Ok, I'll take that as your best approximation to "Yeah, my point was dumb, and I defended it the death, and now I admit it was wrong, but I don't actually give a damn about the point anyway" given your difficulties carrying on an adult conversation on such topics. And I'll reiterate that I don't care about the point either, I just mentioned it to you to make you aware you were arguing emotionally and incoherently to the justified bewilderment of folks here, and I followed up on your flailing replies because the site would be better if you didn't fly off the handle randomly as above fairly regularly.

<however, the real issue on debate is 1) the practice of selling a place in the final 8 of the wc cycle>

Note that if you had just fessed up earlier, you could have gotten to this point a lot earlier and with a lot more credibility. Though as I showed above your claim is also just flying off the handle in this context, because there's no rational justification for claiming Radja's not the obvious guy to be the organizers' pick. As I said earlier, you may have other arguments which are valid to back your concerns - I don't know and care even less. I'm only interested in pointing out that having a meltdown about Radja's selection in this particular context simply makes you look unhinged. He's the guy 99/100 intelligent disinterested chess fans would have said should be in the tournament. His selection is of zero evidentiary value here.

<it's not about frogbert>

natural language isn't semantically precise, and you don't hold a unique ability to unearth precise, intelligent meaning even when the writer doesn't seem to know the first thing about what he (?) is describing. and here i'm still talking about the author of the chessbase "article".

when i didn't bother to spend more time elaborating on the multiple interpretations of the sentence you're hung up on, it was because my point didn't depend on one specific interpretation of it.

<I don't actually give a damn about the point anyway>

you seem to be doing as well interpreting what i write as you did interpreting the chessbase article, and i guess that next on your agenda is to explain to me what *i* wrote and what *my* point was.

the simple point i had about the "article" was that <it was wrong and/or imprecise about things we actually knew/know too>, and hence it only made limited sense to use it as some kind of final evidence for anything related to the rumours surrounding the who and the why's of the candidate tournament and its organizer nominee. its weaknesses included but were not limited to the following:

1) it claimed to be linking to *demands* that carlsen had made (while carlsen makes no specific demands in the linked article - he lists some suggestions for future wc cycles while explicitly confirming that his withdrawal is from *the specific cycle* 2008-2012 only)

2) it claimed that fide had accepted carlsen's (non-existing) demands

3) the only (seemingly implied) attempt it did of telling which "demands" had been accepted by fide was to point to the change of format (which you have <chosen> to consider to be totally independent and unrelated to carlsen's so-called "demands")

4) the article doesn't say this explicitly, but gives the impression that carlsen is the only reason there have been made changes to the candidates

1) and 2) are clearly wrong and are more than enough to support the point i wanted to make, 3) and 4) are more open to interpretation, and not only to <rilkefan's interpretation> but to every reasonably intelligent person's interpretation.

<Note that if you had just fessed up earlier, you could have gotten to this point a lot earlier and with a lot more credibility.>

that was where i and everyone else *were* before you started lecturing us about the mathematically precise semantics of natural language as used by "chess journalists" on bad days. prior to your "tour de force" of linguistic and logical supremacy, i'd made the claim that radjabov's nomination proved nothing whatsoever about his chess skills compared to nakamura; and the corollary to that: the only thing it proves about naka is that he isn't from azerbaijan.

jombar contested this by referring to the crappy chessbase article we've been tearing to pieces. however, that article doesn't tell anything about *who* actually is "the organizer", as in the people who will in fact organize the event - or anything else that isn't more thoroughly and better explained elsewhere. it's even wrong and misleading about a few things we know for sure, and as such a poor source of truthful info - which was my response to jombar.

enter rilkefan, with seemingly no other agenda than correcting frogbert by providing supreme and undisputable interpretations of poor journalism, doing his best to be obnoxious and condescending with the slimmest of justifications.

but you've taught me one thing: the next time your ridiculous desire to lecture someone surfaces, i will do one of two things. either 1) say "yes, you're right of course" (no matter how silly your claim might be), or 2) quietly ignore your irrelevant input.

Sorry, which one are you referring to? The one who said something rude and dumb to a random poster, which I calmly pointed out provoking the above poutrage? Or the guy who's careful about avoiding speculation and exaggeration?

<the frogberts-pull-ups-twisting chessbase article we've been tearing to pieces>

Is that the royal we? Or are you or y'all saying both frogberts agree? Or what?

<<Shams>: <<as Radjabov (#5 in the world) was the highest-rated player not to qualify by other means it's at least as unobjectionable as such a decision could be.> --Dennis Monokroussos>>

Thanks, that's how everyone should conclude posts to <frogberts> until they come back down.

heh. calm and condescending actually go very well together. :o)

The purpose of my previous post was not about who the organizers are. That is out of our control and nothing we can do about it.

Are you going do anything that will change the organizers - for better or worse - frogbert? No, I don't think so. You can't do anything to change them or how they do things. So stop wasting your time ranting about something you can't even change. That's yelling at the wind.

More importantly, it is who the organizers selected for the Candidates. That was the purpose of my post in the first place. So, frogbert, if you want to have a meaningful discussion with me and rilkfan, stay on the purpose of the topic - which is about selecting Radjabov for the Candidates.

So let me reiterate the statement of my post: the Candidates organizers made a solid choice in selecting Radjabov.

Radjabov - 5th in the world right behind wc Anand, with a 2785 rating performance.

Imho, anybody who thinks Radjabov doesn't deserve to be selected for the Candidates tournament is either a troll or related to a troll; or look like a troll.

And......I don't think frogbert would make all his meaningless ranting against the "organizers" had "they" picked Naka for the Candidates instead of Radjabov.

Picking Radjabov (2780-ish player) for the Candidates is the best choice they made and is not at all controversial. Only a troll would say such a thing.

Gee, thanks. Do you have anything to say about selecting Radjabov for the Candidates? (Please, I'm not asking who the ogranizers are. I'm asking is selecting Radjabov was a good choice.)

Obviously you think selecting Radjabov was a good choice indeed. :)

But do you think selecting Naka instead of Radjabov would be a better choice? And why?

Sorry I called you a troll in the past. Maybe you are only a cousin to one. Draw a venn diagram. You will see what I mean.

actually, there is much more empirical evidence for radjabov being a 2740-ish player than for him being 2780-ish, jombar.

you care about the "facts", don't you? here are radjabov's ratings for the past *5* years:

Jan 2012 2773
Nov 2011 2781 ?
Sep 2011 2752
Jul 2011 2744 *
May 2011 2744 *
Mar 2011 2744 *
Jan 2011 2744 *
Nov 2010 2744 *
Sep 2010 2748 *
Jul 2010 2748 *
May 2010 2740 *
Mar 2010 2740 *
Jan 2010 2733
Nov 2009 2748 *
Sep 2009 2757
Jul 2009 2756
Apr 2009 2756
Jan 2009 2761
Oct 2008 2752
Jul 2008 2744 *
Apr 2008 2751
Jan 2008 2735
Oct 2007 2742 *
Jul 2007 2746 *
Apr 2007 2747 *

for your convenience i marked the 2780-ish ratings with a question mark and the 2740-ish ratings with a star. i also counted them:

2780-ish: 1
2740-ish: 14

i also averaged <all> his past 25 fide-ratings. that average is 2749 - or 2740-ish.

one year ago (well, actually 7 months ago too), radjabov's rating was also 2740-ish (2744).

i'm not aware of anyone who questions radjabov's skills. however, i'm surprised about the number of people who seemingly think he's the "organizer" candidate <due to> his skills.

Why shouldn't the Candidates organizers select Radjabov, for <"radjabov is an excellent chess player">?

rilkfan, you have unearthed the greatest detective work ever on cg.com. You should win the Nobel Prize for your great discovery: you have found out that there are two frogs. The 'royal we."

<rilkfan: Is that the royal we? Or are you or y'all saying both frogberts agree? Or what?>

One frog says, <"radjabov is an excellent chess player."> And the other one, <" i'm surprised about the number of people who seemingly think he's the "organizer" candidate <due to> his skills.">

Hypocritical or a contradiction of statement? Or both?

Imho, the frog has turned upside down. The "royal we."

: 0

One last thing.

oh, there are much more than two frogs even on this site. irl there are millions of frogs. no detective is needed to know that.

<The 'royal we'>

that's a misunderstanding, though. rilkefan and i ("we") paid way too much attention to a silly chessbase article, <tearing> even a single sentence into pieces in - not one, but multiple - ways, only because rilkefan felt he'd had an epiphany about what the author <actually> meant to express.

however, i'm afraid that we've only seen another example of how a lingustic and logical master failed to grasp what the writer actually expressed; the semantically ambigous "we" was interpreted to refer to a single person even when the natural assumption would've been that it referred to at least <two people>.

rumours have it that timhortons thinks also rilkefan is a sock-puppet of mine (like jombar is), and given that perspective it can be argued that "we" referred to one and the same person. i.e. to both frogbert and rilkefan.

<Hypocritical or a contradiction of statement? Or both?>

neither. but of course there's a skill component to radjabov's candidacy: he needed to be 2700+ and about as strong as mamedyarov and gashimov.

that's called a joke, jombar. <i know> you aren't my sock, mind you. :o)

<
<"we" referred to one and the same person. i.e. to both frogbert and rilkefan.>

No. The "royal we" do not include rilkfan. He has nothing to do with it.>

heh. jombar, you seem to have forgot <who> used the word "we" in the first place. it was i. i used it about rilkefan and myself. rilkefan quoted that usage and wondered if it referred to the "royal we" - but as i just told you (now and in a previous post), it referred to rilkefan and myself. so whether you like it or not, he was part of the "we". there never was any "royal we".

<Of course it's a contradiction to say, <"radjabov is an excellent player"> and <"however, i'm surprised about the number of people who seemingly think he's the "organizer" candidate <due to> his skills.>>

of course it isn't.

<In other words, you are saying: "radjabov is an excellent player" but "radjabov has no skills to be selected for the Candidates.">

i certainly didn't say that. he's absolutely skilled enough to participate in the candidates; i'm just saying that (except some "lower bound" requirements on skills, admittedly very high lower bounds, like being 2700+) radjabov wasn't selected for being ranked #5 in the world. it wasn't <due to> that ranking - or <due to> being temporarily ranked higher than for instance ivanchuk, karjakin and nakamura - that radjabov was selected. theoretically he could've been selected based on such a criterion, but he wasn't.

<That's a contradiction.>

nope, it's some mix of misunderstanding and problems with perception and/or reading skills. on your part, obviously.

I always had a suspicion, but the frog has come out of the closet as a sock-puppet master. Losing his argument against rilkfan, and going for the last resort via ad hominem, he unjustly calls rilkfan (and me) his sock-puppets.

That's pretty desperate, frog.

<silly chessbase article>

There's nothing "silly" about the article. Maybe you are the silly one.

<"we" referred to one and the same person. i.e. to both frogbert and rilkefan.>

No. The "royal we" do not include rilkfan. He has nothing to do with it.

<<Hypocritical or a contradiction of statement? Or both?> neither.>

You are being silly again. Of course it's a contradiction to say, <"radjabov is an excellent player"> and <"however, i'm surprised about the number of people who seemingly think he's the "organizer" candidate <due to> his skills.>

In other words, you are saying: "radjabov is an excellent player" but "radjabov has no skills to be selected for the Candidates." That's a contradiction.

<it's accidental and not causal to his selection that he's currently ranked #5 in the world.>

For the third time in a row, you are being silly again. I guess you really hate Radjabov to unjustly slander and defame his reputation as a chess player. You call his performance "accidental" and then say he's not worthy to play in the Candidates because "due to his skills" he is not good enough.

There is nothing "accidental" about his 5th ranking performance in the world. Everything happens for a reason. The law of cause and effect. I'm sure rilkfan can explain that better than I could.

rilkfan, may you do the honor of explaining to frogbert the law of cause and effect; and that Radjabov has chess skills?

Imho, the frog has jumped into the pelican's throat instead of the pond.

no, the regulations said/say that the organizer of the candidates would nominate the final candidate, and that player ahd to be 2700+ on the january 2012 rating list.

however, the first reports about the "london candidacy" were unclear about whether fide or the organizer had nominated radjabov for the final spot. later reports said he was nominated by "the organizer" - but all that was initially published was the name of a us businessman working in russia and one of his companies "agon" with no relationship to chess in any way.

note, however, that officially fide has made <no announcement> yet of who will organize the candidates - the latest *official* information is this: <The bids for the Candidates Matches were discussed, with a final decision to be made before 29th February, 2012.> (from the fide page, about the 1st quarter presidential board meeting.)

of course, in an interview <kirsan> has already "confirmed" that "agon" has bought the rights to the fide world championship and the candidates. while <polarmis> pointed us to another "unofficial" source (also in russian) that confirms that the azeri chess federation is in fact behind the "agon" offer, and that it's being paid for by azeri money.

officially though, we don't know anything except what's in the regulations for the next candidates (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.h...) or generally on the fide site. but every chess site has already run the news about radjabov's participation.

Wrong! The frog is suffering from delusion and living in fantasy land where the facts aren't real.

The chessbase article says: "Radjabov is number five on the January 1st FIDE list and so warrants the nomination."

That just proves how silly and ignorant your above statement is. You are a slanderer. You are a shameless liar.

(i may be brilliant, but i'm not able to quote you ahead of time.)

<I guess you really hate Radjabov to unjustly slander and defame his reputation as a chess player. You call his performance "accidental" and then say he's not worthy to play in the Candidates because "due to his skills" he is not good enough.>

eh... i did none of those things. radjabov is an excellent chess player, and his participation in the candidates will make it a superb event. but he (and any organizer nominee, imo) is there for the wrong reasons. that's a rather different issue.

<There is nothing "accidental" about his 5th ranking performance in the world. Everything happens for a reason.>

nobody said radjabov's rating or ranking was accidental either. look:

<it's accidental and not causal <<to his selection>> that he's currently ranked #5 in the world.>

let me rephrase it in a way you hopefully understand: "being ranked #5 in the world didn't (in itself) cause radjabov to be selected. he just happened to be ranked #5 at the time."

but of course he deserved his number 5 ranking and the rating that got him there. your rating expresses your past results, and radjabov's results have been excellent and better than ever in the past 6 months.

Wrong!

The chessbase article says: "Radjabov is number five on the January 1st FIDE list and so warrants the nomination."

That just proves how silly and ignorant your above statement is. Shame on you for making things up!