Important notice from the GRAMMAR POLICE. Plz read. This means you.
rohina:
Tybalt is def the top. Mercutio has that masochistic streak a mile wide.
Salomon:
Quote from: teebs on 2009 June 12, 03:40:57
I'm rather good at chess. He was far superior.
Do you have an official rating? No? Well, try to make a guess of what your chess rating is and subtract 400, that'll be close to your real rating unless you're bad at guessing. Usually a rating of 1000 is enough to beat all the people in your street, and all casual players of the park, making you believe that you're really good, yet a 1200 player is going to look far superior to you, but in reality both players are really weak.
Quote from: teebs on 2009 June 12, 03:40:57
We have played a number of times and I can count on one hand the times I've won.
The key is the number of times, have you played 100 games? Then you might have a point. Have you played 20 games? Then those results would indicate that he's not more than 400 points stronger than you, and so if he played on official tournaments he would probably not perform as good as you expect.
At rating below 1800 tactics are almost everything, and games are decided by blunders, so that if you make them, a player that spots your blunders and punishes them is going to be successful most of the time, even if he commits the same number or more blunders but you're incapable of noticing and punishing them. The point is that that's more about practice and experience than about brilliancy.
Quote from: teebs on 2009 June 12, 03:40:57
it was a most enjoyable surprise.
Ok, now go at the local chess club to play [non-casual] kids at chess and note how superior they are to you, you'll enjoy it.
Quote from: teebs on 2009 June 12, 03:40:57
Chess is far more than computation.
Chess is all about computation, the best chess programs in the world (e.g. Rybka) are just fast number crunchers that know what to compute, and are playing consistently at a level 200 rating points higher than the strongest human on his best day.
The analytic and positional aspects of the game only help to reach positions where it's easier to compute or it makes it more difficult to the opponent, or in where you reach complex positions you are familiar with. Chess is just like an incredibly more complex version of tic tac toe, in principle (a finite turn based 2 player game with open information) now tell me what else does tic tac toe need than computation.
"Strong spacial ability" helps in computation, you can't "plan" if you don't know what are going to be the opponent's moves, all you can do is guess by evaluation of best potential future moves and if you get them right (i.e. you're not missing the better move that the opponent plays) you get efficiency, that requires computation.
"Accurately gauging one's opponent" is a non-factor, on the board players have the same strenght than online players even though the latter don't get to see their opponent, would you gauge based on the fact that your online opponent is named bubsy336? And rating based strategy doesn't work, the best move on the board is the same regardless of opponent modeling, if you're willing to set up a trap in where, if the opponent doesn't fall on it you end on a worse position you're just playing poker. Sure, there are good chess players that might do this, but they're relying on luck, I've beaten "far superior" (rating based) opponents by just not falling on their traps and showing them "gauging" me isn't the way in chess.
Quote from: teebs on 2009 June 12, 03:40:57
It may take a combination of qualities to become a great player, but intellectual brilliance most certainly plays a part.
And again, there are many counter examples to this, do your research, besides the geniuses that failed really badly at chess (after really trying) there are examples of average intelligent people that were really good at chess (presumably by natural talent, but that talent was mainly for chess.)
Of course you need a certain level of intelligence for chess (if someone doesn't understand the rules he's never going to be world champion) but I wouldn't call that "brilliancy", it's mostly about patience, determination and having fun with the game, if it bores you it doesn't matter if you beat Einstein at physics, you're probably not going to play chess enough to beat that kid on your street.
Quote from: teebs on 2009 June 12, 03:40:57
I'll readily admit that I know little beyond the basics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turning
That site has a couple of other interesting articles as well.
soozelwoozel:
Quote from: kiki on 2009 June 12, 05:24:41
Quote from: rohina on 2009 June 12, 05:04:07
Quote from: teebs on 2009 June 12, 04:50:27
I applaud your efforts. From this and prior posts you seem to be an educated and articulate human being and very likely an excellent teacher. Can you deny that some professors do use their positions as bully pulpits? As to the first sentence of the above quote, to some extent that is true, but there is a limit. I've experienced first hand a tenured professor using her position to further her own sociopolitical agenda. I found it incredibly disturbing to watch her attempt to manipulate her students while the younger ones never batted an eye. Again, I realize professors like her are the exception and not the rule, and though I may not have articulated this fact, I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who dedicates themselves to teaching.
I knew this was a case of individual butthurt. I bet she was an evil feminist, too, right?
@prof buttsecks: I once had a student write a paper about how, since people thought Shakespeare's sonnets were written to a male, it must have been his son, and so it was platonic, filial love.
Oh God, don't even get me started on this kind of thing. I had someone in my tutorials first year of university that just freaked out completely and could NOT comprehend the idea of Mercrutio having a homoerotic man-crush on Romeo and actually stood up in the tute and shouted "NO! THEY WERE HOMIES! HE WAS INTO CHICKS!".
Oh dear, oh dear. Thank God I've not had to put up with nonsense like that, I'd most likely have punched the idiot. I did have a heated argument at A-Level with someone in my Lit class who insisted that homosexual readings of Shakespeare ruined the perfectly innocent notion of the "bro-mance" (he didn't call it that exactly, as I'm not sure the term had been coined then). That's about as close to such a debate as I've got. I guess I must be lucky to go to uni at a reasonably progressive place. Mind you, with resident experts in Queer theory, and modules like Early Modern Sexualities, anyone expecting nice heteronormative readings should really go elsewhere.
There are some lecturers who obviously have a bee in their bonnet about certain issues. I've yet to meet a female English professor who isn't strongly interested in feminism for instance. Perhaps that's because most of my lecturers were undergrads during the 70's and early 80's when feminism was all the rage. Or perhaps it's just because femenist readings of literature are particularly interesting. But if you're at a decent uni, then you should be intelligent enough to sift through the personal agendas of any professors and work out your own opinions. My A Level Economics teachers used to espouse their free-market capitalist ideologies virtually every lesson. Despite their concerted efforts they failed to indoctrinate me, and we were still wide-eyed 12s back then.
jolrei:
Quote from: kiki on 2009 June 12, 05:32:15
Do I know you? Do I LIKE you? No? I'm one of the horrid evil Buttists that agree with Rohina. I think you're a self-important douche-nozzle with a chip on your shoulder the size of lake michigan when it comes to female university professors. Go back to your ice-cream and eat your feelings again, tubby. I also found it amusing to see an "I have no ego" comment from someone that lists their email as "bigego69".
Even so, let's not lose sight of the fact that he claims to be able to make a decent barbecue sauce. People are losing sight of the relevant facts of the case.
Jelenedra:
Quote from: rohina on 2009 June 12, 06:30:35
Tybalt is def the top. Mercutio has that masochistic streak a mile wide.
I love this. Mostly because I am immediately picturing John Leguizamo and Harold Perrineau (preferably in their ball costumes) getting all "let me take my sin back."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page