Originally posted by Eladar There are many PdD's who are terrible at chess and they would not be strong players even if they had to interest in playing.
many PdD's... would not be strong players even if they had to interest in playing.
Once again this is baseless. How can you make such a statement? There is no possible proof. I would tend to believe that they would make strong players if they gave it a shot because many amateur GM's have PhDs it does not matter if many PhDs aren't GM's as that only indicates they are not interested in chess. Likewise, it does not matter if many amateur GM's do not have PhD's because that only indicates they do not have an interest in getting one. The only fact is that a strong mind tends to show itself in many areas. Can a muscle have many attributes that make it strong? No, its strength is measured by how much force it can exert and how long it can exert this force. A mind's strength is measured by how much thought it can exert and how long it can exert this thought.
Originally posted by tomtom232 [b]many PdD's... would not be strong players even if they had to interest in playing.
Once again this is baseless. How can you make such a statement? There is no possible proof. I would tend to believe that they would make strong players if they gave it a shot because many amateur GM's have PhDs it doesn't matter if many PhDs aren't GM's as that onl ...[text shortened]... ch force it can exert. A mind's strength is measured by how much thought it can exert.[/b]
anybody without a serious mental disability gets strong at chess if they put in the same work as a phd requires. the 'talent' makes difference at a higher researcher level. everything until that is simply motivation & elbow grease. nothing more.
Wow. You see, this is why many people consider chess players to be arrogant donkeys (to put it nicely). You assume that simply because chess requires one kind of strong mind, that if you are not good a chess (nor do you have any real potential) you do not have a strong mind.
I am totally amazed at the closed mindedness of some people.
Originally posted by Eladar Wow. You see, this is why many people consider chess players to be arrogant donkeys (to put it nicely). You assume that simply because chess requires one kind of strong mind, that if you are not good a chess (nor do you have any real potential) you do not have a strong mind.
I am totally amazed at the closed mindedness of some people.
I am saying the complete opposite. You assumed, although I don't know how, that I implied being strong at chess is the only way to have a strong mind when I stated that it takes a strong mind to be a strong chess player. Hoever, this does not mean that you don't have a strong mind if you can't play chess it only means that if you do have a strong mind and can't play high level chess then you don't put in the effort that your strong mind is capable of.
PS This is a horrible shot at trying to win a debate and is why I don't frequent the Debates forum... because it is full of arrogant donkeys.
It's my position that you can have a different kind of strong mind. Minds can be strong in different ways.
As WW points out, even if you have a simply average or little above average mind you can get your PhD as long as you have the work ethic and drive. I'd add that it wouldn't hurt to have the financial backing.
As I said earlier, strong is a relative term. GM strong does not mean the same thing as a strong ametuer.
Originally posted by Eladar Wow. You see, this is why many people consider chess players to be arrogant donkeys (to put it nicely). You assume that simply because chess requires one kind of strong mind, that if you are not good a chess (nor do you have any real potential) you do not have a strong mind.
I am totally amazed at the closed mindedness of some people.
most people think chess players are quiet, docile geeks gathering dust in their worn-out cardigans. we KNOW we are opinionated, arrogant & aggressive armchair warriors.
Originally posted by wormwood anybody without a serious mental disability gets strong at chess if they put in the same work as a phd requires. the 'talent' makes difference at a higher researcher level. everything until that is simply motivation & elbow grease. nothing more.
Yes, this is my point but I am also asserting that once you have put in the effort to attain a strong mind anything else that requires a strong mind to do well will come easier. It is akin to lifting weights. If you can bench press a 1,000 lb elephant then you can probably bench press a 1,000 lb barbell.
Originally posted by Eladar It's my position that you can have a different kind of strong mind. Minds can be strong in different ways.
As WW points out, even if you have a simply average or little above average mind you can get your PhD as long as you have the work ethic and drive. I'd add that it wouldn't hurt to have the financial backing.
As I said earlier, strong is a relative term. GM strong does not mean the same thing as a strong ametuer.
And this is a daft statement. What do you mean by "a different kind of strong mind?" It means nothing as you haven't defined anything. I have given a definition to what a strong mind is and It doesn't even have anything to do with chess. I then said that a strong mind is needed to play chess at a high level but once again this doesn't mean that you don't have a strong mind if you aren't a GM it just means that you are lazy. I think that you are just feeling that the strength of your mind is inadequate and are making an argument that if proven right(which it can't be because it is baseless) would make you appear to have a strong mind. Now, this does NOT mean you don't have a strong mind it just means you feel it isn't as strong as it should be... and well who of us can claim that their mind is as strong as it should be? 🙂
Originally posted by tomtom232 Yes, this is my point but I am also asserting that once you have put in the effort to attain a strong mind anything else that requires a strong mind to do well will come easier. It is akin to lifting weights. If you can bench press a 1,000 lb elephant then you can probably bench press a 1,000 lb barbell.
yeah, well. I prefer to think it as having strong buttock muscles. to me it seems much more descriptive of how you reach expertism at any skill. like mathematics, chess, music, painting etc etc. it doesn't require being smart, it just requires the ability to sit down and plough through the work. elbow grease.
but sure, you could call that 'strength of mind' just as well I guess. but it somehow misdirects from the fact that the critical characteristic is NOT superior intellect or any other way of describing 'intelligence'.
Originally posted by wormwood yeah, well. I prefer to think it as having strong buttock muscles. to me it seems much more descriptive of how you reach expertism at any skill. like mathematics, chess, music, painting etc etc. it doesn't require being smart, it just requires the ability to sit down and plough through the work. elbow grease.
but sure, you could call that 'strength of mi cal characteristic is NOT superior intellect or any other way of describing 'intelligence'.
Yes, that is why we use the term strong not smart. This is the difference. Being smart means that you can store knowledge easier but it still takes a strong mind to apply that knowledge or to exert thought about that knowledge. I guess it is a language thing... to me ploughing through work and applying elbow grease are the very things that make a mind strong... I'm not sure if the same connection would be made by people who speak anything other than English.
The term "strongest".
06 Jun '11 20:444 edits
Back to Top