"I don't understand this."
Yes, that has been obvious for a while.
I'm pretty close to closing this thread, to be honest.
Yes, that has been obvious for a while.
I'm pretty close to closing this thread, to be honest.
Cynosure,
This is not related to the discussion.
You have contradiction in your words.
For example, you say:
"I'm saying in 1+0, an opponent who is 100, 200, 300 even 400 rating points below you can be more assured of victory than if you were playing a 90+0."
But if it's so, it only means, that for Singer__Marta it's only difficulter to gain rating. Because if, as you say, in bullet, those who is weaker can be more assured of victory, then 2000-rated players, who play with Singer, are more assured of victory, so it means, that Singer has less chances to win. And it only means that he has to work harder to gain his 2800. And it would mean he is more than 2800.
But you all think that you are right, and I'm not.
Is it how discussions go in liberal countries: people say, that "oh, you do not understand, so I will close this discussion".
No. In civilized countries people debate. And one side cannot say, I'm absolutely right, so I will stop this discussion.
And if I don't understand, it means that I don't see the right logic. And I always give arguments. It's how any argument or discussion go in liberal countries.
This is not related to the discussion.
You have contradiction in your words.
For example, you say:
"I'm saying in 1+0, an opponent who is 100, 200, 300 even 400 rating points below you can be more assured of victory than if you were playing a 90+0."
But if it's so, it only means, that for Singer__Marta it's only difficulter to gain rating. Because if, as you say, in bullet, those who is weaker can be more assured of victory, then 2000-rated players, who play with Singer, are more assured of victory, so it means, that Singer has less chances to win. And it only means that he has to work harder to gain his 2800. And it would mean he is more than 2800.
But you all think that you are right, and I'm not.
Is it how discussions go in liberal countries: people say, that "oh, you do not understand, so I will close this discussion".
No. In civilized countries people debate. And one side cannot say, I'm absolutely right, so I will stop this discussion.
And if I don't understand, it means that I don't see the right logic. And I always give arguments. It's how any argument or discussion go in liberal countries.
I moved the argument to the off-topic forum to not be off-topic here. Here is the link:
http://en.lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/is-playing-with-lower-rated-players-considered-boosting
http://en.lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/is-playing-with-lower-rated-players-considered-boosting
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.