You’re making quite a broad claim when you assert that you’re smarter than Einstein was, in a general sense. That’s basically claiming that ignoring all specialisation, you’re smarter than him generally. And for the record, I believe Einstein would perform poorly in a general intelligence test, if an accurate one was ever conceived, just like everyone who doesn’t happen to be a generational prodigy. Being good at everything, or even a lot of things, is a bit harder than imagined. Specialisation, for the most part, beats general capability quite often, and I don’t believe that you can get around that any better than Einstein could.
If Albert Einstein played chess he could have been one of the greatest Chess Player🏤🏡⛲
Sort:
No, IQ and Elo do not relate so much to each other.
Sep 19, 2025
0
#404
Optimissed a écrit :
I have noticed two things. Anyone who is noticeably cleverer than you is likely to think differently from you.
it seems like there is quite a lot of people that disagree with you. have you ever considered being out of the ordinary but below the average ? that would explain a lot (I would add that it is not in any way something to be ashamed of)
Ziryab wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
If you'd only learn a bit about how to read, you might notice that I'm not comparing myself with Einstein in the way you mean. He and I are very different people, thank Heavens.
Your reading comprehension is so poor that you think I took the same test dozens of times and yet you call other people deluded. You are, indeed, self-deluding because you believe as fact only that which you wish to and everything that doesn't fit, you bend to fit what you think suits you.
And you continue to believe that you are fit and capable to hold a conversation with me. If that isn't the ultimate self delusion, it's getting close.
For a change, perhaps you should learn to be nice to people. I have noticed two things. Anyone who is noticeably cleverer than you is likely to think differently from you. Yet you constantly try to poke fun at what they think, simply because you don't think it yourself. That's failure right across the board, isn't it? Take your medications and try to be nice.
I agree. @Diogenesdue seems oblivious to your clear assertion that you are smarter than Einstein.
Haha, well observed. He's oblivious to a lot of things, which means there's not much point trying to argue, since he always wins in his own mind. Perhaps also in the minds of one or two he manages to carry with him. In the years I've known him, we may have had five or six interesting conversations but, in general, he anwereth not the question but the interlocuter and always to his own advantage. In general, no-one is going to learn the gentle art of debate.
I'm sorry, I just don't rate Albert E as a powerful intellect. It's only my opinion. Just a mathematician who struck lucky. Anyway, that's what the evidence supports. Therefore there's no reason to assume he would be a good chess player.
Oh dear, I played in a chess match yesterday. Don't find it as fun as I used to but our team won. I drew on top board and probably should have won. I used to love playing in chess matches but now it seems everything is more important and I'm very busy all the time. Is talking here a waste of time? The past 6 months when I wasn't talking here were very productive for me. Regarding the little time I had available for chess, I was mainly playing against that Norah bot, as well as two r.l. chess clubs per week, which is extremely instructive. I've also become an amateur archeologist. A sudden lack of immediate pressure means I can catch up on sorting things out and it coincides with being avaiable to talk here. Great fun. I have a great many friends here but seem also to enjoy talking to those who aren't very friendly,
Well, I can also watch the almost-AI bot learning from my moves. Four months ago I was getting a really high proportion of good and excellent moves. Now, many of those same moves in indentical positions are accepted as best, so I'm helping chess.com develop a new chess book, based on the wayward Q attack, which Norah always tries to play. I'm typically getting 30 best moves per game. It's useful to me too. Sometimes I try hard to win and concentrate on finding best moves in a context of what would be a 15 minute each game. At others I use the Bot to explore possible or iffy lines. It's definitely helping me stay sharp and to become better. I can recommend it.
novaesie wrote:
kasparov has 170 iq
Incorrect, he has a 135 IQ. Do better research.
Sep 19, 2025
0
#408
I believe there was a chess champion or two among the British codebreakers at Bletchley in WW2, who were pretty brilliant. Harry Golombek was certainly one of them.
Alan Turing, who was particularly famous among the Bletchley people, was a chess player but at an indifferent level.
Could Einstein have been a great chess player? Maybe but it is not fore-ordained.
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
I agree. @Diogenesdue seems oblivious to your clear assertion that you are smarter than Einstein.
Haha, well observed. He's oblivious to a lot of things, which means there's not much point trying to argue, since he always wins in his own mind. Perhaps also in the minds of one or two he manages to carry with him. In the years I've known him, we may have had five or six interesting conversations but, in general, he anwereth not the question but the interlocuter and always to his own advantage. In general, no-one is going to learn the gentle art of debate.
I'm sorry, I just don't rate Albert E as a powerful intellect. It's only my opinion. Just a mathematician who struck lucky. Anyway, that's what the evidence supports. Therefore there's no reason to assume he would be a good chess player.
Oh dear, I played in a chess match yesterday. Don't find it as fun as I used to but our team won. I drew on top board and probably should have won. I used to love playing in chess matches but now it seems everything is more important and I'm very busy all the time. Is talking here a waste of time? The past 6 months when I wasn't talking here were very productive for me. Regarding the little time I had available for chess, I was mainly playing against that Norah bot, as well as two r.l. chess clubs per week, which is extremely instructive. I've also become an amateur archeologist. A sudden lack of immediate pressure means I can catch up on sorting things out and it coincides with being avaiable to talk here. Great fun. I have a great many friends here but seem also to enjoy talking to those who aren't very friendly,
Well, I can also watch the almost-AI bot learning from my moves. Four months ago I was getting a really high proportion of good and excellent moves. Now, many of those same moves in indentical positions are accepted as best, so I'm helping chess.com develop a new chess book, based on the wayward Q attack, which Norah always tries to play. I'm typically getting 30 best moves per game. It's useful to me too. Sometimes I try hard to win and concentrate on finding best moves in a context of what would be a 15 minute each game. At others I use the Bot to explore possible or iffy lines. It's definitely helping me stay sharp and to become better. I can recommend it.
So, you are smarter than Einstein, but completely failed to understand that the post you replied to was taking you to task, not me...
The bot does not learn from your moves. They are Komodo-engine-based and the neural nets are trained in advance. The adaptive behavior you see (bots getting better or worse during the course of a game) is added to make games more competitive and interesting, and has nothing to do with you. When the bots are updated, it is done centrally and they are re-released, and the bots' rating levels are maintained.
The reason your defense against the "wayward Q attack" moves are becoming "best" is because you are learning from repetition with the bot, not the other way around. This is the same phenom as, say, taking an IQ test over and over and getting better results thereby...
.
Sep 19, 2025
0
#411
I couldn't agree more with DiogenesDue. It's very sad to have so much ego, but so little understanding of what he is trying to talk about.
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
I agree. @Diogenesdue seems oblivious to your clear assertion that you are smarter than Einstein.
Haha, well observed. He's oblivious to a lot of things, which means there's not much point trying to argue, since he always wins in his own mind. Perhaps also in the minds of one or two he manages to carry with him. In the years I've known him, we may have had five or six interesting conversations but, in general, he anwereth not the question but the interlocuter and always to his own advantage. In general, no-one is going to learn the gentle art of debate.
I'm sorry, I just don't rate Albert E as a powerful intellect. It's only my opinion. Just a mathematician who struck lucky. Anyway, that's what the evidence supports. Therefore there's no reason to assume he would be a good chess player.
Oh dear, I played in a chess match yesterday. Don't find it as fun as I used to but our team won. I drew on top board and probably should have won. I used to love playing in chess matches but now it seems everything is more important and I'm very busy all the time. Is talking here a waste of time? The past 6 months when I wasn't talking here were very productive for me. Regarding the little time I had available for chess, I was mainly playing against that Norah bot, as well as two r.l. chess clubs per week, which is extremely instructive. I've also become an amateur archeologist. A sudden lack of immediate pressure means I can catch up on sorting things out and it coincides with being avaiable to talk here. Great fun. I have a great many friends here but seem also to enjoy talking to those who aren't very friendly,
Well, I can also watch the almost-AI bot learning from my moves. Four months ago I was getting a really high proportion of good and excellent moves. Now, many of those same moves in indentical positions are accepted as best, so I'm helping chess.com develop a new chess book, based on the wayward Q attack, which Norah always tries to play. I'm typically getting 30 best moves per game. It's useful to me too. Sometimes I try hard to win and concentrate on finding best moves in a context of what would be a 15 minute each game. At others I use the Bot to explore possible or iffy lines. It's definitely helping me stay sharp and to become better. I can recommend it.
So, you are smarter than Einstein, but completely failed to understand that the post you replied to was taking you to task, not me...
The bot does not learn from your moves. They are Komodo-engine-based and the neural nets are trained in advance. The adaptive behavior you see (bots getting better or worse during the course of a game) is added to make games more competitive and interesting, and has nothing to do with you. When the bots are updated, it is done centrally and they are re-released, and the bots' rating levels are maintained.
The reason your defense against the "wayward Q attack" moves are becoming "best" is because you are learning from repetition with the bot, not the other way around. This is the same phenom as, say, taking an IQ test over and over and getting better results thereby...
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
I agree. @Diogenesdue seems oblivious to your clear assertion that you are smarter than Einstein.
Haha, well observed. He's oblivious to a lot of things, which means there's not much point trying to argue, since he always wins in his own mind. Perhaps also in the minds of one or two he manages to carry with him. In the years I've known him, we may have had five or six interesting conversations but, in general, he anwereth not the question but the interlocuter and always to his own advantage. In general, no-one is going to learn the gentle art of debate.
I'm sorry, I just don't rate Albert E as a powerful intellect. It's only my opinion. Just a mathematician who struck lucky. Anyway, that's what the evidence supports. Therefore there's no reason to assume he would be a good chess player.
Oh dear, I played in a chess match yesterday. Don't find it as fun as I used to but our team won. I drew on top board and probably should have won. I used to love playing in chess matches but now it seems everything is more important and I'm very busy all the time. Is talking here a waste of time? The past 6 months when I wasn't talking here were very productive for me. Regarding the little time I had available for chess, I was mainly playing against that Norah bot, as well as two r.l. chess clubs per week, which is extremely instructive. I've also become an amateur archeologist. A sudden lack of immediate pressure means I can catch up on sorting things out and it coincides with being avaiable to talk here. Great fun. I have a great many friends here but seem also to enjoy talking to those who aren't very friendly,
Well, I can also watch the almost-AI bot learning from my moves. Four months ago I was getting a really high proportion of good and excellent moves. Now, many of those same moves in indentical positions are accepted as best, so I'm helping chess.com develop a new chess book, based on the wayward Q attack, which Norah always tries to play. I'm typically getting 30 best moves per game. It's useful to me too. Sometimes I try hard to win and concentrate on finding best moves in a context of what would be a 15 minute each game. At others I use the Bot to explore possible or iffy lines. It's definitely helping me stay sharp and to become better. I can recommend it.
So, you are smarter than Einstein, but completely failed to understand that the post you replied to was taking you to task, not me...
The bot does not learn from your moves. They are Komodo-engine-based and the neural nets are trained in advance. The adaptive behavior you see (bots getting better or worse during the course of a game) is added to make games more competitive and interesting, and has nothing to do with you. When the bots are updated, it is done centrally and they are re-released, and the bots' rating levels are maintained.
The reason your defense against the "wayward Q attack" moves are becoming "best" is because you are learning from repetition with the bot, not the other way around. This is the same phenom as, say, taking an IQ test over and over and getting better results thereby...
You're really ridiculous.
"I fail to understand this, I fail to understand that". You are so slow witted that I really am not going to answer the drivel you post any more.
You have the floor.
P.S. edit .... that was a coup de grace but you're way too dumb to realise. Enjoy yourself.
*unfollowing*
Optimissed wrote:
You're really ridiculous.
"I fail to understand this, I fail to understand that". You are so slow witted that I really am not going to answer the drivel you post any more.
You have the floor.
P.S. edit .... that was a coup de grace but you're way too dumb to realise. Enjoy yourself.
*unfollowing*
You posted twice in a row. Not sure you realized...
fit and capable to hold a conversation with me. If that isn't the ultimate self delusion
BURST !!
Einstein would perform poorly in a general intelligence test, if an accurate one was ever conceived
AI already did...lookit up.
Sep 19, 2025
0
#416
Today, this years Ig Nobel Prize for Psychology was awarded for this paper:
“Telling People They Are Intelligent Correlates with the Feeling of Narcissistic Uniqueness: The Influence of IQ Feedback on Temporary State Narcissism,” Marcin Zajenkowski and Gilles E. Gignac, Intelligence, vol. 89, November–December 2021, 101595. <doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101595
which documents research finding that if you tell people they are intelligent, this makes them more narcissistic, regardless of whether there is any truth in the information.
Sep 19, 2025
0
#417
Elroch a écrit :
Today, this years Ig Nobel Prize for Psychology was awarded for this paper:
“Telling People They Are Intelligent Correlates with the Feeling of Narcissistic Uniqueness: The Influence of IQ Feedback on Temporary State Narcissism,” Marcin Zajenkowski and Gilles E. Gignac, Intelligence, vol. 89, November–December 2021, 101595. <
which documents research finding that if you tell people they are intelligent, this makes them more narcissistic, regardless of whether there is any truth in the information.
The people that published this paper are probably not even half as smart as Optimissed so we should rather keep listening to him talking about his childhood, he is totally not a narcissist.
If you'd only learn a bit about how to read, you might notice that I'm not comparing myself with Einstein in the way you mean. He and I are very different people, thank Heavens.
Your reading comprehension is so poor that you think I took the same test dozens of times and yet you call other people deluded. You are, indeed, self-deluding because you believe as fact only that which you wish to and everything that doesn't fit, you bend to fit what you think suits you.
And you continue to believe that you are fit and capable to hold a conversation with me. If that isn't the ultimate self delusion, it's getting close.
For a change, perhaps you should learn to be nice to people. I have noticed two things. Anyone who is noticeably cleverer than you is likely to think differently from you. Yet you constantly try to poke fun at what they think, simply because you don't think it yourself. That's failure right across the board, isn't it? Take your medications and try to be nice.
I agree. @Diogenesdue seems oblivious to your clear assertion that you are smarter than Einstein.