09 May 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitAh! but I did not lose my first 3-4 games of bullet, I won them all and then decided it was achieving nothing and lost all desire to play it again.
It can't be the other way around. You gave up too quickly to know if it was worthless or not. Even slow chess has a steep learning curve. What if a new chess player lost their first 2-3 slow games and proceeded to tell you that chess as a whole was worthless? Would you take their opinion seriously?
10 May 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireOriginally posted by Dragon Fire
Ah! but I did not lose my first 3-4 games of bullet, I won them all and then decided it was achieving nothing and lost all desire to play it again.
Blitz at 1 minute achieves nothing other than how quickly you can click the mouse. There is no time to think and you just have to move on instinct and even then I usually lose on time.(emphasis added)
Hmmmmmm....
10 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI won't be baited into replying to your whole post as it is just as full of nonsense and intellectual dishonesty as the others. This could theoretically go on forever if you resort to these dirty tactics. I could help by deconstructing every lie and misrepresentation, but why bother? I have nothing to gain and it isn't worth my time. In fact, I will soon leave you to argue with yourself, because it is clear that you have little to add and wish only to attack by whatever deceitful means possible. For example, my point about imprecise language has no impact on the comprehension I was referring to as it was nothing specific and my position has not wavered (and those ideas weren't addressed at all). This imprecision is unavoidable in normal language. Using formal logic and extreme care to explain everything is overly tedious as well as unnecessary for a normal person. You're lucky I don't hold you to the same standard. Additionally, the rapid finish often occurring in a SD slow time control game is usually the result of poor time management, not a necessity. Even then, it is quite different and it would usually be an endgame. In bullet, this is forced. I hope you're not trying to equate the two. See Roman Dzindzi's video on that to explain the difference. As for the comment about disagreeing, you insist on the same narrow definition. To say someone disagrees is to claim a difference of opinion. The sequence does not matter. For example, when looking retrospectively, it would be acceptable to say that Obama disagrees with Bush about the Iraq war even if they never directly communicated with each other and regardless of who said what first. As for the comment about feeling like I'm arguing with an 8 year old, take it for what you will. I did not say you were an 8 year old. I only brought your "style" of argument to attention because your rudeness forced this. I did not want to do this and it is the first time I've needed to. To ask why the cops are using guns after a robber has murdered someone is strange.
[b]Exigentsky wrote: These personal attacks are disgusting.
Like suggesting I did not fully comprehend your post and then admitting that you use imprecise wording and careless expressions? Right. That was pretty disgusting. [And wait till we get to the bottom of your latest post....]
Exigentsky wrote: In fact, I play blitz myse al fallacies when you're very comfortable with [i]Ad Hominems?][/b]
BTW: It isn't always necessary to be deeply involved in something to make a relevant judgment. I've only played a few bullet games, but have observed many and I think it is sufficient. Do you need to eat feces to know they won't taste like cake?
10 May 08
1 edit
If blitz/bullet has nothing common with chess skill and all depends on "how quickly you can click the mouse" then someone please explain me why so many of my my blitz/bullet games played in playchess finishes before someone has run out of time?
I would say that in blitz and bullet (to compare with longer time control) some chess skills are more important than others.
10 May 08
Originally posted by exigentskyThis post is projection, big time. You are guilty of most everything you're [wrongly] accusing me of doing.
I won't be baited into replying to your whole post as it is just as full of nonsense and intellectual dishonesty as the others. This could theoretically go on forever if you resort to these dirty tactics. I could help by deconstructing every lie and misrepresentation, but why bother? I have nothing to gain and it isn't worth my time. In fact, I will soon ...[text shortened]... ink it is sufficient. Do you need to eat feces to know they won't taste like cake?
Just stop and look at what you just wrote. You're making analogies about eating crap and people getting murdered. Do ya think it's possible that you're getting a tad over-dramatic?
10 May 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitThose 1st 3-4 games were played OTB and won.
Originally posted by Dragon Fire
[b]Blitz at 1 minute achieves nothing other than how quickly you can click the mouse. There is no time to think and you just have to move on instinct and even then I usually lose on time.(emphasis added)
Hmmmmmm....[/b]
I played 1 bullet game here but "lost" it on time when my wireless internet connection couldn't respond quickly enough.
I don't know why you guys are even debating it.
1/0 rating is a good representation of 1/0 skills.
5/0 rating is a good representation of 5/0 skills.
90/0 rating is a good representation of 90/0 skills.
CC rating is a good representation of CC skills.
none of them are very good indications of the other variants. bullet skills are bullet skills, and have VERY little in common with slow chess skills. which doesn't make one more worthless than the other. they're just completely different games, and the winning strategies are different.
isn't it kind of, obvious?
10 May 08
Originally posted by wormwoodRec`ed
I don't know why you guys are even debating it.
1/0 rating is a good representation of 1/0 skills.
5/0 rating is a good representation of 5/0 skills.
90/0 rating is a good representation of 90/0 skills.
CC rating is a good representation of CC skills.
none of them are very good indications of the other variants. bullet skills are bullet s ...[text shortened]... y different games, and the winning strategies are different.
isn't it kind of, obvious?
10 May 08
Originally posted by Dragon Fire"I usually lose on time" means that you lost one game because of an internet connection failure?!
Those 1st 3-4 games were played OTB and won.
I played 1 bullet game here but "lost" it on time when my wireless internet connection couldn't respond quickly enough.
10 May 08
Originally posted by wormwoodWell, no, I don't think it's that obvious.
I don't know why you guys are even debating it.
1/0 rating is a good representation of 1/0 skills.
5/0 rating is a good representation of 5/0 skills.
90/0 rating is a good representation of 90/0 skills.
CC rating is a good representation of CC skills.
none of them are very good indications of the other variants. bullet skills are bullet s ...[text shortened]... y different games, and the winning strategies are different.
isn't it kind of, obvious?
90/0 is not terribly far away from slow chess. From games I have reviewed, most class players [sub-expert] do not play much better in a 40/2 SD/1 game than they do at G/90.
Even for a master, who can probably use the extra time to actually increase the level of his play, it is unlikely that if he is good at 40/2 SD/1 he will be bad at G/90.
Let's hear more about the different winning strategy between G/90 and 40/2 SD/1.
10 May 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitMore red herrings and evidence of exactly what I've discussed. Rather than dealing with content, you reflect on the person and obscure the message by attaching yourself to irrelevant details. For example, instead of considering the ideas of the analogies, you focus on how extreme they are. Newsflash, analogies are for emphasis and illustrating a point. By definition, they connect otherwise disparate elements and are not meant to be perfect representations of reality. Having to explain this is proof enough to me that it's time to move to more fertile fields.
This post is projection, big time. You are guilty of most everything you're [wrongly] accusing me of doing.
Just stop and look at what you just wrote. You're making analogies about eating crap and people getting murdered. Do ya think it's possible that you're getting a tad over-dramatic?
Wormwood makes a good point and he's absolutely right. Still, it's reasonable to expect some positive relationship since all of them are ultimately chess. While their nature and philosophy may be different, they share the same rules (except some rare modifications like capturing the king in blitz). Thus, I agree with Swiss Gambit that there is a strong positive (so he won't criticize me for impreciseness) correlation between the performance at these time controls - at least for 10 0 and greater. Nonetheless, I wouldn't consider all of them equally representative and skillful anymore than I would consider an A in Algebra as intellectually demanding as an A in Calculus. To me, the benchmark is OTB at standard time controls.
10 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyI thought you were leaving the discussion two posts ago.
More red herrings and evidence of exactly what I've discussed. Rather than dealing with content, you reflect on the person and obscure the message by attaching yourself to irrelevant details. For example, instead of considering the ideas of the analogies, you focus on how extreme they are. Newsflash, analogies are for emphasis and illustrating a point. B ally demanding as an A in Calculus. To me, the benchmark is OTB at standard time controls.
13 May 08
Originally posted by exigentskyNot only do you share the same first and last letters as eldragonfly, you also act like him.
More red herrings and evidence of exactly what I've discussed. Rather than dealing with content, you reflect on the person and obscure the message by attaching yourself to irrelevant details. For example, instead of considering the ideas of the analogies, you focus on how extreme they are. Newsflash, analogies are for emphasis and illustrating a point. B ...[text shortened]... ally demanding as an A in Calculus. To me, the benchmark is OTB at standard time controls.
14 May 08
Originally posted by exigentskyCan we stop this nonsense, thread-jacking, all of this... attacking other people without reason is... not what this thread was meant to be. I asked a simple question, I got my simple answer, end? We don't have to attack eachother on their different opinions
More red herrings and evidence of exactly what I've discussed. Rather than dealing with content, you reflect on the person and obscure the message by attaching yourself to irrelevant details. For example, instead of considering the ideas of the analogies, you focus on how extreme they are. Newsflash, analogies are for emphasis and illustrating a point. B ...[text shortened]... ally demanding as an A in Calculus. To me, the benchmark is OTB at standard time controls.