Man, the only nonsense I see here is the attempt to make a tantrum out of something that chess is not qualified for. Am not trying to play the mister sage role here, but my perspective may differ from yours, although rationalism holds way more truth than any experience of limited senses without trying to insult anyone's intelligence, no drugs needed, just a clear thought to ponder about the factors of reality, evidence is enough in the works of Tesla for example. Now, I'll play some chess and focus on not stressful idiosyncrasy like having to reply to a meaningless concept as "intelligence superiority within chess players", one thing is not understanding and another is not wanting to understand, words are clear, bye.
@Orderly: Apologies. I completely misread what you were saying. I actually agree with you. I probably picked up on the cultural references and wanted to keep things straightforward and rational rather than meander into the murky world of the humanities. I absolutely don't agree with you on Sam Harris which is something I will pick up on and I have no interest in someone's personal beliefs. But once again, apologies for not being clearer.
@KaosAquarius: I am replying to your points, that's all. If I don't agree with you, I will say so. If I don't understand you I will say so. It's up to you how you respond.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.