There comes a point in a chess game where one side can "theoritically" defeat the other side no matter how well the opponent plays. But the player needs to play accurately.
Why you need to use term like "retard" is beyond me. You sound very insulting. I appologise if you are actually retarded.
There comes a point in a chess game where one side can "theoritically" defeat the other side no matter how well the opponent plays. But the player needs to play accurately.
Why you need to use term like "retard" is beyond me. You sound very insulting. I appologise if you are actually retarded.
Yea but for example I played the same position against hudiny 4 pro (set on unlimited rate) and actually it was so much furstrating that I stoped the game :P I couldnt find a way to beat it.
but lets say you are right and there are limitations in a position that render your mental superiority useless... wouldnt that degrade the value of chess as a strategy game?
I mean if (even up to a point.. a very high point) things are fixed and you could change nothing no matter how good you are doesnt this defeat the porpuse of chess? for me it makes the all game more like backgammon (in a sense that no matter how better you are you fate steal depends on the outcome of the dice)
What you are actually asking is(And its a deep question): Beyond mental deficiencies like retardation, what determines one's ability to think and learn? No one is beyond teaching, but people seem to have different strengths and weaknesses in all areas of life including learning. Intelligence itself seems to come from one's ability to innovate, to define rules and think outside the established norm. In this way most people aren't stupid but stuck in a box they don't realize exists. But do you want to go outside the box? Your fears are telling you no, but you want to believe that there is more than what you've been told exists. Real intelligence is, say allowing yourself to read and believe in the existence of say God, on an intellectual and self-actualizing level, even though atheists say that God doesn't exist. The reverse is also true, to believe that God as you've been told He exists does not exist, or that he doesn't exist at all(Though THIS is backed up by no evidence whatsoever assuming that God is Ontology :Ontologymeansthenatureofbeingorexistencejustfyi: and Ontology is God because our existence makes this self-evident, but besides that). You have to understand though that you are not really asking anything related to what you think you are asking because chess and intelligence are both not as simple as a test the intelligence quotient.
TL;DR
You're not even that smart. Stop pretending that you are. ;)
You are talking complete rubbish.
You are talking complete rubbish.
Both of you.
Both of whom might I ask? Everything I'm saying is valid. Intelligence doesn't exist. Not the way we view it. Its actual bullcrap. Just 'cause your neighbor isn't going to college doesn't mean he's not smart. Different people are good at different things, and natural talent is less important than work put in of any sort.
Both of whom might I ask?
The OP and you.
Your first reply is a load of rubbish
most people aren't stupid but stuck in a box they don't realize exists.
Real intelligence is, say allowing yourself to read and believe in the existence of say God, on an intellectual and self-actualizing level
I rest my case.
Guyz please do not derail the topic...
By asking this question I am not trying to define intelligence I simply assume that it is a matter of mental capacity (one can think 4 moves ahead another one can think 20 moves ahead so the second is more intelligent a third one also counts 20 moves ahead but his moves are better he is even more intelligent -so that’s the definition of intelligence for the purpose of this particular topic)
Deep blue for example couldn’t win Kasparov every time... now my computer can wreck him any time... = my computer can wreck deep blue after 10 years another computer can wreck my computer etc.. but is there a limit? is there a point were its impossible to beat your opponent hoping only for a draw?
What answer are you looking for?
it is quite clear that in a certain position , correct play by a 1200 player can beat a 2100 player. Does that make the 1200 player ranked 2100 ? No,
Your question makes no sense
most people aren't stupid but stuck in a box they don't realize exists.
Real intelligence is, say allowing yourself to read and believe in the existence of say God, on an intellectual and self-actualizing level
I rest my case.
Smart people actually think beyond atheism. Atheism is a load of hogwash. You don't understand that without living a world that equals 1 our entire universe would be chaos. Now THINK. If we live in a world(existence) that equals 1 then there is a God. If there isn't a God then the Universe = 0, but science can't solve existence mathematically when it =0 only when it =1. This isn't just mathematical hooha either. If we redefine a few terms we can see that our whole way of thinking can easily be shifted. As the Philosophical argument goes that a whole in which existence through say, wholeness(perfection being the heart of God) is in the mind and in the senses is more valid than an existence merely in the mind or in the senses. Both have to be to actualize the world. Now, we can also apply this theorem to chess. Looking at chess we realize the whole of existence is Fractal which means it is resonant of the same patterns at higher and lower cosmic states. We know these cosmic states exist, but we haven't attempted to define them yet, only measure them mathematically. That's okay. We don't need to know what they are, we only need to know they exist. My theory(proposition): The chessboard is a valid representation of how cosmic unity can equal an orderly infinity(I think an orderly infinity was represented by zero). In such the chessboard is a perfect world, a world where A) Simplicity leads to complexity
B) Maximum Affinity of Essence(Attributes that sum to a God or Whole- from the theodicy)
C) Laws that yield maximum set of attributes.
Our world is actually perfect also, being like the chessboard. Yet unless we see it, we can't change it to make it what it is and wants to be. Anyway I've rambled enough, you don't get it, that's okay, but all you've done is knock down my arguments(and poorly at that) and punt. Do you actually want to debate? I'm really good at destroying pucks like you.
What answer are you looking for?
it is quite clear that in a certain position , correct play by a 1200 player can beat a 2100 player. Does that make the 1200 player ranked 2100 ? No,
Your question makes no sense
If it makes no sense that's on you, not him. You aren't trying to understand what he has to say, so its you who have lost the debate.
@ crazygodlover66666666666 your an idiot, that is all.
You really are insane. What on earth does chess and existence have to do with each other?
Cosmic states? Stay off the beer mate. I know all about fractals, and have have made my living off them in the financial markets. Think Fibbonacci and Ralph Nelson Elliott. Google them if you dont know.
I would love to debate you , but you need to actually proposition something first. Your posts are no more than the ramblings of a drunk who has found the remains of a joint.
You really are insane. What on earth does chess and existence have to do with each other?
Cosmic states? Stay off the beer mate. I know all about fractals, and have have made my living off them in the financial markets. Think Fibbonacci and Ralph Nelson Elliott. Google them if you dont know.
I would love to debate you , but you need to actually proposition something first. Your posts are no more than the ramblings of a drunk who has found the remains of a joint.
Listen bub. I know you're a jerk but if you don't cut the crap I'm going to have to block you. You're not even arguing a point. You're not trying to understand my points. Everything is ridiculous to you. Well if that's how you see it then that's how it will be. I'm done talking to you if you don't actually make an argument. You talk about what you've done, you tell me I'm insane, you tell me I'm a drinker even though I'm sober. Sorry bro, that's not how it works. I'm allowed to enjoy my time on the internet as well. What you are doing is called breaking the rules of debate. Ad Hominem, Strawman, appeal to authority, appeal to self-authority. You may not like what I'm saying, but am I the idiot then, or are you? I was not insulting you before, but you decided to insult me. So does that make me in the wrong, or you? The poster above you had something to say, sadly, it was not worth my time to read it. Be greatful I am giving you a chance, bigshot.
CGL777
my name is not bub, you don't know me and block me if you wish. As I said before I would love to debate you , but first you need to actually posit a proposition. I did tell you that in my last reply. Until then I maintain...you are posting as much sense as a cat on speed with a second hand typewriter
How can I request this forum post to be sticked ??
Well thats a question for chess theoreticians (I guess) but it came to me after wining a game against a much weaker oponent than me, I knew in advance he was weaker and played carelessly ended having 3 pawns a rook and a knight and mated him having a rook a knight 2 bishops and 3 more pawns....
but anyway instead of analising the game I give you an imaginary example so that you can better understand what I mean...
lets say an intelligent person plays against a retard (its an imaginary example so I dont offent anybody :P I also dont hate people with mental dissabilities and the word i used does not relate to them)
For example:
Ok so as you can see if your intelligence is much higher than your oponents you can still win the game no matter the reality of the board.
So my question is this: Is there an upper limit to that or after a point (due to determinism) your fate is sealed no matter how much smarter you are?
I am not talking about the average joe here.. again my question is purely theoretical (lets say a player that has 3000 elo 200 IQ against a a player with 2000 elo and 120 IQ)
In other words if someone has "thrice" as much intelligence (incerted a random analogy here suppose thats this is the needed difference for one to be vastly supperior than an other in chess) as an other player will the intelligent one have it as easy to win the less intelligent one not matter their actual level in chess?
for example I think I cant loose any match against a 6 year old that barely understands the moves no matter how much material I would be down... and ok lets say that I cant do that I believe that nakamura for example could claim that... but what about nakamura vs a guy that has the same difference as nakamura has to the 6 year old... could he claim the same? or is there a limit (due to positional limitations and the fact that now the lesser player knows a little more about how to move and defend/attack)
Of course everybodys opinion is apriciated but I believe that this question (no matter how stupid it sounds) could be answered only by a chess theoritecian and I hope someone who is would post his 2 cents about that as well :)