Originally posted by wormwoodAnti-semite is a politically charged word.
being an antisemitist with a jewish mother does make you incredibly stupid. other racist have at least the excuse of not knowing any better, or being raised up in a social context where it was acceptable or even encouraged.
And arabs are semites too.
He is not anti-jewish or anti - his mother .
Thinking every race is 'equal' can actually be more stupid than being racist - they both have froth coming out of their mouth with vile attacks.
Originally posted by zin23Actually I did not mention about Fischer. But he is good example how GENIOUS IN CHESS may be IGNORANT IN OTHER SPHERES. Perhaps you lack information about Fishcer - otherwise you should have know about all crap he have said. For example absurd theories of conspirany - about blobal conspiracy of Jews, about Kasparov-Karpov matches (according to Fischer all games of these matches were settled before) etc. His inadequate claims (some of them are also about chess) are well-known by people knows chess history.
Fischer was a genius.. And there is NOTHING particularly wrong with the way he conducts himself now - he is just being politically incorrect.
And yes being racist does not make you stupid either.
You seem to be very narrow minded in your judgment of others. What is wrong with you?
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchI know more about Shirov than you, so maybe try to get some information to make some base for your unargued assumptions.
I doubt that a very intelligent person who applies his or herself cannot become a strong player.
Still assumption with no arguments.
Your above statement shows a total lack of intelligence and makes me question your intelligence as well.
Personal attacks to opponent.
But given the fact that even intelligent people can say stupid thing our previous discussions ,you are showing lack of arguments and personal antipathies to me.
Have you measured his IQ? Who are you to judge who is intelligent and who is not?
So to summarize - like in our previous discussions ,you are showing lack of arguments and personal antipathies to me.
I don't know you except from what you have shown here. I dislike judging people but you apparently feel you can do so all the time.
3 edits
Originally posted by zin23Have you measured his IQ? Who are you to judge who is intelligent and who is not?
I know more about Shirov than you, so maybe try to get some information to make some base for your unargued assumptions.
Have you measured his IQ? Who are you to judge who is intelligent and who is not?
So to summarize - like in our previous discussions ,you are showing lack of arguments and personal antipathies to me.
I don't know you exce ...[text shortened]... u have shown here. I dislike judging people but you apparently feel you can do so all the time.
IQ is formal indicator - Fischer had high IQ but, he is real moron in spheres out of chess.
I don't know you except from what you have shown here. I dislike judging people but you apparently feel you can do so all the time.
Really? Then why haven`t you oppose to no1marauder (or other trolls like him) who have made very many rude and insulting judgments about his opponents in this forum? For example in Thread 78007 you agreed with his opinion, and you had nothing against his rude manners (including his categoric judgments about his opponents)? Is not it a little bit hypocritical by your side?
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI remember Bobby Fisher saying in an interview many years ago that having a good memory was the single most important attribute of a good chess player.
Memory (especially pattern recognition) is thought to be a key factor in most intelligence tests isn't it?
It's also without question a key factor in chess - tactical awareness, opening preperation etc - at the highest levels.
I also read in a book about some poor sod called grandmaster Pilnick who was cited as living proof that you don't have to be intelligent to be good at chess.
Originally posted by KorchAn IQ test is far more accurate and less biased than your personal judgment.
[b]Have you measured his IQ? Who are you to judge who is intelligent and who is not?
IQ is formal indicator - Fischer had high IQ but, he is real moron in spheres out of chess.
I don't know you except from what you have shown here. I dislike judging people but you apparently feel you can do so all the time.
Really? Then why haven`t you oppos ...[text shortened]... his categoric judgments about his opponents)? Is not it a little bit hypocritical by your side?[/b]
Why should I oppose somebody I don't know? You basically insulted some great GMs and you don't like I it when I disagree.
Eliminating those innate abilities that you're either born with, or you aren't, I'd guess the most important core skills are:
1. Tactical ability. While some people are naturally better at this than others, everyone can significantly improve upon whatever level of ability they have by doing tactics problems. The best kind to do IMHO are the ones that you can solve fairly quickly, as this will build pattern recognition faster.
2. Chess Understanding. AKA positional ability. Developed by reading through the relevant books on this topic and by making an effort at understanding the positional characteristics of your own games. To do the latter you need to know the concepts first (doubled pawns, IQP, colour complexes, etc) thus the former.
3. Endgame Technique. Again, both study and practice is the key here.
3. Understanding your Opening. This ties into #2, in that the more you understand what you're hoping to achieve from your opening and the tools it contains to do it, the more likely you are to achieve an advantage and maintain and convert it into a win.
4. Desire. Desire to win, desire to improve. The more you have the more progress you'll make and the further you'll go.
Originally posted by zin23the IQ-concept itself is incredibly inaccurate, being just slightly more reliable than horoscopes.
An IQ test is far more accurate and less biased than your personal judgment.
listen to this podcast of donna williams interviewing caiseal mor. both are tested to have an IQ of around 70. yes, 70, not 170 like a 'biased personal judgement' of any sane individual would suggest after hearing these two converse.
http://oddpod.donnawilliams.net/
this is how accurately IQ-tests work.
..i read a story about a poor illiterate peasant in the indian sector of the disputed kashmir province...he was a brick maker by occupation..he became a chess master without reading a book or belonging to a chess club, etc..he watched games played and understood what he saw and became a very strong player...so what is the point...chess is a game of comprehension of
geometry and the ability to see it laid out over several moves..the unfolding of a box to a shape that might unfold differently than the box ( as folded ) might not suggest...this is a natural high ability for some and quite less for others...nothing to do with intelligence per se or creativity per se...it is like
being able to bowl well without lessons...or to play bridge well without years of play to learn all the nuances...a natural place for a few and a struggle for the rest of us...
1 edit
Originally posted by zin23Example of Fischer shows that high results in IQ test does not guarantee intelligence. Because its well known that he understood only chess - in other spheres he was nothing. If you are not informed about moronic behaviour and claims of Fischer then I would advice to search some info about him - I have no time and desire to number all these well known facts.
An IQ test is far more accurate and less biased than your personal judgment.
Why should I oppose somebody I don't know? You basically insulted some great GMs and you don't like I it when I disagree.
So if someone is insulting other people then its ok, but if someone is insulting GM then you don`t like it? Seems like you have never communicated with any GM if you are idealizing them.
Originally posted by wormwoodHe's autistic, evaluating his IQ is a bit difficult, I'd think. You handed us a stacked deck.
the IQ-concept itself is incredibly inaccurate, being just slightly more reliable than horoscopes.
listen to this podcast of donna williams interviewing caiseal mor. both are tested to have an IQ of around 70. yes, 70, not 170 like a 'biased personal judgement' of any sane individual would suggest after hearing these two converse.
http://oddpod.donnawilliams.net/
this is how accurately IQ-tests work.
Ever hang around a group of people who have IQ's in the 70's ? Do you think you'd see a difference if you then went into a room full of people who were in the gifted category? I'd say the concept of IQ is a lot more valid than a horoscope, as you claim.
Originally posted by wormwoodThat is ridiculous. By your standards then college degrees are entirely worthless. Of course an intelligent person can do bad in an IQ test
the IQ-concept itself is incredibly inaccurate, being just slightly more reliable than horoscopes.
listen to this podcast of donna williams interviewing caiseal mor. both are tested to have an IQ of around 70. yes, 70, not 170 like a 'biased personal judgement' of any sane individual would suggest after hearing these two converse.
http://oddpod.donnawilliams.net/
this is how accurately IQ-tests work.
They do measure one's intelligence accurately, though occasionally they may give flawed results.
One thing is certain: IQ tests are far more reliable than someone's subjective opinion that another is 'stupid'.
Originally posted by KorchI know everything about Fischer's alleged 'moronic' behavior - again you are confusing your dislike and disagreement with someone as 'proof' this person is stupid.
Example of Fischer shows that high results in IQ test does not guarantee intelligence. Because its well known that he understood only chess - in other spheres he was nothing. If you are not informed about moronic behaviour and claims of Fischer then I would advice to search some info about him - I have no time and desire to number all these well known facts ...[text shortened]... ou don`t like it? Seems like you have never communicated with any GM if you are idealizing them.
I listened to all his radio interviews - I found them to be quite entertaining.
Last time I checked, this is a chess forum so yes, it should be ok to defend a GM from unscrupulous attacks.