Some bad players are lazy. Some are not interested. Some are dumb. Some are discouraged by cheaters. Some are none of these.
Are people lazy?
Sort:
Reminds me of "the players from india who are posting idiotic things are lazy, not interesting or just dumb?"
mohittgandhii wrote:
The players who are bad at chess are lazy, not interesting or just dumb?
Or lots of cheaters are there to discourage them.
What's your excuse?
mohittgandhii wrote:
The players who are bad at chess are lazy, not interesting or just dumb?
Or lots of cheaters are there to discourage them.
Its WvB's brother. I can only speak for myself, but i qualify under the following:
Lazy
What i dont qualify under:
I am actually very interesting
I have made some dumb decisions, but not dumb
If you can afford the luxury of laziness, your life's good enough - no need for better solutions.
incantevoleutopia wrote:
If you can afford the luxury of laziness, your life's good enough - no need for better solutions.
Amen!
Why does lazy rule out dumb? You can both be lazy AND dumb. I am sure everyone agree with this from personal experience with people.
There are 8 combinations of the three terms. They all need to be discussed as possible explanations.
Lazy uninterested dumb
Lazy uninterested not-dumb
Lazy not-uninterested dumb
Lazy not-uninterested not-dumb
Not-lazy uninterested dumb
Not-lazy uninterested not-dumb
Not-lazy not-uninterested dumb
Not-lazy uninterested not-dumb
If you had a good enough sample of bad chess players, and independent tests of lazyness, dumbness and uninterestedness,one could find the proportionsof each combination. Im am sure enough bad chess players are available, so it's a simple problem in fact.
It is also a possibility that it is only a combination of say lazyness and uninterestedness that defines the bad chess player. You can only know that by testing all the parameters.
Say if all the bad players were randomly distributed in the Lazy half of the test groups, you'd know uninterested and dumb were irrelevant.
All of this begs the question, which is worse, ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.
And Raspberry...I think it was uninteresting. Uninterested is a whole other topic, lol.
MrHatRules wrote:
All of this begs the question, which is worse, ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.
In my igorance, i was going to look up the definition of apathy, but then realized i was to lazy.
MrHatRules wrote:
All of this begs the question, which is worse, ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.
It depends if you value making correct things or avoiding mistakes the most.
A non-ignorant apathic could not use his non-ignorance for anything because he doesnt do anything.
But an ignorant non-apathic would do stuff and then by sheer luck do something right not or then. So he would by definition have more correct actions than the non-ignorant apathic. He would also have more mistakes though, probably an overwhelming proportion of his actions would be mistakes then.
0
#15
There's a certain amount of...
....that goes along with apathy tho', would you agree ?....just MHO.
In a world where everyone tries to "out busy" everyone else, i take pride in my laid back life style.
incantevoleutopia wrote:
If you can afford the luxury of laziness, your life's good enough - no need for better solutions.
+infinity
I_Am_Second wrote:
In a world where everyone tries to "out busy" everyone else, i take pride in my laid back life style.
I would answer this, but I'm too lazy right now...
cornbeefhashvili wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
In a world where everyone tries to "out busy" everyone else, i take pride in my laid back life style.
I would answer this, but I'm too lazy right now...
I was going to read what you wrote but im to lazy too...
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
The players who are bad at chess are lazy, not interesting or just dumb?
Or lots of cheaters are there to discourage them.