Chess and Astrology

What challenge?

saying what's the player sign by watching a game? without seeing his face, or talking with him for an hour atleast?

hell no, i am not God, and that's my point..but i don't know how me not knowing that makes the whole thing about astrology crumble.

i guess you are one of these "if you are not with me, you are against me" people.

Kinan, you don't get it.

You studied this subject for some years you say, but you are unable to provide any proof.

I'm not going to chnge my mind because you say so.

I'm not sure if you could find these things on Google, but Stephen Hawking talked about the Elephant in the Garage, and there is also the "theory" of the Celestial Teapot.

These address exactly the type of argument you make.

You make a statement which is almost impossible to disprove, and therefore assume it must be true. In my book, that's just silly.

If you are willing to spend the time and effort you have wasted (my opinion) on this pseudo-science, and use that to open mindedly examine the improbability of any of this having the slightest relevance, I would be surprised if you don't change your mind.

A good place to start learning critical thinking, is Richard Dawkins' book, the God Delusion. You can download it for free from the net.

Kinan,

Based on your earlier assertions, you seemed confident in your ability to recognzie correlations between style and sign, so I just thought that you would be able to see some games from a player and come up with their sign. I would actually be rooting for you.

You said it..impossible to disprove.

There are things like the existance of God that nobody can prove or disprove.

You can't prove there is no God and i can't prove there is a God..materially speaking ofcourse.

these kind of arguments have no end..and let's say i am not trying to prove or convience anyone, what do i get anyway?

i am just bringing this thread mostly for fun of knowing player's signs..but one thing we all should not do, is dissolvong anything just cuz we are raised to do that.

Oh contraire mon freres, this is very provable. The astrologist can look at the games (meet the players if that helps) and then make predictions of their sign. If the predictions are of a higher ratio than probability then we have some evidence don't we folks?

Exactly [EDIT, I wasn't done] in that way it would be, but experience shows that always there seems to be another variable popping up to explain the failure.

The elephant in the Garage......

i donn believe in all these...!!! sorry...

sigh.... so THIS is why my rating isnt as high as a GM. my sign isnt the right one.... the planets are against me. sorry, but i'm not buying this. sheer coincidence. 

Astrology is nonsense... you'll better compare GMs to their favourite food.

Interesting idea, Kinan, but it seems to me all you're doing is using facts to justify your belief. It is obvious you are not thinking critically, especially regarding your comments about bone structure and anatomical / physiological makeup. Good science is not so ambiguous.

Believers in this kind of stuff only remember the hits, not the numerous misses.

Actually I think that even the very sparse facts provided in the original post go against the hypothesis: Tal and Capablanca are supposed to have the same chess playing style? Morphy and Karpov??

astrology is only for the very gullible............

While we're recommending reading material on this topic, I highly recommend this book as well:

Yes, yes, you're correct. Think for yourself! Read this book! It will show you how to think! 

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - Mr Will Shakespeare, Hamlet

"There's nothing worse than an overbearing atheist sitting on their perch laughing at the believers" - Trant, this post 

"i am just bringing this thread mostly for fun" - Kinan, this thread

I'm an atheist and I think this thread is a good example of the ugly side of atheism. No matter what someone's belief, I approach it with respect and the knowledge that I don't know everything. (I've read Mr Dawkins' book, I also hold a Physics degree and studied the method of scientific proof, so no need to lecture me either)

I tend to agree, padman. Respect is earnt, not granted automatically.

About that last statement: it's a load of crap. Energy is a measurable, observable, and therefor provable physical occurrence. Astrology doesn't have a foundation in real energy, nor in any other measurable, observable, or provable thing.

Yes, yes.  Astrology is as relevant as phrenology.  Ology man!  It is science!

The men in my family all look extremely similar. The same build, face, eye color, and hair with surprisingly little variation for 4 generations. No two of us are born in the same month so we probably have many different astrological signs, I don't really know the exact dates for those.

Given that information, explain how we can not share star signs yet still look extremely similar.

If i could find some plausible argument or some kind of proof that has merit, then even without the full possible evidence available, it might have a chance of me believing stars have an effect on who we are. Something intelligent creating life is plausible based on the complexity and organisation of life, in such a way we still are trying to understand it and copy it, not to mention how amazingly individualised we are compared to other creatures who dont have our understanding of things and desire to grow like we do. That i found possible even if science has not caught up with it entirely yet, but stars without intelligence or anything that would show they have a direct effect on us is hard to swallow.

If there is an intelligent source to the universe and us (as i believe)  then this same source would not need to use stars to create our character, it could just simply make us the way it wants from the very start for each individual just as our DNA is individual as well as similar.