By the way, just to be clear, the "you" with the burden is proof stated in post #364 above is Varlese1, who keeps insisting that Karpov is a billionaire and can only adduce sketchy blogs (which are no more reliable than diaries) as proof.
Funny, instead of providing real evidence, or conceding the point, this kid has instead "blocked" me "from his notes."
Retroactively clarified with the inclusion of a quote.
We need to start w/ the ?...."If chessplayers are so dumb then why are some (b)millionaire's ?" (Bill Grates is lousy and he's a gazillionaire....see ?). This way you can assume players are dumb (no proof of dumbness needed) yet some, you can be guaranteed, are 7+ figure people.
See ?....the OP's title assumes CP's are intelligent....burden of proof needed....preponderence of evidence belies upon the OP. $ can be quantified, yes ? So, the $ part can be proven a fact (that is, of course, unless ur chasing a squeeky lantern looking for the face of Anatoly (palm slapping 4head))
The ? arises: Can one prove the intelligence of another (w/out testing) if one is, in fact, not as intelligent as that person ? IOW, if you play chess against someone much better, than how do you know how much better ?
There is an article by Frank Pestano that lists a number of billionaires who play chess. See http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/03/chess-playing-billionaires.html. Some of them were very serious players in their youth and had achieved relatively high ratings. Of course, none of them made their fortunes through playing chess. Of course, one can quibble as to whether Bill Gates is really a "chess player," but the point is that there are billionaires that played chess seriously at least at some point in their lives.
I note that the OP asked why more chess players are not millionaires. I don't have any real statistics, but i bet a lot of adult chess players are millionaires. It's not really that hard to amass assets or even net worth of over $1 million. I did that before age 40 even though my parents were extremely poor, and I grew up in the ghetto. It just takes some hard work and a bit of luck. Of course, some folks would argue that I am not really a "chess player," given my low rating and inability to improve! However, i do play chess, and have even won a few tournaments in my life.
Of course, the OP's premise is flawed, and his logic is specious. Chess players are not necessarily smart, although they do need to have some minimum level of intelligence to understand the game (IQ > 60?). Similarly, rich people are not necessarily smart, and smart people often are not rich.
I've met quite a few chess players (some of whom had decent ratings) whom i would characterize as being of average intelligence (or possibly slightly below average intelligence). I've also met brilliant people, who (for whatever reason) completely suck at chess even though they did make some effort to learn the game.
There are many very rich folks who are actually uneducated and quite dumb. Paris Hilton comes to mind. Even some who achieved success and wealth on their own rather than simply inheriting it often are not brilliant. I remember trying to explain stochastic calculus and the derivation of the Black Scholes model for option pricing to an options trader once, and found out that he was completely clueless. He had never even taken basic calculus in high school (or college)! Despite the mathematical illiteracy, I understand that his net worth was over $25 million.
There is an article by Frank Pestano that lists a number of billionaires who play chess. See http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/03/chess-playing-billionaires.html. Some of them were very serious players in their youth and had achieved relatively high ratings. Of course, none of them made their fortunes through playing chess. Of course, one can quibble as to whether Bill Gates is really a "chess player," but the point is that there are billionaires that played chess seriously at least at some point in their lives.
I note that the OP asked why more chess players are not millionaires. I don't have any real statistics, but i bet a lot of adult chess players are millionaires. It's not really that hard to amass assets or even net worth of over $1 million. I did that before age 40 even though my parents were extremely poor, and I grew up in the ghetto. It just takes some hard work and a bit of luck. Of course, some folks would argue that I am not really a "chess player," given my low rating and inability to improve! However, i do play chess, and have even won a few tournaments in my life.
Read the article I did, concerning "billionaires who play chess." The article was dated March 2008. The article contains no mention of Karpov.
Oh NO!
The last time this subject came up, "Irontiger" posted links to Karpov's tax returns for the last few years.
Oh yeah? You would have no trouble providing a link to this post then.
Comical how the "please provide sources" comes from someone so unreliable.
Thanks for the ad hominem argument. The thread in which you posted this was deleted. In any case, what do you think of this Karpov rumor?
How convenient.
I never posted about the topic for the simple reason that I did not know anything about it and did not care enough to research. Which is the reason why I have no stance about it.
understand, im going to fucking kill you all
Sickfk is coming! I am shivering!
http://youtu.be/676N1c28jnE?t=7m1s
I am shivering!
No worries, I reported him. Account closed, posts gone.
I am shivering!
No worries, I reported him. Account closed, posts gone.
He keeps coming back with new accounts. I've seen him a few times on this site over the last few weeks. He's just an uneducated tw*t.
No worries, I reported him. Account closed, posts gone.
Which is why I quoted him, for posterity.
Karpo!
Ok now, back to the subject of Karpov's alleged billions.
The member repeating the rumors of such, only found in first-person, non-peer reviewed "blogs" has not returned to defend his sources after the particularly scathing indictment found in post nr. 364 above.
I call upon him to concede and admit that the rumor is unfounded.
Wouldn't the be hilarious if varelse1 was indeed Karpov ?....
....
(never mind - I'll shutup now)
Well? Karpov anyone?
I wonder if this kid is going to come back to defend his ridiculous assertions.
So I suppose the kid gave up trying to defend his assertion. Hopefully he won't attempt to pass off the same old tired rumor again in six months time, claiming that the story is unquestionable.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
I wonder if that kid is going to come back to defend his ridiculous reliance on blogs and another shady "sources".
Any idiot can close his eyes, shake a stick at any source that's thrown at him, and say "That's unreliable!" without providing any other source I couldn't shake a stick at and say the same thing. That doesn't refute the source. It is simply a placeholder in lieu of a valid arguement.
You made a claim, you have the burden of proof.
The standard of proof is set by the skeptic. In a public forum you can choose to either strive to meet that standard, or disregard it and provide whatever sources you choose (or not provide any) and be subject to further public skepticism (as is the case here, with your sources being called into question).
Instead of bolstering your claim with more reliable sources, you deflect with a call for sources to the contrary instead -- what would you suggest the standard of proof be for proving that Karpov is not a billionaire? What sources could possibly satisfy you to this end.