@Elroch: You claimed that Einstein was merely a club level player, that statement was clearly false.
Stockfish 11, and any high level engine really, will indicate mistakes and inaccuracies with 90% of all high level games, that literally means nothing. Especially inaccuracy alerts can be quite dubious at times.
What have you achieved in the chess world to just boldly call a confirmed super genius a weak player, solely based on one game?🙄
I didn't say Einstein was a weak player. I said he was a significantly above average player, also that the evidence reveals play that is not of strong master level.
One of Einstein's moves turns out to be a blunder, although it is classified as one of 3 mistakes (in 16 moves) by the chess.com analysis tool.
Strong masters don't make 3 mistakes in 16 moves against a weak player.
Regarding the valid point that one game is relatively weak evidence, note that a Bayesian analysis makes this much more relevant to a claim that he was a GM level player. Fewer than 1 in a million people are grandmasters, so the burden of proof is firmly on you.
No, you called Oppenheimer a weak player, but the problem remains the same.
How can you make such an absolute determination about either of thoses geniuses' playing strength based on one singular game? I hope you see that your claim, as bold as it may be, is really just based on your personal opinion.
No, you called Oppenheimer a weak player,
That I can be sure of. His play in this game is weak by the standards of strong club players. He made enough bad moves (including the two moves identified as blunders) for this to be a safe conclusion.
That is merely your personal opinion, as one single game certainly does not provide enough evidence to suggest a player's overall strength or weakness. That's just nonsense.
One could call you a weak player based on the factual evidence that can be found by analyzing your thausands of games, but certainly not one single match.
My games provide clear evidence I am not a strong master player. My daily chess would be equivalent to some sort of lesser master level OTB, but definitely not GM level (too many mistakes sneak through), and this is not a very fair comparison as the rules of daily chess are different and I make good use of them: I have never been able to play at that level with OTB rules.
If you play OTB as well, you should know that online ratings don't mean much, especially not daily.
That's why I was rather referring to your Blitz games of which you've played a couple lately.
That is merely your personal opinion, as one single game certainly does not provide enough evidence to suggest a player's overall strength or weakness. That's just nonsense.
One could call you a weak player based on the factual evidence that can be found by analyzing your thausands of games, but certainly not one single match.
You're trying too hard. Trying to repeatedly correlate chess ability directly to genius against all evidence to the contrary posted over the years here just displays where you derive your self worth. The one thing you can say about IQ and chess is that chess players who buy into the Kasparov (or Fischer) having a 180+ IQ myth seem to be less intelligent, on average.
My games provide clear evidence I am not a strong master player. My daily chess would be equivalent to some sort of lesser master level OTB, but definitely not GM level (too many mistakes sneak through), and this is not a very fair comparison as the rules of daily chess are different and I make good use of them: I have never been able to play at that level with OTB rules.
If you play OTB as well, you should know that online ratings don't mean much, especially not daily.
That's why I was rather referring to your Blitz games of which you've played a couple lately.
Hello everybody!
For a current research project, I'm studying how different chess players use their training time. If you are an active OTB player with a FIDE rating above 1000 (or a national federation equivalent), then you are invited to take the survey linked below. The survey will take no more than 10 minutes. Thank you!
Stop spamming this all over the place.
My games provide clear evidence I am not a strong master player. My daily chess would be equivalent to some sort of lesser master level OTB, but definitely not GM level (too many mistakes sneak through), and this is not a very fair comparison as the rules of daily chess are different and I make good use of them: I have never been able to play at that level with OTB rules.
If you play OTB as well, you should know that online ratings don't mean much, especially not daily.
Actually online daily ratings are an excellent indication of the quality of play with daily chess rules. Obvious not a good indication of blitz skills.
It's like saying marathon times don't mean anything about running speed because they don't indicate how fast you can sprint. In truth, they are an excellent indication of how fast you can run for 26 miles.
That's why I was rather referring to your Blitz games of which you've played a couple lately.
You could correctly infer I am just a reasonable club player at blitz - ranked about #100,000 on chess.com
You could estimate my strength at standard time controls (which have say 30 times as much time per move) but this would be rather uncertain - even to me, since I have not played OTB chess for many years. And you would surely get my correspondence chess strength wrong (because the skills required are enormously different).
Unfortunately, online daily games are not considered to be a consistent indicator of a player's strength, because it is very difficult to verify the authenticity of the moves being made.
The same applies to online Blitz games of course, but the likelihood of foul play is obviously far lower. That is one of the reasons why most advanced players on here predominately choose to play shorter time controls such as Blitz and below.
I still play OTB matches regularly, as a matter of fact I competed in the Australian Open Tournament last year as part of Germany's representation. When was your last competitive match?
Parts of IQ have no effect on chess such as general knowledge or the entire verbal section of IQ.
Parts of IQ have no effect on chess such as general knowledge or the entire verbal section of IQ.
You're thinking of the SAT, perhaps. There is no "verbal section" of IQ, nor any "sections" at all, thus one of the major problems with IQ as a measuring scale.
Unfortunately, online daily games are not considered to be a consistent indicator of a player's strength, because it is very difficult to verify the authenticity of the moves being made.
Well, there are ways which effectively quickly ban both blatant cheats and also catch those who try to be less blatant but who aren't completely successful (i.e. the rest). Join the official group concerned with getting cheaters banned if you want to learn more. Also read the reports on the large numbers of bannings which are regularly published by chess.com
The same applies to online Blitz games of course, but the likelihood of foul play is obviously far lower.
No. I believe most of the bannings are for cheating at blitz. Cheaters merely cheat in different ways at different time controls.
That is one of the reasons why most advanced players on here predominately choose to play shorter time controls such as Blitz and below.
No, it isn't. It's because they prefer playing fast chess, which is entirely different, very time efficient, is of quite high quality for most very strong players (about 500 points weaker than standard time controls), and are generally very good at it.
There are also a large number of players, including a minority of those with all chess titles up to GM, who play daily chess - some in a very casual manner, and others with enough care to achieve extremely high standards.
I still play OTB matches regularly, as a matter of fact I competed in the Australian Open Tournament last year as part of Germany's representation. When was your last competitive match?
Good for you: I hope you enjoy it. My last competitive games for many years have all been on chess.com. I have not moved a plastic piece in the last 10 years and don't regard doing so as a superior form of chess, the fact that a larger minority cheat at online chess notwithstanding. For example chess.com runs Titled Tuesday and the qualifiers for the world 960 chess championships while successfully dealing with this.
Parts of IQ have no effect on chess such as general knowledge or the entire verbal section of IQ.
You're thinking of the SAT, perhaps. There is no "verbal section" of IQ, nor any "sections" at all, thus one of the major problems with IQ as a measuring scale.
What he must mean is that IQ tests typically have a lot of word-based problems in them as well as numerical ones, geometric pattern based ones and so on. They are a weighted sum of a set of more specialised intelligence tests.
No. I believe most of the bannings are for cheating at blitz. Cheaters merely cheat in different ways at different time controls.
Nonsense. The means one would require to cheat during a fast Blitz game are obviously far more sophisticated and difficult to acquire, thus making 5 & 3min Blitz a considerably safer choice than Rapid or Daily, as one would literally have time to just run moves through an engine and even choose the second or third best moves in order to disguise their conduct.
No, it isn't. It's because they prefer playing fast chess, which is entirely different, very time efficient, is of quite high quality for most very strong players (about 500 points weaker than standard time controls), and are generally very good at it.
No, actually having played online Blitz at an advanced level against many titled and highly rated opponents, I can tell you first hand that it is due to fear of cheaters that most prefer online Blitz games. Of course it's also a superior format for stronger online players to compete, but that is definitely not the main reason.
I have not moved a plastic piece in the last 10 years and don't regard doing so as a superior form of chess
After self-admittedly not having moved a piece in over 10 years and only recently being check mated multiple times by 1700 rated opponents, I do not believe that you are in a position to make such a determination.
Q Test Solutions
1. Whale. The whale is the only mammal.
2. 90, 93. The numbers alternately increase by 3 or double.
3. Hermes. All the others are planets in the solar system.
4. Optics. Acoustics is the science of sound, optics of light.
5. 39. Each subsequent number is obtained by doubling the previous one and then subtracting a number which increments by one each time (e.g. 3x2 - 1 = 5; 5x2 - 2 = 8; 8x2 - 3 = 13 etc.)
6. Aristotle. All the others are composers.
7. Rio de Janeiro. Rio is in the southern hemisphere. All the others are in the northern hemisphere.
8. 197. All the other numbers are perfect squares.
9. J. If the letters are replaced by their position in the alphabet, we get the sequence 2, 5, 10, 17, 26. Each of these numbers is a square number plus one.
10. 22. The upper row numbers increment by 2, 3 and 4. The lower row by 3, 5 and 7.
Now check your score against the following chart:
Correct answers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IQ rating 82 90 98 106 115 124 133 142 151 160
Scoring 100 is average, while 130 is in the genius range (see chapter 1 of the book). Kasparov took a similar test and registered an IQ of 135.
I got 6 right so my IQ on this test is 124 :)
A few comments.
kasparov is a renowned player? Like the greatest of all time.
IQ cannot be reasonably determined by only 10 short questions.
there is no commonly accepted IQ level that is agreed upon to define as genius.
The requirement to get in mensa is roughly 130 - 132. Do you believe everyone in Mensa to be a genius?
Parts of IQ have no effect on chess such as general knowledge or the entire verbal section of IQ.
You're thinking of the SAT, perhaps. There is no "verbal section" of IQ, nor any "sections" at all, thus one of the major problems with IQ as a measuring scale.
What he must mean is that IQ tests typically have a lot of word-based problems in them as well as numerical ones, geometric pattern based ones and so on. They are a weighted sum of a set of more specialised intelligence tests.
You're being too generous.
Even the "verbal" sections on IQ tests are about determining relationships ("A is to B as C is to ???") between concepts. The method of inquiry is not really relevant in IQ tests, which are concentrated on pattern recognition and forming connections...if there were decent pictograms for said concepts, there would be no "verbal" questions at all.
That's right.
To be clear, I am a great admirer of Einstein as a physicist and a humanitarian, indeed more so than if he had been a super-strong chess player instead.