Infact... it was clear to me from the way Optimissed fought back in that game, after the opening went south, that he's a strong player. He started to fight back a bit in the midgame, I realized the lead was slipping and put alot of extra effort into deeply analyzing my moves.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14783
crazedrat1000 wrote:
@DiogenesDue when you deny Optomissed claim about his intelligence you are insulting his intelligence. You do this quite frequently. You also join in on the group pile-on where many people are insulting his intelligence in many ways, directly and indirectly.
When you try to turn around and grab the moral highground of being somehow above such things... it just doesn't work. I've always said about you that "morality" is something you use as a social strategy, it actually means nothing to you.
rat just isn't going to get it that Opto's pompous attitude is not intelligence.
Nor is Opto's dishonesty and projection.
People speaking back to Opto's bad behaviour and his need to be worshipped - is not 'disrespectful'.
It is rat that is now being insulting.
Will rat get foolishly upset too? Maybe.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14784
I always push back against mass duncery. Been doing it for decades. The personal motive is beside the point, I just don't like mass duncery, it feels dangerous.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14785
crazedrat1000 wrote:
I always push back against masses of idiots. Been doing it for decades. The personal motive is beside the point, I just don't like mass idiocy, it feels dangerous
Your behavior of claiming Opto is a 'genius' is itself idiotic.
You get 'pushed back'.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14787
crazedrat1000 wrote:
No, you are incapable of assessing that since, infact, you are an idiot. And I base that not on personal likes or dislikes, or even your opinion regarding this topic, but simply my observations of your thought processes in a wide range of conversations. And you don't realize it, but that doesn't surprise me either....
For example, the only time I see you say something insightful is when you're paraphrasing something someone else has just said. You did that earlier in this thread. You also tend to ramble long paragraphs of indecipherable / irrelevant nonsense which a normal mind can't even follow.
translation - you just admitted you didn't read my posts which means 'the time you see' is quite limited.
You and Opto are not titled players and neither of you are geniuses either.
Both of you make a lot of false posts. And a lot of projecting.
You could follow Opto's advice about the namecalling - which he doesn't follow himself.
Not the mark of a 'genius'.
Your failure to see that is noted.
-----------------------
Again - 'rat' a 1500 - beat Opto a player rated 500 points above him.
Plus Dubrovnik appears to have posted charts indicating Opto's true strength is about 1500.
Remarkable both coming up at the same time.
Will 'rat' now try to idiotically claim again that I just made a 'conclusion'?
Lets see.
I would have put Opto at about 1900. In other words - far short of master.
When I pointed out before about his failure to become a titled player he screamed for the moderators.
Neither rat nor Opto seem to get it that 'pompous' does not equal 'intelligent'.
And that their complaining about the consequences of 'pompous' is not 'intelligent' either.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14788
See, for example right there - in the previous post I just explained to you, very clearly, how I'm 19-1 with 1 abandonment; how I performed at 2300 in the daily game you refer to, hence it's not remotely realistic to argue I'm legitimately playing at a 1500 level. And yet... here you go again, with this long rambling post based on the premise I'm a legitimate 1500 daily player. This is why I say you're a dunce (putting it mildly), and why I don't fully read your posts - it's not because I dislike you, although I do. You are actually just rambling meaningless nonsense, and reason has no effect, so... what other conclusion am I to draw?
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14789
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Certain people here adopt a false pretense of a rational / empirical mindset when it serves their interests, but drop it the moment it does not.
Considering no one here has a record of these IQ tests Optimissed took I don't see what basis any of you have for arguing this matter. All you're doing is insisting on your beliefs as a group, essentially.
There are a few ways it's possible to assess a persons IQ online.
a) they can give you evidence of a score. You don't have that in this case. And as far as I'm aware there is no such official record of these tests Optimissed took.
b) you could judge their character and take their word for it, or refuse to believe them. This is what most of you are doing, at best. This conclusion isn't knowledge, it's just a belief.
c) You could inspect the persons thought process and compare it with yours - it can be a reliable method, however it does assume you're capable of following said persons thought process, which... based on the arguments I've seen in this thread regarding its topic, none of you are capable of that.
I've seen pretty much every one of you (except for Optimissed) miss the point, and then veer off toward the bleachers, multiple times. That is not flattery or personal bias on my part, it is the reality. Even our self-proclaimed resident "genius" Elroch can't tell the difference between philosophy and math, or reality and a PHD thesis.
Hence I can just say, based on my observations of all of you, none of you are actually qualified to use method C in this scenario.
And so what we have are just a large group of dunces taking shelter in numbers, self-motivated to believe a certain way, repeating their beliefs to one another in the hopes if they do so enough their beliefs will become fact... but it doesn't work that way.
It isn't very important .... they're making themselves look exactly what they are.
Completely full of it, disrespectful, self-opinionated and ignorant.
But thanks. Yes, they're dunces. They worship Elroch and I think he's thick.
Keep calling other posters dunces. It speeds up your next inevitable mutes.
This behavior prompts the question "what kind of person keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over and never learns their lesson?". I think we all the answer to that one.
Opto and rat don't like Dio's accuracy one bit.
Could anybody's opinion about intelligence matter less than Opto's and rat's?
--------------------------
crazedrat1000 wrote:
@DiogenesDue when you deny Optomissed claim about his intelligence you are insulting his intelligence. You do this quite frequently. You also join in on the group pile-on where many people are insulting his intelligence in many ways, directly and indirectly.
When you try to turn around and grab the moral highground of being somehow above such things... it just doesn't work. I've always said about you that "morality" is something you use as a social strategy, it actually means nothing to you.
"when you deny Optomissed claim about his intelligence you are insulting his intelligence"
This is just objectively incorrect. When you can distinguish between disputing a dubious claim and making a direct insult, like calling everybody dunces, you might make some progress.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14791
DiogenesDue wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
@DiogenesDue when you deny Optomissed claim about his intelligence you are insulting his intelligence. You do this quite frequently. You also join in on the group pile-on where many people are insulting his intelligence in many ways, directly and indirectly.
When you try to turn around and grab the moral highground of being somehow above such things... it just doesn't work. I've always said about you that "morality" is something you use as a social strategy, it actually means nothing to you.
"when you deny Optomissed claim about his intelligence you are insulting his intelligence"
This is just objectively incorrect. When you can distinguish between disputing a dubious claim and making a direct insult , like calling everybody dunces, you might make some progress.
It's a false pretense which claims an indirect insult or indirect antagonism is somehow virtuous. Or even less corrosive than a direct insult. Infact, often it's just the opposite - the indirect insult / antagonism ends up becoming much more pervasive, and it's predatory in how the person intends to sway the group against a particular target / legitimize themselves through pretense and so on. It also denies it's doing any harm and seeks to blame the target for responding in kind.
It goes back to your being a manager type - you're driven by a need for control and status, leading to social climbing. Often that translates into playing a game of false moral pretenses. It's just not something I do.
Optimissed wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
No, you are incapable of assessing that since, infact, you are an idiot. And I base that not on personal likes or dislikes, or even your opinion regarding this topic, but simply my observations of your thought processes in a wide range of conversations. And you don't realize it, but that doesn't surprise me either....
For example, the only time I see you say something insightful is when you're paraphrasing something someone else has just said. You did that earlier in this thread. You also tend to ramble long paragraphs of indecipherable / irrelevant nonsense which a normal mind can't even follow.
crazedrat, careful with the "idoit", which is on the list of proscribed words. Use it too much and you could be muted. But thanks, I appreciate your butting in. These people are interminable idoits, it's true.
You should listen to Optmissed here...after all, it was his repeated usage of the term that got it added to the filter in the first place.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14793
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Well these things have been practiced for millennia, they're reported on in just about every noteworthy religion and every cult I've heard about, and we also have physical explanations, so... it shouldn't really be beyond the realm of comprehension. But it's not only Optimissed capable of such things, it's all conscious beings, however the trick is many modern people shut themselves off from the transcendent aspect of their awareness... due to materialistic dogmatic attitudes. But yes, you're capable of such things as well, as is everyone else in this thread.
crazedrat is a Tarot card believer?
That fits.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14794
The real irony is I'm in the majority, just not online where pseudo-intellectual antisocial types often dominate.
In 2022, roughly 77% of the world's population belonged to one of the four major religions: Christianity (31.6%), Islam (25.8%), Hinduism (15.1%), and Buddhism (6.6%). Other religions account for 10.6%.
i.e. roughly 88% of the worlds population is religious, and every major religion has contained in its religious texts examples of divination in some form. Hence my opinion is - infact - shared in some form by the vast majority of people around the world and throughout history.
People usually just keep their more difficult-to-prove beliefs to themselves. But being difficult to prove, and having no basis... those are different things.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14795
Um... I'm 1450 in bullet and have played alot of bullet games. On the other hand, I'm about 1950 in rapid, and probably higher in daily. Maybe that averages to 1800, I don't know, but it's irrelevant.
I don't need you to tell me my elo, my chess.com profile says what my elo is.
crazedrat1000 wrote:
It's a false pretense which claims an indirect insult or indirect antagonism is somehow virtuous. Or even less corrosive than a direct insult. Infact, often it's just the opposite - the indirect insult / antagonism ends up becoming much more pervasive, and it's predatory in how the person intends to sway the group against a particular target / legitimize themselves through pretense and so on. It also denies it's doing any harm and seeks to blame the target for responding in kind.
It goes back to your being a manager type - you're driven by a need for control and status, leading to social climbing. Often that translates into playing a game of false moral pretenses. It's just not something I do.
...he said, while claiming that all "manager types" (his stereotyping) are morally compromised in relation to himself.
So, it *is* something that you do.
Everyone knows at least one individual that has your type of chip on their shoulder, whether low-level employee or CEO. I do feel sorry for people that have to work with you...habitually bitter complainers are pretty annoying.
P.S. It's just objectively true that disputing a claim is not equivalent to making a direct insult. If you claim to be the world's best Tarot deck reader, and I claim that you cannot prove such a claim, or manage to ferret out that you are being disingenuous about the circumstances of the the claim, that is still not at all comparable to your calling poster an id*ot.
You will eventually learn this distinction, or you will have to keep making new accounts and changing usernames. Either way, your credibility is near to non-existent.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14797
I probably climbed like 400 points elo in my last 500 games.
Again, I don't need you to tell me what my elo is, I can look at my chess.com rating and see what it is. Go away, you are saying nothing insightful, you are too dense to understand the statistics you're looking at, you're derailing the conversation further than it already was.
Optimissed wrote:
But you really show that you are not very bright. You wouldn't all be agreeing with each other if you were cleverer than you are but also there's something else missing that causes the agreement. That's honesty. But you can't cover up your dishonesty, due to the other factor.
The fact remains that you are behaving in an extremely antisocial manner, whether or not you wrongly imagine you're being honest.
Mirror time.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14799
DiogenesDue wrote:
P.S. It's just objectively true that disputing a claim is not equivalent to making a direct insult. If you claim to be the world's best Tarot deck reader, and I claim that you cannot prove such a claim, or manage to ferret out that you are being disingenuous about the circumstances of the the claim, that is still not at all comparable to your calling poster an id*ot.
You will eventually learn this distinction, or you will have to keep making new accounts and changing usernames. Either way, your credibility is near to non-existent.
Actually, when you have no solid evidence to base your contention on - since you have no access to his test records - you're not merely making some objective contention, it's an emotion-based contention as it's based on a personal assessment. Hence it's a personal attack. Because lack of evidence is reason for skepticism, not doubt and denial. That's called "pseudo-skepticism". And you positively doubt his claim. Why? Can you explain, in purely "objective" terms, why you doubt his claim?
You like to pretend to be unemotional but it's disingenuous. You might be deeply in denial of your own emotions, on some level.
DiogenesDue wrote:
...he said, while claiming that all "manager types" (his stereotyping) are morally compromised in relation to himself.
So, it *is* something that you do.
I felt that was fairly direct, actually.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14800
I'm not challenging the data, I'm challenging your ability to read and interpret things, which seems pretty lackluster.
My chess.com elo is 1955 today. If you're claiming that FIDE is 150 below that - well then it's 150 below that. That's about the end of the analysis. I don't exactly know what it is since I shifted to blitz, then bullet, and now I'm into daily. I'll go back to rapid at some point and then we'll really know. But looking at my last 500 games is not somehow more insightful than just looking at my current rating.
On the other hand, in daily I'm probably actually higher rated than rapid, but I haven't played much daily hence I'm only at 1500 there currently.
I performed at a 2300 level, and am 19-1 in daily with 1 accidental abandonment on move 1, i.e. have not really lost yet... It's not accurate to describe my daily rating as 1500 level. I'm 1955 in rapid, but probably at least 100 points higher in daily, if not more. Since I excel when I have time to think deeply.
And both of us were actually quite surprised during the game by how brutally quickly that opening turned in favor of black. It was more of a friendly experimental game than anything else.
So no, that evidence doesn't support your conclusion, of course you'd like to construe it as such but no
I didn't make a conclusion.
So its now you making a false post.
No apology from me. But you can be 'sorry'.