< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 27 ·
|Jun-23-11|| ||kellmano: <Big Pawn: < kellmano: The teleological argument is not from logic and reason alone.>
Right. Teleological studies the complexity of the universe as it pertains especially to order in the universe. By the way, the teleological argument was what finally (after more than 50 years!) convince Antony Flew that God existed. >|
The ontological arguments are the ones that involve just reason and logic alone.
But I've not heard one good argument at all for atheism - ever.
You've never heard of the problem of evil. I don't think it's convincing but it is an argument.
|Jun-23-11|| ||panzerkampf: How can we learn the live elo ratings? chess.liverating.com seems to be same for many days, without any update. Is there any other site showing the live ratings?|
|Jun-23-11|| ||Kinghunt: http://www.2700chess.com/ has them up to date.|
|Jun-23-11|| ||LucB: ... with Morozevich back in the 2700 club ...|
|Jun-23-11|| ||Rolfo: Good, we missed Morozevich a lot. Hope he will stay|
|Jun-23-11|| ||frogbert: and now even http://chess.liverating.org/ is up to date...|
|Jun-23-11|| ||frogbert: < But it is now obvious that the two crusaders have a devilish urge to drown us all in their flood of words, in spite of all friendly appeals to stop.>|
sokrates, are the two debating on their own, or is someone presenting/arguing a different position? so far big pawn seems by far the most well-spoken in this grantedly off-topic debate - but those who try to challenge him are equally off-topic.
and for some reason, people weren't hugely offended when the off-topic (in this very thread) turned to a big north-american sport, completely unrelated to chess.
|Jun-23-11|| ||Chessinfinite: Good job by Carlsen, reaching 2820 +.
I see that he has once again gained valuable rating points without having to face REAL opposition.
Ah, good for him for now , he will have to face the big guns one day and rating should then take care of itself :)
|Jun-23-11|| ||frogbert: the strange thing is that The Best Players On Earth, other than carlsen and here: also karjakin, aren't able to gain many rating points when facing other top 10 players. maybe it's because a double round robin against 3 top 10 players is indeed facing real opposition?|
btw, why do you care for rating points at all, chessinfinite, when you don't believe in the rating system at all?
or you're simply trying to get my attention. congratulations. now go play somewhere else. :o)
|Jun-23-11|| ||Imposter: <frogbert> chess evolution seems to be conforming your sanguine predictions about starting to run out of enthusiasm for the daily updates. the other one is still keen though.|
|Jun-23-11|| ||Chessinfinite: Hi frogbert, Bazna was a strong event no doubt and Carlsen's deservedly won it , but imho everyone knows that without having any one from Anand, Kramnik, Aronian and Topalov, can make the event half a notch lower than the real heavyweight event.|
Carlsen seems to be very comfortable in the Single/Double round robin style events where he can score heavily against GMs other than those 4, and still win the tournament ( remember London 10 ? ).
All i am saying is that it would be very impressive for him to see win one such event where more or all of those player are involved...
have fun :)
|Jun-23-11|| ||Kinghunt: <without having any one from Anand, Kramnik, Aronian and Topalov, can make the event half a notch lower than the real heavyweight event.>|
You may want to drop Topalov from that list. He's been in freefall for nearly a year now. (Besides, Carlsen seems to dominate him more than anyone else.)
|Jun-23-11|| ||frogbert: imposter, a 100m dash is different from a marathon, so it's not surprising. :o)|
chess.liverating.org is going to stay put, and there are more things to follow, but not necessarily tomorrow. i intend to use my site for more chess stats related stuff as time and energy permit, including more graphs, articles, added/improved functionality and so on.
but maybe over a 2-5 year period - work and home account for the big majority of my time anyway (and both have demanded more over the past two years), and i even have other hobbies beside chess. and there are other things i like to do within chess too, like <playing> once in a while, and <discussing> various topics on cg.com and elsewhere.
but as long as someone is generous enough to provide me updated numbers (like dambi does now), chess.liverating.org will publish live ratings, even with the occasional delay. and we retroactively update our archive of top lists too, an archive that the other two providers do currently <not> have (they only provide today's "snapshot").
|Jun-23-11|| ||frogbert: <but imho everyone knows that without having any one from Anand, Kramnik, Aronian and Topalov, can make the event half a notch lower than the real heavyweight event.>|
[i'd assume not having carlsen counts as much as not having, say, aronian.]
what was more "heavy-weight", tata steel or bazna?
maybe the former, but how much does that say about how hard it is to perform well or not in the event?
tata had more top players, and it had many more sub-top players (even sub-2700 players). if you ask naka, what do you think he'll say was the toughest challenge? (oh, scratch that: he'll say that he played super-well in waz and terrible in bazna - although the difference probably was much smaller than he seems to think.) for reference: -1 in bazna, +5 in tata.
carlsen finished (0,5 points) behind anand in waz, in shared 3rd, so he didn't win. but why? you mentioned anand, aronian and kramnik. let's include naka too, the winner in waz - then we get the top 5 players in that event. how did they score against each other there?
1. carlsen +2 (2 draws, beat naka, kramnik)
2-3 anand = (4 draws)
2-3 aronian = (4 draws)
4-5 kramnik -1 (lost to carlsen)
4-5 nakamura -1 (lost to carlsen)
not too bad for carlsen, i'd say. how about the <rapid> chess played in amber? there all of topalov, anand, kramnik, aronian and carlsen were present. results:
1. carlsen +3 (3 wins, drew aronian)
2. aronian +1 (3 draws, beat anand)
3. topalov = (-carlsen, +kramnik, 2 draws)
4-5. anand -2 (-carlsen, -aronian, 2 draws)
4-5. kramnik -2 (-carlsen, -topalov, 2 draws)
again, carlsen doesn't look too shady, does he? if you're studying the details/facts, you'll find out that carlsen didn't drop 24 points from 2826 to 2802 (to give anand the number one spot again) due to bad results against top players, but rather due to generally being slightly out of shape for some months (the single worst result was the olympiad, with 3 losses against much lower rated players). in waz he missed the top spot due to going 0/2 against giri and nepo, with the <white> pieces. and not at all because aronian, anand and kramnik were present.
so your theory doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, chessinfinite.
for those of us who really likes to dive into numbers, it follows that aronian and carlsen are the two players who score most heavily against the top-rated players - the 2770-rated and higher. anand doesn't follow far behind - but he's behind, because he draws "too much" to compete with his two younger rivals. he also avoids most of the losses that aronian and carlsen have fallen prey to here and there, against "weaker" players.
|Jun-23-11|| ||Big Pawn: <SimonWebbsTiger: Big Pawn
If you went to a psychiatrist with your stories, he would have you in a straightjacket, on meds and in the closed ward before you could say "Jack Nicholson", were it not for the fact such ludicrous crap is socially accepted because it is called Christian Belief.>
Simon - I am not going to debate this here anymore, but:
Debate me somewhere. You have no idea what you are talking about. I can argue *for Athiesm* better than you can. You're tone and sarcasm reveal your lack of confidence. You have no ideas and you'd never debate me anywhere.
My beliefs are in complete harmony with current science, modern cosmology, current mathematical theories and modern academia in general. I can prove this with links and references from various, non-biased universities and secular academic groups. Not here though. It's carrying on to long.
|Jun-24-11|| ||Kinghunt: We can continue this at my forum, for any who are interested.|
|Jun-24-11|| ||Big Pawn: <kinghunt>
Where is your forum?
|Jun-24-11|| ||Kinghunt: Just click on my name, then scroll down.|
|Jun-24-11|| ||Kinghunt: If you want a direct link, it's Kinghunt chessforum|
|Jun-24-11|| ||virginmind: i've posted two replies in <Kinghunt>'s who has offered his forum for this religious debate. for those interested, better stick to this subject over there.|
|Jun-24-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I don't know what this discussion has to do with chess ... |
congrats to both Carlsen and Karjakin.
I know what Carlsen won (on tiebreaks) ... but both individuals had a great tournament - and played fine chess throughout.
|Jun-24-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: On this page, the only way to win is not to play.|
|Jun-26-11|| ||RMKvdS: God didn't participate directly in the Bazna King's Tournament, he might have in a more spiritual, creator-like sense but he was not on the participation list so can we move the discussion elsewhere...|
Can anyone clarify why Karjakin is on top in the results? According to the official site Carlsen ended on top by the Sonneborn-Berger-Tie-Break variable (? something to do with the ratings of the ones they defeated ?).
Also, on the website they claim they have a 30-move rule to avoid quick draws. It did not seem to have that much effect in my opinion...
|Jun-26-11|| ||Sokrates: Thanks <RMKvdS:> for setting the discussions here on the track again. I think it's likely to be a simple mistake that Carlsen doesn't appear at the top of this tournament. Maybe the order of appearance is generated automatically, I don't know. You are right about the 30 moves-rule. But I guess there must have been an inofficial escape-clause enabling the arbiters to make exceptions, where continuous play doesn't make any sense - or there is a perpetual.|
|Jun-26-11|| ||frogbert: <I think it's likely to be a simple mistake that Carlsen doesn't appear at the top of this tournament.>|
chessgames.com has never implemented any real sorting in their tables except for by points. after that it follows some "internal-to-cg.com's-implementation" value that creates some in-theory-predictable ordering - but it's got nothing to do with varying tie-break rules of the tournaments, anyway.
in short, you get tables sorted by points and some other variable x which means nothing. :o)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 27 ·