Bah, that's what they always say.
They always say "a utopia is just around the corner" and "please make your donations now."
What is the avg. IQ of players on chess.com
Sort:
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1143
Optimissed wrote:
Definitely not Nietzsche, Edison and van Gogh. The others may lay some claim to genius. All Edison did was buy up patents. Not sure if he invented a thing. What did he invent, of importance?? Nietzsche was a failed philosopher and van Gogh was an artist whose work caught on because it was different.
FYI Edison invented an easier-to-use, less expensive, more reliable telegraph operator's device that earned him enough to start working on other devices. A lot of his "inventions" turned unpatented discoveries into practical products.
His most significant invention was the "research factory", where dozens of people run hundreds of experiments, each with one small deviation from the rest, in order to find the most practicable product. This method is used in most medical research, among other uses.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1144
one slogan I always found humorous and disturbing simultaneously was -
"Save the planet! Kill yourself
"
-2
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1146
noodles2112 wrote:
one slogan I always found humorous and disturbing simultaneously was -
"Save the planet! Kill yourself"
As I recall, one person did just that... can't find the name.
Garrett Hardin talked about overpopulation, and killed himself, but that was more about having a chronic disease and (along with his wife, who was also chronically ill and killed herself at the same time) believing in the right of a person to choose their death.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1147
Opt - just another controversial topic.
I don't think there was another world chess icon that played a computer with such publicity.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1148
Optimissed wrote:
noodles2112 wrote:
Opt - you just made me think of something.
I really do not know to what extent computerized robots have "abilities" but what would happen if the "smartest robot/computer" was able to take an IQ test?
Deep Blue against Kasparov. I think Kasparov resigned because the computer "cheated". ??
:
Oh, you're aware of that. Yes, of course Deep Blue didn't beat Kasparov. I think they must have bribed him not to object. There's no other possible reason that he could have accepted their cheating, so my opinion of Kasparov nose-dived due to that. I wouldn't trust him an inch.
Kasparov asked for a rematch but IBM wasn't interested--they were already working on improvements. As for charges that Deep Blue had help, it seems hard to credit. Should the IBM technicians have been tinkering with the program or the programming, that just means that they improved the machine enough in the course of the match to really defeat Garry. If they were getting human help it would have done little good against the world's pre-eminent human player.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1149
Optimissed wrote:
paper_llama wrote:
One of the most iconic basslines of all time
-
Aren't they TERRIBLE!
:
Never heard them before. Must have sussed I wouldn't like them.
I read that after age 30 or so, people don't develop any taste for new music.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1150
noodles2112 wrote:
a utopia is just around the corner
But where is the corner?
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1152
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
noodles2112 wrote:
Opt - you just made me think of something.
I really do not know to what extent computerized robots have "abilities" but what would happen if the "smartest robot/computer" was able to take an IQ test?
Deep Blue against Kasparov. I think Kasparov resigned because the computer "cheated". ??
:
Oh, you're aware of that. Yes, of course Deep Blue didn't beat Kasparov. I think they must have bribed him not to object. There's no other possible reason that he could have accepted their cheating, so my opinion of Kasparov nose-dived due to that. I wouldn't trust him an inch.
Kasparov asked for a rematch but IBM wasn't interested--they were already working on improvements. As for charges that Deep Blue had help, it seems hard to credit. Should the IBM technicians have been tinkering with the program or the programming, that just means that they improved the machine enough in the course of the match to really defeat Garry. If they were getting human help it would have done little good against the world's pre-eminent human player.
I don't think computers were unequivocally better than humans until at least few years after that. Kasparov's loss was dubious for other reasons, such as his poor opening choices. Kramnik lost to Fritz in 2003 IIRC, so no later than that... and as that's only 6 years after Garry's loss, 1997 is an ok-enough date to mark as the inflection point.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1153
paper_llama wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
paper_llama wrote:
One of the most iconic basslines of all time
-
Aren't they TERRIBLE!
:
Never heard them before. Must have sussed I wouldn't like them.
I read that after age 30 or so, people don't develop any taste for new music.
I can testify from personal experience that that is not so. Not only do I today (age 73) like many kinds of music I had never experienced before I turned 30, but over the last 40 years I have introduced some of my favorites to others in my demographic and they became fans. Not to mention new music that has been created in the last 40 years. A lot of new music I consider complete crap, but there is a lot of older music that I felt the same way about.
Incidentally, I did like the Red Hot Chili Peppers years ago and still think they put on an enjoyable show when I work at one of their concerts these days.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1154
mpaetz wrote:
paper_llama wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
paper_llama wrote:
One of the most iconic basslines of all time
-
Aren't they TERRIBLE!
:
Never heard them before. Must have sussed I wouldn't like them.
I read that after age 30 or so, people don't develop any taste for new music.
I can testify from personal experience that that is not so. Not only do I today (age 73) like many kinds of music I had never experienced before I turned 30, but over the last 40 years I have introduced some of my favorites to others in my demographic and they became fans. Not to mention new music that has been created in the last 40 years. A lot of new music I consider complete crap, but there is a lot of older music that I felt the same way about.
Yeah, those types of articles usually turn out to be rubbish... you know, like don't (or do) eat apples to avoid ___ disease.
Glad to hear it wasn't true for you.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1155
took my first IQ test at 14 at a place in Provo, Utah called Provo Canyon School. A type of reformatory. 
paper_llama wrote:
I mean, this is an imperfect solution for multiple reasons. One is BS takes less effort. Another is giving something attention legitimizes it... for a time it was fashionable for scientists to have public debates with creationists, but then it seems to have been collectively decided that participation unduly legitimizes them.
I think at bottom, what's necessary to combat misinformation is providing access to truth. Echo chambers, for example, block out truth.
Except that it doesn't. I routinely pop the balloons of dozens of posters using far less verbiage than they are delivering in general. Brandolini's Law applies to efforts that don't take into account Brandolini's Law.
How to do this:
- When crackpot posters toss out misinformation, post a refuting link
- When crackpot posters demand that you prove them wrong, you remind them that the burden of proof is theirs, to do their own homework, and move on
- Refute crackpots with their own examples whenever possible, and quote them
- When there's a bunch of posters shoveling BS at once, tackle several with the same post
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1157
"I took my first IQ test as a fetus. The person administering the test was Marilyn vos Savant, who I must admit, I found rather dim witted... in fact as it ended up, I administered the test to her. She thanked me profusely and said that it was supernatural for a fetus to be so clever. Of course she was foolish enough to not see past the false dichotomy of natural vs supernatural (or as I discovered and call it, the supranatura, the genius of which remains unrecognized by modern men which are not much more than monkeys, by my estimation)."
- Optimissed (probably)
noodles2112 wrote:
llama - just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
But those who have tried to debate with me typically get emotionally discombobulated simply because their own cognitive dissonance wins out.
Be that as it may, I don't debate people like you for your benefit nor mine.
You don't "debate" at all, really. You post drivel and run when the facts come out.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1159
DiogenesDue wrote:
paper_llama wrote:
I mean, this is an imperfect solution for multiple reasons. One is BS takes less effort. Another is giving something attention legitimizes it... for a time it was fashionable for scientists to have public debates with creationists, but then it seems to have been collectively decided that participation unduly legitimizes them.
I think at bottom, what's necessary to combat misinformation is providing access to truth. Echo chambers, for example, block out truth.
Except that it doesn't. I routinely pop the balloons of dozens of posters using far less verbiage than they are delivering in general. Brandolini's Law applies to efforts that don't take into account Brandolini's Law.
How to do this:
- When crackpot posters toss out misinformation, post a refuting link
- When crackpot posters demand that you prove them wrong, you remind them that the burden of proof is theirs, to do their own homework, and move on
- Refute crackpots with their own examples whenever possible, and quote them
- When there's a bunch of posters shoveling BS at once, tackle several with the same post
Well, I have to admit, that the amount of self awareness you've shown, and frank honesty about the success you've had with noodles, has convinced me that you're not at all argumentative, and very much genuinely interested in the underlying issues.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#1160
paper_llama wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
paper_llama wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
I am good with you thinking the witness is not being truthful
"There's nothing as unreliable as an eye witness"
Plus, Brady didn't witness Fischer take an IQ test.
Plus, you've probably never heard of the term "primacy source" ... Brady gives second hand information from an unnamed source (lol) and even admits the claim is disputed.
According to the standards of history, therefore, he does not have any evidence.
According to the standards of law, the "evidence" is hearsay and inadmissible.
According to the standards of social media, it is proven because of Brandolini's Law.
I agree, but that is the information. And what was reported.
Hold on, I will ask my phone for the answer.
What is Bobby Fischer's IQ?
Answer.
An eccentric genius, who was believed to have an I.Q. of 181, Fischer became known for his controversial public remarks in his later years. He was granted Icelandic citizenship in 2005, following legal trouble with the United States.
ChatGPT offers a better answer than Siri.
What is Bobby Fischer's IQ?
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been a topic of speculation and debate for many years. However, there is no official record of his IQ score, and any claim regarding his IQ is likely to be based on anecdotal evidence or hearsay.
Fischer was widely regarded as a genius and was known for his exceptional intellectual ability and chess skills. He was a prodigy who became the youngest ever United States Chess Champion at the age of 14 and went on to become the World Chess Champion in 1972.
While IQ is not the only measure of intelligence, it is important to note that IQ scores are not always accurate or reliable measures of intelligence. It's also worth keeping in mind that Bobby Fischer's intellectual abilities and achievements extended far beyond his performance in chess.
Pretty good until the last bit... at least I'm unaware of his non-chess abilities / achievements.
Yes, that’s pretty weird. Maybe ChatGPT sees his nonsensical ranting on Philippine Radio as an “achievement”.
a utopia is just around the corner