From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:08:11 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1992Dec12.193455.462@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.055515.4606@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec11.165710.448@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>>>[attribution line stupidly deleted :(]
>>>>>But, one player may be better than all the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>>A fact both of you have forgotten.
>>>>>
>>>>>DMC
>>>> 
>>>> Well no they didn't.  It's just not true.  I quote GM Andy Soltis in
>>>> [post about how there isn't a best chess player because every game
>> 
>> In either case, there is a set of rules determining who plays.  And
>> those rules must be abided by to legitimately claim the title of
>> World Champion.  Fischer did not abide by those rules, therefore he
>> can't claim the title.
>
>But he HAS the title. Go recheck your logic and compare it with reality.
>Unless, of course, you wish to decalre him not your 'second-rate-players-
>association-non-champion', which of course you are entitled to do.
>

I thought you meant the current World Champion title.  That he has
proven his right to the 1972 title is, in my mind, unquestionable.
The fact remains that the current World Champion title is
surrounded by certain rules to protect its integrity.  Whether
those rules are justified, I do not know, but I _do_ know they
are necessary to come up with the needed generalization:
"Joe Chessplayer is World Champion."  And, whether the "second-
rate players-association" that awards the title is indeed
second-rate, I do not know.  I am a fourth-rate player myself.
On the other hand, the system in place has produced some terrific
chess, so I don't see anything wrong with it.  If Fischer is really
as great as you say (he may be, I guess everyone else could be wrong),
then he has the right to play within the rules and stomp everyone
else into the ground.  And that, I am sure, would produce some
GREAT chess, so I am all for him trying his hardest.

>> 
>> And you missed the point of my original post--which was that there is
>> NO accurate way to determine who the best chessplayer "really" is
>> (the "real" best chessplayer being able to beat "all the rest"),
>> because different people play better against different kinds of

No, what I was talking about was the concept of "best chessplayer in
the world" versus the _title_ "World Champion".  As I stated earlier,
there is NO way to determine the "best chessplayer in the world", without
having that person play EVERY opponent who wants to, and win.
My first point was that this is logistically impossible, unless at some
future date, the "best chessplayer in the world" is a computer.
Even then, it is wildly improbable.
My second point was that this will _never_ produce a "best chessplayer
in the world" anyway, since there is really no accurate way to
quantify performance in chess so that you can say with _absolute_
certainty: "Yeah, Bob Fianchetto will ALWAYS beat Linda Zugzwang
because their MagicRatingSystemO'TheWorld (tm) says so."
              
You did what I used to do in debate---recasted my words into something
else and responded to that something else.  [sigh], Those were the
days.

No offense taken, though, and hopefully none given, either.

	Jason
	Worst Chessplayer In This MultiDimensional Reality (tm)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess