Kasporov_Jr wrote:
thank you captain obvious, I'm sure everyone is aware not everyone can be above a 1300 rating, but those who are below 1300 here in this, are the mentally weakest .
It would only be true if chess rating here were an objective performance index of mental "muscle". But I have bad news for you. It isn't. My IQ is about 120 and my chess rating on this website is about 900. I just have more important things to do than playing chess. Thus, my rating of 900 only shows my experience in playing chess, which is poor.
I can play violin. I doubt you can do that at this moment. I hereby mark you incapable of learning it and thus you are really mentally weak as it is not so hard as it seems.
thank you captain obvious, I'm sure everyone is aware not everyone can be above a 1300 rating, but those who are below 1300 here in this, are the mentally weakest .
Can't you still understand the Gaussian distribution, or this is part of your trolling, still?
Being 1300 at cap means someone is better than approx. 58%-60% of player. Even at 1200, one is statistically better than 50% of the players playing on this site.
This is simply how it works. You are calling on this site who knows how many million people mentally challenged and retarded, yet you can't even understand a thing about how the system works.
If you take a look at the IQ results, the same Gaussian distribution occurs. The vast majority of the people fall under the average (90 - 110 IQ) category, and let's say, there's 10% - 10% on either side (the top and low end).
Let's say someone has an IQ of 130. Special, they may say, intelligent, whatever. Definitely has some "natural ability" in him, something more than the others.
Does this make someone with a 105 IQ score "mentally challenged"? Does this make them "retarded"?
Nope, it just makes them AVERAGE compared to both the top end and the low end. That's all.
How is it still so hard for you to understand?