Disgusting Video

Sort:
sndeww
llama wrote:
SNUDOO wrote:

If people can remember the russian dude that decided "nah I won't fire the nuclear missile from my submarine" during the cold war, then they will definitly remember nakamura.

Oh, that must be one of those things you just learned in school recently.

Don't worry. You'll forget it in a few years (I have no idea what his name is.)

Just like the chess world will forget Nakamura.

I didn't learn it in school. I learned it from the internet.

Prometheus_Fuschs
crocodilestyle1 escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
llama escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
llama escribió:

So should they include Judit Polgar?

Well first of all, Naka definitely should include her. Because his audience is both stupid and sympathetic towards such things.

But putting Hiakru's inadequacies aside, and ranking in pure logical terms, is Judit legendary?

Yes, she's statistically amazing... and even if you don't agree with the maths side of it, you're unable to name a better female chess player in the past 10,000 years... therefore she's amazing whether you're an ignorant fool or not.

Women Chess is a proper subset of Chess so no, in the overall scheme of things she doesn't have legendary material in the latter one.

Well, even if you think women and men are exactly the same (they clearly aren't... and I don't mean that as a value judgement) it's clear that Judit's social impact is different than any of her peers (peers in terms of FIDE rating only).

Therefore there is something special about her and we can argue for a higher ranking.

The same way Anand is obviously not as good as Kasparov, but we can say he's great based on criteria other than FIDE rating and titles.

I don't think women are the same as men but some people want to have their cake and eat it as well, regardless, I don't see why this should be a criteria to be in the list.

On another note, wasn't this list about chess skill and your critique was on the consideration of things as vague or subjective as popularity or impact?

The fact of the matter is, it is made reasonably clear in the video they give her her rank due to her impact, and perhaps it is an impact that goes way beyond chess -if  you look at the work of Ada Lovelace, it is vastly beyond many mathematicians, even discrete mathematicians;  but still 170 years later young women are told technical subjects are not for them. (I admit Newton may be more important, but read his work on the calculus back to back with hers, his work is manifestly more easy to understand to the layman than her work. <I do kind of assume people have a knowledge of both calculus and discrete mathematics......if not, what the heck are you doing here you insects?>)

So it is indeed a partial judgement? Ok, great news. On another note, yes I do happen to know calculus and discrete maths given I'm a math undergrad but that's pretty irrelevant...

Prometheus_Fuschs
btickler escribió:
llama wrote:

Judit is impressive, but not for the reason most people think heh.

Statistically females are more interested in people and less interested in things. So given a free choice, most of them will apply their talents outside of chess (and STEM fields).

Many liberals (and I'm  a liberal myself, just not a stupid one) want to pretend there is no difference between genders, so Judit's accomplishments weight on the side of equality.

But it's more the exception that proves the rule. She's amazing, and worth ranking in the legendary category, precisely because women aren't as predisposed to chess excellence. Not because they're less intelligent, but because of 2 things:

1: Males dominate the extremes. That means negative things too like suicide and low IQ

2: Women are statistically less interested in things and more interested in people

If your gender is statistically bad at chess, as the female gender is, it's not something to be upset over. It means you care about things like people.

You're arguing it both ways...either women are just "statistically uninterested" in chess, or women are "bad" at chess.  It can't be both.

Why not?

Prometheus_Fuschs
llama escribió:

Oh, and I went to college too, so isn't that nice heh.

I do some recreational math and programming now and then.

I was looking into machine learning. It seems you can get started pretty easily online. I was reviewing basic probability because that's involved. One of my friends had a basic one working in MATLAB but I'm wondering if I can get some simple machine learning thing programmed in python.

So yeah, a lot of people have hobbies on this site... I mean, obviously chess is a hobby too... the way you talk about yours is a little antisocial... but at the end there you seemed to open up a little, so ok, I'll make a small attempt too.

Hehe, probability is the subject giving me the most trouble for the moment.

DiogenesDue
crocodilestyle1 wrote:
llama wrote:
crocodilestyle1 wrote:

 Or translated: "squeak squeak squeak, I'll just retract everything I said because I can't express myself in a manner that passes muster amongst the people I have chosen to debate."

Yeah, a tepid reply from me for sure, but... I don't know what it is... there's just something weird about you that makes you not annoying enough to fight with... if I had to guess it's because you never really attack me, you just talk about yourself. Sure you try to throw in a barb like "I bet you don't understand something as simple as s-cobordism, maybe you're a grade schooler" but then you turn around and brag about "I'm just a linguist, so I'm really smart because I understand s-cobordism"

And it's like... ok, you tried to insult me, but not only did you contradict yourself, you found a way to talk about yourself for 20 sentences straight so... it's hard for me to feel insulted.

You really do have trouble expressing yourself - let me ask you, have you ever had to defend an argument at an academic level, like a post graduate degree? (Or even an undergraduate degree?)

Let me give you some expertise, beginning phrases in the manner "and it's like..." is not really an argument from strength is it? You're not even really confirming precisely what I am saying, and then you're burbling incoherently about a misunderstood statement - that is somewhat less of what is known as a 'Strawman argument',  you're not even building up a good strawman to knock down.

Don't take this as an offensive remark, but is English your 3rd or 4th language? If it's your 5th language, I totally give you allowances. I know you're not a native English speaker, and I have to give you due allowances for that, although I am not using too many complicated forms or expressions - I work in academia, so it is something I do try and avoid; but your level of comprehension does seem to present a problem. What language would you be more comfortable in?

No, Llama's right, you're a bit much.

BTW, in American English at least, you can't give Llama some "expertise".  You can impart something to him, and he may take or leave, understand it or not, but the formation of actual "expertise" is coming from him, not from you.  That's why "expertise" and "advice" are two different words.

Language is an imprecise approximation of thought (always will be), and while knowing more languages gives you a leg up on describing nuances of concepts, etc. there are limits.  An Eskimo can tell you all about the exact nuanced type of snow that fell overnight, but translating to English will require additional paragraphs of contextual/expository information.

As for "and it's like"...this is a technique you apparently haven't been gifted "expertise" on yet wink.png.  See, when you are blunt and abrasive, it doesn't necessarily matter whether your argument is rock solid, because people won't hear you.  You are pushing them away before they get a chance to absorb what you said.  Now, lots of emotionally messed up people do this anyway, because that's their ultimate goal...to reinforce that other people are idiots and that the certainty of their own superior intelligence will keep them safe from the world.  But that is not logical or rational, and thus belies the notion of superior intelligence.

Llama knows what you apparently do not...that couching his statement with "and it's like" allows him to say something pointed to you without losing face, as you have done here by showing us your virtual behind vis-a-vis your vise-grip on your education and your intellect.  As any writer would tell you, "show, don't tell".  Knock him out with an actual argument, not the appeal to authority you are currently relying on.  Llama is also clearly a English speaker, so let's not pretend you are actually confused about whether it's a 2nd or 3rd language for him, it's just another veiled insult from a windbaggery type of place.  Oh, sorry, that was not an argument from strength...  

You, sir, are a windbag.

P.S. The university system, over a 1000 years old now, is a failing and inadequate form of education in the modern world, and as we can can all see for ourselves every time some PhD posts a "plandemic" type of video, certified education is no guarantee of expertise.  You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and I suspect it might come from what you have done or failed to do with your Oxford/Cambridge pedigree.  

(sets down brandy sifter)

DiogenesDue
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

You're arguing it both ways...either women are just "statistically uninterested" in chess, or women are "bad" at chess.  It can't be both.

Why not?

It can't be both in support of Llama's point *as he was making it*.  But I'm not going to go back and write it all out for a 3rd time.

DiogenesDue
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

So it is indeed a partial judgement? Ok, great news. On another note, yes I do happen to know calculus and discrete maths given I'm a math undergrad but that's pretty irrelevant...

It was never anything but, if you actually watched the video.

See, that video was a bunch of meaningless pap (as all discussion of the GOAT are) posted for hits, but I watched it, in order to comment on the topic from a place of non-ignorance wink.png.

UWillResignYesUWill

What are y'all even arguing about lol

Prometheus_Fuschs
btickler escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

So it is indeed a partial judgement? Ok, great news. On another note, yes I do happen to know calculus and discrete maths given I'm a math undergrad but that's pretty irrelevant...

It was never anything but, if you actually watched the video.

See, that video was a bunch of meaning less pap (as all discussion of the GOAT are) posted for hits, but I watched it, in order to comment on the topic from a place of non-ignorance .

I watched fragments but there's no way I'd waste so much time in a video I strongly dislike.

mercatorproject
btickler wrote:
crocodilestyle1 wrote:
llama wrote:
crocodilestyle1 wrote:

 Or translated: "squeak squeak squeak, I'll just retract everything I said because I can't express myself in a manner that passes muster amongst the people I have chosen to debate."

Yeah, a tepid reply from me for sure, but... I don't know what it is... there's just something weird about you that makes you not annoying enough to fight with... if I had to guess it's because you never really attack me, you just talk about yourself. Sure you try to throw in a barb like "I bet you don't understand something as simple as s-cobordism, maybe you're a grade schooler" but then you turn around and brag about "I'm just a linguist, so I'm really smart because I understand s-cobordism"

And it's like... ok, you tried to insult me, but not only did you contradict yourself, you found a way to talk about yourself for 20 sentences straight so... it's hard for me to feel insulted.

You really do have trouble expressing yourself - let me ask you, have you ever had to defend an argument at an academic level, like a post graduate degree? (Or even an undergraduate degree?)

Let me give you some expertise, beginning phrases in the manner "and it's like..." is not really an argument from strength is it? You're not even really confirming precisely what I am saying, and then you're burbling incoherently about a misunderstood statement - that is somewhat less of what is known as a 'Strawman argument',  you're not even building up a good strawman to knock down.

Don't take this as an offensive remark, but is English your 3rd or 4th language? If it's your 5th language, I totally give you allowances. I know you're not a native English speaker, and I have to give you due allowances for that, although I am not using too many complicated forms or expressions - I work in academia, so it is something I do try and avoid; but your level of comprehension does seem to present a problem. What language would you be more comfortable in?

No, Llama's right, you're a bit much.

BTW, in American English at least, you can't give Llama some "expertise".  You can impart something to him, and he may take or leave, understand it or not, but the formation of actual "expertise" is coming from him, not from you.  That's why "expertise" and "advice" are two different words.

Language is an imprecise approximation of thought (always will be), and while knowing more languages gives you a leg up on describing nuances of concepts, etc. there are limits.  An Eskimo can tell you all about the exact nuanced type of snow that fell overnight, but translating to English will require additional paragraphs of contextual/expository information.

As for "and it's like"...this is a technique you apparently haven't been gifted "expertise" on yet .  See, when you are blunt and abrasive, it doesn't necessarily matter whether your argument is rock solid, because people won't hear you.  You are pushing them away before they get a chance to absorb what you said.  Now, lots of emotionally messed up people do this anyway, because that's their ultimate goal...to reinforce that other people are idiots and that the certainty of their own superior intelligence will keep them safe from the world.  But that is not logical or rational, and thus belies the notion of superior intelligence.

Llama knows what you apparently do not...that couching his statement with "and it's like" allows him to say something pointed to you without losing face, as you have done here by showing us your virtual behind vis-a-vis your vise-grip on your education and your intellect.  As any writer would tell you, "show, don't tell".  Knock him out with an actual argument, not the appeal to authority you are currently relying on.  Llama is also clearly a English speaker, so let's not pretend you are actually confused about whether it's a 2nd or 3rd language for him, it's just another veiled insult from a windbaggery type of place.  Oh, sorry, that was not an argument from strength...  

You, sir, are a windbag.

P.S. The university system, over a 1000 years old now, is a failing and inadequate form of education in the modern world, and as we can can all see for ourselves every time some PhD posts a "plandemic" type of video, certified education is no guarantee of expertise.  You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and I suspect it might come from what you have done or failed to do with your Oxford/Cambridge pedigree.  

(sets down brandy sifter)

Somewhere in there is reference to a windbag.

DiogenesDue
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
btickler escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

So it is indeed a partial judgement? Ok, great news. On another note, yes I do happen to know calculus and discrete maths given I'm a math undergrad but that's pretty irrelevant...

It was never anything but, if you actually watched the video.

See, that video was a bunch of meaning less pap (as all discussion of the GOAT are) posted for hits, but I watched it, in order to comment on the topic from a place of non-ignorance .

I watched fragments but there's no way I'd waste so much time in a video I strongly dislike.

...then I humbly submit that commenting on it here is even more of a waste of your time wink.png.

DiogenesDue
mercatorproject wrote:

Somewhere in there is reference to a windbag.

Droll.  It's intentional, if you are paying attention.  Hoist with his own petard, much more satisfying.  But feel free to rush in and save him...the sun never sets on the British Empire wink.png.

nklristic
UWillResignYesUWill wrote:

What are y'all even arguing about lol

Isn't it obvious? There is a bit of math, a bit of Oxford and Cambridge (surprisingly no rowing, I wonder who would he root for in that race), language and its subtleties and all of that started with Judit Polgar which started because of Hikaru Nakamura. It is all highly logical for a chess topic. grin.png

Anonovnyasha

Agree

NikkiLikeChikki
I’m afraid I’m a bit confused. How is Judith being an outlier as far as women are concerned affect generalizability than Magnus being an outlier among Nordic players affect generalizability?

The argument used to be that women were too stupid and clearly this is not the case.

I also tend to find the “women are more interested in people” argument a bit weak. Assuming this is correct, what is implied is that it’s an inherent quality of gender, which I can’t be on board with. There is a lot of social conditioning involved in terms of what is are and are not correct paths for women to take in life, but every year we see more and more women entering fields dominated by men.

It’s easy to look at social patterns and infer from this some kind of genetic predisposition. When Fischer and Kasparov played, there were no good women players and they chalked it up to genes. They were wrong.

So you see I don’t think looking at social patterns says anything about anything other than the society, and saying that it’s a function of temperament is just as lazy armchair social psychology as what Fischer and Kasparov were engaging in.
Prometheus_Fuschs
btickler escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
btickler escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

So it is indeed a partial judgement? Ok, great news. On another note, yes I do happen to know calculus and discrete maths given I'm a math undergrad but that's pretty irrelevant...

It was never anything but, if you actually watched the video.

See, that video was a bunch of meaning less pap (as all discussion of the GOAT are) posted for hits, but I watched it, in order to comment on the topic from a place of non-ignorance .

I watched fragments but there's no way I'd waste so much time in a video I strongly dislike.

...then I humbly submit that commenting on it here is even more of a waste of your time .

Nope, it's entretaining and amusing, not painful and agonizing.

DiogenesDue
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
I’m afraid I’m a bit confused. How is Judith being an outlier as far as women are concerned affect generalizability than Magnus being an outlier among Nordic players affect generalizability?

The argument used to be that women were too stupid and clearly this is not the case.

I also tend to find the “women are more interested in people” argument a bit weak. Assuming this is correct, what is implied is that it’s an inherent quality of gender, which I can’t be on board with. There is a lot of social conditioning involved in terms of what is are and are not correct paths for women to take in life, but every year we see more and more women entering fields dominated by men.

It’s easy to look at social patterns and infer from this some kind of genetic predisposition. When Fischer and Kasparov played, there were no good women players and they chalked it up to genes. They were wrong.

So you see I don’t think looking at social patterns says anything about anything other than the society, and saying that it’s a function of temperament is just as lazy armchair social psychology as what Fischer and Kasparov were engaging in.

In fact, as of 2017 in the US, women enrollees in medical school surpassed men (they surpassed men for law school the year before that).  I guess women's brains are changing.  Or maybe not, maybe society is evolving and people, but most importantly women themselves, are figuring out that they are not "less than".

llama
saeadborji wrote:
llama wrote:

Well, that's a little harsh... because character is somewhat determined by luck...

In the same breath, what makes this video disgusting?? I assume (correct me if im wrong) you found this video "disgusting" because it reveals some ugly personalities of him (snobby, arrogance, or something like these??) which is also stemmed from a weak character, bad upbringing and so on, but I dont think he can be redeemed so easily  for having that "bad luck" (unless he had some sort of terribly traumatic childhood and suffered from serious physical and psychological abuse LOL)  because these kind of flaws in manners should be corrected as one matures and lives and mingles with othe people. 

 

You know.... the same way that you and I see/feel/understand inappropriateness of patting self on the back, he should be able to see and understand the image he creates of himself in this types of videos.

 

Sure that's fair. Emu was reminding me it's all tongue in cheek anyway since it's on Twitch and he's just having some fun.

But at the same time the disgust I felt at the time wasn't fake. What has Naka accomplished in chess? Best for his age when he was 10? Literally every top 10 player has a stat like that. They've all won world U__ championships, or the youngest title __ either in the world or their country at the time. It's just par for the course.

So besides that what's he got? He broke 2800 very briefly. Sure he's one of the only players in history to do that. He was also a perennial top 10 player. Also very impressive of course.

None of this puts him on the level of legends of course, and not even on the level of Caruana.

Prometheus_Fuschs

Where did the crocodile guy go? I honestly want him/her to come back wink.png

llama

Probably because mathematics interests you.

Unfortunately the only thing that crocodile is truly interested in talking about is himself... so good luck having an actual conversation with him. Heh.