If chess players are so smart why they are not millionaires/billionaires?

Exactly.  I wonder if that kid is ever going to return and attempt to defend his shady sources.

This is simply not true.

So do you think we should take this Karpov billionaire business to its own thread?  

Uh not really . . . but this Karpov nonsense illustrates how even college educated students have a major lack of critical thinking skills.

As in Durrrrrrrrr... it was in Susan Polgar's blog........ must be true.

Well, given that your image was edited in after I responded I hope you can forgive my misintrepretation.

There really is a "talent doesn't exist -- hard work overcomes all" contingent here.  This looked like a statement right out of their playbook.

Yeah but I heard on the internets that Greg Karpov was a billionaire.

Your question reeks of hostility. The answer: In order to make big money at chess, you have to be at least a GM, and even then it's not easy unless you're good at marketing yourself.

yep, Susan Polgar told us all about it.  Apparently Polgar thinks he's a multi billionaire.

I wonder if that kid is going to come back to defend his ridiculous reliance on blogs and another shady "sources".

Hi,

Interesting point. Although I think that some points need to be defined.

First of all, what's intelligence?

Secondly, intelligence is not the only skill required to be millionaire.

Your social background and contacts are even more important, IMHO

Just take a look at polititians :P

http://enjoychesslearning.wordpress.com/

Are all smart people millionaires/billionaires and are you saying that everyone who isnt is NOT smart ?  

If billionaires are clever, why are they not chess grandmasters?

Money alone does not make you a GM (or happy) but it helps :)

http://enjoychesslearning.wordpress.com/

Who said chessplayers were smart? Most chessplayers I know are low income males with limited social skills and no girlfriend or wife.

EXACTLY

Any idiot can close his eyes, shake a stick at any source that's thrown at him, and say "That's unreliable!" without providing any other source I couldn't shake a stick at and say the same thing. That doesn't refute the source. It is simply a placeholder in lieu of a valid arguement.

Your sources are mere blogs that cross-reference to each other.  Those blogs do not provide any credible sources in themselves.  

You are the one making an allegation, therefore YOU are the one expected to support the allegation with reliable information.  It is not incumbent upon the party refuting the allegation to prove or disprove anything.

You obviously do not understand the term "burden of proof," yet you so quickly throw around the ad hominem attacks.

Your grade on the project is:  F