Kind of a mean topic :)....Kind of common situation here I don't remember the fellow's name, but one guy I met was telling me he was awesome at chess and always beat his friend when they played, so that pretty much made him a GM.
I explained that quantity of wins was not as important as quality. He said "but I could beat this guy like 100 times in a row easily" Again, I said, the number of wins isn't important. I could beat my 5 year old cousin 100 times. He said, yeah, but my friend is really good. I said, well, how does he lose to you 100 times in a row then?
This gambit was easily refuted by him by a counter-gambit whereby he sidestepped my variation of reasoning and disagreed/ changed the subject all in one fluid motion
Much has been the discussion of the BEST players- a debate which quickly involves time-traveling grandmasters and such nonsense.
But who is decidedly the WORST player?
By this, I do not mean your four-year-old son who knocks the pieces about, nor that guy in the park who never develops the queenside. I mean someone who is famously inept, or failing that, someone who makes prodigious efforts to expose their lack of talent to the world of chess. Something of the type such as this:
"There was one player who would at the drop of the hat offer to play a simul of eight games, and would invariably lose every one of them."
Most likely we will have to rely on some input from our renowned historian batgirl, from days when chess was a game that noble gentlemen felt obliged to involve themselves in despite a glorious lack of talent. Nonetheless I would be interested to know about any latter-day hopeless pushers whom you have encountered, either personally in tournament play or otherwise.