- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by SchlecterIn the same way that Mount Everest is the "equivalent" of MacDonalds - they're both the largest, and there all equivalence stops. The comparison is meaningless.
Chess titles are not academic titles, but woadman said:.... "Equivalent"
-
Of course the PhD has to be the GM in this equivalence.
Originally posted by SchlecterOh I'm sorry, I had thought it was you comparing levels of chess to martial arts, fish, insects and computer programs.
Not me.... I am not the original writer of the post.
But still it is possible to make an equivalence of the chess titles with anything
Perhaps I'm the one imagining things?
Ok let's play your game, and suppose it is possible to make such equivalences.
They may not make any sense, or provide significant contribution to any discussion, but still, it is possible.
For example, when I broke the 1600 rating for the first time, that could be the equivalent of:
a school child getting his first A grade,
or a racing pundit cashing his first win of over £1000,
or someone getting a drivers' license,
or a junior baseball player hitting his first home run.
Don't you see how meaningless these "equivalents" are?
It's like saying what tastes better: this bit of cheese or that piece of meat... it's subjective and is a moot point.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainyou are right, so making a GM equivalent to a PhD, is full of meaning????
Oh I'm sorry, I had thought it was you comparing levels of chess to martial arts, fish, insects and computer programs.
Perhaps I'm the one imagining things?
Ok let's play your game, and suppose it is possible to make such equivalences.
They may not make any sense, or provide significant contribution to any discussion, but still, it is [i]possi ...[text shortened]... better: this bit of cheese or that piece of meat... it's [b]subjective and is a moot point.[/b]
What equivalences are allowed????
because if equivalences are forbidden, then a GM has no equal in this universe.
now I don't know what is the purpose of woodman when he said.... "a GM is a PhD..... etc".
maybe nobody understand my ironic equivalences.
I did that just to show how easy is to do illogic equivalences
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by woadmanDon't think it equates to college degrees so much as it does to military ranks.
OK so I'm wondering how to equate chess "Titles" with real life college degrees. So, if a person has a Bachelor's degree, so in chess that is like an NM ? A Master's degree would be like an IM, maybe . Then a PHD is equal to a GM title? How long does it take to get a college degree, anyway? thanks !!
A GM would be a General, with 1 to 4 stars given from the 2500 to 2800 rating. The world champ would be a 5 star General.
The IM's would be Lt Colonels and full Colonels.
Masters would be Lieutenants through Majors.
The rest of the sub-2200 crowd would be privates through Sergeant Major rank.
That fits into my world view nicely.
19 Feb 15
Originally posted by greenpawn34This is very well stated.
I think it's a good question.
A while back on another site I saw obtaining a GM title being equated to
earning a PH'd.
Of course I disagreed.
Sometimes (stress sometimes) getting a GM title depends a lot on where
you stay and how bent your federation is.
('bent as in arranging fixed FIDE events so some, if not all, of your boys
...[text shortened]... at you know, it's where you go,
GM's title - it's not what you know, it's where you are from.
This weekend I will be attending a two-day chess class taught by GM Lars Bo Hansen, who also just completed his PhD this last year. I will ask him to compare and contrast, and share his answer.
In both cases he earned his titles in a very respected and legitimate manner, so I think he will be a good basis for comparison.
Originally posted by FishHead111I understand.....
Don't think it equates to college degrees so much as it does to military ranks.
A GM would be a General, with 1 to 4 stars given from the 2500 to 2800 rating. The world champ would be a 5 star General.
The IM's would be Lt Colonels and full Colonels.
Masters would be Lieutenants through Majors.
The rest of the sub-2200 crowd would be privates through Sergeant Major rank.
That fits into my world view nicely.
So I was thinking that you can made any equivalence of chess with the life.... not only titles but other technical words.
-
For example I checkmated all my adversaries in this thread,
or woadman has been forked in his equivalences
or making a GM like General Patton deserves this: !!
Garry Kasparov notice this similarities and equivalences of chess and life:
"How Life Imitates Chess ". A very nice book.
(That book shows how far was Kasparov from the previous Champions..... they were just chess players, the have the chess and nothing more in life, remember Fischer?)
Do you think that every similaritie that we found between chess and "color" or chess and Go grades, or chess and Academics is empty of logic????
NO.
A PhD has to be like a GM ....
Even better a Chess Champion is like God
19 Feb 15
Originally posted by SchlecterBravo Schlecter...finally some-one here with some common sense...
I understand.....
So I was thinking that you can made any equivalence of chess with the life.... not only titles but other technical words.
-
For example I checkmated all my adversaries in this thread,
or woadman has been forked in his equivalences
or making a GM like General Patton deserves this: !!
Garry Kasparov notice this similarities and e ...[text shortened]... f logic????
NO.
A PhD has to be like a GM ....
Even better a Chess Champion is like God
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
19 Feb 15
Originally posted by SchlecterLasker... Euwe... Botwinnik... no.
Garry Kasparov notice this similarities and equivalences of chess and life:
"How Life Imitates Chess ". A very nice book.
(That book shows how far was Kasparov from the previous Champions..... they were just chess players, the have the chess and nothing more in life,
19 Feb 15
Originally posted by SchlecterI actually have that book, it is an interesting read, but it more depicts people's attitude and the way the mind works for both general day-to-day situations and chess, comparing the two... it doesn't discuss the equivalences like how you are saying.
Garry Kasparov notice this similarities and equivalences of chess and life:
"How Life Imitates Chess ". A very nice book.
(That book shows how far was Kasparov from the previous Champions..... they were just chess players, the have the chess and nothing more in life, remember Fischer?)
A PhD has to be like a GM ....
Even better a Chess Champion is like God
Sure, there are similarities.
To become a GM at chess takes a lot of hard work, dedication and memory (and money!)
The same goes for gaining a PhD.
But to simply stop there and say that one is the direct equivalent of another just falls flat to me.
Chess is about the struggle against opposition, to learn from previous mistakes and to overcome obstacles in defeating rivals... it is these games that make your rating go up, and put you closer to achieving your goal.
Also in chess, your studies and preparation alone might still not be good enough to defeat certain opponents, as they may have prepared better, or simply be more naturally talented at the game.
When it comes to PhD's, or any other level of academic study for that matter,
the only person you are ever trying to better is yourself.
You do not sit in an exam hall trying to beat other people (if you are then you're studying for the wrong reasons).
And with a little hard work and dedication, anyone - and I mean anyone - can get a PhD, if they want it enough.
This is not the case for Grandmasters.
So please stop saying they are "equivalents", you're giving people headaches.