What??
Does Chess make your math slower?
Sort:
isnt the burden of proof on the one with the claim?
I think the thread-starter is just starting as many threads as he can.
tigergutt wrote:
isnt the burden of proof on the one with the claim?
No, the burden of proof lies on whoever disagrees with me.
You can't just make a blanket stantement and accept it as fact. If so, I now have a new fact to share with the world.
Unicorns, contrary to popular belief, can fly.
If no give me 2 reasons.
Iamcleverbot wrote:
You can't just make a blanket stantement and accept it as fact. If so, I now have a new fact to share with the world.
Unicorns, contrary to popular belief, can fly.
If no give me 2 reasons.
1) Their horns while aerodynamic make them nose-heavy; 2) They have no wings and even if they did the force of flapping them would rip their chests apart.
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
Iamcleverbot wrote:
You can't just make a blanket stantement and accept it as fact. If so, I now have a new fact to share with the world.
Unicorns, contrary to popular belief, can fly.
If no give me 2 reasons.
1) Their horns while aerodynamic make them nose-heavy; 2) They have no wings and even if they did the force of flapping them would rip their chests apart.
Unicorns did fly in the past, but evolution weeded them out because the amount of ATP used was enormously too high to sustain any real survival advantage. I think the same thing happened with the fire-breathing rabbits and sharks with laser eyes.
It seems to be making my brain rot. I was smarter before I ever logged on to this site, and learned what little I know about it.
Here_is_Plenty, you are incorrect.
1) Their horns are made of magic, which doesn't weigh anything.
2) The magic gives them an aerial boost.
dannyhume, you are also wrong.
Flight isn't fueled by ATP, it is fueled by happiness and love.
Iamcleverbot wrote:
Here_is_Plenty, you are incorrect.
1) Their horns are made of magic, which doesn't weigh anything.
2) The magic gives them an aerial boost.
dannyhume, you are also wrong.
Flight isn't fueled by ATP, it is fueled by happiness and love.
Oh, that explains why they can't fly any more. I always thought it was because they played too much chess.
Iamcleverbot wrote:
Here_is_Plenty, you are incorrect.
1) Their horns are made of magic, which doesn't weigh anything.
2) The magic gives them an aerial boost.
dannyhume, you are also wrong.
Flight isn't fueled by ATP, it is fueled by happiness and love.
1) The horns may be magically weightless but there is the principle of leverage where the air resistance forces the horn down and 2) The magic only works till some kid in the audience sees the strings holding them up.
ivan_otero wrote:
What a pointless thread.. You are all trolling. I doubt there is any correlation between math and chess...
The thread was posted under the category of "Chess Openings" - did you really expect it to go well after that...?
And it takes ATP to make magic. Haven't you seen Dr. Strange get all tired after casting a kickarse spell?
On the contrary, the horn is aerodynamically stable. Unicorns can fly, accept it as fact and start disproving that math makes your chess slower.
Look at it this way; Have you ever actually seen a unicorn that couldn't fly?
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
I think the thread-starter is just starting as many threads as he can.
I'm not
dannyhume wrote:
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
Iamcleverbot wrote:
You can't just make a blanket stantement and accept it as fact. If so, I now have a new fact to share with the world.
Unicorns, contrary to popular belief, can fly.
If no give me 2 reasons.
1) Their horns while aerodynamic make them nose-heavy; 2) They have no wings and even if they did the force of flapping them would rip their chests apart.
Unicorns did fly in the past, but evolution weeded them out because the amount of ATP used was enormously too high to sustain any real survival advantage. I think the same thing happened with the fire-breathing rabbits and sharks with laser eyes.
Seriously? :O
sengdao wrote:
If no give me 2 reasons.
1. You're a knob.
2. You sucking at maths doesn't prove anything.
Math, at least below the PhD levels, is an aggregate learning subject. You get better or worse at it pretty much in proportion to how much time you spend studying it.
If you're spending your free time playing chess instead of focusing on the calculus, then yeah, you're going to fall behind the people who are solving differential equations in their sleep.
On the other hand, I can't think of many activities that are better for developing one's visualization, sequential planning, and pattern recognition skills.
If no give me 2 reasons.