>How do we let the audience know this character is supposed to be super smart?
>Ive got it! Someone bring me a chess set!
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
>How do we let the audience know this character is supposed to be super smart? >Ive got it!
>How do we let the audience know this character is supposed to be super smart?
>Ive got it! Someone bring me a chess set!
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Has there ever been a really great chess player who had any other discernible skills or talents? A lot of famous scientists and polymaths could play good chess, sure, but the actual masters of the game all seem like one trick ponies.
See:
the answer is no, it’s an autism thing.
It's really fricking basic mechanics tbh, if you can't see at least 5 movies ahead you are a legit moron
Anything that requires a logical thought process is autism according to the Internet, but chess masters are extremely limited by their competition. They all have the same strats and it gets very boring, kinda like MMA. I wrecked a guy with a 2200+ranking literally because I pushed a pawn to d or e5 by turn 3. I'm pretty sure it mind broke him because he had no idea how to deal with it because it's kinda a foolish move. I'm waiting for somebody to break mmas campy shit. It's very ripe for it.
Thank you for proving my point autist
No. It only takes 10 minutes to learn chess and it's completely irrelevant if you're able to beat any of your friends or coworkers, ect, and vice versa. I'd be more impressed if I met someone who read books about WW1 in their spare time. That's much more impressive
Can you recommend any?
Yes, but they're all about the air war.
>takes 10 minutes to learn chess
moron
If you cant learn chess in 10 minutes and get a grasp on the basic math involved, then you might be the moron
Nta but it takes 10 minutes to learn the basics to functionaly play a game (badly), then maybe a few days or weeks, depending how focused you are too get to an intermediate level. Becoming advanced takes years/decades and it's obviously a waste of time. It's just a board game. It's no different from trying to get really good at Fortnite or something.
Chess is a game of skill. History is rote memorization of facts and parroting whatever you've read as if you researched it yourself. Can you tell me one original thing you've discovered or can claim from all your reading about the WW1 aerial war?
>Chess is a game of skill. History is rote memorization
Funny, but I dont think anyone will fall for this b8
I love history but to say there's nothing to chess is moronic.
Hi Redd*t, I asked for your original conclusion, not what you wrote about.
>there's nothing to chess is moronic.
To say chess is somehow applicable to an impending real life battle is moronic, and I can tell you are a fricking historylet moron
Is history even applicable to a real-life battle? Could you go in with zero prior knowledge and study say, half the battles of the Spanish civil war and then form a model by which you could predict the outcome of the other 50%? No you fricking can't. That isn't the argument either. Chess DOES require intelligence to do well in.
In addition, I have yet to see an original conclusion from any one of you. Surely you've discovered something new or made a new connection, unless you're only capable of consuming material and nothing else
>Is history even applicable to a real-life battle?
>NO
I applaud your level of bait. I don't think anyone is going to fall for it though
I like how you conveniently ignored the other half of my post. History follows some patterns but it is inherently completely unpredictable, because there is only hindsight cope for the multiple exceptions that exist for any well-established principles
>history is completely unpredictable
No one should be paying attention to your posts
Once again,
>Could you go in with zero prior knowledge and study say, half the battles of the Spanish Civil War and then form a model by which you could predict the outcome of the other 50%? No you fricking can't.
>"but with chess you can!"
Lol
Neither chess nor history is applicable to real-life battles.
True, all you really need to know is the Talmud and its significance.
ya, cuz real life battles are messy, no clear cut winner, just one side who gains more. That fact is why Go is better, you can lose by 5 points and still have played flawlessly, in fact when I lose by a close margin I don't find it to feel like a loss, I gained just as much as my opponent, he just gained a wee bit more.
I remember reading somewhere that chess is more similiar to a one on one fistfight, while Go is more like a battle, with skirmishes and standoffs that culminate into greater war.
Taking the bait. Chess, on the most basic professional level that even children operate on, is a game of memorization. There is almost no amount of skill that will overcome the basic memorization techniques which define chess as a game now. The masters who were working at the highest levels up through the 90s pretty much destroyed it as a game of skill, and now it’s a glorified spelling bee. That being said, ignoring it on a professional level, chess is an excellent game for exercising the brain and grasping some core concepts of strategy.
even though the best players currently, and arguably ever, are masters of endgame. bro have you ever even played chess?
I am prepared, and excited, to be proven wrong. Which masters are you referring to, and what moves have they established?
nah frick yourself
Rude.
basically this, it's a combinatorial game but the player can only realistically see one or two levels of the game tree, so they need to develop heuristics to choose their move instead, but you can just simply memorize the specific moves that counter the common heuristics and be an at advantage
NTA. I’ve never been into aviation but I wrote a 15 page research paper in undergrad on the aggressive behavior of minor states in international diplomacy, and then applied that analysis to Greco-Turkish military buildup and the diplomatic situation in the Balkans in 1914.
>History is rote memorization of facts and parroting whatever you've read as if you researched it yourself
If you really think that, you're holding yourself back from a really good time enjoying history
you can say the same for chess as there's extensive history behind the games and people behind the openings. Using history as something to argue against Chess is possibly the dumbest way to go about criticising the game
It's a game board with 64 spaces on it, mate. It's not going to teach you the best strategy to win the battle of the Atlantic. Come on now. Time for bed. You've got a big day tomorrow of jerking off and playing chess.
botvinnik was an electric engineer and computer scientist before becoming world champion. a lot of early champions were writers and mathemeticians like steinitz and lasker
most great generals and a lot of leaders
also
>bad at chess detected
Being good at chess is not the same thing as being a master of it, that's why I made that distinction in my post. None of those generals or leaders were among the best players of their time.
Lmao at thinking chess has any real world value battlefield application in the first place. You ever notice how chess autists are also absolute historylets everytime, and have this weird image in their head of kings and Generals playing chess, then getting up and looking at a map of their next battle plan or some shit?!
Lol, get a fricking grip
chess is literally the equivalent of doing mental math, so no
>A lot of famous scientists and polymaths could play good chess, sure, but the actual masters of the game all seem like one trick ponies.
that's because in order to reach the highest levels of the game you require an autism and a commitment very few people can afford. a friend of mine is quite good and won some tournaments but he told me that he's a fricking noob compared to the really good players. so while I don't think it's impossible to excel inboth chess and something else, you need to make some compromises unless you rolled high in INT
>has there ever been a really great [insert literally any skill here] who had any other discernable skills or talents?
No, because becoming great requires massive investment and sacrifice.
As the other anon has said, early greats usually were polymaths. In the current times, chess players are only good at chess just like top professional tennis players only know about tennis. The bar is set too high for anyone who wasn't focused solely on the discipline since he was a little kid to reach to the top.
Chess requiring raw high intellect is a misconception people who never played often get. In reality, insane memorization and pattern recognition are much more important. Your typical grandmaster level game goes like that:
>players playing 20 moves of opening theory they both know by heart
>in the middlegame applying motifs they saw in other games in similar positions in order to reach a slight positional advantage in the endgame
> in the endgame, trying to convert that advantage into a winning position using very concrete and formal mathemiatical techniques
>in the end it's a draw
there's barely any place for your own intellect in there. that's maybe what separates good players from the greats, not what will get you to the grandmaster level in itself
It's not just chess masters. It's masters of anything. The vast majority of people who are exceptionally great in one field are fricking stupid as hell in most other areas of life, because the vast majority of their time is spent focusing on that 1 thing they're experts in.
I never understood why people think that just because a person is great at 1 thing, that means they're smart and being smart means knowing the answer to everything. If there's one thing the Rogan podcast will show you is this, where the experts are allowed to talk freely for 3 hours. You'll listen to their expert opinion for an hour, and then the rest are 2 hours of the expert talking about other things and proving just how fricking stupid they are when it comes to anything besides their field of expertise
athletes are a good example of this. they're not necessarily low IQ, but they may seem that way because when after they discovered their athletic talents when they were young, they put all of their focus into becoming great at the sport and neglected academia. if you want to become great at something you have to make cuts somewhere else because our time is limited
Lasker was a solid mathematician
Uh yeah there are definitely engineers and professionals who are good at chess
good yes, but not great. the highest level you can reach without dedicating your entire life to chess and extensive coaching from the youngest level is a Candidate Master, maybe a National Master. and these guys are small fries in the professional circut. they would destory a normie 100/100 times, but GMs eat them for breakfast.
The only GM with another career that I'm aware of is a Polish lawyer working in EU trade law, but he basically retired from chess to focus on that career, and only does some coaching for very high level players on the side as more of a (very profitable) hobby.
Chess had a few decades where people thought it was all memorization and math but turns out it's just another sleazy bluffing game about human behavior when you start trying to play it for a living.
Botez sisters are good at being prostitutes.
This is the wrong question. No, nobody who is great at chess as any other significant skillset. Does that mean chess doesnt demand elite intelligence? No it doesn't. It means that the skill gap from "good" to "great" is very large, and there's a huge timesink to get above a 2000 ELO rating. It requires insane intelligence to get into the professional sphere, but in order to compete it also requires your complete and total attention.
If you're asking why Bill Gates couldn't hold a candle to Magnus Carlson on the Chess board, and you think that somehow this shows that Bill Gates has a higher IQ than Magnus, you're wrong.
>Has there ever been a really great chess player who had any other discernible skills or talents?
Yes. Bobby Fischer was a virulent antisemite.
I got ranked around 1900 fide with no formal training at all, I only knew terms like Sicilian from electronic games. I was really good as white but kinda shit at black.
>I was really good as white but kinda shit at black
>woman is portrayed to be smarter than the men and is shown playing chess
>(no woman has ever ranked in the top 50 chess players)
>(out of the top 100 players, only one woman holds a spot (#60))
there was judit polgar who peaked at #8 i think but she's the exception to the rule
pretty based how she refused to play female only competitions and titles
>no woman has ever ranked in the top 50 chess players
Judit Polgar was top 10 and beat 10 World Champions including Kasparov and Carlsen.
Nobody after 1988 achieved anything but memorizing what happened before them. The game was broken by Kasparov and Fischer, beating them just became a matter of luck.
>The game was broken by Kasparov and Fischer, beating them just became a matter of luck.
Smartest Cinemaphile posters, kek.
>Fischer
Played for too short to be statistically significant. You could pick Magnus for a span of 2 years and also claim he was basically unbeatable
>Kasparov
Beaten lots of times, it's all about statistics and win rate with chess
Statistics are meaningless in chess now, the grandmasters established the way to play, and now it’s just a game of imitation
What subreddits do you guys browse to get these fedora opinions? Try chess once in your life. Memorization helps but you will get beaten by a better player, and no it's not because they memorized better than you did
I honestly can’t tell if this is bait or ignorance.
So, if you lose in chess you merely memorized less of the game than they did?
yeah, thats basically the case all the way in between like an okayish noob (let's say 1200 elo is the cutoff) to the super grandmaster level. masters will know hundreds if not thousands of games by heart, on top of a ridiculous amount of opening theory, tactical motifs, and engame techniques
?si=VcfIRJGVj5bS7FtT
watch this video, how he instantly recognizes which games these are by just glancing at the position
if they were smart they would know chess is just memory retention.
chess is pretty solid though as far as representing skill
the problem is everyones' knowledge of chess
you could solve this though by having good commentary explaining what someone is trying to do as they do it and how they fricked up.
>tfw stuck on 1000 elo on chess.com for a year
I once played against a guy who was the kind of person who would challenge everyone he'd know to a chess game, most people never play chess so he would always win. Then I played against him and played the "en passant" move and he accused me of cheating cause after years of him playing chess he did not even know that move.
Moral of the story, most chess players are dumb as bricks.
holy hell
>Then I played against him and played the "en passant" move
How does no Black person know that this exists? I learned of it when i was 6 by playing Lego Chess on a windows 98 computer
You aren't supposed to do that move versus normies. You kinda fricked up ngl.
I played a guy who claimed he played in chess tournaments who didn't know about the touch move rule.
that rule is barely enforced in the tournaments, with the exception of playing under time pressure. you just mumble "j'adoube" or "adjust" and touch another piece and it's fine
Haha, well played... well played indeed, my virtuous friend! The strategy which you used to gain entrance to my compound is reminiscent of Turenne exploiting the receding tide at the Battle of the Dunes. But come now, let us postpone our conflict for at least a pleasant hour or so. I can offer you a most delightful 1953 Merlot from the very slopes of Vesuvius. Perhaps you have tasted it before? Tangentially, have you heard the recent Concertgebouw recording of Mozart's 41? It is quite terrible, wouldn't you agree? Especially the distasteful tuning of the lead contrabass... I much prefer the Klemperer. Here, take your repose... yes, I see your eyes upon this Moghul-era chess set. But chess is a frivolous game, would you not agree? Indeed. I must insist on hungry hungry hippos.
a game where the best players in the world don't stand a single chance beating a computer program cannot be considered intelligent
>you le CANT read LE books AND play LE chess!!!
I hate this place sometimes
fricking subhumans
>what if we did this concept, but revolving around the entire plot, also it’s a woman because women are le smart too
>you now remember when fricking chess became a flavor of the month game among normies because of this show
>chess became a flavor of the month
Maybe the idea of it, but no roastie actually played a single game.
I love how all this cope in the thread gets btfo by pic related.
>But muh exception to the rule
She was literally an experiment to BTFO "muh talent" brainlets, and it worked.
Also, until the 1950s women weren't even taken seriously by chess players so consequently, nobody wanted to train them. It only took muh ebil communists to change this perception, and even today, chess is very much a male hobby. In competitive chess, only 15% are women
I'm surprised there hasn't been a male-version of Polgar. She was a daddy-experiment, a creation of a mad-man, a chess-autist whos wife gave him three daugthers instead of a son. It's a perfect storm-scenario, the youngest of the daughters, the most talented of several projects, got lured into chess by idolizing her sisters and following their steps, pushing herself harder than they did, being mesmirized and sucked into the chess-sphere from birth. And yet, she never reached the top, she was actually way worse than other players when you compare the resources they had for the training and the knowledge among their relatives. Science research have proved that the earlier you start with chess the better you become at it since you brainwire and program yourself into the chess-thinking, the logical moves, the value of each piece. To me Polgar is one of the best examples for female being inferior to males when it comes to strategics, math and logic, which is kind of sad when you think about it. And I think she's smart enought to have realized the fact herself which is why she has taken a lesser substantial role in the chess world than her "reputation" acknowledges her to take.
Polgar also took a several year break in her prime to focus on starting a family, as she had realized it was a now or never scenario. When she came back, she was nowhere near her former form and never regained it. Which is hardly surprising. I'm playing notably worse after taking a couple of months of a break from amateur club level chess, can't even imagine what several missed seasons will do to your skill at the very highest level.
This biological side is easier for male players. Even if they are in that minority of top chess players who are not total autists only obsessed with chess and do want a kid, they can just pump one into their wife and frick off straight back to the computer to analyze 20 move deep variations in the Poisoned Pawn Najdorf endgames, instead of dealing with all the bullshit that comes with pregnancy and birth.
Similar reasons women don't usually go into highly time-consuming specializations in medicine like neurosurgery for example. Dedicating yourself absolutely to doing a single thing is simply much less possible for them if they ever want a family, and they have to make the decision sooner than men.
and even then, Carlsen also cited having the time to start a family as one of the reasons for his current semi-retirement
>Polgar also took a several year break in her prime to focus on starting a family, as she had realized it was a now or never scenario.
sounds like an excuse
>When she came back, she was nowhere near her former form and never regained it.
no shit
>Which is hardly surprising. I'm playing notably worse after taking a couple of months of a break from amateur club level chess, can't even imagine what several missed seasons will do to your skill at the very highest level.
yup
>This biological side is easier for male players.
isn't that the point?
>Even if they are in that minority of top chess players who are not total autists only obsessed with chess and do want a kid, they can just pump one into their wife and frick off straight back to the computer to analyze 20 move deep variations in the Poisoned Pawn Najdorf endgames, instead of dealing with all the bullshit that comes with pregnancy and birth.
which is why the brain of females is less wired to logics and more wired into emotions
>Similar reasons women don't usually go into highly time-consuming specializations in medicine like neurosurgery for example. Dedicating yourself absolutely to doing a single thing is simply much less possible for them if they ever want a family, and they have to make the decision sooner than men.
yes, so you agree with me then that Polgar is a proof that females are weaker than males when it comes to logic (I ain't saying they're more useless, just that the genders forces different uses)
Name one other sport where a woman managed to be in the top 10, let's hear it little chuddie.
breastfeeding
the absolute state of chess
she shows her ass all the time
why is she acting like that?
>why is a prostitute a prostitute?
>we need to write something on the chalkboard to make the character look like a genius
>How do we let the audience know this character is supposed to be super smart?
He didn't take the vax?
>character is supposed to be smart
>they reference a book that the writer had to read for either philosophy 101 or literature 101 in their college gen eds
>who the frick did I just jail?
>character is shown reading Camus in the subway
I don't get it
>watching Code Geass
>checks the King with the King
Do Japs play chess differently?