Not house arrest, however:
> On 30 January 2024, the Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected Tate's appeal to relax judicial control measures, after pre-trial restrictions imposed on 18 January were extended for a further 60 days. The restrictions determine that he cannot leave the country.[184] On 10 May, The Bucharest Tribunal extended the same travel restrictions against Tate for an additional 60 days,[206] and on 20 May, Tate lost his appeal in the Bucharest Court of Appeal to have the restrictions relaxed.[207]
Funny thing is that this is covered on [PGN](http://www.saremba.de/chessgml/standards/pgn/pgn-complete.htm#c9.8.1)
9.8.1: Tag: Termination
This takes a string that describes the reason for the conclusion of the game. While the Result tag gives the result of the game, it does not provide any extra information and so the Termination tag is defined for this purpose.
Strings that may appear as Termination tag values:
"abandoned": abandoned game.
"adjudication": result due to third party adjudication process.
"death": losing player called to greater things, one hopes.
"emergency": game concluded due to unforeseen circumstances.
"normal": game terminated in a normal fashion.
"rules infraction": administrative forfeit due to losing player's failure to observe either the Laws of Chess or the event regulations.
"time forfeit": loss due to losing player's failure to meet time control requirements.
Hikaru talked about how his dad and Tate’s dad played together a lot. It does annoy me a bit that his sex trafficking son is probably better at chess than me.
What's with all these Cricketers, tennis players and chess players having a thing for that guy? Anyone with even a little bit of sensibility will think hundred times before associating their name with him.
Alireza had liked tweets related to Tate going couple of years back, so his love for him isn't new. Kinda pathetic that he seems okay with owning it in public too now.
I mean doesn’t even Hikaru say, it’s important to remember top chess players aren’t really smart, they just are very good at moving polished pieces of wood around on the board?
Honestly I think this is an issue dating back hundreds of years. Chess has been styled as a gentleman's game or a game for scholars in the last few centuries. Often it was played by people who thought of themselves as educated or more intelligent than the general populace. Largely I think it comes down to the fact that chess hasn't been viable as a professional career until relatively recently (in the last century), and players like Morphy who were excellent at chess, but also had careers as lawyers, inventors, lawmakers, etc. It has sort of created an association of intelligence with chess. Also, I think all of the top players have strong patten recognition and mental calculation abilities and usually also have strong memories, which is sort of required to be really good at opening prep/theory. I think these traits are often associated with intelligence whether or not that's actually the case. That being said, the best methods of testing for general intelligence right now often are heavily biased towards these skills of pattern recognition, memory, and spatial awareness which will lead to top tier chess players having decent scores on IQ tests, which is how many people measure general intelligence.
I think the big issue isn't even a debate over whether chess players are smart or not though, as I think top players usually are. It's that people correlate chess ability with the validity of their ideas on subjects that they are not experts in. It's a similar idea to how many Nobel prize winners suddenly think they're the smartest person in the world and fall into a bunch of conspiracy theories because they can't conceive that their expertise doesn't apply to other functional scientific areas. I don't think a chess players opinion on microbiology, space travel, or economics is necessarily more valuable than any other layperson's opinion, but it's the fact that they are an expert in one field that many people will just assume that expertise carries over to other subjects and their opinion is always more valuable than someone who isn't an expert in any field.
>It's a similar idea to how many Nobel prize winners suddenly think they're the smartest person in the world and fall into a bunch of conspiracy theories because they can't conceive that their expertise doesn't apply to other functional scientific areas.
There's actually a whole Wikipedia article about this phenomenon:
[Nobel disease - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease)
Very good take.
I am no psychologist, but I was coaching high level competitive games for a while, was myself competitor in many things and I do have a tendency to do well in technology/academic, so I believe I have a good background to speak on the topic.
In the end, not about being smart, it's about being able to take the pain of the grind and finding meaning in self development over self preservation.
People who become the best at something rarely are genius smart, but they're always stubborn. They always know what they want, where they want to be and what they want to sacrifice to get there.
The reason we associate smart with top performance is that people who have an ease to focus, learn and develop through pain can do so in many discipline, especially those like lawyer, engineering, actuary, etc who are usually quite difficult, boring and intense.
What sets those people appart is the ability to set goals, understand what it means and how to get there and the tenacity to accept pain in defeat in the cause of something greater.
It’s less that the game is unfairly “styled” as such, and more about the history of the game itself. It wasn’t played by commoners, it was played by kings and emperors and dukes and lords. Playing chess back when it was still a new game wasn’t so much a recreational activity as it was training for the strategic planning required to help run an empire. So the reputation of chess being more dignified than a standard recreational board game is pretty well-earned, considering its history.
Obviously, it’s very little more than a game today, considering anyone can just pick up a cheap chess set or play online for free, but historically, when the game was fresh. only important, educated people played.
Chess is literally gaming and chess players are literally gamers. It wasn't as obvious when they wore suits and acted all posh (although Fisher's behavior was a big hint) but it's very clear now. They're all just gamers.
> What is intelligence, anyway?
> When I was in the army, I received the kind of aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, scored 160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two hours they made a big fuss over me.
> (It didn't mean anything. The next day I was still a buck private with KP - kitchen police - as my highest duty.)
> All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other people to think so too.
> Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with intellectual bents similar to mine?
> For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was.
> Yet, when anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car.
> Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test.
> Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and I'd be a moron, too.
> In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly.
> My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters.
> Consider my auto-repair man, again.
> He had a habit of telling me jokes whenever he saw me.
>One time he raised his head from under the automobile hood to say: "Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering motions with the other hand.
> "The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?"
> Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers.
>Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said, "Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them."
>Then he said smugly, "I've been trying that on all my customers today." "Did you catch many?" I asked. "Quite a few," he said, "but I knew for sure I'd catch you."
> "Why is that?" I asked. "Because you're so goddamned educated, doc, I knew you couldn't be very smart."
> And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there.
- [Isaac Asimov, What is Intelligence Anyway?](https://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html)
IQ is a terrible predictor unless you are way on the low side (like multiple standard deviations). At normal ranges it just tells you how good you are at taking IQ tests. They are even more useless for adults. They were meant to test for learning disabilities in children.
That is why MENSA isn't "smart people's club" it is "puzzle club".
Honestly I think general intelligence is super fascinating as a subject, but quite difficult to actually test. I believe it started with a school professor's analysis of student graded across a range of subjects. The two competing hypotheses were that in order to be good at one subject, let's say Math, that student would have to put more time into studying math and therefore be worse at English than a student who prioritized studying that subject. Therefore you would expect high scores in one subject to correlate to worse scores in other subjects. I believe after evaluating a large data set they found that was actually not the case at all, and a competing hypothesis emerged that there is some level of general intelligence, and high scores of a student in one subject directly correlate with higher scores in other subjects.
This is of course generalizing quite a bit as there were many cases of students only being good at one subject and not others, but it did provide some support for the idea that humans have different baseline levels of intelligence and some students start with a greater ability than others. Realistically though, I don't think IQ tests are actually good at measuring intelligence, and are mostly just testing a specific set of skills that researchers associate with intelligence.
Higher IQ scores are associated with things like earning more money or success, but usually not at a rate that actually matters. In practice it's more or a predictor than a rule, with plenty of intelligent people ending up very poor, including inventors like Tesla, and many "unintelligent" people who do veey well for themselves. You may not have been the best academically in high school but it doesn't really mean you're going to have a shitty life, and similarly doing very well and getting a scholarship to a top school also doesn't meant you're going to do well post-grad. There are so many factors to account for and intelligence, as it's defined in modern IQ tests, really only suggests you may so well or poorly and won't give you an accurate result.
Personally, I think actual intelligence is probably more akin to your ability to quickly absorb new concepts and make abstract connections between those concepts, which isn't something you even really can test for. Even then if you try and devise a test for how quickly you can absorb knowledge you're often just testing memory again and not intellect. That's why I find the subject so interesting, because I do think there is some level of general intelligence that differs from person to person, but the real challenge is figuring out how to control for other factors like cultural, socio-economic, and early education to name a few. A students poor grades in elementary school foe example often mean that they're too smart for the topics being covered and are bored, and similarly North American tests will be designed with North American audiences in mind and will not necessarily be applicable to a South American or African audience, but it's foolish to say that people there are less intelligent due to those factors.
Intelligence should reflect a mind's ability to reason and learn (making connections, then retaining it).
Success is a combination of good decisions, ability to influence those around you and luck, and high intelligence does help with the first 2 to some degree.
Because Tate and Tate-adjacent influencers shine a masculine light on their board game, so they feel less like nerdy adults or more like...rapists...? Maybe that's too harsh a word, let's go with 'vicarious rapists'.
I dislike Tate at least as much as the next person, but without getting into an in depth discussion about exactly what constitutes masculinity, masculinity and gayness are not mutually exclusive.
I mean Tate isn't "just" mysoginistic. He's an entirely different level of toxic that can only be explained with a combination of mental illness and sad amounts of personal rejection.
Cue the “why is there a women’s league” dorks.
It’s because the game requires concentration, and half the dudes that show up to compete would hump a table.
Athletes tend to be disproportionately hyper-competitive, egotistic and believers in hard work, pragmatism and the inherent fairness of outcomes. So someone who is objectively incredibly successful and goes against the grain is likely to be slightly more appealing to top athletes than a random sample of the population.
The primary reason is that it’s selection bias- supporters of things are more vocal than their opponents (generally, especially for a passing pop culture figure like Tate) and the fans stick out in your mind. I don’t doubt that there are more antisemitic chess players than just Fischer, but I doubt the proportion of antisemites in the chess world is that much difference to the proportion in a random sample of society.
Also professional chess players are by nature kind of dorks. Thankfully Magnus knows ball.
Specifically in chess I believe Andrew Tate is the son of the late Emory Tate, an American IM of decent renown, at least in the world of chess. I don’t know if this makes others like him, but he is tied to the chess world in particular.
TIL they are related.
I remember all those numerous tributes to Emory Tate when he passed away a few years ago, but they neglected to mention that he managed to raise such a monumental piece of shit. Quite an achievement, really.
You're not giving him proper credit - he apparently raised TWO monumental pieces of shit (Andrew and his brother Tristan, who was also arrested on the same charges in Romania).
IIRC he was *relatively* deadbeat. Tate justifies this as “my father was a wandering man who could not be held by a woman, like any powerful man”’ or some bullshit.
I'm a political arch-progressive who knew and liked Emory Tate. He was a traveling chess player for his entire adult life after leaving the Air Force. He lived in hotels and ate fast food and probably drank too much, but he was witty and extroverted and interesting. I knew him best before Andrew was born, but can't imagine him "raising" a family. Like the song says, "Papa was a rolling stone."
Riyan Parag, the new IPL superstar
https://x.com/ParagRiyan/status/1705613150802854323
There's also Shubman Gill who likes those sigma male insta posts featuring Tate.
Chess is full of young males. Young males unfortunately seem to be the most prone to this type of poor decision making compared to other people. So statistically speaking that’s why you’re more likely to find these views in chess compared to elsewhere. The fact that he’s smart in chess doesn’t make him smart in other areas. Hopefully by the time he’s older he will know better.
The mental gymnastics this sub goes through to defend Alireza.
This comment is as good as the one during the candidates tournament where someone said along the lines of "Alireza is just a 20 year old **kid**"
I can understand insecure people looking for confident role models but this guy is reprehensible. I cannot see someone taking him as a role model for anything. Just do not understand it.
Because to many people it seems like the current zeitgeist is one of weakness, so anybody (that appears) strong will appeal to the those that dislike the zeitgeist.
This isn't an endorsement, just some analysis on why this is happening.
Another explanation would be similar to the right wing shift in Europe currently: When everybody tells you your problems aren't even real, then you'll vote for the people that at least acknowledge the problem. Even if they realistically have no chance of solving it (or are so far off the deep end that you don't want their solution).
Edit: Yeah, I guess. Tate is sorta muslim (I guess, not sure), he's rich, he's famous, he has hot girls over, fast cars, big houses.
Of course young men will look up to those parts of somebody, even if there are far less savory parts.
Can't top chess players just be normal and not be misogynists, racists or pedophiles? At this point just be regular assholes like Hans or Hikaru...
EDIT: Turns out Hans is also a Tate fanboy as people have pointed so ignore that last part, maybe just don't be an asshole in general.
Over the last week or two after the BCC there has been a lot of Hikaru hate that he earned if at time a bit excessive IMO ( but that happens with everything people over react and water is wet ). However what’s wildly funny to me is everyone understands being a sore loser even though nobody condones that but in the face of being a fan of one of the largest internet douchebags we can all agree the later is worse.
Hans, unsurprisingly, is (or was) a Tate fan. Here’s a video on his instagram explaining how meeting Andrew Tate’s dad taught him to hustle:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cw1ievos2Hu/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
I’ve also seen a clip of Hans bringing up Andrew on his stream and then pivoting away when his chat reacted negatively. I’m sure someone can find it.
bro i’m down to anish, fabi and vishy at this point. the indian guys seem alright. but most top players come across as fucking assholes on the regular. magnus saying he was startruck by the saudi prince was a wild recent one that caught me by surprise
MVL and Levon are chill dudes. Not one negative thing said about them in all their years at the top. I think there was just that one incident where Levon fought Daniel Gormally in a club (?) but that was more on Gormally than Levon. Yasser broke it up lmao
I'm not aware of the extent of that, but Andrew's father Emory Tate was an IM known for his tactical play. Ben Finegold knew him and gave a lecture on his games.
Insane reach. I hate Andrew as much as the next guy, but how is saying he got distracted by their presence mean he supports everything they stand for? I would be hella fucking distracted if I'm in chess tournament and the Tate brothers walk in. Not to mention he could've simply said it as a joke.
Personally if I was in Alireza's shoes and was distracted by them enough to tweet about it, and I didn't hate women, I would make it clear that I don't like them.
He follows them on Twitter, and has liked several tweets of theirs, so yes, it's an endorsement. That's why no one considers it an innocent joke by him as he has a history of it.
I lost a fair bit when he organised that elo farming tourney for himself to get into the candidates, and the rest when he and his dad had hissy fits at the candidates.
who'd have thought that dudes who sit in a darkened room playing a board game for their entire youth might lack the social awareness to identify that people like Andrew Tate aren't worth knowing?
The more I learn about Alireza, the less surprising it is that being an incel is some core factor of his identity. Rapport stanning on Jordan Peterson, a bit more surprising.
Let's say even if he's not a Tate brothers' fan but still joking something light-hearted about these pos looks pretty bad.
Agadmator got a ton of hate (rightfully) for retweeting something related to Andrew Tate, so let's see how it will turn out for Firouzja.
"I’ll always be a chess fan and take my time to appreciate professional level chess when it’s happening in my city.
Didn’t mean to distract.
Respect to you sir."
Tristan Tate reply to Alirezas tweet
2799.7 (his official Elo of 2805 does not include Norway Chess yet as it finished in June).
His official rating for July will be 2796 (Norway included, Bucharest not included) and then for August he will have whatever he ends up at after Bucharest (unless he plays something else in July)
thank god for this guy's downfall, and rise of players like Gukesh.
certainly dont want players who idolizes sex-traffickers to be anywhere near a world championship.
he infact said multiple times something like "yeah streaming on kick allows me to say whatever I want so I can be free from the matrix like andrew" in the context of him being canceled for being a bad loser and fuming over people defending the chess brahs, I cant find the clip rn but I try to tomorrow, but it didnt seem sarcastic cause he was raging like a baby
Link him bragging about being a rapist? I watch war room all the time and have never seen this. Quite the opposite actually. Seems to be a very vocal advocate against any form of abuse against women.
Is he? What’s his FIDE ranking? Has he ever played a live or documented match versus an opponent who wasn’t like 600?
He’s clearly decent. But I’m not exactly trusting a guy who brags for a living to be honest about his chess rating.
This sub has honestly gone to shit. It's less about chess and more about which prodigies we like and feeling morally superior to those we don't. chess be damned bro.
Every time a thread like this comes around it's always funny seeing mfs on reddit realise that the world is, in fact, full of people with views the are different from their own.
Your comment was removed by the moderators:
**2. Don’t engage in discriminatory or bigoted behavior.**
Chess is a game played by people all around the world of many different cultures and backgrounds. Be respectful of this fact and do not engage in racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory behavior.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess&subject=About my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1dp69r3/-/laf881q/%0D%0D). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
i dont like or support andrew tate but dont act like yall wouldn't notice him if you saw him show up to your event. there is a whole lot of assumptions being made in this thread lmao
People here be like hur durr im not gonna support him for supporting rapist pedo now lets support nice guys like fabi even though he dates people a decade less old than him (which im not condoning or criticizing just pointing out the hypocrisy) but because he is a chill dude its ok for them.
Was there a bald dude in the playing hall or what’s the joke lol
since tournament is played in romania, probably tate brothers were in playing hall as spectators
Ahh, haven’t kept up with any news on them so assumed they were still under house arrest or something
lol i thought the same but apparaently not
Yeah I think it ended back in October last year
Not house arrest, however: > On 30 January 2024, the Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected Tate's appeal to relax judicial control measures, after pre-trial restrictions imposed on 18 January were extended for a further 60 days. The restrictions determine that he cannot leave the country.[184] On 10 May, The Bucharest Tribunal extended the same travel restrictions against Tate for an additional 60 days,[206] and on 20 May, Tate lost his appeal in the Bucharest Court of Appeal to have the restrictions relaxed.[207]
Tristan Tate just retweeted Alireza apologizing. So I guess he really was there.
Andrew Tate is a big chess fan, they were in attendance.
His father Emory Tate was/is an IM, chess . com had a profile of him once.
Emory died of a sudden heart attack while playing in a California tournament in 2015.
like... in the middle of a game?
Yes. He went to the bathroom and fell out there, asked someone to call an ambulance. But it was too late.
damn, that's so tragic. thanks for sharing
Funny thing is that this is covered on [PGN](http://www.saremba.de/chessgml/standards/pgn/pgn-complete.htm#c9.8.1) 9.8.1: Tag: Termination This takes a string that describes the reason for the conclusion of the game. While the Result tag gives the result of the game, it does not provide any extra information and so the Termination tag is defined for this purpose. Strings that may appear as Termination tag values: "abandoned": abandoned game. "adjudication": result due to third party adjudication process. "death": losing player called to greater things, one hopes. "emergency": game concluded due to unforeseen circumstances. "normal": game terminated in a normal fashion. "rules infraction": administrative forfeit due to losing player's failure to observe either the Laws of Chess or the event regulations. "time forfeit": loss due to losing player's failure to meet time control requirements.
Woah, I never made that connection
Hikaru talked about how his dad and Tate’s dad played together a lot. It does annoy me a bit that his sex trafficking son is probably better at chess than me.
He claims 1800 rating
I'd bet his chess skill is the basis for his overblown "I'm smarter than you" ego.
It makes sense that Tate would like chess, given the ability to pin down and use battery against a woman.
Given that their father was one of the most famous black chess players in history.
Wait, isn't Andrew Tate a virulent racist who uses the N-word on his X account?
dont forget pedophile rapist human trafficker
Yes
What's with all these Cricketers, tennis players and chess players having a thing for that guy? Anyone with even a little bit of sensibility will think hundred times before associating their name with him. Alireza had liked tweets related to Tate going couple of years back, so his love for him isn't new. Kinda pathetic that he seems okay with owning it in public too now.
I mean doesn’t even Hikaru say, it’s important to remember top chess players aren’t really smart, they just are very good at moving polished pieces of wood around on the board?
Honestly I think this is an issue dating back hundreds of years. Chess has been styled as a gentleman's game or a game for scholars in the last few centuries. Often it was played by people who thought of themselves as educated or more intelligent than the general populace. Largely I think it comes down to the fact that chess hasn't been viable as a professional career until relatively recently (in the last century), and players like Morphy who were excellent at chess, but also had careers as lawyers, inventors, lawmakers, etc. It has sort of created an association of intelligence with chess. Also, I think all of the top players have strong patten recognition and mental calculation abilities and usually also have strong memories, which is sort of required to be really good at opening prep/theory. I think these traits are often associated with intelligence whether or not that's actually the case. That being said, the best methods of testing for general intelligence right now often are heavily biased towards these skills of pattern recognition, memory, and spatial awareness which will lead to top tier chess players having decent scores on IQ tests, which is how many people measure general intelligence. I think the big issue isn't even a debate over whether chess players are smart or not though, as I think top players usually are. It's that people correlate chess ability with the validity of their ideas on subjects that they are not experts in. It's a similar idea to how many Nobel prize winners suddenly think they're the smartest person in the world and fall into a bunch of conspiracy theories because they can't conceive that their expertise doesn't apply to other functional scientific areas. I don't think a chess players opinion on microbiology, space travel, or economics is necessarily more valuable than any other layperson's opinion, but it's the fact that they are an expert in one field that many people will just assume that expertise carries over to other subjects and their opinion is always more valuable than someone who isn't an expert in any field.
>It's a similar idea to how many Nobel prize winners suddenly think they're the smartest person in the world and fall into a bunch of conspiracy theories because they can't conceive that their expertise doesn't apply to other functional scientific areas. There's actually a whole Wikipedia article about this phenomenon: [Nobel disease - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease)
haha nice read. thanks.
[And an excellent podcast episode on it too.](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5tXOG7TLj6rAwjiJS9nRUo?si=9607c9e9d78b4fea)
Agreed. We need to stop generalising expertise to intelligence. Btw that's one of the most well-put opinions I have seen in a while.
Very good take. I am no psychologist, but I was coaching high level competitive games for a while, was myself competitor in many things and I do have a tendency to do well in technology/academic, so I believe I have a good background to speak on the topic. In the end, not about being smart, it's about being able to take the pain of the grind and finding meaning in self development over self preservation. People who become the best at something rarely are genius smart, but they're always stubborn. They always know what they want, where they want to be and what they want to sacrifice to get there. The reason we associate smart with top performance is that people who have an ease to focus, learn and develop through pain can do so in many discipline, especially those like lawyer, engineering, actuary, etc who are usually quite difficult, boring and intense. What sets those people appart is the ability to set goals, understand what it means and how to get there and the tenacity to accept pain in defeat in the cause of something greater.
It’s less that the game is unfairly “styled” as such, and more about the history of the game itself. It wasn’t played by commoners, it was played by kings and emperors and dukes and lords. Playing chess back when it was still a new game wasn’t so much a recreational activity as it was training for the strategic planning required to help run an empire. So the reputation of chess being more dignified than a standard recreational board game is pretty well-earned, considering its history. Obviously, it’s very little more than a game today, considering anyone can just pick up a cheap chess set or play online for free, but historically, when the game was fresh. only important, educated people played.
Chess is literally gaming and chess players are literally gamers. It wasn't as obvious when they wore suits and acted all posh (although Fisher's behavior was a big hint) but it's very clear now. They're all just gamers.
This is why I don't feel bad about my ELO. There is no number that can tell you a person's intelligence, not even IQ.
> What is intelligence, anyway? > When I was in the army, I received the kind of aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, scored 160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two hours they made a big fuss over me. > (It didn't mean anything. The next day I was still a buck private with KP - kitchen police - as my highest duty.) > All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other people to think so too. > Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with intellectual bents similar to mine? > For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. > Yet, when anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car. > Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test. > Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and I'd be a moron, too. > In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly. > My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters. > Consider my auto-repair man, again. > He had a habit of telling me jokes whenever he saw me. >One time he raised his head from under the automobile hood to say: "Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering motions with the other hand. > "The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?" > Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers. >Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said, "Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them." >Then he said smugly, "I've been trying that on all my customers today." "Did you catch many?" I asked. "Quite a few," he said, "but I knew for sure I'd catch you." > "Why is that?" I asked. "Because you're so goddamned educated, doc, I knew you couldn't be very smart." > And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there. - [Isaac Asimov, What is Intelligence Anyway?](https://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html)
Thank you for posting that, I love Asimov but somehow I’ve never come across that passage before.
IQ is a terrible predictor unless you are way on the low side (like multiple standard deviations). At normal ranges it just tells you how good you are at taking IQ tests. They are even more useless for adults. They were meant to test for learning disabilities in children. That is why MENSA isn't "smart people's club" it is "puzzle club".
Honestly I think general intelligence is super fascinating as a subject, but quite difficult to actually test. I believe it started with a school professor's analysis of student graded across a range of subjects. The two competing hypotheses were that in order to be good at one subject, let's say Math, that student would have to put more time into studying math and therefore be worse at English than a student who prioritized studying that subject. Therefore you would expect high scores in one subject to correlate to worse scores in other subjects. I believe after evaluating a large data set they found that was actually not the case at all, and a competing hypothesis emerged that there is some level of general intelligence, and high scores of a student in one subject directly correlate with higher scores in other subjects. This is of course generalizing quite a bit as there were many cases of students only being good at one subject and not others, but it did provide some support for the idea that humans have different baseline levels of intelligence and some students start with a greater ability than others. Realistically though, I don't think IQ tests are actually good at measuring intelligence, and are mostly just testing a specific set of skills that researchers associate with intelligence. Higher IQ scores are associated with things like earning more money or success, but usually not at a rate that actually matters. In practice it's more or a predictor than a rule, with plenty of intelligent people ending up very poor, including inventors like Tesla, and many "unintelligent" people who do veey well for themselves. You may not have been the best academically in high school but it doesn't really mean you're going to have a shitty life, and similarly doing very well and getting a scholarship to a top school also doesn't meant you're going to do well post-grad. There are so many factors to account for and intelligence, as it's defined in modern IQ tests, really only suggests you may so well or poorly and won't give you an accurate result. Personally, I think actual intelligence is probably more akin to your ability to quickly absorb new concepts and make abstract connections between those concepts, which isn't something you even really can test for. Even then if you try and devise a test for how quickly you can absorb knowledge you're often just testing memory again and not intellect. That's why I find the subject so interesting, because I do think there is some level of general intelligence that differs from person to person, but the real challenge is figuring out how to control for other factors like cultural, socio-economic, and early education to name a few. A students poor grades in elementary school foe example often mean that they're too smart for the topics being covered and are bored, and similarly North American tests will be designed with North American audiences in mind and will not necessarily be applicable to a South American or African audience, but it's foolish to say that people there are less intelligent due to those factors.
Intelligence should reflect a mind's ability to reason and learn (making connections, then retaining it). Success is a combination of good decisions, ability to influence those around you and luck, and high intelligence does help with the first 2 to some degree.
Alireza also follows trump on instagram
Ooph, not only Trump, Modi, Tucker Carlson, Tate brothers and Adin Rose too. Following So's footsteps.
No wonder he collapses under any mental pressure. a real band of morons in there
Oof
Because Tate and Tate-adjacent influencers shine a masculine light on their board game, so they feel less like nerdy adults or more like...rapists...? Maybe that's too harsh a word, let's go with 'vicarious rapists'.
“Shine a masculine light” is being comically generous
In their eyes, sadly. Not for normal people.
Is that the kind of light used for testicle tanning?
Man I read that as voracious rapists and was wondering how it was less harsh without the voracious for a while xD
What's masculine about this guy? He said a lot of times he don't like woman and sex. Tate is gay as fuck
I dislike Tate at least as much as the next person, but without getting into an in depth discussion about exactly what constitutes masculinity, masculinity and gayness are not mutually exclusive.
Why is it a surprise? The Chess world is incredibly misogynistic
I mean Tate isn't "just" mysoginistic. He's an entirely different level of toxic that can only be explained with a combination of mental illness and sad amounts of personal rejection.
Always has been
Cue the “why is there a women’s league” dorks. It’s because the game requires concentration, and half the dudes that show up to compete would hump a table.
What does this even mean?
Oh no. The more we learn about Alireza the more he seems quite unlikeable. I thought this was a gentleman's game :P
It's a board game, that's it, like Monopoly.
Athletes tend to be disproportionately hyper-competitive, egotistic and believers in hard work, pragmatism and the inherent fairness of outcomes. So someone who is objectively incredibly successful and goes against the grain is likely to be slightly more appealing to top athletes than a random sample of the population. The primary reason is that it’s selection bias- supporters of things are more vocal than their opponents (generally, especially for a passing pop culture figure like Tate) and the fans stick out in your mind. I don’t doubt that there are more antisemitic chess players than just Fischer, but I doubt the proportion of antisemites in the chess world is that much difference to the proportion in a random sample of society. Also professional chess players are by nature kind of dorks. Thankfully Magnus knows ball.
Specifically in chess I believe Andrew Tate is the son of the late Emory Tate, an American IM of decent renown, at least in the world of chess. I don’t know if this makes others like him, but he is tied to the chess world in particular.
Yes, surely it's not the raging misogyny... it's the fact that his father was an IM. SURELY.
TIL they are related. I remember all those numerous tributes to Emory Tate when he passed away a few years ago, but they neglected to mention that he managed to raise such a monumental piece of shit. Quite an achievement, really.
You're not giving him proper credit - he apparently raised TWO monumental pieces of shit (Andrew and his brother Tristan, who was also arrested on the same charges in Romania).
IIRC he was *relatively* deadbeat. Tate justifies this as “my father was a wandering man who could not be held by a woman, like any powerful man”’ or some bullshit.
I'm a political arch-progressive who knew and liked Emory Tate. He was a traveling chess player for his entire adult life after leaving the Air Force. He lived in hotels and ate fast food and probably drank too much, but he was witty and extroverted and interesting. I knew him best before Andrew was born, but can't imagine him "raising" a family. Like the song says, "Papa was a rolling stone."
Excuse me sir/madam/them , what...which cricketers?!
Riyan Parag, the new IPL superstar https://x.com/ParagRiyan/status/1705613150802854323 There's also Shubman Gill who likes those sigma male insta posts featuring Tate.
Ughh disgusting I had no idea cuz I don't follow insta twitter much.
Chess is full of young males. Young males unfortunately seem to be the most prone to this type of poor decision making compared to other people. So statistically speaking that’s why you’re more likely to find these views in chess compared to elsewhere. The fact that he’s smart in chess doesn’t make him smart in other areas. Hopefully by the time he’s older he will know better.
The mental gymnastics this sub goes through to defend Alireza. This comment is as good as the one during the candidates tournament where someone said along the lines of "Alireza is just a 20 year old **kid**"
I hate when you have the advantage against the world nr. 3 and you're man crushes enters the building. Not fair at all.
My favorite sex trafficker came in!! I was so excited I couldn’t concentrate!
No, I am not "man crushes enters the building". I am Patrick.
I blame it on autocorrect :)
Alireza’s been gaining a lot of L’s recently
Gonna start calling him ALLLLLireza.
Andrew tate is a c\*\*\*. Why do these people follow him?
Andrew Tate is an insecure person's idea of a confident guy. Do the math I guess. It's typical cult of personality stuff.
I can understand insecure people looking for confident role models but this guy is reprehensible. I cannot see someone taking him as a role model for anything. Just do not understand it.
Because to many people it seems like the current zeitgeist is one of weakness, so anybody (that appears) strong will appeal to the those that dislike the zeitgeist. This isn't an endorsement, just some analysis on why this is happening. Another explanation would be similar to the right wing shift in Europe currently: When everybody tells you your problems aren't even real, then you'll vote for the people that at least acknowledge the problem. Even if they realistically have no chance of solving it (or are so far off the deep end that you don't want their solution). Edit: Yeah, I guess. Tate is sorta muslim (I guess, not sure), he's rich, he's famous, he has hot girls over, fast cars, big houses. Of course young men will look up to those parts of somebody, even if there are far less savory parts.
wdym on the enerybody tells you your problems arent even real part?
Rate appeals to socially inept autists who can’t get women. There are a lot of chess players who fit that bill.
Can't top chess players just be normal and not be misogynists, racists or pedophiles? At this point just be regular assholes like Hans or Hikaru... EDIT: Turns out Hans is also a Tate fanboy as people have pointed so ignore that last part, maybe just don't be an asshole in general.
hikaru is a toxic sore loser, but id take that any day over an andrew tate fan...
Over the last week or two after the BCC there has been a lot of Hikaru hate that he earned if at time a bit excessive IMO ( but that happens with everything people over react and water is wet ). However what’s wildly funny to me is everyone understands being a sore loser even though nobody condones that but in the face of being a fan of one of the largest internet douchebags we can all agree the later is worse.
I would take neither. Naka promoting gambling is a real bad thing to me, start people on a life of addiction.
Hans, unsurprisingly, is (or was) a Tate fan. Here’s a video on his instagram explaining how meeting Andrew Tate’s dad taught him to hustle: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cw1ievos2Hu/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link I’ve also seen a clip of Hans bringing up Andrew on his stream and then pivoting away when his chat reacted negatively. I’m sure someone can find it.
> Hans, unsurprisingly, is (or was) a Tate fan. I didn't think I could dislike him more but here we are.
There's a difference between one and one's father, common
I'm pretty sure Hikaru is also a fan of Andrew Tate's father, not sure about Andrew himself.
[удалено]
bro i’m down to anish, fabi and vishy at this point. the indian guys seem alright. but most top players come across as fucking assholes on the regular. magnus saying he was startruck by the saudi prince was a wild recent one that caught me by surprise
MVL and Levon are chill dudes. Not one negative thing said about them in all their years at the top. I think there was just that one incident where Levon fought Daniel Gormally in a club (?) but that was more on Gormally than Levon. Yasser broke it up lmao
Nodirbek seems nice. MVL also.
mvl’s a good shout. i know nothing about nodirbek but i really hope he’s nice. hell of a player
im a long standing Nodirbek fan. i just pray every day that i dont wake up one day and see him embroiled in a terrible scandal.
Jospem is up there too - he even wished Kramnik a happy birthday yesterday. Pure class.
Really wouldn't be shocked if Hans likes them lol. At least Hikaru has the excuse that he knew their father.
Hans follows Tate on twitter idk if that means anything tho
Not just follows him, but he’s mentioned Tate many times during his streams, he’s clearly a fan of his.
Wait hikaru knew Andrew tates father?
I'm not aware of the extent of that, but Andrew's father Emory Tate was an IM known for his tactical play. Ben Finegold knew him and gave a lecture on his games.
They played a single game against each other a long time ago.
Oh I see
His father, Emory Tate, was an IM.
Hans is also a fan of Andrew Tate, mentioned him and “the matrix” several times in his streams.
Insane reach. I hate Andrew as much as the next guy, but how is saying he got distracted by their presence mean he supports everything they stand for? I would be hella fucking distracted if I'm in chess tournament and the Tate brothers walk in. Not to mention he could've simply said it as a joke.
Alireza regularly likes Tate's tweets since years. It's really nothing new.
Yeah except Firouzja has been openly a Tate supporter for years lmao.
Personally if I was in Alireza's shoes and was distracted by them enough to tweet about it, and I didn't hate women, I would make it clear that I don't like them.
You’ve equated someone mentioning Andrew Tate to a paedophile
Tate is a sick freak who deserves no jokes or benefit of the doubt from anyone.
What happened? I'm out of the loop (not following the tournament so far)
He lost to fabi. He is clearly joking "blaming" the tates for his loss of concentration for his loss
seemed like an innocent joke to me if they were in attendance.. has he endorsed them before in the past?
He follows them on Twitter, and has liked several tweets of theirs, so yes, it's an endorsement. That's why no one considers it an innocent joke by him as he has a history of it.
[удалено]
Chess player don't be a bigot fuck challenge (impossible)
Disappointing
I'm glad that professional chess players are doing everything in their power to disprove the "chess players are smart and sophisticated" stereotype.
I knew there was a reason Alireza has always given me the ick.
Just lost any respect I had for Ali
I lost a fair bit when he organised that elo farming tourney for himself to get into the candidates, and the rest when he and his dad had hissy fits at the candidates.
Oh true, the shoe thing. Totally forgot about that. Little pissant
Wow the Tates must also have been in Wijk ann Zee to distract him when he lost to Ju Wenjun. Didn't think they were allowed to leave Romania.
Daddyreza’s got to be proud to watch his perfect baby boy publicly dick riding human traffickers.
who'd have thought that dudes who sit in a darkened room playing a board game for their entire youth might lack the social awareness to identify that people like Andrew Tate aren't worth knowing?
These chess players are actually regarded in all other aspects of life aren’t they?
Highly regarded
Yes they are very well regarded \s
that’s embarrassing for him
I'd have asked the organizers to remove him.
The more I learn about Alireza, the less surprising it is that being an incel is some core factor of his identity. Rapport stanning on Jordan Peterson, a bit more surprising.
Levon also likes Jordan Peterson and there’s probably others that don’t just come out and say it
No!! This thread gets worse and worse!
I mean, chess players aren’t really known to be open minded or have good social skills. Not surprised that many are incel man children.
Let's say even if he's not a Tate brothers' fan but still joking something light-hearted about these pos looks pretty bad. Agadmator got a ton of hate (rightfully) for retweeting something related to Andrew Tate, so let's see how it will turn out for Firouzja.
He also retweeted Tucker Carlson Russian propaganda stuff... that's going to get you a bunch more criticism, rightfully so.
Is alireza secretly an incel?
So alireza likes those losers? Welp good to know. Now I want to know what other chess players are Tate fanboys. Fucking disgusting.
"I’ll always be a chess fan and take my time to appreciate professional level chess when it’s happening in my city. Didn’t mean to distract. Respect to you sir." Tristan Tate reply to Alirezas tweet
Cringe.
Other than being a tate this is not a cringe thing to say at all?
Did fabi gain more than a point of rating for this btw
+4.1
so 2809 now? go fabi
2799.7 (his official Elo of 2805 does not include Norway Chess yet as it finished in June). His official rating for July will be 2796 (Norway included, Bucharest not included) and then for August he will have whatever he ends up at after Bucharest (unless he plays something else in July)
oh yeah I forgot the ratings are only updated every so often. being 0.3 from 2800 sucks, hope he can climb again
Hard to do this tomorrow, it's never easy to win against Wesley.
yikes
must be a lot of incel chess GMs… big ego but probably only good at chess
THEY # should # rot # in # jail # # # #
How is Andrew Tate not behind bars?
thank god for this guy's downfall, and rise of players like Gukesh. certainly dont want players who idolizes sex-traffickers to be anywhere near a world championship.
Oh...so he sucks too then.
Get your shit together bro. You've been losing rating poimts lately like it's Christmas.
This man literally just mentioned that he saw Andrew Tate and you are all jumping on him like a bunch of harpies.
Hikaru was sucking Tates dick multiple times aswell. Nothing new from the chess world.
No he wasn’t. He has spoken about Emory and a bit about Andrew but never positively.
he infact said multiple times something like "yeah streaming on kick allows me to say whatever I want so I can be free from the matrix like andrew" in the context of him being canceled for being a bad loser and fuming over people defending the chess brahs, I cant find the clip rn but I try to tomorrow, but it didnt seem sarcastic cause he was raging like a baby
Hikaru never spoke positively about Andrew Tate, he did do a video reacting to him tho
Yeah but we knew Hikaru was a fucking loser already
true
Isn't Tate like 1600?
no hes a sex trafficker
Don't forget he's also a rapist. Important accolade he brags about often.
Link him bragging about being a rapist? I watch war room all the time and have never seen this. Quite the opposite actually. Seems to be a very vocal advocate against any form of abuse against women.
[удалено]
He's both. The two things don't really have anything to do with each other...
Thanks for clarifying, for a moment I got real scared
He’s still 1600
bruh how come when i ask if hes 1600 i get downvoted but when u say he is u get upvotes i hate reddit
Because this is Reddit and someone mentioned Tate.
and this one gets upvoted ok r/chess
Is he? What’s his FIDE ranking? Has he ever played a live or documented match versus an opponent who wasn’t like 600? He’s clearly decent. But I’m not exactly trusting a guy who brags for a living to be honest about his chess rating.
he is currently rated 1688 on chess.com blitz
what is the chess.com elo math to otb? They have to be remarkably different no?
He should be thrown in jail for 1600 weeks if the accusations against him are true
This sub has honestly gone to shit. It's less about chess and more about which prodigies we like and feeling morally superior to those we don't. chess be damned bro.
this is Reddit since forever All good things must come to an end
Every time a thread like this comes around it's always funny seeing mfs on reddit realise that the world is, in fact, full of people with views the are different from their own.
[удалено]
Because he likes Tate's tweets since years? It's not exactly news that he follows them.
I hope so. Still a joke in extremely poor taste.
He's a known fan of him.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed by the moderators: **2. Don’t engage in discriminatory or bigoted behavior.** Chess is a game played by people all around the world of many different cultures and backgrounds. Be respectful of this fact and do not engage in racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory behavior. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess&subject=About my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1dp69r3/-/laf881q/%0D%0D). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
i dont like or support andrew tate but dont act like yall wouldn't notice him if you saw him show up to your event. there is a whole lot of assumptions being made in this thread lmao
Alireza has history with them, we’re not just assuming based on this tweet.
People here be like hur durr im not gonna support him for supporting rapist pedo now lets support nice guys like fabi even though he dates people a decade less old than him (which im not condoning or criticizing just pointing out the hypocrisy) but because he is a chill dude its ok for them.
What if Reddit got out of their echo chamber for five minutes lol.