yeah, they're good at taking things out of context.

assuming that i'm an idiot and would've claimed the above regardless of context, here's the inductive proof - assuming that (theorem 1:) 40-50 rating points make no difference whatsoever - that i'm as strong as a 2800-player (applying the logic behind the quote above):

1) my strength estimate is 2050 fide

2) applying theorem 1 this means i'm as strong as a 2100 player

3) hence my actual strength is better represented by the number 2100

4) my actual strength estimate is 2100 fide

5) applying theorem 1 again, this means i'm as strong as a 2150 player

6) hence my actual strength is better represented by the number 2150

7) my actual strength estimate is 2150 fide

8) etc.

conclusion: i'm arbitrarily strong because my strength estimate = my rating = can always be increased by another 50 points because 50 points make no difference whatsoever.

logic courtesy of anyone who thinks that a 2650-player <generally> is as strong as a 2700-player, because "frogbert claims that 40-50 points make no difference" (implicitly: regardless of context).

i must be really, really dumb ...>

Yeah, I must be really really dumb not to understand what you said, and now claim you didn't. You must have said it a million times (exagerated a bit) in Magnus Carlsen page and here. Oh well, there we go again, flip flopping all the time. Sometimes we do fail to remember things we said, I would be grateful when medical tech finds a cure to Alheismerz (wrong speling) disease.

I think the only thing that you haven't repeated was your proposal for the qualifiers which went from here to there within 2 months.

Wesley So is a very good chess player, but please do not make it look like just because he beat Ivanchuk and Kamsky in a similar KO tournament before, he is already better than the 2. Only 2 battles do not make a war. I am pretty sure that in a long match,say at least 12 games, sooner or later it will become clear that Ivanchuk and Kamsky were simply off-axis at that time. People have down periods, and Wesley caught the two in theirs.

For all your fanaticism, you already seem to think that 2 games make a database. If that is valid, we might as well decide the world championship by a single "winner-takes-all-the-marbles" game. Speaking of overhead costs, I think a lot of sponsors will like that idea.

I am not sure, but was it also you (or someone else) who remarked that Wesley is at par with Gelfand (just because he drew the 2 games they played)? Even a high school student who conducts experiments in his science class knows that after 2 trials, he cannot yet make a valid conclusion.

You're right...maybe Wes is better...it's a pity we would never know at his point in time...The organizers would rather invite Gelfand and all other guys with the bloated elo's ...Will never give Wes a chance...

But to "inferno" with them organizers.

Wes has made himself participant to the coming World Blitz Championship this November.

Along with the other 5 qualifiers in the Aeroflot blitz, they take their podium rightfully deserved...

<laskerian:> Sorry? When did I say Gm Wesley So is better than Ivanchuk and Kamsky? As far as I can remember, I am just pointing out the he is playing way above his elo rating by holding his ground against the elite. Never that I said he is better than anyone except his current rating.

I think you need to read the whole scenario to understand which way I am coming from instead of only part of the exchanges.

Players going through vast improvement quickly might be underrated, but So has remained at pretty much the same level for 2 years and about 200 games. I would say that's indicative he's not rated far from his "true" rating.