Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Sep '16 11:29
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    It's easy for Hollywood to make up inspirational stories. And there's evidently much in
    Phiona Mutesi's real story that deserves our admiration. My point is that Hollywood tends
    to embellish, if not fabricate, many of the facts. So I hardly would expect Hollywood (or
    the non-chess media in general) to take care to be very accurate about all the facts ...[text shortened]... sensationalized
    view than Hollywood has of Phiona Mutesi's chess ability (now at about age 20).
    Maybe you should wait until the movie is actually released before claiming that Hollywood "made up" or "embellished" anything regarding Phiona Mutesi's inspirational story and life.

    Mutesi's chess abilities NOW are rather besides the point as regards whether she was a "prodigy". Her results still show she is considerably stronger than an "average or slightly better than average" club player as you incorrectly claimed.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Sep '16 11:47
    Although it is a bit off-topic, Duchess seems to know very little of the structure of US tournament chess. In fact, Continental Chess runs virtually all major US tournaments open to all USCF players. A partial list is here: http://www.chesstour.com/refs.html

    Ms. Mutesi in a recent interview said she hoped to go to Harvard in the near future. If she does and decides to play in major US tournaments, she will be rated according to CCA guidelines, not Marc Glickman's. As already mentioned, the USCF sanctions all CCA tournaments and thus does not seem to have any major disagreement with how they adjust FIDE ratings for these tournaments.

    In any event, the difference between the two systems equates in this case to the difference between a 90.4 percentile and an 87.2 percentile player, neither of which can be accurately characterized as an "average or slightly better than average" club player.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Sep '16 11:58
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    No1Marauder keeps showing that he's one of most dishonest abusive trolls at RHP.
    No1Marauder's usual lies and abuse cannot change the fact that he's dead wrong,
    which he's far too arrogant to concede. No1Marauder's full of ludicrous arguments.

    "...your *initial claim* that a FIDE 1622 is equivalent to an 'average club player'."
    --No1Marauder

    The ...[text shortened]... Perhaps someday that
    will change, but it's ludicrous to pretend that it *already* has changed.
    The Ugandan women have 8 wins, 5 losses and 6 draws so far.http://chess-results.com/tnr232876.aspx?lan=1&art=20&flag=30&wi=821&snr=113
  4. 11 Sep '16 12:08 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Robbie Carrobie keeps being disingenuous about or misrepresenting what was written.

    "She got outplayed."
    --Robbie Carrobie

    Of course. Hou Yifan lost the game, and I expect that she would be the first to admit it.
    But Robbie Carrobie's wrong to imply that Hou Yifan never has played any better (or is incapable of playing any better).

    "I was una ...[text shortened]... o-Karabakh War between Azerbaijan
    and ethnic Armenian separatist strongly supported by Armenia.
    Robbie Carrobie shows his ignorance of the Nagorno-Karabakh War between Azerbaijan
    and ethnic Armenian separatist strongly supported by Armenia.

    Yes sorry I don't know everything.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Sep '16 12:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Phiona Mutesi's fans may enjoy (or perhaps not) following her at the 2016 Olympiad.
    She (rated 1622) is playing on fourth board--not first board--for Uganda's women's team.
    (In contrast to some Westerners, Uganda's chess authorities don't assume that Uganda's
    most famous--by far--woman chess player must be its best woman chess player.)

    So far, she's ...[text shortened]... rrying too much
    about having to live up to Hollywood's exaggeration of her potential in chess.
    You are wrong in your speculations as usual. The real story of the Ugandan women's team at the Baku Olympiad is here: http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/?p=4469

    There's a nice attack by Mutesi in the Miladi game given.

    "The Uganda women’s team was unable to play in the first three rounds because they didn’t have four players onsite yet."

    Obviously most countries wouldn't have such problems. Before sneering at what place they are in you might want to make some effort to obtain such easily available information.

    Mutsi did win her two games but: Unfortunately, that’s the last we’re going to see of Mutesi at this Olympiad. Now she has to go to Canada for the premiere of Queen of Katwe at the Toronto International Film Festival, on September 10!

    Again you might want to wait until the movie comes out before talking about "Hollywood's exaggeration of her potential in chess". But baseless claims are your SOP here.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Sep '16 14:34
    I'm still waiting for Duchess' response to this:

    I suppose it's grating for you who claim that you could easily defeat Ms. Mutesi (could you give me the crosstable of that USCF tournament where you so easily mopped up the floor with US class B's and A's? Thanks in advance) for her to get such media attention while you have to toil in obscurity trolling on the internet. Life just isn't fair.
  7. 11 Sep '16 21:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Duchess: Even so, she's still rated only 1622 FIDE ([b]average club player) at about age 20.[/b]
    The pathological liar No1Marauder keeps flagrantly dishonestly distorting what I wrote.

    "...your *initial claim* hat a FIDE 1622 is equivalent to an *average club player*."
    --No1Marauder

    Again, No1Marauder's LYING. As I already have pointed out--which the pathological liar
    No1Marauder has ignored--my INITIAL CLAIM is that a FIDE 1622 player would be
    SLIGHTLY ABOVE AN AVERAGE CLUB PLAYER IN THE USA. No1Marauder likes
    to keep LYING about what I wrote.

    I already have explained that, LATER WHEN WRITING QUICKLY N A PARENTHETICAL
    COMMENT, I ABRIDGED 'SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN AVERAGE' TO 'AVERAGE',
    an oversimplification that does NOT represent my ALREADY EXPLAINED POSITION.

    THE TROLL NO1MARUDER LIKES TO KEEP LYING ABOUT WHAT I WROTE AND
    DISHONESTLY DISTORTING MY POSITION.
  8. 11 Sep '16 22:14 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You keep trying to change the subject. The issues revolves around two points that you claimed:

    A) That Ms. Mutesi was no better than an "average" or "slightly better than average" club player; (quote above and many other places in this thread:

    B) That she is not a "prodigy". First sentence by you in this thread: Is it really accurate to describe Ph ...[text shortened]... or little better than the average club player.


    Try to stop being so blatantly dishonest.[/b]
    The troll No1Marauder keeps dishonestly distorting or simply lying about what I wrote.
    I already know that No1Marauder is far too arrogant and dishonest ever to admit his errors *cleanly*.
    No1Marauder typically resorts to more and more diversionary insults, lies, and other abuse.

    NO1MARAUDER'S WRONG TO MAKE HIS COCKSURE CLAIM THAT A FIDE 1622
    RATING EQUATES TO A 1800 USCF RATING. Mark Glickman, the chairman of the
    USCF ratings committee, says that No1Maruder's VERY WRONG--by 95 rating points.

    No1Marauder has ludicrously claimed that a 95 rating point difference is 'slight'.
    I have pointed out (using some mathematics that seems beyond No1Marauder's comprehension)
    that a 1705 USCF player would be expected to score ONLY 36.659% (MUCH LESS THAN 50% )
    against a 1800 USCF player. There's MORE THAN A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE between
    an expectancy of 36.659% and 50%.

    I would note that Mark Glickman's *not* a dictator, and the chairman of the USCF ratings
    committee has no power to dictate how a USCF affiliate such as CCA wishes to convert
    FIDE (or foreign) ratings to USCF ratings. That's IRRELEVANT--contrary to No1Marauder's
    tireless harping--to the accuracy of Mark Glickman's rating conversions formula.

    Indeed, my position is that a 1682 FIDE (= 1705 USCF) player is 'slightly above average'
    among active adult USCF tournament players. (No1Marauder may prefer to drag a large
    number of low-rated junior USCF players who played a few games and quit into the sample)
    As a rule of thumb, I regard a USCF class C (1400-1599) as average, and so I regard
    USCF class B (1600-1799) as slightly better the average. As I have said, if No1Marauder
    wants to keep quibbling, I might consider amending 'slightly' to 'moderately', but no more.

    No1Marauder may be accustomed to being around much weaker players than I do,
    but no one in my chess circle would regard a FIDE 1622 (= 1705 USCF) player as
    anyone more than a slightly above average club player. A friend of mine, who's
    rated almost OTB 1800 USCF and about 2100 in official USCF correspondence chess,
    regards himself as no better than a moderately above average club player.

    In contrast to No1Marauder's emotive cheerleading, I prefer to take a more objective view of Phiona Mutesi.
    She may be regarded as a 'prodigy' by the standards of Uganda's women's chess, but
    those standards are very low. It's unlikely that she would be regarded as a 'prodigy'
    by the standards of a country with a much stronger chess culture.

    By the way, at least several of my friends or acquaintances were among the top junior
    players (including a champion) of their countries, all of which are much stronger than Uganda.
    Some of my friends and acquaintances attended Soviet chess schools for years.
    A friend (at age 12) drew a simul game with Anatoly Karpov. So we are much less
    easily impressed than the ignorant (or dishonest) likes to No1Marauder.

    So if someone wishes to claim that Phiona Mutesi was a 'prodigy' in THE CONTEXT OF
    UGANDA'S WOMEN'S CHESS, then I would not object. But I don't believe that the context
    of Uganda's women's chess *should be a universal context* for determining who's a prodigy.
    My friends or acquaintances who attended Soviet chess schools would not have regarded
    Phiona Mutesi as a 'prodigy'. And I would submit that people who learned chess in
    the USSR tend to be more knowledgeable than most Americans about chess.
  9. 11 Sep '16 22:35 / 2 edits
    No1Marauder's an extremely arrogant privileged white man in the USA.
    I note with amusement that No1Marauder seems to act as though I would be shocked to
    discover Phiona Mutesi grew up without modern conveniences like indoor toilet facilities.
    No1Marauder apparently presumes that I would find such hardship unimaginable.
    But my family knows hardship from experience, not from reading about it in books.

    In fact, many people in my family grew up in homes (at least until after the Second World War)
    without electricity or indoor plumbing facilities. Some people in my family told me about
    how they struggled to survive when many other people around them were dying to hunger.
    I was taught that I never should complain about how food tasted because I should consider
    myself fortunate to have anything edible to eat. In the interest of clarity, I would say'
    that, though I often was hungry, I never was in danger of starvation in my childhood.
    A doctor did express concern, however, because I was abnormally underweight for years.
    When I was growing up, I was happy to get a new pencil because I regarded it as a luxury.

    Several of my relatives grew up as non-English-speaking immigrants in a slum in the USA.
    Despite all the poverty and crime around them, all the children succeeded in earning
    university degrees (and the girls earned degrees in science or engineering) and entering
    the middle class. Now I realize that Phiona Mutesi grew up in an even worse slum.
    But people in my family have overcome much to achieve much, and so we tend not
    fawn all over sentimentalized Hollywood stories about underdogs.
  10. 11 Sep '16 22:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    All ratings are approximations and results can and do vary spectacularly from what is expected by statistical formulas. This is esp. true as regards young players.

    For example, at the recent NYS Championship, Christopher Lomeli, a 1631 rated junior chose to compete in the U2100 and played 4 games against players rated expert i.e. over 2000. He scored ...[text shortened]... , Chris is just some "average club player" but the Experts he played might take issue with that.
    The troll No1Marauder desperately resorts to setting up a ludicrous 'strawman' to attack.

    A chess rating is a measure of *expected performance over a sufficiently large sample of games*.
    Contrary to No1Marauder's 'strawman', I never claimed that upsets are IMPOSSIBLE.
    Upsets are simply IMPROBABLE.

    No1Marauder might like to boast that Phiona Mutesi COULD defeat Hou Yifan in one game.
    I know that's POSSIBLE. But how much would No1Marauder like to bet upon it?
    And how much would No1Marauder like to bet that Phiona Mutesi could win a match against Hou Yifan?

    Is the lawyer No1Marauder arrogant enough to argue with me about mathematics?
    I doubt that even Sh76 (a fellow American lawyer) would bet on No1Marauder.
  11. 11 Sep '16 23:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Maybe you should wait until the movie is actually released before claiming that Hollywood "made up" or "embellished" anything regarding Phiona Mutesi's inspirational story and life.

    Mutesi's chess abilities NOW are rather besides the point as regards whether she was a "prodigy". Her results still show she is considerably stronger than an "average or slightly better than average" club player as you incorrectly claimed.
    I cannot write a review of a film that I have not yet seen. But I note that Hollywood
    already has a record of being factually inaccurate or misleading in its films about chess.
    In 'Pawn Sacrifice', it claims that the sixth game of the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match is
    regarded as 'the greatest game' ever played. That's absurd. I doubt that the GMs
    who judge the best games for Informants would agree with that film's conclusion.
    (Will the troll No1Marauder now make a knee-jerk defense of Hollywood on that point?)

    Here's how Phiona Mutesi has been doing at the 2016 Olympiad:
    Uganda's women's team has played six games so far, but she has played only two games.
    Apparently, her team captain lacks confidence in her (on fourth board) or perhaps she's ill.

    Phiona Mutesi beat an unrated player from Honduras and a 1491 player from Tunisia.
    She cannot be faulted for winning both games, but the unknown or low ratings of her
    opponents mean that one can hardly draw a definite conclusion about her strength.

    Why does No1Marauder believe that Uganda's team captain has *not* been selecting
    the famous Phiona Mutesi to play more games, even on fourth board?
  12. 11 Sep '16 23:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Although it is a bit off-topic, Duchess seems to know very little of the structure of US tournament chess. In fact, Continental Chess runs virtually all major US tournaments open to all USCF players. A partial list is here: http://www.chesstour.com/refs.html

    Ms. Mutesi in a recent interview said she hoped to go to Harvard in the near future. If she do ...[text shortened]... ich can be accurately characterized as an "average or slightly better than average" club player.
    I note again how No1Marauder's determined to 'cherry-pick' his sources
    No1Marauder keeps lclinging to the CCA, which is a USCF affiliate--albeit a major one--
    not the official USCF itself. So why does No1Marauder not attempt to cite the USCF itself?
    Apparently because the USCF itself does *not* support what No1Marauder claims.

    Mark Glickman is the chairman of the USCF ratings committee. He's *not* the dictator
    of how all tournaments must be run in the USA. As I understand it, the USCF grants
    tournament directors broad discretion (including converting FIDE or foreign ratings) in
    how they run their tournaments. Another tournament director might choose to convert
    ratings in a way that agrees neither with Mark Glickman nor with the CCA.

    It's typically disingenuous for No1Marauder to imply that Mark Glickman's lack of dictatorial
    powers over all USCF tournaments somehow makes his ratings conversion formula invalid.
    But No1Marauder's far too ignorant to argue about statistics against Mark Glickman.
    Hence, No1Marauder's typical diversionary sneering.
  13. 11 Sep '16 23:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The Ugandan women have 8 wins, 5 losses and 6 draws so far.http://chess-results.com/tnr232876.aspx?lan=1&art=20&flag=30&wi=821&snr=113
    No1Marauder keeps showing how disingenuously he likes to argue.
    A raw record of wins, draws, and losses is MEANINGLESS unless one knows the opponents' strengths.
    Would No1Marauder be more impressed by a player who scored 100-0 against beginners
    or a player who scored 5-95 against GMs?

    In fact, Uganda has been playing against other weak women's teams.
    Here are its matches so far:

    1) Uganda beat Honduras
    2) Uganda beat Tunisia
    3) Uganda lost to the United Arab Emirates
    4) Uganda lost to Hong Kong
    5) Uganda lost to Kenya
    7) Uganda lost to Panama

    In fact, Uganda's women chess players are weak by most international standards.
    Indeed, they don't even seem to be the best in sub-Saharan Africa.

    The troll No1Marauder might like to keep hurling insults or accusing me of racism for
    daring to point out that the fact show that Uganda's women's team is weak.
  14. 11 Sep '16 23:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I'm still waiting for Duchess' response to this:

    I suppose it's grating for you who claim that you could easily defeat Ms. Mutesi [b](could you give me the crosstable of that USCF tournament where you so easily mopped up the floor with US class B's and A's?
    Thanks in advance) for her to get such media attention while you have to toil in obscurity trolling on the internet. Life just isn't fair.[/b]
    The troll No1Marauder's accusing me of lying by implying that I fabricated my experience.
    The troll No1Marauder also seems eager to discover my identity in real life (which USCF
    records could reveal) in order to have opportunities to abuse me further in real life.

    In fact, I visited an American chess club that wanted to hold a five round tournament in one evening.
    As I recall, there were two sections (over about 1650 and under about 1650).
    I was persuaded to join the top section. I don't recall if there was a small entry fee
    (5 USD) and a small prize or if there was no entry fee and no prize.

    Obviously, the games had to be finished quickly. As I recall, the time control was
    game / 10 minutes or perhaps game / 15 minutes. Although the USCF now has
    separate ratings for quick chess (less than game / 30 minutes), I don't recall that it
    had such back then, so quick chess games were not USCF rated. In addition, I doubt
    that the man running the tournament that evening was a licensed \USCF tournament director.
    So, as far as I know, the games were not USCF rated.

    By the way, none of my opponents seemed surprised or upset that I won.
    It was clear enough to them that I was the favorite (with one round to go, I was
    leading with 4 points while no else had more than 2.5 points), so they were
    playing, in effect, for second place.

    Now would the troll No1Marauder like to reveal his real name and USCF rating?
    Given his apparent absolute smug belief that he must be far superior to me in chess
    strength, would No1Marauder like to bet a vast amount of money--perhaps at odds--on it?
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Sep '16 00:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    The troll No1Marauder's accusing me of lying by implying that I fabricated my experience.
    The troll No1Marauder also seems eager to discover my identity in real life (which USCF
    records could reveal) in order to have opportunities to abuse me further in real life.

    In fact, I visited an American chess club that wanted to hold a five round tournament in ...[text shortened]... chess
    strength, would No1Marauder like to bet a vast amount of money--perhaps at odds--on it?
    In other words you have made a claim which cannot be verified. I therefore call you a liar for making it. The USCF has for many years had a separate rating for blitz and quick tournaments and most people who run clubs are qualified to be USCF TDs (it;s not that hard). Therefore, your claim is extremely unlikely to be true as were your claims of having recruited a group of US prosecutors to pursue me in order to oppose me in certain criminal cases. You seem to have a very active imagination.

    My name and rating have been revealed on the Chess Forum; in fact, I created a few threads when I was active discussing my games. Of course, you are lying as usual in claiming that I have a "belief that he must be far superior to me in chess
    strength" (I have no idea what your actual strength is and you have offered no evidence to indicate what it is) but if you wish to ever play me in an OTB tournament I'd be happy to inform you of my proposed schedule. I'll probably play in the Vermont Open on October 29th and 30th if you want to drop by.