Re: Strongest?

help bot wrote:
> On May 22, 5:59 pm, jkh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> > >   The loony TK seems to have come up with yet another
> > > absurd ploy: using "rankings" to compare relative chess
> > > strength from different eras.  Well, we all know that this
> > > doesn't work, because *strength* is best measured by
> > > ratings, not rankings.
>
> > That would be a fine argument, except that there _were_ no ratings in
> > the 1920s.
>
>   What everyone except the loony TK realizes is that
> one can retroactively rate historical events, and just so
> long as you do not attempt to dishonestly "tweak" what
> is included or excluded, the results are very much akin
> to modern ratings.  Ratings are, of course, the most
> objective way to compare relative strengths.
>
>
> > (Those back-chaining calculations are interesting but
> > unconvincing.)
>
>   Nobody cares what "convinces" the loonies who
> flip-flop about like fish out of water.
>
>
> > So, your choices are either a) deny the possibility of
> > a meaningful comparison (legitimate, but it makes your participation
> > in the discussion rather pointless), or b) use informed judgment and
> > commons sense.
>
>   The best "informed judgments" I've yet seen are
> those which exclude all personal bias (i.e. objective
> ratings spat out of a cold, calculating machine.
>
>   The silly ploy of looking at /rankings/ is obviously
> flawed.  That top-down approach attempts to hide
> the fact that the ratings pool has grown dramatically
> over time, whereas a ratings comparison is fair and
> balanced (like the Faux News channel).
>
>
>   -- help bot


Greg, your computer-wor****p is getting tiresome. Those back-chained
rating calculations are of very limited value because they are based
on a number of untestable assumptions, and the further back you go the
less reliable they become. There is no alternative to subjective human
judgment. If you do not consider yourself capable of making such a
judgment -- of examining the games and results and reaching a
conclusion on the basis of your own understanding of chess -- then you
should keep your mouth shut and go back to playing with your computer.
You have simply ruled yourself out as someone capable of contributing
to the discussion.