Originally posted by SwissGambit
In academia, it's also a disadvantage because you don't need the clutter of irrelevant details like what color the book was, how the font looked on the page, etc.

The problem with this thread is that no one likes a braggart. You're a kid, so you have not learned that yet.

It is not bragging, how shallow do you think I am that I get kicks from boasting on a chess forum... Boring...
I guarantee you I have better things to do.
I find the clutter stuff actually helps sometimes for instance your coloured book example can be used to find the book or recognise it quickly.

Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
I counter this by unremembering stuff before I remember it so as to confuse you into remembering nothing before I remember nothing.

Mind twister!

Originally posted by Tygert
1. The comments that I didn't appreciate after you could clearly see I had reworded my original post just for you with proof:What I'm referring to is the average chess player, as they are generally well educated. The average IQ of 100 is not a true reflection of the average person on this site.

Rude comment #1 by Agerg:[quote]If your life depended o ...[text shortened]... to the liberty of correcting your punctuation and grammar in one of the posts if you don't mind.

you probably didn't pick up on the fact that I emphasised (in bold) the word "continued" at the beginning of my last post - Rude comment #1 is moot (I acknowledge the sarcasm in my first post but it does not fall under the remit of "continued"

Secondly, you are 14 and so compared to the rest of us you have not yet grown up, so please elaborate further on the rudeness in Rude comment #2 (not liking something that is accurate does not necessarily mean said something is objectively rude).


I disagree that you were not being rude to me; you sought to imply I could still have used my common sense to infer that "average person" should mean "average chess playing person" - even after I mentioned that I could have equally well inferred that you meant it in a different way if I wanted to deviate from what you explicitly wrote. You made a mistake, you were not big enough to acknowledge it.

Oh and please post, verbatim, your apology to Divegeester

Finally, thank you for correcting my typos - surely my IQ just went down by 3 points for those!! (though unfortunately yours fell down 6 points for spelling "apologised" Reveal Hidden Contentas "apolgised" in the same post as you told me you had corrected my spelling mistakes)

Originally posted by Tygert
It is not bragging, how shallow do you think I am that I get kicks from boasting on a chess forum... Boring...

So you say, and yet ... here you are, doing just that.

Originally posted by Agerg
you probably didn't pick up on the fact that I emphasised (in bold) the word "continued" at the beginning of my last post - Rude comment #1 is moot (I acknowledge the sarcasm in my first post but it does not fall under the remit of "continued"

Secondly, you are 14 and so compared to the rest of us you have not yet grown up, so please elaborate further on th ...[text shortened]... h[/hidden]as "apolgised" in the same post as you told me you had corrected my spelling mistakes)

Quite frankly if you can't see the edit and how I corrected it in several ways throughout the thread then I feel sorry for you; it's so obvious. By the way, your "When you grow up" was not innocent, it was disparaging. I said "Use your common sense" not only after I clearly acknowledged my mistake but also endured the likes of your sarcastic remarks. It's seems you can't help yourself.

The typo corrections were not meant to be snarky, I'm a bit OCD and so dislike repeating mistakes.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
So you say, and yet ... here you are, doing just that.

I am trying to discover the correlation between chess playing and IQ. Please don't delete parts of my post.

Originally posted by Tygert
Quite frankly if you can't see the edit and how I corrected it in several ways throughout the thread then I feel sorry for you; it's so obvious. By the way, your "When you grow up" was not innocent, it was disparaging. I said "Use your common sense" not only after I clearly acknowledged my mistake but also endured the likes of your sarcastic remarks. It's see ...[text shortened]... e typo corrections were not meant to be snarky, I'm a bit OCD and so dislike repeating mistakes.

Quite frankly if you can't see the edit and how I corrected it in several ways throughout the thread then I feel sorry for you; it's so obvious.
To which part of my last response is this a reply!?? 😕


Please demonstrate how you "clearly acknowledged [your] mistake" prior to my second post (after which you denigrate my common sense) (i.e. direct me towards the relevant post).

Thanks in advance

Originally posted by Tygert
I am trying to discover the correlation between chess playing and IQ.

Nope. I don't think so.

Your OP starts with:

"According to the Stanford-Binet system, mine is 161. Is this good or bad compared to the average person?

Nothing in here about chess.

Then, in less than hour, several critical replies flood in. You realize the thread is bombing. Luckily, there is still time to edit the first post.

So, now the predictable damage control. Try to change the purpose of the thread:

"EDIT: what is it like compared to the average chess player?"

Which of course fooled no one.

Originally posted by Agerg
Please demonstrate how you "clearly acknowledged [your] mistake" prior to my second post (after which you denigrate my common sense) (i.e. direct me towards the relevant post).

Thanks in advance

Quote #1:

According to the Stanford-Binet system, mine is 161. Is this good or bad compared to the average person?

EDIT: what is it like compared to the average chess player?

Quote #2:

I was asking for what other people's was because I heard that chess players are generally very clever. (two of the top ten highest IQs in the world are held by Garry Kasparov and Judit Polgar)
There is no reason to call me a retard.

Quote #3:

What I'm referring to is the average chess player, as they are generally well educated. The average IQ of 100 is not a true reflection of the average person on this site.

Quote #4:

My scientific question as to whether there is a correlation between chess players and IQ is not being answered so I am going to abandon the thread in future. Yes, there are many variables but this is a forum and I cannot type them all. Please be helpful, use your common sense and put the information together.

We can see from this that my comment about your common sense was not, in fact, a denigration.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Nope. I don't think so.

Your OP starts with:

"According to the Stanford-Binet system, mine is 161. Is this good or bad compared to the average person?

Nothing in here about chess.

Then, in less than hour, several critical replies flood in. You realize the thread is bombing. Luckily, there is still time to edit the first post.

So, no ...[text shortened]... IT: what is it like compared to the average chess player?[/i]"

Which of course fooled no one.

1. This is a conspiracy theory about something that should be light hearted. Perhaps I should have posted this in the science forum; people here don't seem to get the purpose of my thread.

Originally posted by Tygert
Quote #1:

According to the Stanford-Binet system, mine is 161. Is this good or bad compared to the average person?

EDIT: what is it like compared to the average chess player?

Quote #2: [quote]I was asking for what other people's was because I heard that chess players are generally very clever. (two of the top ten highest IQs in the world ...[text shortened]...

We can see from this that my comment about your common sense was not, in fact, a denigration.

Your edit occurred after I wrote the second post. In particular, the point at which you made your reply to that post (mentioning my common sense) the edit did not exist. Please try again.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Tygert
1. This is a conspiracy theory about something that should be light hearted. Perhaps I should have posted this in the science forum; people here don't seem to get the purpose of my thread.

Would you like me to correct that one for you!?

I can make a thread in the science forum dedicated to how "arse-kickingly" fantastic you are (compared to the average chess player on this site of course) if that helps 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
Your edit occurred after I wrote the second post. In particular, the point at which you made your reply to that post (mentioning my common sense) the edit did not exist. Please try again.

Thanks in advance.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't cover up your rudeness because I made the edit after a comment by Divegeester, before you even posted. I also made several correctiions throughout that page and your disparaging comment about my age came after that. The common sense came after I explained myself in 4 different ways.

Originally posted by Agerg
Would you like me to correct that one for you? I can make a thread in the science forum dedicated to how "arse-kickingly" fantastic you are if that helps 🙂

You have been beaten and you know it so you resort to childish remarks. Cute.

Originally posted by Tygert
You have been beaten and you know it so you resort to childish remarks. Cute.

Well ... you *say* I've been beaten! 😕