Discussion:
ruined a winning game
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2018-09-13 06:50:38 UTC
Permalink
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.

2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.

Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?

Gratefully,
Navi
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 11:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-14 17:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Petrosian? Aronian?
--
Jerry Friedman
a***@gmail.com
2018-09-15 07:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Petrosian? Aronian?
--
Jerry Friedman
Thank you all very much, especially Jerry.

You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.

I find the game fascinating. One good thing about it is that it is
ambiguity-less. When you lose, you lose!
But I never really studied it properly. I just like to play. I read a book once
but never really followed up.


Respectfully,
Navi
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-15 12:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Petrosian? Aronian?
--
Jerry Friedman
Thank you all very much, especially Jerry.
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
I find the game fascinating. One good thing about it is that it is
ambiguity-less. When you lose, you lose!
And a game where when you lose you don't lose would be .... ?
b***@aol.com
2018-09-15 12:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Petrosian? Aronian?
--
Jerry Friedman
Thank you all very much, especially Jerry.
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
I find the game fascinating. One good thing about it is that it is
ambiguity-less. When you lose, you lose!
And a game where when you lose you don't lose would be .... ?
Not so tautological as it might seem, as there are many examples
of "loser takes all" games. In chess, for instance, that would be:

"Losing Chess (also known as Antichess, the Losing Game, Giveaway Chess,
Suicide Chess, Killer Chess, Must-Kill, Take-All Chess, Capture Chess or
Losums"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losing_Chess
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-15 12:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Petrosian? Aronian?
--
Jerry Friedman
Thank you all very much, especially Jerry.
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
I find the game fascinating. One good thing about it is that it is
ambiguity-less. When you lose, you lose!
And a game where when you lose you don't lose would be .... ?
Not so tautological as it might seem, as there are many examples
"Losing Chess (also known as Antichess, the Losing Game, Giveaway Chess,
Suicide Chess, Killer Chess, Must-Kill, Take-All Chess, Capture Chess or
Losums"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losing_Chess
But that's not true, is it? You're still aiming to win. You just do it by
losing according to the original rules. The loser of Losing Chess may
be forced into winning by the rules of Chess but it's still losing the
game that's actually being played. The clear implication of "When you
lose, you lose!" is that there are games in which losing, by the rules
of the actual game you're playing, is not losing or at least is a mitigated
loss.
b***@aol.com
2018-09-15 13:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Petrosian? Aronian?
--
Jerry Friedman
Thank you all very much, especially Jerry.
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
I find the game fascinating. One good thing about it is that it is
ambiguity-less. When you lose, you lose!
And a game where when you lose you don't lose would be .... ?
Not so tautological as it might seem, as there are many examples
"Losing Chess (also known as Antichess, the Losing Game, Giveaway Chess,
Suicide Chess, Killer Chess, Must-Kill, Take-All Chess, Capture Chess or
Losums"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losing_Chess
But that's not true, is it? You're still aiming to win. You just do it by
losing according to the original rules. The loser of Losing Chess may
be forced into winning by the rules of Chess but it's still losing the
game that's actually being played. The clear implication of "When you
lose, you lose!" is that there are games in which losing, by the rules
of the actual game you're playing, is not losing or at least is a mitigated
loss.
? The only implication I can think of is that losing implies you're the
weaker player, unlike in games of chance, where the luckier/luckiest
player wins (or can win).
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-15 13:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Petrosian? Aronian?
--
Jerry Friedman
Thank you all very much, especially Jerry.
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
I find the game fascinating. One good thing about it is that it is
ambiguity-less. When you lose, you lose!
And a game where when you lose you don't lose would be .... ?
"When you lose, you lose" means that the question of who has lost is
objective, not subjective. An example where that doesn't apply is
arguing in a.u.e., where people often seem unaware that they've lost the
argument--in my opinion.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2018-09-16 07:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by a***@gmail.com
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
I find the game fascinating. One good thing about it is that it is
ambiguity-less. When you lose, you lose!
And a game where when you lose you don't lose would be .... ?
"When you lose, you lose" means that the question of who has lost is
objective, not subjective. An example where that doesn't apply is
arguing in a.u.e., where people often seem unaware that they've lost the
argument--in my opinion.
For more examples, pick any sport where people disagree with the referee.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-15 13:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
I find the game fascinating. One good thing about it is that it is
ambiguity-less. When you lose, you lose!
When does anyone actually lose? Seems like they just keep going until
a loss becomes inevitable, and they just stop touching the pieces and
declare a victor.
b***@aol.com
2018-09-15 13:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
I find the game fascinating. One good thing about it is that it is
ambiguity-less. When you lose, you lose!
When does anyone actually lose? Seems like they just keep going until
a loss becomes inevitable, and they just stop touching the pieces and
declare a victor.
That's variable and depends on the players' ability to evaluate a
position. Top players might resign some thirty moves before the game
is actually lost (i.e. they're checkmated), but learners will
play till checkmate.
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-15 14:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Petrosian? Aronian?
--
Jerry Friedman
Thank you all very much, especially Jerry.
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
...

I am, though I'm not good at it. I suspect Petrosian isn't that famous
either; most English speakers who'd heard his name would have thought of
him as "whatever Soviet player is world champion now".

I'd have mentioned Smbat Lputian, but I can't pronounce that.
--
Jerry Friedman
a***@gmail.com
2018-09-16 09:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Petrosian? Aronian?
--
Jerry Friedman
Thank you all very much, especially Jerry.
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
...
I am, though I'm not good at it. I suspect Petrosian isn't that famous
either; most English speakers who'd heard his name would have thought of
him as "whatever Soviet player is world champion now".
I'd have mentioned Smbat Lputian, but I can't pronounce that.
--
Jerry Friedman
Wow! I didn't know Lputian. I looked him up right now! I am impressed.
I am not good either, but I enjoy the game. I find it fascinating.

It is very hard to cheat in chess. It very rarely happens. As far as I know, there aren't any referee mistakes. It doesn't matter much whether you're
playing at home or not. The spectators don't have an influence on the game.
Nor do meteorological conditions. Chance does not play a part, or at least
not a major part, although that is probably debatable as far as a single game
is concerned.

And as Jerry says, there is nothing subjective about the result. It
is clear who has won and why.


Compare chess to soccer...


Respectfully,
Navi
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-16 09:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Why don't you use names?
Petrosian? Aronian?
--
Jerry Friedman
Thank you all very much, especially Jerry.
You know Aronian? I don't think he's that famous. You must be into chess.
...
I am, though I'm not good at it. I suspect Petrosian isn't that famous
either; most English speakers who'd heard his name would have thought of
him as "whatever Soviet player is world champion now".
I'd have mentioned Smbat Lputian, but I can't pronounce that.
--
Jerry Friedman
Wow! I didn't know Lputian. I looked him up right now! I am impressed.
I am not good either, but I enjoy the game. I find it fascinating.
It is very hard to cheat in chess. It very rarely happens. As far as I know, there aren't any referee mistakes. It doesn't matter much whether you're
playing at home or not. The spectators don't have an influence on the game.
Nor do meteorological conditions. Chance does not play a part, or at least
not a major part, although that is probably debatable as far as a single game
is concerned.
And as Jerry says, there is nothing subjective about the result. It
is clear who has won and why.
But the 'why' is so often 'because you're playing white'! And in what
game between two opponents (teams or individuals) is the result
subjective? You cite soccer but there's nothing subjective about the
result there. The winner is the team that scores most goals.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-16 12:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
But the 'why' is so often 'because you're playing white'! And in what
game between two opponents (teams or individuals) is the result
subjective? You cite soccer but there's nothing subjective about the
result there. The winner is the team that scores most goals.
It seems that there can be disputes about whether a particular goal was
a legitimate one.

The giving of cards is entirely subjective.

The pretending to be hurt is a weird feature of soccer (and basketball).
b***@aol.com
2018-09-16 13:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
But the 'why' is so often 'because you're playing white'! And in what
game between two opponents (teams or individuals) is the result
subjective? You cite soccer but there's nothing subjective about the
result there. The winner is the team that scores most goals.
It seems that there can be disputes about whether a particular goal was
a legitimate one.
The giving of cards is entirely subjective.
The pretending to be hurt is a weird feature of soccer (and basketball).
Not to mention (imaginary) offsides, a common bone of contention.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-16 13:38:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 05:47:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
But the 'why' is so often 'because you're playing white'! And in what
game between two opponents (teams or individuals) is the result
subjective? You cite soccer but there's nothing subjective about the
result there. The winner is the team that scores most goals.
It seems that there can be disputes about whether a particular goal was
a legitimate one.
The giving of cards is entirely subjective.
The pretending to be hurt is a weird feature of soccer (and basketball).
And (Am) football. In one of yesterday's game an announcer questioned
an injury time-out on the basis that the player was exaggerating an
injury in order to slow down the other team's no huddle offense.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Richard Yates
2018-09-13 12:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Yes. (except for "masterpieces" being plural).
Post by a***@gmail.com
Are they idiomatic?
"winning game" is chess jargon but also easily understandable.
b***@aol.com
2018-09-13 13:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.

Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.

Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Gratefully,
Navi
Richard Yates
2018-09-13 21:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.

For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.

Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.

Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Gratefully,
Navi
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-13 21:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
That would be blundering in my book. Nobody comes out of such a game
saying that they meant to lose it like that!
b***@aol.com
2018-09-13 22:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Gratefully,
Navi
Richard Yates
2018-09-14 03:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
b***@aol.com
2018-09-14 06:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
Richard Yates
2018-09-14 13:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
b***@aol.com
2018-09-14 14:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Richard Yates
2018-09-14 14:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
b***@aol.com
2018-09-14 14:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Richard Yates
2018-09-14 15:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.

The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
b***@aol.com
2018-09-14 15:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.
The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
Yet, it's evident to anyone who knows the basics of chess: what's a very
hard-to-spot error involving e.g. 3-ply evaluation for an ELO-1700 player
would be a gross blunder for an ELO-2800 player. How is that not evident?
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-14 16:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.
The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
Yet, it's evident to anyone who knows the basics of chess: what's a very
hard-to-spot error involving e.g. 3-ply evaluation for an ELO-1700 player
would be a gross blunder for an ELO-2800 player. How is that not evident?
I'm inclined to your understanding of "blunder", but what I've seen in
on-line discussions is that it's a mistake that changes the expected
outcome of a game--a won position to drawn or lost, or a drawn
position to lost. (That means that a less than optimal move is by
no means a blunder.)

I'm not sure I agree with your meaning of "subjective".
--
Jerry Friedman
b***@aol.com
2018-09-14 16:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.
The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
Yet, it's evident to anyone who knows the basics of chess: what's a very
hard-to-spot error involving e.g. 3-ply evaluation for an ELO-1700 player
would be a gross blunder for an ELO-2800 player. How is that not evident?
I'm inclined to your understanding of "blunder", but what I've seen in
on-line discussions is that it's a mistake that changes the expected
outcome of a game--a won position to drawn or lost, or a drawn
position to lost. (That means that a less than optimal move is by
no means a blunder.)
Your inference is wrong: in some positions, only one brilliant ("optimal") move can win or draw, so that any less than optimal moves would be blunders.
See for instance 17... Be6 in Bobby Fischer's "Game of the Century":

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361

This game is a textbook case, as Be6 is amazingly hard to find (= optimal)
and winning, while all other (less than optimal) moves lose.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'm not sure I agree with your meaning of "subjective".
Yet, it's spot-on with standard definitions of the word.
Post by Jerry Friedman
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-14 17:59:44 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.
The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
Yet, it's evident to anyone who knows the basics of chess: what's a very
hard-to-spot error involving e.g. 3-ply evaluation for an ELO-1700 player
would be a gross blunder for an ELO-2800 player. How is that not evident?
I'm inclined to your understanding of "blunder", but what I've seen in
on-line discussions is that it's a mistake that changes the expected
outcome of a game--a won position to drawn or lost, or a drawn
position to lost. (That means that a less than optimal move is by
no means a blunder.)
Your inference is wrong: in some positions, only one brilliant ("optimal") move can win or draw, so that any less than optimal moves would be blunders.
...

Sorry, "That means that a less than optimal move is by no means always
a blunder."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'm not sure I agree with your meaning of "subjective".
Yet, it's spot-on with standard definitions of the word.
What definition do you have in mind? I can't see any definition under
which "less than optimal move" is a subjective term. As for "blunder",
are you saying that a player rated 2800 might call a move a blunder
that a player rated 1700 wouldn't, or that a move would be a blunder if
a 2800 player made it but not if a 1700 player made it?
--
Jerry Friedman can only dream of a 1700 rating.
b***@aol.com
2018-09-14 18:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.
The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
Yet, it's evident to anyone who knows the basics of chess: what's a very
hard-to-spot error involving e.g. 3-ply evaluation for an ELO-1700 player
would be a gross blunder for an ELO-2800 player. How is that not evident?
I'm inclined to your understanding of "blunder", but what I've seen in
on-line discussions is that it's a mistake that changes the expected
outcome of a game--a won position to drawn or lost, or a drawn
position to lost. (That means that a less than optimal move is by
no means a blunder.)
Your inference is wrong: in some positions, only one brilliant ("optimal") move can win or draw, so that any less than optimal moves would be blunders.
...
Sorry, "That means that a less than optimal move is by no means always
a blunder."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'm not sure I agree with your meaning of "subjective".
Yet, it's spot-on with standard definitions of the word.
What definition do you have in mind? I can't see any definition under
which "less than optimal move" is a subjective term.
"optimal" is a superlative of "good" (Latin "bonus" and "optimus"), and
"good" (or "bad") is the epitome of a subjective word.
Post by Jerry Friedman
As for "blunder",
are you saying that a player rated 2800 might call a move a blunder
that a player rated 1700 wouldn't,
Yes. The 1700-rated player might even not be aware of any error, as they
couldn't calculate with sufficient depth to see it.
Post by Jerry Friedman
or that a move would be a blunder if
a 2800 player made it but not if a 1700 player made it?
Your question can be understood in two ways:

1) ...or that a move would be a blunder if a 2800 player made it but that
it wouldn't be a blunder if a 1700 player made it?

In that case: yes

2) ...or that a move would be a blunder if a 2800 player it made whereas a
1700 player didn't make it?

In that other (improbable) case: yes, even more so.
Post by Jerry Friedman
--
Jerry Friedman can only dream of a 1700 rating.
Richard Tobin
2018-09-14 18:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
"optimal" is a superlative of "good" (Latin "bonus" and "optimus"), and
"good" (or "bad") is the epitome of a subjective word.
No, it's the epitome of a word that is sometimes subjective and
sometimes not, depending on context.

-- Richard
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-14 22:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.
The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
Yet, it's evident to anyone who knows the basics of chess: what's a very
hard-to-spot error involving e.g. 3-ply evaluation for an ELO-1700 player
would be a gross blunder for an ELO-2800 player. How is that not evident?
I'm inclined to your understanding of "blunder", but what I've seen in
on-line discussions is that it's a mistake that changes the expected
outcome of a game--a won position to drawn or lost, or a drawn
position to lost. (That means that a less than optimal move is by
no means a blunder.)
Your inference is wrong: in some positions, only one brilliant ("optimal") move can win or draw, so that any less than optimal moves would be blunders.
...
Sorry, "That means that a less than optimal move is by no means always
a blunder."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'm not sure I agree with your meaning of "subjective".
Yet, it's spot-on with standard definitions of the word.
What definition do you have in mind? I can't see any definition under
which "less than optimal move" is a subjective term.
"optimal" is a superlative of "good" (Latin "bonus" and "optimus"), and
"good" (or "bad") is the epitome of a subjective word.
It depends on the context, as Richard Tobin said. Surely 17. ...Be6!!
in D. Byrne--Fischer (1956) was objectively the optimal move and all
the other possible moves were less than optimal.

In my experience, "optimal" is usually used where the criteria are
objective.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
As for "blunder",
are you saying that a player rated 2800 might call a move a blunder
that a player rated 1700 wouldn't,
Yes. The 1700-rated player might even not be aware of any error, as they
couldn't calculate with sufficient depth to see it.
That's not what "subjective" means as far as I know. The 1700 player
could be shown what was wrong with the move and would then recognize
it was a blunder.

For an analogy, people can make errors in arithmetic calculations and
some people make a lot, but that doesn't mean the right answers are
subjective.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
or that a move would be a blunder if
a 2800 player made it but not if a 1700 player made it?
1) ...or that a move would be a blunder if a 2800 player made it but that
it wouldn't be a blunder if a 1700 player made it?
In that case: yes
That's what I meant. Again, as far as I know, "subjective" doesn't
normally mean that. Indeed I'd say that /objectively/ such a move is
a blunder, but a 1700 player wouldn't be expected to see it. (If I
knew enough about chess to make such judgements.)
Post by b***@aol.com
2) ...or that a move would be a blunder if a 2800 player it made whereas a
1700 player didn't make it?
In that other (improbable) case: yes, even more so.
I hope "improbably" means that it's improbable that I meant that. You
could have said "impossible"; I don't see that interpretation at all.
--
Jerry Friedman
b***@aol.com
2018-09-15 00:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.
The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
Yet, it's evident to anyone who knows the basics of chess: what's a very
hard-to-spot error involving e.g. 3-ply evaluation for an ELO-1700 player
would be a gross blunder for an ELO-2800 player. How is that not evident?
I'm inclined to your understanding of "blunder", but what I've seen in
on-line discussions is that it's a mistake that changes the expected
outcome of a game--a won position to drawn or lost, or a drawn
position to lost. (That means that a less than optimal move is by
no means a blunder.)
Your inference is wrong: in some positions, only one brilliant ("optimal") move can win or draw, so that any less than optimal moves would be blunders.
...
Sorry, "That means that a less than optimal move is by no means always
a blunder."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'm not sure I agree with your meaning of "subjective".
Yet, it's spot-on with standard definitions of the word.
What definition do you have in mind? I can't see any definition under
which "less than optimal move" is a subjective term.
"optimal" is a superlative of "good" (Latin "bonus" and "optimus"), and
"good" (or "bad") is the epitome of a subjective word.
It depends on the context, as Richard Tobin said. Surely 17. ...Be6!!
in D. Byrne--Fischer (1956) was objectively the optimal move and all
the other possible moves were less than optimal.
In my experience, "optimal" is usually used where the criteria are
objective.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
As for "blunder",
are you saying that a player rated 2800 might call a move a blunder
that a player rated 1700 wouldn't,
Yes. The 1700-rated player might even not be aware of any error, as they
couldn't calculate with sufficient depth to see it.
That's not what "subjective" means as far as I know. The 1700 player
could be shown what was wrong with the move and would then recognize
it was a blunder.
No, if they're honest, they'll recognize that the error shown to them
(in retrospect) resulted from a subtlety far beyond their comprehension
of the game and calculating abilities, and wasn't a _blunder_ by their
standards. However, overlooking a fork, for instance, would be a blunder
for them (and for nearly any level players). Their judgment on what a
blunder is is actually connected to their game level and is therefore
subjective.
Post by Jerry Friedman
For an analogy, people can make errors in arithmetic calculations and
some people make a lot, but that doesn't mean the right answers are
subjective.
? IMO, the analogy would rather be between e.g. an error in making an
addition (= overlooking a fork) and in solving a complex equation
(= making a 5- or 6- ply error).
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
or that a move would be a blunder if
a 2800 player made it but not if a 1700 player made it?
1) ...or that a move would be a blunder if a 2800 player made it but that
it wouldn't be a blunder if a 1700 player made it?
In that case: yes
That's what I meant. Again, as far as I know, "subjective" doesn't
normally mean that. Indeed I'd say that /objectively/ such a move is
a blunder, but a 1700 player wouldn't be expected to see it. (If I
knew enough about chess to make such judgements.)
Post by b***@aol.com
2) ...or that a move would be a blunder if a 2800 player it made whereas a
1700 player didn't make it?
In that other (improbable) case: yes, even more so.
I hope "improbably" means that it's improbable that I meant that. You
could have said "impossible"; I don't see that interpretation at all.
I meant a blunder made by a 2800 player and not by a 1700 player is
improbable, but now that I think of it, you could have asked 2) for
unpredictable ends.
Post by Jerry Friedman
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-15 15:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.
The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
Yet, it's evident to anyone who knows the basics of chess: what's a very
hard-to-spot error involving e.g. 3-ply evaluation for an ELO-1700 player
would be a gross blunder for an ELO-2800 player. How is that not evident?
I'm inclined to your understanding of "blunder", but what I've seen in
on-line discussions is that it's a mistake that changes the expected
outcome of a game--a won position to drawn or lost, or a drawn
position to lost. (That means that a less than optimal move is by
no means a blunder.)
Your inference is wrong: in some positions, only one brilliant ("optimal") move can win or draw, so that any less than optimal moves would be blunders.
...
Sorry, "That means that a less than optimal move is by no means always
a blunder."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'm not sure I agree with your meaning of "subjective".
Yet, it's spot-on with standard definitions of the word.
What definition do you have in mind? I can't see any definition under
which "less than optimal move" is a subjective term.
"optimal" is a superlative of "good" (Latin "bonus" and "optimus"), and
"good" (or "bad") is the epitome of a subjective word.
It depends on the context, as Richard Tobin said. Surely 17. ...Be6!!
in D. Byrne--Fischer (1956) was objectively the optimal move and all
the other possible moves were less than optimal.
In my experience, "optimal" is usually used where the criteria are
objective.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
As for "blunder",
are you saying that a player rated 2800 might call a move a blunder
that a player rated 1700 wouldn't,
Yes. The 1700-rated player might even not be aware of any error, as they
couldn't calculate with sufficient depth to see it.
That's not what "subjective" means as far as I know. The 1700 player
could be shown what was wrong with the move and would then recognize
it was a blunder.
No, if they're honest, they'll recognize that the error shown to them
(in retrospect) resulted from a subtlety far beyond their comprehension
of the game and calculating abilities, and wasn't a _blunder_ by their
standards. However, overlooking a fork, for instance, would be a blunder
for them (and for nearly any level players). Their judgment on what a
blunder is is actually connected to their game level and is therefore
subjective.
If we accept that definition of blunder, which not everybody does, it's
still not subjective. The 2800 player will agree that it wasn't a
blunder for the 1700 player, and I'll take their word that it wasn't.

There's still room for disagreement. "A 1700 player should have been
able to see that." "Not in my experience." But it's not subjective
like "That's a beautiful song."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
For an analogy, people can make errors in arithmetic calculations and
some people make a lot, but that doesn't mean the right answers are
subjective.
? IMO, the analogy would rather be between e.g. an error in making an
addition (= overlooking a fork) and in solving a complex equation
(= making a 5- or 6- ply error).
That's fine. The right answer is still objective, not subjective.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
or that a move would be a blunder if
a 2800 player made it but not if a 1700 player made it?
1) ...or that a move would be a blunder if a 2800 player made it but that
it wouldn't be a blunder if a 1700 player made it?
In that case: yes
That's what I meant. Again, as far as I know, "subjective" doesn't
normally mean that. Indeed I'd say that /objectively/ such a move is
a blunder, but a 1700 player wouldn't be expected to see it. (If I
knew enough about chess to make such judgements.)
Post by b***@aol.com
2) ...or that a move would be a blunder if a 2800 player it made whereas a
1700 player didn't make it?
In that other (improbable) case: yes, even more so.
I hope "improbably"
Oops, "improbable".
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Jerry Friedman
means that it's improbable that I meant that. You
could have said "impossible"; I don't see that interpretation at all.
I meant a blunder made by a 2800 player and not by a 1700 player is
improbable,
Makes sense. My point, though, was that I don't see your 2 as a
possible interpretation.
Post by b***@aol.com
but now that I think of it, you could have asked 2) for
unpredictable ends.
I don't follow.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2018-09-16 07:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
No, if they're honest, they'll recognize that the error shown to
them (in retrospect) resulted from a subtlety far beyond their
comprehension of the game and calculating abilities, and wasn't a
_blunder_ by their standards. However, overlooking a fork, for
instance, would be a blunder for them (and for nearly any level
players). Their judgment on what a blunder is is actually
connected to their game level and is therefore subjective.
If we accept that definition of blunder, which not everybody does,
it's still not subjective. The 2800 player will agree that it
wasn't a blunder for the 1700 player, and I'll take their word that
it wasn't.
All such errors are blunders, in my opinion. If a player requires
hindsight to see what he did wrong, or even if he lacks the expertise to
see why it was a bad move after having it explained to him, it was still
a blunder.

The difference between top players and weak players is that the top
players make fewer blunders.

It seems that bebercito makes distinctions between blunders, errors, and
mistakes. They're all the same thing to me.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
b***@aol.com
2018-09-16 13:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
No, if they're honest, they'll recognize that the error shown to
them (in retrospect) resulted from a subtlety far beyond their
comprehension of the game and calculating abilities, and wasn't a
_blunder_ by their standards. However, overlooking a fork, for
instance, would be a blunder for them (and for nearly any level
players). Their judgment on what a blunder is is actually
connected to their game level and is therefore subjective.
If we accept that definition of blunder, which not everybody does,
it's still not subjective. The 2800 player will agree that it
wasn't a blunder for the 1700 player, and I'll take their word that
it wasn't.
All such errors are blunders, in my opinion. If a player requires
hindsight to see what he did wrong, or even if he lacks the expertise to
see why it was a bad move after having it explained to him, it was still
a blunder.
The difference between top players and weak players is that the top
players make fewer blunders.
It seems that bebercito makes distinctions between blunders, errors, and
mistakes. They're all the same thing to me.
Hoping this will, at long last, set the record straight (emphasis
mine):

------

Blunder (chess)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In chess, a blunder is a very bad move. It is usually caused by some
tactical oversight, whether from time trouble, overconfidence or
carelessness. While a blunder may seem like a stroke of luck for the
opposing player, some chess players give their opponent plenty of
opportunities to blunder.

What qualifies as *a "blunder" rather than a normal mistake* is somewhat
*subjective*. *A weak move from a novice player might be explained by the
player's lack of skill, while the same move from a master might be called
a blunder*. In chess annotation, blunders are typically marked with a
double question mark, "??", after the move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_(chess)

------

I didn't know of this Wiki article, but it's strikingly close to what I
wrote.
Post by Peter Moylan
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Yates
2018-09-14 17:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.
The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
Yet, it's evident to anyone who knows the basics of chess: what's a very
hard-to-spot error involving e.g. 3-ply evaluation for an ELO-1700 player
would be a gross blunder for an ELO-2800 player. How is that not evident?
You are confusing two, separate issues. You are now focused on whether
and chess error is "self-evident" (although you actually mean
"obvious").

Whereas, what I commented on (twice) is about the _usage_ of the terms
"blunder" and "ruin a position" and whether the fixity of their usage
is self-evident as _you_ claimed.

You either are unable to distinguish events from the words describing
events, or you are shifting goalposts. Either way, no response will be
seen.
b***@aol.com
2018-09-14 18:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent. If he had made
the right moves, he would have created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous opponent."
implies that, up to some point, the game was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only mean that every game would be a masterpiece
if one always played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have created a chess
masterpiece[s]" implies that the right moves, which create a masterpiece,
would have come after what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic. The easily
inferred meanings are right there and we do this all the time when
reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this" in the
previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could 'this' possibly
refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild comprehension hiccup that you
quickly and correctly resolved ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a potential masterpiece
by blundering (in a winning game/position) against his most famous
opponent" would be by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology
of chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so by
inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words is
immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least needing the
extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a position
can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if the two players
find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text was added by way of example,
and was aimed at AUE readers, who may not be familiar with chess
phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined his
position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can be a series
of less than optimal moves that ruin what had, up that point, been a
brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and follow
the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and "less than
optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
No, that would make it a contronym. "Evidently" is _literally_ self-evident, as it were.
Then you misused the word. How could whether any word's usage is fixed
or not ever be "literally self-evident"?
You missed my point, I'm afraid: "evidently" is "literally" _self_-evident
in that it doesn't need another form of "evident", namely "evidence", to be
evident. In other words, "evidently" = "evident" alone =\= "evident with
evidence", where "self" is literal.
Yes, we agree on the meaning of "evidently" as "literally
self-evident". i.e. no evidence required.
The problem is that what you claim to be self-evident is not. Whether
a word's usage is is fixed or not cannot be "self-evident". It can
only be based on evidence.
Yet, it's evident to anyone who knows the basics of chess: what's a very
hard-to-spot error involving e.g. 3-ply evaluation for an ELO-1700 player
would be a gross blunder for an ELO-2800 player. How is that not evident?
You are confusing two, separate issues. You are now focused on whether
and chess error is "self-evident" (although you actually mean
"obvious").
??? No, I'm not (and I don't), you're messing everything up. What is
"evident" is that the meaning of "blunder" and "less than optimal moves"
varies depending on whether one's a chess learner or champion, and I have provided ample evidence of that above.
Post by Richard Yates
Whereas, what I commented on (twice) is about the _usage_ of the terms
"blunder" and "ruin a position" and whether the fixity of their usage
is self-evident as _you_ claimed.
??? I claimed they could have no fixed usage, as they're evidently
subjective. Can't you just read my post?
Post by Richard Yates
You either are unable to distinguish events from the words describing
events, or you are shifting goalposts. Either way, no response will be
seen.
CDB
2018-09-14 16:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He ruined a winning game against his most famous
opponent.
2) He ruined a masterpiece against his most famous
opponent. If he had made the right moves, he would have
created a chess masterpieces.
Are the above grammatical? Are they idiomatic?
2) Is illogical. "He ruined a masterpiece against his most
famous opponent." implies that, up to some point, the game
was indeed a masterpiece. Otherwise, that one would only
mean that every game would be a masterpiece if one always
played the right moves, which is a truism.
Adding "If he had made the right moves, he would have
created a chess masterpiece[s]" implies that the right
moves, which create a masterpiece, would have come after
what was already a masterpiece, and is confusing.
Only for the intentionally confused. Language is not logic.
The easily inferred meanings are right there and we do this
all the time when reading or hearing.
For instance, did you have great puzzlement at "we do this"
in the previous sentence? Did you stop and cry "What could
'this' possibly refer to?"? Or, did you have only a mild
comprehension hiccup that you quickly and correctly resolved
?
Post by b***@aol.com
Therefore, a sentence along the line of "He ruined a
potential masterpiece by blundering (in a winning
game/position) against his most famous opponent" would be
by far preferable - and in keeping with the phraseology of
chess literature.
Any sentence claiming to be an improvement but that does so
by inserting a parenthetical, a slash noun and 8 extra words
is immediately suspect.
Those who know "chess phraseology" would be the ones least
needing the extra words.
The extra words specifying that the game or the position were
winning aren't necessarily superfluous in that a game / a
position can be "drawish" and still result in a masterpiece if
the two players find the optimal moves. The parenthetical text
was added by way of example, and was aimed at AUE readers, who
may not be familiar with chess phraseology.
Post by Richard Yates
Last, your extra words actually changed the meaning. "ruined
his position" does not necessarily mean "blundering". It can
be a series of less than optimal moves that ruin what had,
up that point, been a brilliant game.
When a masterpiece is at stake, any less than optimal move is a
blunder, IMHO.
You can be satisfied with your definition or you can learn and
follow the usage of chess players.
I'm one of them. There can be no fixed usage for "blunder" and
"less than optimal move", as these are evidently subjective terms.
An assertion such as "evidently" would be helped by evidence.
The referents of "blunder" may be debatable, but its definition isn't.
The debate is over "which of these decisions was a blunder/less than
optimal"; that is to say, which example fits the definition, which must
be agreed upon lest handwaving ensue.

Anticipating developments downthread: To say "evidently" is to posit the
existence of evidence. It is entirely legitimate to ask for examples or
explanations.

"Self-evident" does not mean the same thing as "evident", and can still
be challenged for a proof which will be found in the word or expression
itself. The phrase is more useful in polemics than in investigation.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-14 18:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Anticipating developments downthread: To say "evidently" is to posit the
existence of evidence. It is entirely legitimate to ask for examples or
explanations.
"Self-evident" does not mean the same thing as "evident", and can still
be challenged for a proof which will be found in the word or expression
itself. The phrase is more useful in polemics than in investigation.
How common was "self-evident" before Mr. Jefferson used it so memorably
in 1776?
Richard Tobin
2018-09-14 18:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How common was "self-evident" before Mr. Jefferson used it so memorably
in 1776?
Common enough for John Locke to use it a century earlier.

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-15 02:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How common was "self-evident" before Mr. Jefferson used it so memorably
in 1776?
Common enough for John Locke to use it a century earlier.
That, of course, does not answer the question. Mr. Jefferson got it from
Mr Locke. Perhaps Mr Locke invented it -- and discussed the intended
meaning, which would then be Mr. Jefferson's intended meaning.
Loading...