Chess (Full resolution in first round)

The biggest thing is that a chess coach has a responsibility for how a student treats chess within their lives for their future. They must understand that IF their student becomes a chess player, everything that they must face. A good coach will do what they should (What would be more beneficial etc.) do for their student. They will understand that if their student became a chess player, they will: - Have a standard income at GM-levelled playing ability (Takes approx. 10,000 hours of chess study [1] to achieve such playing ability) - Be forced to deal with psychological distress from their losses - Earn their income based on how well they perform in tournaments, where simply one mistake could take away a large portion of what they could have earned. On the other hand, if their student simply appreciated the game: - They have much more varieties in life as they have not bonded their life to the game. This could include achieving a job that they equally enjoy with a much better salary. People who are diligent enough to study 10,000 hours to acheive something are capable of attaining better paying jobs than becoming Grand-master chess players. - Take breaks from playing if they suffer a loss from a fun tournament. - Still love the game as much as a chess player, without being obliged to deal with high levels of stress. Defence/Refutations: “To attempt to sway them from this goal due to fear of potential harms is abhorid; it makes the awful assumption that a person is incapable of of accomplishing the goal of becoming a chess player.” (Correct spelling: Abhorred) Simply by not aiming to produce a chess player out of your student does not mean you are making an awful assumption that a person is incapable of becoming a chess player. To quote myself, and to ask CON along with the readers/voters: “If a chess student has grown to love the game after being taught by a good chess coach, and loves looking over brilliantly played-out chess games, does this really mean that the coach has failed their student?” I’d like to point out that at this point whether or not I have used the two fallacies “ad hoc rescue” and “cherry picking” is not directly related to the debate and could be considered as a “straw man” tactic. Whether not I have used these two fallacies, it is important to note that my refutations were there to serve as a form of defence and clarification towards my arguments. Either way, in response to the “cherry picking” claim, my opponent has still not proved my argument wrong or doubtful, but simply went about saying I used forum-based sources. I will provide other sources to back up my point that GM chess players only reasonable salaries [2]. Source two, an article written by IM Silman says “the competition for the little money that’s out there is intense.” Note that his article (ignoring the part talking about the French Def.) is only relevant to talking about GMs and how most will resolve to writing and teaching. Another article [3] this time from WGM Natalia Pogonina says that GM’s would generally make between $50-$70k per year. However, we must note that the article talks about teaching, writing and other money-making techniques that are not relevant to this debate. I’d assume there is no more “cherry picking” from here. Either way, CON has failed to prove one of my major argument to be wrong, but only resulted to accusing my sources over the argument presented. Instead of attacking my arguments, he had attacked my sources. Garry Kasparov vs. Deep Blue The biggest problem is that Garry Kasparov’s suspicions for the cases of human intervention were too evident that he had lost hope completely. And, it is common sense of the Deep Blue team to deny any sense of cheating as it would result in a loss of their pride, their reputation and all of the time and money that they have put. Here are some reasons as outlined by the documentary of their cheating: - At one point, the computer took 15 minutes to make one move (it’s actually able to analyse 200 million moves per minute [4] I apologise for the mistake made in the previous round. Does that mean it really made 180 billion analyses for one move?) - Apparently the computer missed a simple draw by repetition tactic. Again, 200 million moves analyses per minute, I’d regard this to be impossible and only a human is capable of making that type of error. - Apparently the engine had an error, during the middle of the second match. A machine that has been developed for many years suddenly has an error during the middle of a match? Now that’s a bit fishy… - The documentary clearly states that he won the first game easily, and got completely crushed in the second game. Is it really that possible to improve the machine that much in one night? Garry would not have been psychologically affected from a win, as it was rather usual for him to attain victory. Garry’s team were wondering why it was “so easy” to beat the machine once again, after an entire year. It is also important to understand that my opponent’s only argument to hold his stand is something along the lines of “a chess player loves the game and therefore must sacrifice everything they have for it”. As this is the final round, no more arguments are permitted in this round, and if they are presented, it should be ignored and should result in a loss of conduct point. Let me remind you that someone who appreciates the game, from spectating well-played out games also loves the game as much as a chess player does. Yet, they on the other hand, are not forced to deal with a harmful (to their health) amount of stress (this is bound to happen) and will not lose a great deal of money simply from making a mistake in an important chess game. A chess coach also has a big influence over what their student become in the future. A good chess coach will do what they would consider to be more beneficial towards the student as well as consider the outcomes of their actions. A simple-minded chess coach will just train their student to become the best chess player possible. A smarter chess coach will realise that creating a grandmaster chess player, they will generally be following the 10 000 hour rule before they have achieved that level. It is common sense that anyone who has that much diligence should use it for other purposes which are more beneficial on a long-term scale, such as attaining a well-payed job e.g. doctor or lawyer etc. Note that the resolution never mentioned which path the student wishes to take, so the bias from the students’ wishes are non-existent and must be solely based upon the coach’s judgements. So now, if you as a reader believe that a chess coach should train their students to become a chess player, where they will be forced to deal with huge amounts of distress and depending their income on their performance in chess tournaments, losing huge amounts of money from mistakes they make in their critical games, vote for CON. On the other hand, if you as a reader, believe a chess coach should teach their student to simply appreciate the game, where they have much more paths in their lives, take the opportunity to have a higher-salary job, not that much stress in lives that could be damaging to their health, observe the beauty of well-played chess games etc. it is clear that you should vote for PRO. Remember that the group of chess players this debate revolves around are those who are good enough to make enough money to live on. Chess player: A person who plays chess tournamets for money, fame, sponsorships etc. Therefore all our arguments must be directly related to those types of chess players. The resolution remains affirmed. References: 1. http://calnewport.com... 2. http://www.chess.com... 3. http://debate.org... 4. http://www-03.ibm.com...