Author: Oliver Y.
Date: 15:58:55 01/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2002 at 14:11:04, Albert Silver wrote: >On January 09, 2002 at 11:29:07, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: > >>(A)Marion Vos Savant is 230 and has a weird last name. > >Just to be anal: Marylin > >> >>(B) Bill Gates is 70 IQ points below Vos Savant, at 160, yet has made $60 >>billion with selling crap I'm using at the moment. >> >>(C)I'm a 150 -that's both my IQ and my possessings in Euro. >> >>Now who is the smartest cookie? > >Oreos. If they start including Ginko Biloba extract then they will really be the >smartest cookies around. :-) > >Jim's comment on Mensa is on the money, but I find it appalling all the same. I >found José's comment on her attempt to refute Wiles's proof interesting. Sounded >a bit like Capablanca and Alekhine. It must have been quite a book since last I >read, his proof extended to over 100 pages. That's no doubt the biggest danger >of having everything come so easily: one comes to believe that genuine work or >effort are unnecessary or should be. Surely this is true up to the limits of >what such a gift brings, but the point of my disgust is that it makes pushing >the very highest limits, only accessible to the brightest stars, possible, and >it would seem that that is being spurned for hobbyism at best. Agreed that super >IQs do not necessarily entail super ambition, and it would seem that it even >engenders just the opposite: a proportional laziness and lack of work ethic. >However, that signifies a fatal flaw in the person endowed with such >intelligence, most likely emotional in nature. My recounting of Marylin's >comment on voting is true, and it shows a real lack of depth, which came as >surprising (close to shocking really) to me. > > Albert Getting back on topic: Generally I quite agree with your comments. I was speaking to one of the world's greatest scientists 10 years ago about Marilyn, who not only agreed with you, but stated that the entire foundation of Jarvik's artificial heart project was flawed--the problem of clotting had to be addressed first. He went on to mention other apparently serious work in other fields that were equally flawed if not detrimental to sound fundamental work...how does this apply to computer chess programming methods? (I can't mention more specifics as it would not be fair to him, you may ask me through private email, on a confidential basis.) Regarding Kasparov... What would be his rank if you could instruct every living human to play chess seriously enough? Probably he'd rank in the top 5 or so... Therefore, in a population of about 6 billion...his CQ (Chess Quotient, as an estimate analogous to IQ) would be about 196-200. http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/combnorm.html See also notes at http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Index.htm re Hollingworth's notes and ... that John Sidis was really the champ...though I seem to recall reading 20 years ago about some Korean 5 year old who knew at least 5 or more languages and who had a university degree in the Guiness paperback... Would Garry be helpful if he aided a programmer, how much so? (sorry about not giving details re bad science...some jokers who are touted as Nobel candidates are not doing worthwhile work--seems like an outlandish claim but it is true...random hint--some scientists don't understand that correlation doesn't imply causation...)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.