On Mar 21, 1:49 am, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
wrote:

but I must make a few observations.
First, quotation marks are used in this context to qualify the word
enclosed. Therefore, "research" isn't really research at all but some
other process.

Not "some other process" (quotes were used that time to indicate what your
verbatim statement was) but an indication that it is not really research to
simply click on a link or go to a single website. Just as it isn't really
physical exercise to get up and grab a beer from the fridge. You need to
understand that quotes are used for more than thing. I believe these
concepts are taught at the elementary school level.

Here I believe that Skippy must be regarded as an
*expert*, especially when it comes to what is currently
taught in his school -- and on the subject of beer.


Third, if the individual in question is actually mentally retarded and is
not suffering merely from your contempt, then I can't see how a 1311
rating is poor. I myself have an IQ of 130

You don't have an IQ of 130 buddy. I can tell you that for a fact. Your
gross assumptions

Uh, you can tell us for a "fact" what you assume?


and logic errors in this post of yours is evidence enough.
The fact that you're completely missing the meaning of what was said, but
instead focus on peripherals such as grammatical rules/spelling/etc is more
evidence of a low IQ and clerk mentality.

Low IQ and "clerk mentality" are two different
things, Skip. In fact, a person of fairly high IQ
might well make an excellent clerk, as perhaps
did Albert Einstein in the patent office.


The fact that you're a 1224 chess
player is further proof. Although there is definitely no one-to-one
correlation between chess elo and intelligence, it is clear that someone who
plays tournaments and gets a rating that low has a very modest level of
intelligence. You don't even have to know anything about chess to get to
1600.

Hmm. Things are awfully easy up in Winterpeg.

Down here in the USA one needs to know a little
bit about chess to get to 1600, because it is
above the average rating. So you need to know
enough to beat the untalented who have spent a
good number of years studying the game.


Simple calculation and not leaving material hanging will achieve this.

For a computer it will. But humans are, well,
fallible. What is hard is seeing all the tactics
at every turn.

If you're rated 1224 it's because you're unable to calculate simple 2 or 3
move combinations and approach the problem-solving

This may be correct. I expect that I could now
achieve a decent rating by emulating a dumb
computer which sees only tactics, but then, I
can only do this because I am a chess genius.

You probably got this number from some online site (tickle test?) that is
trying to make you feel good about yourself so they can sell you something.
I know some really dumb people that scored over 130 on that test.

One of the ads which try to lead people to that
test shows a column of critters and asks: which
one does *not* belong to the group? Of course,
the supposed rote answer is the spider, because
it has more legs than the others (which all, I believe,
have exactly six, making them "insects"). And yet
a wiser man might get this wrong, seeing that the
particular number of limbs is of *far less importance*
than a certain other aspect. I am speaking of ants,
and if you can figure out what I mean, you may have
some hope yet. I fully expect the test creators
were well pleased with themselves on constructing
this question, and yet it is indicative of their general
lack of high intelligence, in my view.

As to Tickle, I found their test to contain what
I consider to be several flaws. For one thing, there
were "trick" answers, which I deemed inappropriate
for this sort of test. For another, a few of the
questions had no inarguably correct answer, so
they should have been tossed out as a matter of
course. To me, this sort of thing demonstrates
laziness (or perhaps an evil desire to trip test-
takers up by purely artificial means) or else
incompetence. What is disturbing is that they
claim to have snatched many of their questions
from Mensa, and if this is so one can only gasp
in awe.

The questions are all extremely simple.

Not true. however, the test does include
questions for which the answer is a bit obvious.
This is so that even numskulls like Skippy will
not finish up with a score of zero (+ correct
guesses).

On a serious intelligence test the
questions start out simple but get much, much harder. A serious intelligence
test is also timed and has alot more questions.

This is correct. The lack of any time limit
means that those who put in more effort will
score better than those who take the test
lightly. It's another serious flaw. When I took
the test, I was exceedingly tired but
nevertheless put in considerable time in an
effort to get everything correct. Afterward I
found that several of my mistakes were
"obvious" ones, just as in my chess games.
The thing is to stand back and ask oneself:
are they trying to trip me up here, or is the
apparently correct answer correct? Again,
the trick questions came unexpected to me,
while veteran IQ test takers would have had
no problem in seeing them for what they are.

In chess, I always expect tricks and traps,
for it is a competitive game. Bit in this sort
of test, I expected honesty, integrity, and
a genuine attempt to test my knowledge
(if not my actual intelligence).

-- help bot