05 Jun 11
Saying someone is the "strongest" player, or a really "strong" player seems kind of pretentious to me. There's nothing wrong with saying that in of its self, but because this is sort of an "official" term for good chess players.
Why not say that such-n-such is a "good" chess player, or "better" chess player, or "best" player? That just seems so much more natural than "strong" or "strongest".
05 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyIn my opnion it is really just semantics. Maybe, maybe not. So you are saying, it is pretentious to call a "good" player a "strong" player. Likewise, based on what you are saying, it would then be also pretentious to call a a "bad" player a "weak" player? And it would be better to call them "bad" instead of "weak"?
Saying someone is the "strongest" player, or a really "strong" player seems kind of pretentious to me. There's nothing wrong with saying that in of its self, but because this is sort of an "official" term for good chess players.
Why not say that such-n-such is a "good" chess player, or "better" chess player, or "best" player? That just seems so much more natural than "strong" or "strongest".
Anyway, I get your point. I do think there may be several viewpoints (for those interested) on why the various adjectives are used. "Good" and "bad" may be more subjective in categorizing the actual skill of the player, independent of the win/loss record.
Whereas a player that wins a high percentage of games against various ratings including high ratings is objectively a "strong" player. A player that loses a high percentage of games against various ratings including low ratings is objectively a "weak"player? Maybe not. Maybe the use of the word "strong" is just about injecting a metaphor of physical strength into the game along with actual playing ability.
05 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969Not at all. I have no issue with the term "weak", because it doesn't seem to be used anywhere near as much as "strong" (though that's probably because people like to talk about good chess players instead of "weak" ones).
[b]In my opnion it is really just semantics. Maybe, maybe not. So you are saying, it is pretentious to call a "good" player a "strong" player. Likewise, based on what you are saying, it would then be also pretentious to call a a "bad" player a "weak" player? And it would be better to call them "bad" instead of "weak"?
It's not like I think this is a major issue in the chess world that needs to be changed. It's that the term "strong" when used for a chess player, is like calling every popular female singer a "diva". It's become an over-used term that's a little grating to hear.
But again, it's not like this is some major complaint. Just a pet-peave.
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by vivifyChess isn't all about good and bad moves. It takes a strong mind to play chess at higher levels hence the term "strong player." I don't see anything pretentious about it at all.
Saying someone is the "strongest" player, or a really "strong" player seems kind of pretentious to me. There's nothing wrong with saying that in of its self, but because this is sort of an "official" term for good chess players.
Why not say that such-n-such is a "good" chess player, or "better" chess player, or "best" player? That just seems so much more natural than "strong" or "strongest".
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by vivifymost of us are not english speakers. 'strong' has different nuances and alternative meanings in differen't languages. they get lost in translation.
Saying someone is the "strongest" player, or a really "strong" player seems kind of pretentious to me. There's nothing wrong with saying that in of its self, but because this is sort of an "official" term for good chess players.
Why not say that such-n-such is a "good" chess player, or "better" chess player, or "best" player? That just seems so much more natural than "strong" or "strongest".
06 Jun 11
I don't know if it requires having a 'strong' mind to play chess. Playing good chess requires having great board vision, a ton of experience, strong visualization skills, a great photographic memory, and the ability to concentrate for long periods of time.
If you are lacking in any of the areas you will not do very well against someone who has worked as hard as you and is strong in all of those other areas.
In general though, like everything else 'strong' is a relative term. Does benching 315 lbs make one strong? For most people yes, but if you are an offensive lineman in the NFL you would be considered very weak.
06 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarPlaying good chess requires having... a great photographic memory...
I don't know if it requires having a 'strong' mind to play chess. Playing good chess requires having great board vision, a ton of experience, strong visualization skills, a great photographic memory, and the ability to concentrate for long periods of time.
If you are lacking in any of the areas you will not do very well against someone who has worked as h ople yes, but if you are an offensive lineman in the NFL you would be considered very weak.
Asserting that you need photographic memory to play good chess is preposterous.
...the ability to concentrate for long periods of time.
That would mean you have a strong mind.
You don't need anything special to play good chess except ambition, dedication, and time.
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by EladarWouldn't a person who has all the atributes you just described have a "strong mind"?
[b]I don't know if it requires having a 'strong' mind to play chess. Playing good chess requires having great board vision, a ton of experience, strong visualization skills, a great photographic memory, and the ability to concentrate for long periods of time.
06 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarYes, the assertion that you need a photographic memory to be a GM is like saying you need a 3 foot vertical jump to play in the NBA.
I said playing strong chess, as in Grand Master. As I said, strong is a relative term.
A mind can have multiple strengths, the skills required to play good chess are not the only skills that can define a strong mind.
A mind can have multiple strengths, the skills required to play good chess are not the only skills that can define a strong mind.
A strong mind is a strong mind. Amateur IM's and GM's tend to also have PhDs... coincidence? I think not.
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by tomtom232There are many PdD's who are terrible at chess and they would not be strong players even if they had to interest in playing.
Yes, the assertion that you need a photographic memory to be a GM is like saying you need a 3 foot vertical jump to play in the NBA.
[b]A mind can have multiple strengths, the skills required to play good chess are not the only skills that can define a strong mind.
A strong mind is a strong mind. Amateur IM's and GM's tend to also have PhDs... coincidence? I think not.[/b]