>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!

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See:

      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.

      the answer is no, it’s an autism thing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's really fricking basic mechanics tbh, if you can't see at least 5 movies ahead you are a legit moron

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Thank you for proving my point autist

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Can you recommend any?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, but they're all about the air war.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >takes 10 minutes to learn chess
        moron

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you cant learn chess in 10 minutes and get a grasp on the basic math involved, then you might be the moron

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Chess is a game of skill. History is rote memorization
          Funny, but I dont think anyone will fall for this b8

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I love history but to say there's nothing to chess is moronic.

            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.

            Hi Redd*t, I asked for your original conclusion, not what you wrote about.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >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

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >history is completely unpredictable
                No one should be paying attention to your posts

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >"but with chess you can!"
                Lol

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Neither chess nor history is applicable to real-life battles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                True, all you really need to know is the Talmud and its significance.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                even though the best players currently, and arguably ever, are masters of endgame. bro have you ever even played chess?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I am prepared, and excited, to be proven wrong. Which masters are you referring to, and what moves have they established?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                nah frick yourself

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Rude.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      most great generals and a lot of leaders

      also

      >bad at chess detected

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      chess is literally the equivalent of doing mental math, so no

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lasker was a solid mathematician

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Uh yeah there are definitely engineers and professionals who are good at chess

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Botez sisters are good at being prostitutes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Has there ever been a really great chess player who had any other discernible skills or talents?
      Yes. Bobby Fischer was a virulent antisemite.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I was really good as white but kinda shit at black

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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))

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

        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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Statistics are meaningless in chess now, the grandmasters established the way to play, and now it’s just a game of imitation

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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.

              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.

              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

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I honestly can’t tell if this is bait or ignorance.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So, if you lose in chess you merely memorized less of the game than they did?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                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

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if they were smart they would know chess is just memory retention.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw stuck on 1000 elo on chess.com for a year

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      holy hell

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You aren't supposed to do that move versus normies. You kinda fricked up ngl.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I played a guy who claimed he played in chess tournaments who didn't know about the touch move rule.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    a game where the best players in the world don't stand a single chance beating a computer program cannot be considered intelligent

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >you le CANT read LE books AND play LE chess!!!
    I hate this place sometimes
    fricking subhumans

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >chess became a flavor of the month
      Maybe the idea of it, but no roastie actually played a single game.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          and even then, Carlsen also cited having the time to start a family as one of the reasons for his current semi-retirement

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >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)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Name one other sport where a woman managed to be in the top 10, let's hear it little chuddie.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              breastfeeding

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the absolute state of chess

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      she shows her ass all the time
      why is she acting like that?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >why is a prostitute a prostitute?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >we need to write something on the chalkboard to make the character look like a genius

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How do we let the audience know this character is supposed to be super smart?
    He didn't take the vax?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >who the frick did I just jail?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >character is shown reading Camus in the subway

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't get it

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >watching Code Geass
    >checks the King with the King
    Do Japs play chess differently?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *