On Apr 1, 10:30 am, "Chess One" wrote:

That theory smacks of whiny excuse-making.
"I didn't win the title because I lacked technique,
though I was far more creative than the guy who
beat me." Sheesh. Why not settle for "I was
better looking" or "I am a much nicer guy"?

Because you are a cynical cudda bin


Ad hom? The best you've got is ad hom?
(Sheesh-- how embarrassing for you.)



who regularly contradicts very strong
players' opinions


Look dufus: I've got Fritz, so I can contradict
*any* human, no matter how strong they may
/think/ they are!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This far, I have seen but one position where
humans are vastly superior to computers:

White: Kd3, pe3
Black: Kd5, pe5, pf5

A 12 year old kid can see that it is a draw,
while 3000-rated programs calculate a 40-ply
crushing advantage for Black.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

- reflexively and without thinking - its an emotional
response not a considered one, in this case you merely contradict 2 W Ch
candidates of the time.


Candidates, eh? Not good enough to win
the title, eh? Too good-rooking, perhaps?
Too creative, or too smart or too...something.

By your ignoramus-methodology, we ought
to care more about what two *actual* world
champs think, since those two are weaker;
why waste time on what weaker players may
think? Go straight to the top-- ask GK or BF
or MB or MT about "creativity".


Below, our resident reactor who can't even attest to his own name


More ad hom; have you considered seeing
a doctor about this problem?


continues
to rubbish even the idea that some generations were greater than others.


Precisely. I "rubbish" the idea because it
smacks of whiny excuse-making; it is a way
of excusing "failure", while maintaining the
delusion of superiority. Even finishing at #2
in the whole world somehow evokes a need
for lame excuses!

One thing I have noticed is that the very
word "creative" seems to pop up most often
when a writer is trying to prop up some
random player who has just failed. Is this a
mere coinkydink? I don't think so. Let's
first /define/ precisely what constitutes this
"creativity", and then *objectively* apply the
criteria to all players, regardless of their
failures or successes; that's the way, uh huh,
uh huh, I like it, uh huh, uh huh.


-- help bot