If Albert Einstein played chess he could have been one of the greatest Chess Player🏤🏡⛲

Sort:
Avatar of DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

Actually, although Einstein is widely regarded as pioneering the New Physics, he isn't and didn't. He was very much of the old school and he turned out to be a bit of a dinosaur, who couldn't adapt until he'd lost his reputation with the pioneers of the New Physics and they proceeded without him.

Then he tried to restore his reputation by doing an about turn. Incidentally, Einstein supported the idea of a Big Bang originating the universe. That was only widely accepted around 1970 or so. Personally, I accepted it in the forefront of the wave of believing in the Big Bang, around the mid 60s. I can remember arguing for it against complete scepticism. By 1970, I'd read a physics book which pretty much disproved it and I accepted the findings, which were backed by mathematics, logic and firm scientific principles. So I only accepted the Big Bang when I was a schoolboy and never since. It's wrong, end of story. And Einstein's belief in it propagated it. I suppose I have to admit that in a general sense, I'm cleverer than he was, with a higher IQ, if that means anything. So what? I'm not a mathematician. It just happened that I was extremely good at mental arithmetic and very fast and accurate use of logic, when I was about 9. It attracted a lot of attention at the time, among educationalists.

Of course, people don't tend to believe other people online and many people lack any ability to accurately judge mental ability in others, in any case. In fact, it's funny watching them, very often.

I personally always accept what people tell me about themselves unless they give me further evidence that they are mistaken or wrong. It's VERY easy to see whether people are telling the truth but ONLY if you're good at it.

Stop comparing yourself to Einstein, and go sort your marbles and WWII letters...you already blew your high IQ "cover" last go 'round, when you finally revealed that you self-administered all your IQ tests on your living room floor (having previously revealed and that you took the same tests dozens of times).

There are a few delusional posters on the forums, but you are truly the once and future king...

Avatar of Optimissed

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.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
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.

This entire paragraph is a direct comparison:

"Then he tried to restore his reputation by doing an about turn. Incidentally, Einstein supported the idea of a Big Bang originating the universe. That was only widely accepted around 1970 or so. Personally, I accepted it in the forefront of the wave of believing in the Big Bang, around the mid 60s. I can remember arguing for it against complete scepticism. By 1970, I'd read a physics book which pretty much disproved it and I accepted the findings, which were backed by mathematics, logic and firm scientific principles. So I only accepted the Big Bang when I was a schoolboy and never since. It's wrong, end of story. And Einstein's belief in it propagated it. I suppose I have to admit that in a general sense, I'm cleverer than he was, with a higher IQ, if that means anything. So what? I'm not a mathematician. It just happened that I was extremely good at mental arithmetic and very fast and accurate use of logic, when I was about 9. It attracted a lot of attention at the time, among educationalists."

...as is your assertion of 150-160, since you claim yours is 169. Nobody needs to hear for the dozenth time how you imagined that you were a child prodigy at 9 and that people were studying you. We've dissected that story previously, as well. You Mom needed to get you to go to some school function that particular day, and you didn't want to go...so, she told you something that would appeal to your ego. Your IQ number/ranking from that anecdote is also apocryphal.

...I'm also not the one in the care home taking medications, for the record.

Avatar of Ziryab
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.

Avatar of AG120502

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.

Avatar of Fet
No, IQ and Elo do not relate so much to each other.
Avatar of call_0
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)

Avatar of novaesie

kasparov has 170 iq

Avatar of Optimissed
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.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
novaesie wrote:

kasparov has 170 iq

Incorrect, he has a 135 IQ. Do better research.

Avatar of Steve-K

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.

Harry Golombek - Wikipedia

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.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
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...

Avatar of DLuks77

.

Avatar of call_0

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.

Avatar of Optimissed
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...

Avatar of Optimissed
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*

Avatar of DiogenesDue
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...

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

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.

Avatar of Elroch

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.

Avatar of call_0
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.