Chess will never be solved, here's why

Yes, I've quoted you because I have a comment about that. What makes you and me different from some of the others on this thread and elsewhere is that neither of us seems to be obsessive. I think that what you said earlier on was a bit childish but it isn't and wasn't important. Neither of us are really going to fall out with each other over it. Yes, we have each other blocked but we could always unblock. I blocked you because I was annoyed with you at the time I did so. I never hold grudges because most people are capable of moving on.

I already unblocked you. But I had wanted to make the point about siding with known trolls. You know what I think about some people and I'm aware you don't like to discuss it.

For posterity. 170, Rat. And 71.

Must be strong stuff, that. I wonder what btickler thinks IQ is. At a guess, he did an online test and came out at 160. Realises it isn't anywhere near true and thinks everyone else (but him!) is so dumb that they do online tests. And that's why he's got 160 on the brain.

??? Never mind, a lifetime's progress isn't going to come in an hour. All the best.

Thanks.

I don't have it on the brain.  Your oft self-reported reported IQ is in the 160s.

169.

But 169 as a minimum. I was recovering from a severe illness when I took the series of tests. I had bad days and better days.

You do have it on your mind or you wouldn't have raised the subject. Also I was doing an experiment, as I pointed out. On a good day I would have gone a lot higher than 169. I estimated I could probably have scored 185. You simply don't know what you're dealing with. It's totally outside your experience. You imagine someone like me will write things you agree with all the time but if I did do that, it would mean that I wasn't what I am.

I only used that strategy because I was winning all the arguments and that didn't go down well, so they were being sidestepped and eventually I was being told I'm stupid. I don't have to react to that but telling you my IQ seems to cause you so much general confusion, hysteria and distress that it seemed a good idea. It's actually rather funny.

Anyway, you don't have a leg to stand on because you yourself made a big issue of it.

IQ stands for "Intelligence Quotient".   A quotient is a quantity derived by dividing one number, the dividend, by another number, the divisor. Anyone remember this stuff from grade school? So next question....does anyone remember what the dividend and the divisor are to determine the quotient....in this case, "Intelligence Quotient"? In other words, what do we divide  by what to get IQ?

So-called mental age divided by chronological age. It stops being accurate some time in the teens. The more intelligent you are, the later, chronologically, that your ability stops increasing. Mental age is based on average scores by people of all ages up until the time that ability is thought to stop increasing.

As I said, in the 160s.  Why continue to bridle at an accurate statement?

To think that because you claimed to score 169 while sick that 185 should be more accurate is ludicrous.  You also bandied about the number 190 at one point long ago when you made the claim that your IQ fluctuates between 160 and 190 on good and bad days.  So, in your world, one day you are arguably the smartest man in this century, and the next you are just 1 of about 8,000 people. 

But this is all belied by the fact that someone with such a high IQ would not be so easy to wind up with a tactic as obvious and simple as "in the 160s".

P.S.  Ask your wife to explain to you that hysteria is a made up malady.

    Quotient: from Latin quotiens, meaning "how often". As how many times does A go into B. Beside math, it can mean a certain quantity or share--as "He certainly has his full quotient of bravado."

     The original conception was to divide a person's "mental age" (their test score) by their physical age, then multiply by 100. Now the test score is compared to the mass of previous scores and placed according to how many standard deviations (15) it differs from the average 100).

It means that someone aged 9 who has an IQ of 169, for argument's sake, is thought to have a similar cognitive ability to an average person aged 9x1.69 = 15.21 or 15 years 2 months. That would be about right for me aged 9 but I aged 10 I think I had a higher IQ than that. At a guess, maybe 180. But it declined shortly afterwards. I lost the mental clarity and it took years before it returned. It turns out that would be due to the masses of new neurons being developed around puberty, which can destroy existing connections, according to btickler's link from last week, which I believe and think was good but simplistically presented.

I'm trying to ignore you as best I can but you're definitely mentally ill. There isn't any doubt about it.

There's no reason to abandon the mental/chronological formula for children and young people. The standard deviation method mpaetz mentioned has to be used for those who are old enough that their ability is no longer increasing or isn't increasing at the same rate.

If responding to my every post is you ignoring me, I'm glad I'm not your friend .

Mental illness is not something I would take your judgment about, all things considered.  I will say I am surprised that you would take something I posted and deem it worth incorporating into your delusions...every port in a storm, I guess.

Also, I wish you would stop mentioning my wife. I believe you have probably mentioned her 20 times at least over the months and years. She isn't a member here and doesn't play chess. Also I am absolutely sure that she would say that you're mentally ill. She was a fully trained psychiatric nurse before training as a teacher and then as a psychotherapist. She worked on both long-stay and acute psychiatric wards and gained a lot of experience in a short time. Please don't bring her up again, because I am confident about what she would think of you and I really don't want to have to mention it again.

Ermm, you brought her up when you were originally trying to diagnose various posters over the Internet .  You also brought her up here in this thread, before I did.  Perhaps you should avoid making calls to authority if you don't want that authority to be a point of discussion?  This seems obvious enough, but perhaps you need to ponder the notion.

P.S. I am sure I have not mentioned her 20 times, probably under ten times in as many years...and I am doubly sure I have never said a single negative thing about her.  You seem to have contracted ExploringWA's illness, where every mention of anyone in your life (after expounding upon them yourself) is an attack on them.

I was going to try to work in a joke about a 70 year old with a 160 IQ having the mental age of a 112 year old.......but at this point I don't think it works. Oh well. Never mind.....but I am gratified that a few people actually do remember the origin of the concept.