Am I a chess master?!

 That's right.

I can't believe this post got  2,555 views!!!!!!!

suck thread.

woodshover....  haha wood shover.  wood.  get it guys?  wood.  shover.

anyway, suck thread.

 the one with the oxygen cyclinder ?

To answer your question padman you got 1950 views on that thread.

For very large values of N, we can approximate N to be odd. :)

If somebody doesn't like a thread (perhaps because they're too stupid to understand it) they should just keep their flapping chops out of it.

Nah, we're not all chess masters.

Just because there is an infinite copy, doesn't mean you're a master.

even if that stuff had any truth in it it would be your clone who was the master, not you.

 As I stated before, this one theory, not proven fact. That's all any of us are. An infinite number of clones. Nobody nobody can say they are the original. So you might as well refer to the ones that are identical to you as yourself.

 If you're so tired of it, stay out of the post. I'm not forcing you to read it. I made the mistake of thinking chess players might have the intelligence to want to discuss something other than chess or their own puny lives. After all at least in your case just thinking about chess hasn't gotten you very far in it.

 Who are you to say what's absurd? Narrow minded much? That theory didn't originate with me, as I've already stated several times. People who know far more about physics than you ever will take it seriously. As far as our ratings go, I've stated on here many times that I started playing around with trying to learn this a few months ago because I heard it helps improve concentration. I didn't even know how the pieces moved until I got on this site, and I haven't done much serious studying since. But that's irrelevant anyway because I think about a lot of things besides chess, and things that just have to do with my life.

[CEMENT DEPLETED]

Why bother?

The whole idea of parallel universes is complete speculation and absolute drivel. I saw a short video recently where Richard Dawkins discusses the prospect as if it were scientific research. It's laughable. I think he's having a hard time dealing with reality these days, so he's trying to comfort himself by escaping into 'science-fantasy'.

The problem is just that its a theory based on a theory based on a theory. If theory 1 is wrong, then 2 and 3 are too

I thought there was a consensus.

 If you had literacy to read the post you would realize that the inflationary theory isn't about parallel universes. But I get the impression you don't like Richard Dawkins because he doesn't happen to believe silly little myths that have nothing to do with science.

 Wrong, but why bother.

I did read your original post, woodshover. I read it again after your response just to make sure I didn't miss something. You did say that the show you watched, "The Universe", mentioned parallel universes; my assessment stands as is. I don't know if Dawkins was in the show you mentioned or not; perhaps the clip I saw was from it, I don't know. But what I do know is that in what I saw Mr. Dawkins was talking about the idea of parallel universes as if it were something more than mere speculation. It simply astonished me that someone who carries such clout was talking as if exercising his imagination was equivalent to doing scientific research, and that people swallow it so unquestioningly.

BTW, it's not that I don't like Dawkins, woodshover, because he does or doesn't agree with my worldview. I just think he's, well, ... deluded.

He's entitled to his opinions, I did read his latest book, and I don't agree with him.  Religion is bad, it does nothing good, there is more than one view of god, therefore the similiarties don't matter, science shows the way, that's pretty much all he says.