lichess.org
Donate

VICTIM OF SCHOLARS MATE

Yes. Obviously, at the start of each chess game, the players must announce their SAT Math score, and whoever has the lower score should resign immediately because they're clearly worse at chess, and only relies on tricks.
The point I was trying to make is if I am good in math how is it that after 50 years of knowing how to play chess I am average in classical and rapid and below average in bullet and blitz you would think a guy like me would at least be a better chess player based on me playing for 50 years and being good in math but I guess there is no connection between intelligence in math and intelligence in playing chess.

So I was thinking maybe there are people that are good at chess but might not be good at other things like math. Maybe there is a chess player rated over 2500 but may not be better then me at math? If that is the case then I would like to know how I could be better in a subject then someone who plays at a 2500 level because I kind of always thought you had to be a really intelligent person to be a good player but I guess there might not be a perfect connection in ability in chess and overall intelligence though I still think you have to be pretty intelligent to be a good chess player. The only other way would be to learn chess tricks and get a artificially higher rating then you really deserve because you cheated.
I'll indulge your question for a moment, at the risk of falling into the trap that you are trying to poke at hornets ...

Being good at math and/or logic alone does not make you automatically a genius at chess. Like many things in life it takes 10% natural talent, 20% basic knowledge, 30% acquired knowledge and 40% experience.

Currently I suck at chess and based on my background most ill-informed people would immediately assume I should be some genius at it but even though my logic and analysis skills were applied towards problem solving, it was in a different context and with a different set of knowledge and experience. In fact that's where I am coming apart most of the time.

Why after 50 years you see a perfectly valid chess move as "cheating"? Not going to comment on that. Perhaps you should be refocusing your approach to chess.

The man who thinks he has nothing more to learn is only fooling himself.
@BOBMILIN
"I actually got tricked by a cheater the proof is right here you are just speculating the person used a engine to beat you there is no proof not like I have."

He got banned and i have him admitting it in my messages, so sorry mate your flat out wrong he did cheat and i got my points back.

So is admitting it and a ban and some points returned classed as evidence in your special book of law?

You realy do think highly of yourself, everyone starts somewhere bud and that is what i am doing. I am complete beginner and slowly climbing and learning. What is your problem with this eh?

Im sure master dont speak like this about your ratings. You are only at 50% so remember that half the people on gere play better then you as do 85%ish play better then me.

WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN FROM THE BEGGINING or were you born with a chess set bro?

I know this is a laugh and your not serious but im unsure are you seriously slateing begginers for still learning? Or just avin a laugh which is fine by me.
@TeryM

" Like many things in life it takes 10% natural talent, 20% basic knowledge, 30% acquired knowledge and 40% experience."

Citation required please, this is a serious thread now c'mon.
@BOBMILIN
I can count to 8, sometimes if i try hard i can do 10 quite often now (best is 13 but i've been told not to count 13 and straight to 14, nobody told me why so........yeh i skip that number dont need it anyway).

Also i know my alphabet up to about the letter J. Again if i try hard sometimes i can get to the letter F. Anyway......

knowing i have this numerical and alphabetical skill do i still need to learn how a grid reference works to improve at my appalling rating?

@nuffsed81

Yeah, yeah I know, it's not a scientific recorded figure or anything. It's just to bring the point across that no matter what skill in life you can't get there by relying on only one facet. Some have more potential in one area than others and that may give them an edge but still doesn't mean you can ignore the rest. It just means that others would have to work harder to reach the point that you are at. Still doesn't mean that you would be unbeatable against someone with "lesser" potential or that they can't reach that point faster than you. Often times those people are more driven due to the fact that they have a deficit.

Moral of the story though is if you feel cheated, report it and move on. Leave it up to the dev's/admin's or who ever is responsible to investigate as they have the statistics and algorithms to further prove or disprove the incident. Keeping in mind ofc that the more erroneous incidents they have to investigate, the less time they have to give attention to those who really do seek to cheat the system.

Crying wolf in games is nothing new. With chess however, I can see how it is rather problematic to enforce anti-cheat methods and/or keep the masses assured that it's not as prolific as a gamer's mind perceives it to be.

( P.S. I speak from experience as I am a Math Idiot yet excelled in a profession where I had to teach myself as there's no admittance to Uni without a high math aptitude, let alone qualifying for the classes )
This is a joke thread. Don't feed the troll.

Someone who has played chess for 50 years and thinks a checkmate is a cheat move?
I never said a checkmate is cheating I said playing a chess trick is a form of cheating. If someone told me that they tricked me into buying their car I would feel cheated wouldn't you?
Go look up the definition of a trick and then explain to me why they call certain openings chess tricks. Even Magnus Carlson who is a chess God said when he played Bill Gates and beat him in 8 seconds making 10 moves he said Gates fell for a trick and he even apologized to him for doing it. Hmmmmm sounds to me like somebody must not be so sure about their 1500 rating maybe he got it through trickery? You know what maybe we should have chess hustlers here where we can gamble and throw our money away?

I started playing chess at 10 years old and have been playing for 50 years but I only have really been active for around 20 years. You see when I was younger I had other interests and did not really play from around 20 to 40 years old. If I was active then I am pretty sure I would not be a 1400 to 1500 player but maybe a 1600 to 1800 player or better. Also unlike so many of you when I started playing back in 1969 there were no computers you actually had to play the old fashion way and find someone to play against and use a real chess board.
As I said, this is a joke. No-one can be this stupid.

As you were...

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.