| NoMoreChess 2004-09-28, 6:49 am |
| ..
Apparently, Mike Murray has taken Nick-the-liar's "challenge" seriously.
Nick repeatedly suggested that Lasker could not be considered a strong go
player, because the "burden of proof" was on Mike Murray to demonstrate this to
be a fact.
But the reality is, that as Nick had maintained that Lasker's available
results showed him to be a weak go player, this heavy "burden of proof" was on
him *equally.*
Of course, Nick-the-liar requires no actual facts to back up his opinions,
arrogance and stupidity often seeming to suffice.
quote:
>In most of what follows, Nick goes into squid mode, spewing noxious
>ink helter-skelter in hopes of diverting attention from his earlier
>ignorant and sloppy assertion.
I think it unfair to besmirch cephalopods via any comparison to
Nick-the-liar. Perhaps the species Pediculus Humanus would be more
appropriate? :-)
quote:
Nick Bourbaki confounds *a single anecdote* by Edward Lasker with "the
available evidence* -- a gross blunder.
But not content to rest at that, he goes one further:
[vbcol=seagreen]
In fact, the anecdote and discussion here show that Lasker thought he (or
some other Westerners) could *eventually* compete on level terms with, if not
actually best, the Japanese go masters. His failure at the first attempt,
given considerable odds, meant only that it was going to require a lot of study
and practice, not that it couldn't eventually be done.
However different the games of chess and go might be, they still have some
very basic similarities: both games require visualization, calculation, and
strategic planning -- all three in which Lasker was certainly world-class.
[vbcol=seagreen]
It should be quite obvious to any reasonably educated person, that what
Nick-the-liar is trying to do above (and in countless other instances), is to
attack the person, rather than directly address his argument.
This is known as argumentum ad hominem -- an *invalid* form of argument. In
fact, it is probably the favorite invalid argument of all invalid-arguers, from
the beginning of time.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Perhaps Nick will write more carefully in the future.
It is *very* difficult to imagine the insertion of even more weasel-words,
even more escape-hatches, even more qualifyers, than Nick has routinely
included in the past.
Not to imply that it can't be done, or that anyone would or could or should
even consider making that implication, which I am certainly not doing, mind
you. Nobody should ever say anything, about anyone, lest they get caught with
their foot in their own mouth (not to suggest that this is what happenned to
Nick). Better to say nothing at all, like me. :-)
quote:
>In the past, I've tended to class Nick as a *propagandist", in
>contrast to nomorechess's description of him as an outright liar
There is no reason a poster cannot be *both*: Larry Parr "leaps" to mind.
quote:
*By definition,* anything that makes Nick-the-liar look bad is a distortion,
a misrepresentation, and further, was taken out-of-context.
Anyone who draws attention to such fact is, *by definition,* a troll (whose
sole purpose in life is to "troll" Nick Bourbaki).
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Perhaps one should characterize Nick as a Revisionist historian. :-)
Lasker was a weak go player. Had he faced a Japanese professional go player,
say 132nd dan, he would have been "stoned" to death, even at "Queen odds."
Right now, Larry Parr is trying to place a $10,000 bet with his bookmaker in
Vegas, but they don't seem to understand how a dead man can accurately transmit
his moves, via a medium -- let's say, Kortchnoi.
quote:
>While whining about *my* distorting and misrepresenting his
>statements, Nick takes mine completely out of context.
Nonsense. It doesn't work both ways. Only Nick's material may be taken
out-of-context. Other posters' material has only one "context": that of trying
to "troll" Nick Bourbaki. The sole exception is Mark Trollsby, who serves uh,
a somewhat different function.
quote:
>"...what masters and thinkers have
>given to mankind is a tribute to the genius of the white race."
Once again, Larry Parr just recently made a *very similar* statement here, in
effect, putting down all "other" races and their cultures, for no apparent
reason. I for one, strongly suspect that the cultures of China and India, if
better understood in the West, would refute such nonsense, like a checkmate.
quote:
>So, it appears Lasker was strong enough to be a top ranked player in
>Germany, but not strong enough to compete with Asian professionals.
Sure -- okay. But could he play *chess*?
:-)
|