< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 599 OF 1813 ·
|Apr-22-06|| ||brankat: <twinlark> Beautifully said. I only wish I was as eloquent as You are.|
The "purpose" of Arts has been discussed for centuries. There have been different views, but the notion of enriching our lives, making them more joyous and beautiful has been a constant. Chess is not much different.
And let's not forget the scientific aspect of it. Intellectual challenge, research, discovery, testing, application.
Of course there is a sporting element, too. The thrill of competition, inherent in heman beings.
It is all in there!
|Apr-22-06|| ||whatthefat: <brankat, twinlark>
I agree completely - as I said earlier, the purpose of a great chessplayer is to entertain; both competitively, and through beautiful achievements. This is precisely the purpose of any sports star. In this sense, chess is best classified as a sport.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||ughaibu: I dont think genius is a suitable term for a person whose products are subject to personal taste, so I dont consider any of "Michaelangelo, Shakespeare, Bach, Mozart, Van Gogh" to have been a genius. These people were extremely talented, innovative and technically proficient, at the highest level in their fields but, in my view, genius is not top-rating for talent, etc, I think genius refers to something creative at a level beyond. Legend credits the proof of incommensurability to Hippasus of Metapontum, this proof completely changed the way in which philosophers think, the same with achievements of Eudoxus and Archimedes. Moving chess pieces on an 8x8 board for a few hours just isn't in it as an intellectual endeavour.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||ganstaman: <ughaibu <Moving chess pieces on an 8x8 board for a few hours just isn't in it as an intellectual endeavour.>> Maybe not the way you or I play it, but at the highest levels of the game is it as intellectual as anything else.|
By the way, many words in English have multiple related meanings.
One definition of genius: "A strong natural talent, aptitude, or inclination." Can you guys all accept this definition (you actually have no choice, it's what the word means) and stop arguing?
Entertainment is actually more important that it may first seem. It makes people happier, which enhances their health and productivity. It also provides an outlet during stressful times and allows the mind the rest. Without entertainment, we'd all go crazy and burnout while we were young. Human civilizations would be nowhere near where we are now if it weren't for entertainers. And genius entertainers... well they just take it to a whole new level :-).
|Apr-22-06|| ||ughaibu: Okay, genius doesn't mean very much. I qualify according to that definition, presumably most members can select a field in which they qualify. Redundant words are merely that.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||twinlark: I think someone once said that genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||brankat: <...a person whose products are subject to personal taste>. The statement does merit credit, depending on a point of view, although these products do play a considerable role in lives of many. I suppose, it again goes back to the question of how to define a "genius".
It may indeed require a genius to do that.
Your definition would certainly narrow down the field to the extreme, and that is valid, too.
<moving chess pieces on an 8x8 board a few hours...>. It is more a matter of a lifetime of hard work: study, research and discovery. The "few hours" now and then, are, of course, just a practical outlet to the above.
Funny, in a way Steinitz reminds me of Archimedes, not in terms of application of the results of their work, but as far as the mental/intellectual process is concerned.
Anyway, as always it is a pleasure and a privilege to talk to You.
You sure know how to keep people on their toes :)
It is late here, and I need to hit a sack. Besides, since I'm not a genius, my brain is ready to burst, thanks to You. Should we ever meet, I figure You owe me a couple of stiff drinks!
|Apr-22-06|| ||ganstaman: <<ughaibu>: Okay, genius doesn't mean very much. I qualify according to that definition, presumably most members can select a field in which they qualify. Redundant words are merely that.>|
I told you already that you had no choice, the meaning of genius has already been decided upon before we were even born. But if you want more definitions:
"-Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
-A person of extraordinary intellect and talent."
Bobby Fischer was smart, creative, and talented. So were many artists. You might be too, so that would make you a genius in your field (only if you are extraordinary though, everyone who's simply 'good' at their jobs don't qualify). The point is that the word genius doesn't care what field it's being applied to.
By the way, I don't think 'redundant' means what you think it means. Either that or I just don't understand your last sentence at all.
|Apr-22-06|| ||midknightblue: I don't like this term genius. People are always trying to pidgeon hole me with terms like genius, stud, ladies man, supertalent, icon. I am so sick of being stereotyped with these terms that, in the end, are just efforts to limit my greatness.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||Jim Bartle: Greatness always comes at a price, mkb.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||midknightblue: :)
Dang, isn't anyone gonna take my comment too seriously. Another failed troll.
|Apr-22-06|| ||Jim Bartle: Mtb, you bloated, clueless, pathetic excuse for a cultured human being. If I could buy you for what you're worth and sell you for what you think you're worth I'd have enough cash to play Garry Kasparov in a simul.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||YoungFischerSnapper: <Whatthefat>
Chess does entertain, but so does great works of art or a classical symphony, no? Art itself entertains.
And Chess is different from almost all other types of sports since it is purely mental. Again, I posit to you, do you see Kasparov benching 400lbs to lift a Bishop to give check? Answer-- No, you do not.
Now, one game that does have some contentious semblance to Chess is the recent popularity of Poker. Poker is purely mental as well, except it's subtleties and depth are very shallow when juxtaposed with the intricasies of chess, and the outcome is a result of other variants such as 1)luck and 2)Several other player's weakness.
Chess, on the other hand, relies purely on logic and nothing else. It is on the same level as a mathematical equation or a chemistry problem because you cannot change the laws and condition of a successful equation. In other sports, a team might undeservedly win by an outside force, i. e. the referee who gets a wrong call. In chess, however, this rarely happens (a touch move, perhaps) but the logic of chess is infallible. You cannot cheat a chess board into giving you a win because the rules are grounded on precise terms that no outside force can contradict. For example, a referee cannot oversee the fact that a Bishop has moved like a Rook would.
Mathematicians win the Fields Medal for their excellency, and numerous scientists win Noble Peace prize for their excellency in the field. Einstein, one of the most renowned logicians, is heavily considered a "genius". So why is Fischer not considered a genius, when his field is pure logic and he has excelled in it all by himself?
Fischer the Genius. I rest my case.
|Apr-22-06|| ||sledge: <YoungFischerSnapper>Kasparov in his autobiography refered to physical workouts as being necessary for added stamina at the board.I would not classify chess as sport just as I would not call attenting to great music or play etc. entertainment.I agree that chess is the greatest of games wich can resemble life closely.It seems however that the most penetrating logic that some masters have in the game does't carry over into daily existence.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||YoungFischerSnapper: <Sledge> I am happy for you that you read Kasparov's autobiography. However, you will get very few people to agree with you that phsyical conditioning is an important factor in playing chess. Please: the statement itself is ludicrous enough to make me laugh. It deserves no further consideration.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||Eric Schiller: <sledge/YFS> Chess is a Mind Sport, it is not an Alhletic Sport. As for physical prep, I agree with <sledge> and suggest that anyone interested in such things get hold of Sosonko's new book "Smart Chip from St. Petersburg" and read The Morpheus Variation, an essay on the importance of good sleep.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||sledge: sledge: <ughaibu I dont think genius is a suitable term for a person whose products are subject to personal taste, so I dont consider any of "Michaelangelo, Shakespeare, Bach, Mozart, Van Gogh" to have been a genius>Exactly wrong.If that were true than there would be no such thing as genius.Since taste is the result of ones intellect you will find no field of human endeavor that is not against somebodies taste. |
|Apr-22-06|| ||Akavall: <However, you will get very few people to agree with you that phsyical conditioning is an important factor in playing chess.>|
If one is in bad physical shape he or she won't be able to play at the highest level for 7 hours through out the tournament; hence, physical shape is very important at top level chess.
One the main topic: Is Fischer a genius?
|Apr-22-06|| ||pkjohn146: I read an article a few years ago that claimed Fischer has a 180 IQ. Some people claim that an IQ of 140 is genius, some claim 160. Either way, Fishcer qualifies, at least numerically. I am assuming of courxe that his IQ test did not consist of questions like "White to move and mate in 30".|
|Apr-22-06|| ||ughaibu: Gangstaman: One doesn't need a dictionary to learn that "genius" is used for trivial cases, that's how the present conversation arose. If words are habitually used outside their range, where other words would suffice, for example, in line with Sledge's view, if 'I like Agatha Christie' is expressed as 'Agatha Christie is a genius', the words lose the force of their meaning. This is a form of crying wolf, it impoverishes the language and it's avoidance is the responsibility of the language users. By avoiding trivialising the word genius english retains a useful term, due to it's use as exaggerated praise there is no term that captures the nuance of genius discussed in my posts, and I consider that a waste of the word.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||Whitehat1963: <pkjohn> I'm not trying to insult you, but before we can determine what I.Q. qualifies as a "genius." You have to define a few things:|
1. What is a "genius"?
2. What is "intelligence"?
3. Can intelligence be "measured"?
4. What does an I.Q. test actually measure? If we're not even sure what intelligence is, how on earth do we know that some paper and pencil test "measures" it?
Now, given all the uncertainties, what is all this nonsense about Fischer being a "genius"? How on earth do we know?
|Apr-22-06|| ||Whitehat1963: Why do we think we can "measure" intelligence? We wouldn't dream of saying we could measure so many other human characteristics. Can we accurately measure "courage," "leadership ability," "motivation," "tenacity," "empathy," "love," "talent"? No, then why do we insist on "measuring" intelligence? I suspect the answer is a lot uglier than we really want to guess.|
|Apr-22-06|| ||Whitehat1963: http://www.answers.com/topic/intell...|
|Apr-22-06|| ||talisman: what is an athlete?
BEAUTIFUL BLONDE TO JOHN KRUK:
(they are at a cocktail party)"You ought to be ashamed of yourself. A professional athlete SMOKING and DRINKING"...Kruk "Lady I ain't no athlete I'm a baseball player.".
|Apr-22-06|| ||Jim Bartle: That's what Kruk called his autobiography.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 599 OF 1813 ·