The Greatest chess player of all time is 24 years old

[RickJay]

@Doctor_Jackson

Now here is an scenario that I can run with. I am a baseball instructor, trained not only through a lifetime of playing and coaching, but also by major league ballplayers. I know of many cases where an extremely talented player did not make the major leagues due to circumstance. I have yet to meet the major league player who does not have one or more stories about a player who was much better than them in high school, college or minor leagues but never made it to the majors.

I’m sorry but that does not prove those players were the best baseball players in the world. What it says is that maybe they MIGHT have been. But they were not. Nobody in the world playing high school ball is the best baseball player in the world or anything near it, and if they do not advance past high school ball they will never be that good.

I’ve played lots and lots of baseball too, and the fact someone dominates a lower level of baseball does not necessarily translate to dominance at the elite level. At the high school level, especially, a teenager can dominate one or many sports through sheer athletic maturity; if he is much faster or quicker than the other children he’ll look dominant and beat his opponents by pure force. The skills to dominate lower level baseball (or hockey, or chess, or almost anything) do not necessarily represent the same skills that will dominate higher level competition.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@Doctor_Jackson

Sure, whatever, you win. No player of any sport, no artist, no singer that has ever lived was better than what we identify as “the best”. Nevermind that we can’t even objectively identify “the best” at anything among those we do know.

I was just countering your personal experience with my own. And actually, I was saying you have a valid point regarding the amount of luck required to get discovered, but basically I would tend to agree with RickJay that those undiscovered players would probably be on the fringe of MLB talent at best. Not the greatest ever.

And you’re also correct that we can objectively identify the best baseball player ever, but the debate would probably include no more than, what, 5 players?

[RTFirefly]

@glee

As a chess teacher, I tell my students not to set traps.
Play good moves and your reward will come.
Playing for traps is a bad habit!

I’m sure this doesn’t come up at your level of play, but for us relative patzers, a trap can sometimes rescue a game where you’ve already screwed up any reasonable chance to win.

My last game in ‘real’ competition (meaning anything besides just-for-fun with friends) was my last chess team match of senior year of HS. I’d blown the game, was down the Exchange in a position, late middle game turning into endgame, where nothing was going on. Used a pawn as bait to set up a skewer, picked up a piece, and salvaged a totally undeserved draw.

Totally playing for the trap, but it was either that or lose.

Other than situations like that, I’d agree with you. Playing for traps when good play can still get you a win or even a draw is more likely to cost you than help you. It is a distraction from the process of building a winning position, and the moves you waste on setting traps are, well, wasted.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Snarky_Kong

Not the playing of baseball.

Baseball is reducible to robotics, which is reducible to mathematics.

[Snarky_Kong]

@ElvisL1ves

Baseball is reducible to robotics, which is reducible to mathematics.

I’m not sure if you believe that something that requires a physical component is exactly equivalent to something that does not require a physical component.

[ElvisL1ves]

It was a fun episode. I’m sure you’d have enjoyed watching it.