|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 666 OF 1814 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: Well, no use of talking about the "whole picture" when <sneaky> haven't even completed step 1 yet. Some people just cannot take one step at a time, can they? |
 |
| Aug-25-06 | | sleepkid: *yawn*
|
|
| Aug-25-06 | | Heathen Tory: <alice> some take the right steps to ensure their credibility plunges each time they kibitz. |
|
Aug-25-06
 | | Sneaky: <acirce> <The notion that you can compare the fairness of two radically different formats like these purely by mathematics (!) is a bit absurd.> I think you underestimate mathematics. Let's take a simple example: suppose if we conclude (through diligent research) that 80% of all games at the GM level are drawn. Now we can estimate the probability of a 4 game mini-match between GM's consisting of 4 draws. Very simple: it is 0.8 to the power of four, or 41%. You may argue that this model is naive, because players may be motivated to take risks and therefore lower the chance of a draw. Or you may note that players will get fatigued at the end and be more likely to commit errors. Fine, then the model can be modified to be more sophisticated and take these factors into account as well. Of course, no matter how hard you try to fine tune your model, objections can always be made regarding the estimate it yields. Nevertheless, this prediction of the model will be the very best estimate we have. When you experiment with the model, you might discover that a lot of these objections have only very small effects on the answer that it yields, thereby giving you even more confidence in the accuracy of its prediction. <That said these mathematical models are not completely worthless but they are far from telling the whole picture.> If Magnus Carlsen falls in love with some young Norwegian girl than that's sure part of the "whole picture"--and you're right, the math will have absolutely nothing to say on that subject. No model, no matter how fine tuned it is, will ever equal the reality that it represents. The map is not the terrain. But it's nice to have a map. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | Heathen Tory: zzzzzzz |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: "I don't care what those guys talk about in chessgames.com. It's bloody 34 years ago for goodness sake!" -Fischer |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | square dance: <joshka> this is why its pointless to even have a discussion with you. every little thing needs to be explained like you're a five year old. <<I get upset when I FEEL someone is being intentionaly dishonest> If you presume that I am being dishonest, I'm sorry you FEEL that way.> <<which he was> Oh NOW it's not presuming or feeling, it's for CERTAIN that I am.> there are basically three ways i could look at this: 1. your reading comprehension is poor.
2. you cleary understood what i meant, but were being dishonest again. 3. due to the way it was worded, what i said was open to interpretation, but you interpreted in the way that suited you best. what i said was that i get frustrated when i feel someone is being dishonest. i do. thats a statement about me personally. and when i added..."which he was" i was talking about you. <Allow us in the minority to have our view's on matters, without name calling, and especially bringing up one's religion.> iirc i asked the question rhetorically. do you even know what a rhetorical question is? i dont think you do. at least you dont seem to recognize when one is posed. anyway, i'd rather not have any dialogue with someone who is more bothered by someone else's naughty words than his own dishonesty. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: Frustrated when someone is "dishonest"?...hmm...
*cough* *recalling the bxbxsxtxixg incident* *cough* |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | square dance: <alice> no one even knows what the @#$% you're talking about. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <square dance><no one even knows what the @#$% you're talking about>Don't worry, voluntary memory losses does not change anything. :) |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | square dance: <alice> you seem to remember it so well. why dont you post a link in your profile. then everyone can see all of the 'wrongs' and 'injustices' you've suffered on cg.com. perhaps then you will get the sympathy and attention you so desperately crave. either that or everybody will just have a good laugh at your expense. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <square dance>If you think that this is about sympathy and attention then that head of yours is in serious need for tuning. I mentioned that incident because that was exactly what you called as "dishonesty" in here but the person in "dishonesty" in that incident was none other than you. Moral of the story: Look at what you've been doing first before criticizing other people for doing it. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | square dance: <alice> how was i being dishonest? why, because i was sick of hearing you go on and on about <ughaibu>? i like and respect him, but if i would've known that you were going to go on and on about me i might have just kept quiet. then again, you are intolerable so i would've had to say something at some point. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <square dance><how was i being dishonest?>You were dishonest for going totally off topic and getting personal in the argument. The only one who got personal there was none other than you. The topic wasn't about <ughaibu>, it was about what he said a while ago. If you cannot even differentiate between discussing about what the person had said and discussing the actual person, then you definitely don't have any right to accuse anyone for being "dishonest" in here. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | square dance: <alice> you were getting personal about <ughaibu>!?! what, you're the only one who can make personal comments about other users? i guess this is the second page ive caught you lying on today. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <square dance>Just because you THOUGHT I was getting personal with <ughaibu> at the time that does not necessarily mean that I was actually getting personal with him. I found something that could refute a quote made by him earlier, so I brought it up for discussion (nothing personal about it). But it was then that you decided to come and rescue your friend by throwing personal accusations at me. Now who's the personal one here. <i guess this is the second page ive caught you lying on today.>You mean I've caught you lying once again right? |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | Swindler: I really have nothing new to add to the discussion, I just wanted to say that we have reached page 666 - "The number of the beast"... ;-) |
|
Aug-25-06
 | | WannaBe: Oh, geeze <alicefujimori> is getting personal with <ughaibu> shouldn't that be done in private? =) Page 666!!! Yes!! |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | ughaibu: Alicefujimori: You missed out a "not" between "could" and "refute". |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <ughaibu>Nah...the sentence is just fine. :) Anyway, sorry to mention you again. I can't help it when <square dance> was that desperate to get you involved. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | Akavall: <alice><I found something that could refute a quote made by him earlier, so I brought it up for discussion (nothing personal about it). But it was then that you decided to come and rescue your friend by throwing personal accusations at me. Now who's the personal one here.> This not what happened. You didn't refute <ughaibu>, therefore he didn't need "rescuing". <square dance> and others (including myself) were simply trying to explain to you that you didn't refute anything. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | square dance: <alice> the specific thing that prompted me to confront you about <ughaibu> was you making mention of visiting the statistics page and you made some comment about the #2 kibitzer attacking you or something along those lines. this wasnt the first comment you made out of the blue and i was sick of your whining. you're on a forum with adults; grow up. <Anyway, sorry to mention you again. I can't help it when <square dance> was that desperate to get you involved.> you liar. you brought up the "babysitting" incident. you have no credibility at all. what a pathetic excuse for a person you are. < Frustrated when someone is "dishonest"?...hmm... *cough* *recalling the bxbxsxtxixg incident* *cough*> there you go. now thats the third time ive caught you lying this morning. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | noendgame: Facinating discussion/argument. For some reason the comparison to tennis keeps sneaking in. As has been previously explained, the two-point rule in tennis is necessary because of the huge advantage of the server, much greater than the chess player with white. But tennis is actually a very poor example of the best player winning, since matches are typically determined through sets. The following is a possible tennis match score: 6-4,0-6,6-4,0-6,6-4. In this extreme case the winner, with no tiebreaks, has won a total of 18 games, while the loser has won 24. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: Ok. Since some people have already forgotten what had happened and kept lying about things. I am going to refresh everyone's mind before answering anymore posts. <ughaibu> and I were discussing about the OFFICIALITY of the FIDE title in the Kramnik page. The discussion ended when I said that I reckoned that there are two world champions at the moment. (A common view taken by quite a number of members in this site as well). But <ughaibu> forced his opinion on me by saying that according to the definition of a WC, Kramnik is the ONLY world champion. I disagreed and he threw a direct insult at me, which was subsequently deleted by the mods. Anyone remember this?
A while later, I came across this site: http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/989... (Yeah <sqaure dance>, it's from your profile). I read it and came across a quote in the article: <"He (Kramnik) declared that, for what little it mattered, Karpov was the official owner of the world championship title"> I then went back to <ughaibu>, and quoted this, leaving out the irrelvant part: <"He (Kramnik) declared that Karpov was the official owner of the world championship title"> I tell him that even Kramnik acknowledged that FIDE's title is the official one and it belonged to FIDE. A point in which <ughaibu> had been against earlier. I think it was then <ughaibu> and <akavall> (correct me if I'm wrong) that questioned me why I left out the part of the quote <"for what little it mattered">. I then said because it was irrelvant to the fact that Kramnik reckoned the FIDE title is the official one and it belonged to FIDE. <akavall> and <square dance> (correct me if I'm wrong again) then insisted that the part left out mattered and accused me of being dishonest. I then explained that whether it 'mattered little or not" to Kramnik had NOTHING to do with the fact that Kramnik acknowledged that the FIDE title is the official one and that it belonged to FIDE. Then I counter-questioned HOW does the part left out mattered. Suprisingly, no one could come up with a good explanation. Until....<square dance> decided to come to the rescue! He then began to throw direct personal accusations at me by accusing me of personally attacking <ughaibu> and that I have a "fascination" for him, etc. WOW! I never knew trying to refute one's point of view with some facts is personally attacking others and having a "fascination" on them!! (Looks like most people in cg.com are personally attacking each other and having "fascination" on each other then.) As you all can guess, <square dance> went on and on with these personal accusations without even trying to discuss the topic. (ie. <ughaibu> insisted that FIDE's title isn't the official title and that the WC title didn't belong to FIDE. I questioned this by quoting from Kramnik.) So that's how <square dance> got the nickname "babysitter" and the "baby" is of course...*cough cough* That's the story folks. |
|
Aug-25-06
 | | talisman: <noendgame> yes you are right.the reason no one goes around crying tennis is not fair is because this is the way it has always been done(sets).history and tradition pull some weight. the problem with chess is FIDE keeps _____ing up by changing the format. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 666 OF 1814 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
