Do you just google these things?
This town needs a new sheriff
Sort:
chessdude46 wrote:
Do you just google these things?
I actually have a database.
That's impressive.
You can win any argument with those things.
chessdude46 wrote:
You can win any argument with those things.
I don't think calling you cute can be considered an argument, but yeah, they work really well.
Didn't you say my argument was cute, not me myself, until it got to there?
chessdude46 wrote:
Do you just google these things?
I've been googling various things, which is why oinquarki is beating me so easily. He knows what's up.
That and he has a database.
Sep 15, 2011
0
#74
theoreticalboy wrote:
The difference is not in question, chessdude; what is in question is whether they are necessarily exclusive characteristics in a single being. Let's take an example dear to these forums: Fischer. Guy was unquestionably a chess genius, right? Yet, he wholeheartedky believed in not one, but two global conspiracies that directly impacted on him; the Soviets, and the Jews. In that sense, he was a total idiot.
Van Gogh had a genius for aesthetics, but he cut off his own ear, and thought it would be a good idea to share a house with Gaugin. Also, idiot.
You are making the fallacious assumption that one single trait defines a person, when humans are actually built as a mass of contradictions, and each of our personalities is subject to change according to context. I would characterise myself as occasional smart guy, and usual cheerful idiot.
Am I making sense? Because I must say, this is as far as I can usually go without posting funny (?) pictures.
Maybe everyone that lost to beloved Bobby, were amazed that such a complete idiot could beat them in chess--a board game which they change into an expression of their own worth. So, they try to assert that Bobby was not a complete idiot, but rather, a genius. For, how can a complete idiot be so good at a board game that they have devoted their lives to? But, then dear Bobby started talking, which uncovered the myth and disclosed his idiocy for all to see. Fischer fans, confronted with the idea that their idol was a complete idiot, changed the narrative once again, by claiming that Bobby was a tragedy in the Greek sense, and in the sense that he had no control over what he was saying. Their hero-genius was overcome by the ungrateful world of tragic chance, making sad-beloved Bobby a choiceless, helpless victim. Me thinks.
And I believe you're falling into the same fallacy, trysts; that each person is one thing, and one thing only. Surely you wouldn't deny Fischer had a genius for memorisation, for one?
When you see things from my perspective, your post is merely an affirmation of all I've said.
Sep 15, 2011
0
#76
theoreticalboy wrote:
And I believe you're falling into the same fallacy, trysts; that each person is one thing, and one thing only. Surely you wouldn't deny Fischer had a genius for memorisation, for one?
When you see things from my perspective, your post is merely an affirmation of all I've said.
I was laughing when I wrote that. It was meant to be funny for anyone who thinks Fischer is a jackass. But it could just be me
Yah, okay, I've misread. The thought did occur that you were just using any excuse to call Fischer an idiot.
Sep 15, 2011
0
#78
theoreticalboy wrote:
Yah, okay, I've misread. The thought did occur that you were just using any excuse to call Fischer an idiot.
This is the only website I go to where I can say that without having to explain who Bobby Fischer is.
Did Bobby Fischer drink alcohol?
Ugh.
Here, I'll help you out: