600 - BS

1800 - MS

2200 - PhD

I don't think this is very reasonable. 2200 players are mostly amateurs
playing chess only in their spare time. Now, recall what you have to do
to reach a PhD: ca. 4 years of study to reach the MS and then about 3
more years afterwards (not counting school time to even reach the
entrance level). So we have at least 7 years of *fulltime* study before
one can get a PhD. You can only compare this to the dedication of
longtime professional chess players. So International Master is the
*miminum* we can talk about when comparing the amount of knowledge one
needs to reach a PhD, I would see it more like: IM - MS, GM - PhD.

Greetings,
Ralf

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:25:41 +0100, Ralf Callenberg
wrote:

14.03.2008 18:46, SBD:

I would propose:

1400 - HS grad

1600 - BS

1800 - MS

2200 - PhD

I don't think this is very reasonable. 2200 players are mostly amateurs
playing chess only in their spare time.

But I'd guess, even if chess has become a spare time avocation for
them, that there were several years of intense, dedicated effort in
the past of most 2200 players.

Now, recall what you have to do
to reach a PhD: ca. 4 years of study to reach the MS and then about 3
more years afterwards (not counting school time to even reach the
entrance level). So we have at least 7 years of *fulltime* study before
one can get a PhD. You can only compare this to the dedication of
longtime professional chess players. So International Master is the
*miminum* we can talk about when comparing the amount of knowledge one
needs to reach a PhD, I would see it more like: IM - MS, GM - PhD.

I remember reading (I think it was by Larry Evans) that, on the
average, it takes five years to make Master, five more to make GM.

Anyway, as long as we're comparing numerical benchmarks of
intellectual endeavors, what bowling average would correspond to a
2200 rating ?

Hello,

I don't think this is very reasonable. 2200 players are mostly amateurs
playing chess only in their spare time.

But I'd guess, even if chess has become a spare time avocation for
them, that there were several years of intense, dedicated effort in
the past of most 2200 players.

It might take years - but intense, dedicated effort? I wouldn't say so.


I remember reading (I think it was by Larry Evans) that, on the
average, it takes five years to make Master, five more to make GM.

Starting from where?

Greetings,
Ralf

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:41:03 +0100, Ralf Callenberg
wrote:


I remember reading (I think it was by Larry Evans) that, on the
average, it takes five years to make Master, five more to make GM.

Starting from where?

As I remember, the starting point is where one begins to take chess
seriously -- joining a club or playing in one's first tournament.
Given the resources available to the student today, that schedule
might well be compressed.