Chess will never be solved, here's why

If i can't find a way to get away from this forum I probably won't be climbing very soon, however. Since I have just wasted 3 hours with this conversation when I could have done so much more... But no, you people have to act like masses of dunces and require of me that I clean up the mess.

It just might be the fact that Optimissed over time constantly lets slip facts that contradict his own narratives, and that those narratives are uniformly self-aggrandizing to a completely unrealistic degree.

Simple example: Note how his IQ claim has now jumped from 169 to 190+, while the facts have shifted from his prior claims of taking official tests at a testing center (or at the very least lying by omission to many posters that addressed his "testing" in the past by claiming that the conditions of the testing were beyond reproach) to him taking IQ tests from a book while lying on his floor. The delusions and the reality are running away from each other in completely opposite directions as we watch.

Believe me, only 1 person would miss your input. Feel free to live up to your prior stated epiphany, the one you had before storming out of here like a petulant teen the first time, and remove yourself from those you consider beneath you.

It's not quite an accurate representation you're making - he claimed to have been tested at 169 but speculated about himself being 190. He would actually admit that was speculation. That's not really his tangible claim, you may feel that's wild speculation - I feel that part of it is wild too - those are feelings he has as well, but his claim he tested at 169 is a factual claim. He's either being honest or he isn't. His claim about being tested in childhood is also a factual claim...

You should have stormed out of here like a petulant teen 10 years ago. It would have saved you a decade worth of your life, which has amounted to nothing but a bunch of petty bickering. After 10 years at your favorite hangout instead of friends, you have enemies.

It seems that the Tarot card guy might have a tendency to call people who disagree with him 'idiots'. That's very familiar. Very similiar behaviour to Opto.
In other words they both behave idiotically.
Note I only used an adverb. I referred to behaviour not the person.
'rat' doesn't seem to know the difference.
And why would 'rat' choose that username 'crazedrat'?
And another member pointed out 'keep changing usernames' ...
seems likely.
As with Opto - the translation of rat's posts will often be the opposite of what he's saying.
And his trying to equate 88% of people being religious with Tarot looks kind of pathetic too.
And rat's pathetic begging to Dubrovnik to 'go away'.

You're a propagandist who is deeply useless and inadequate outside of a group context.

translation: my post about rat was/is accurate.
As another poster pointed out - rat has zero credibility. 
Like Opto.

Let's just wait to play with a version of Majorana 1

His "factual" claims do not include any actual numbers. Not any of them.

- He took IQ tests administered to himself from a book...the results are utterly invalid.

- He reported what his mother and some at school supposedly told him at 9. No actual number.

- He reported second hand and third hand numbers for his wife and father. In none of these cases does he have any basis for his claims.

See: Dubious claims about Fischer's IQ.

This would be simply dismissed as the meanderings of a crackpot if he was just telling anecdotes, but he instead makes arguments and claims they are more correct than others based on his non-supportable IQ score, thereby making it an issue rather than simply a laughing matter.

Note that this isn't really about his actual IQ at all. IQ is an obsolete and misguiding measurement in modern times. It's about willfully and knowingly using disingenuous and dubious means to support bad arguments.

But the problem again is you're justifying why you hold an attitude - but it is just that, an attitude. Furthermore, you claimed in the beginning that you were not being personally insulting - but you can't even help yourself, in this very post you call him a crackpot, you mock him openly, and completely dismiss any possibility his claim is true.

My point is very simple - your assessment is not supremely objective, it's based in emotion. It is an attitude. And it is... and I don't see how you're going to deny that.

His claim has been demonstrably proven false at this point. No sane poster is going to give any credence to someone claiming a 169 IQ from repeated self-administered tests they took on their living room floor.

The "assessment" is objective. Calling out the ethical implications of someone trying to peddle the disingenuous information anyway to shore up their lack of logical arguments is another matter. I have no problem saying that the displayed lack of character and integrity here are subjectively distasteful. I have not tried to deny anything on that score. You are attempting to win a strawman argument in this case. Your point is very simple, but it's your point, and has nothing to do with mine.

Let's be clear here...from this point forward, anytime he uses his claimed IQ to try and browbeat anyone else making an argument against him, he'll be "asterisked" on the spot by myself or some other poster that remembers his admission here...and rightfully so. If he doesn't want this to occur, he can easily avoid it...by not arguing in bad faith and relying on the actual strength of the points he is making.

You said his claim is proven false, but where and how? And why is a self-administered test incapable of yielding a reliable result? You're also not contending with the score he achieved in childhood, which places him in that ballpark.

Sorry, your argument reduces to an opinion. You can call it objective all you like - it's actually speaking to a deeper confusion you have about what a lack of evidence entails, you suggest we can "objectively" default to a baseline of doubt, but no... actually, proper skepticism is a state of uncertainty... i.e. the only real "objective" conclusion here would be to acknowledge we don't know what his IQ is. Which is quite obvious, actually. Anything more than that must be based on your personal assessment, there is just no avoiding it.

I believe his claims but I also acknowledge that's based on my personal assessment of him. You, however, are oblivious to your subjective biases.

You are free to believe that a self-proclaimed IQ based on self-administered tests is okay in your book. *That* is an opinion. But you might as well try to tell a cop that pulled you over that you have a valid driver's license because you play GTA and consider yourself a great driver (a one in million driver, and really how dare he pull you over, if this analogy were being taken further).

His claim is proven false. He has never had an official IQ test whose score is documented. End of story

Any reference to "my book" or "your book" is referring to an opinion by definition. Your analogy is quite bad since he took a test in childhood which, if you believed the story, would corroborate the self-administered tests. But anyway... you've basically ceded that you're insulting him, and that your position is an opinion, which is what this debate was about from the get-go, so... not much left to it is there?

You've been reduced to mashing together official-sounding terms into a ball of nonsense at this point, since he's not even claimed to have taken an official IQ test whose score is documented - at least I've never seen him claim that. That's not the set of claims we're talking about in this conversation, anyway.

You may want to reread the bit on pseudo-skepticism vs. true skepticism, you are deeply confused about how reality works I'm sorry to say

crazedrat is trying to justify Opto's pompous attitude.
crazedrat absolutely doesn't get it that Opto trying to use IQ claims as a point of argument in discussions is idiotic. It isn't intelligent at all.
crazedrat having complete disconnect about this. Which is also not intelligent.
Or crazedrat is pretending to not get it.
crazedrat. C-Rat.
C-Rat trying to pretend that Opto's arrogance is Dio's fault.
Opto has been parading his conceit for ten years in the forums of chess.com.
Opto - that's Optimissed isn't the most trolling person on chess.com (there's people even worse) but he's the most arrogant.
Such arrogance poisons the atmosphere of forums he's in.
As does his reporting members who oppose him.
-----------------------
And Opto wants to pretend there's nothing members can do about that.
As does C-Rat.
But they can. They do. Without much effort.
From here on - most of C-Rat's postings can probably be ignored as with Opto.
C-Rat got some attention but is operating on invalid premises like O does.

I so often start reading your posts, but by about sentence 6 I feel like I'm getting dumber. Physically I can feel it. Then I remember why I ignore you. So I just stop and ignore you.

You just made another admission.
'Dumber'. You probably don't realize what you just did.

I didn't say anything about a "book" on my end.

The childhood test has purely anecdotal results, and even those anecdotal results are 50 points away from his own perception of his IQ. Your imprecision does not an argument make.

I have not ceded either of your statements as you have characterized them. You are right that there's not much to this, but that is true of anything you have chosen to discuss in your time here, in my experience.

Does it bother you that people don't take you seriously? They just treat you like this Toucan, don't they -