Important notice from the GRAMMAR POLICE. Plz read. This means you.

[rohina]

Tybalt is def the top. Mercutio has that masochistic streak a mile wide.

[Salomon]

I'm rather good at chess. He was far superior.

Do you have an official rating? No? Well, try to make a guess of what your chess rating is and subtract 400, that'll be close to your real rating unless you're bad at guessing. Usually a rating of 1000 is enough to beat all the people in your street, and all casual players of the park, making you believe that you're really good, yet a 1200 player is going to look far superior to you, but in reality both players are really weak.

We have played a number of times and I can count on one hand the times I've won.

The key is the number of times, have you played 100 games? Then you might have a point. Have you played 20 games? Then those results would indicate that he's not more than 400 points stronger than you, and so if he played on official tournaments he would probably not perform as good as you expect.

At rating below 1800 tactics are almost everything, and games are decided by blunders, so that if you make them, a player that spots your blunders and punishes them is going to be successful most of the time, even if he commits the same number or more blunders but you're incapable of noticing and punishing them. The point is that that's more about practice and experience than about brilliancy.

it was a most enjoyable surprise.

Ok, now go at the local chess club to play [non-casual] kids at chess and note how superior they are to you, you'll enjoy it.

Chess is far more than computation.

Chess is all about computation, the best chess programs in the world (e.g. Rybka) are just fast number crunchers that know what to compute, and are playing consistently at a level 200 rating points higher than the strongest human on his best day.

The analytic and positional aspects of the game only help to reach positions where it's easier to compute or it makes it more difficult to the opponent, or in where you reach complex positions you are familiar with. Chess is just like an incredibly more complex version of tic tac toe, in principle (a finite turn based 2 player game with open information) now tell me what else does tic tac toe need than computation.

"Strong spacial ability" helps in computation, you can't "plan" if you don't know what are going to be the opponent's moves, all you can do is guess by evaluation of best potential future moves and if you get them right (i.e. you're not missing the better move that the opponent plays) you get efficiency, that requires computation.

"Accurately gauging one's opponent" is a non-factor, on the board players have the same strenght than online players even though the latter don't get to see their opponent, would you gauge based on the fact that your online opponent is named bubsy336? And rating based strategy doesn't work, the best move on the board is the same regardless of opponent modeling, if you're willing to set up a trap in where, if the opponent doesn't fall on it you end on a worse position you're just playing poker. Sure, there are good chess players that might do this, but they're relying on luck, I've beaten "far superior" (rating based) opponents by just not falling on their traps and showing them "gauging" me isn't the way in chess.

It may take a combination of qualities to become a great player, but intellectual brilliance most certainly plays a part.

And again, there are many counter examples to this, do your research, besides the geniuses that failed really badly at chess (after really trying) there are examples of average intelligent people that were really good at chess (presumably by natural talent, but that talent was mainly for chess.)

Of course you need a certain level of intelligence for chess (if someone doesn't understand the rules he's never going to be world champion) but I wouldn't call that "brilliancy", it's mostly about patience, determination and having fun with the game, if it bores you it doesn't matter if you beat Einstein at physics, you're probably not going to play chess enough to beat that kid on your street.

I'll readily admit that I know little beyond the basics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turning

That site has a couple of other interesting articles as well.

[soozelwoozel]

I applaud your efforts. From this and prior posts you seem to be an educated and articulate human being and very likely an excellent teacher. Can you deny that some professors do use their positions as bully pulpits? As to the first sentence of the above quote, to some extent that is true, but there is a limit. I've experienced first hand a tenured professor using her position to further her own sociopolitical agenda. I found it incredibly disturbing to watch her attempt to manipulate her students while the younger ones never batted an eye. Again, I realize professors like her are the exception and not the rule, and though I may not have articulated this fact, I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who dedicates themselves to teaching.

I knew this was a case of individual butthurt. I bet she was an evil feminist, too, right?

@prof buttsecks: I once had a student write a paper about how, since people thought Shakespeare's sonnets were written to a male, it must have been his son, and so it was platonic, filial love.

Oh God, don't even get me started on this kind of thing. I had someone in my tutorials first year of university that just freaked out completely and could NOT comprehend the idea of Mercrutio having a homoerotic man-crush on Romeo and actually stood up in the tute and shouted "NO! THEY WERE HOMIES! HE WAS INTO CHICKS!".

Oh dear, oh dear. Thank God I've not had to put up with nonsense like that, I'd most likely have punched the idiot. I did have a heated argument at A-Level with someone in my Lit class who insisted that homosexual readings of Shakespeare ruined the perfectly innocent notion of the "bro-mance" (he didn't call it that exactly, as I'm not sure the term had been coined then). That's about as close to such a debate as I've got. I guess I must be lucky to go to uni at a reasonably progressive place. Mind you, with resident experts in Queer theory, and modules like Early Modern Sexualities, anyone expecting nice heteronormative readings should really go elsewhere.

There are some lecturers who obviously have a bee in their bonnet about certain issues. I've yet to meet a female English professor who isn't strongly interested in feminism for instance. Perhaps that's because most of my lecturers were undergrads during the 70's and early 80's when feminism was all the rage. Or perhaps it's just because femenist readings of literature are particularly interesting. But if you're at a decent uni, then you should be intelligent enough to sift through the personal agendas of any professors and work out your own opinions. My A Level Economics teachers used to espouse their free-market capitalist ideologies virtually every lesson. Despite their concerted efforts they failed to indoctrinate me, and we were still wide-eyed 12s back then.

[jolrei]

Do I know you? Do I LIKE you? No? I'm one of the horrid evil Buttists that agree with Rohina. I think you're a self-important douche-nozzle with a chip on your shoulder the size of lake michigan when it comes to female university professors. Go back to your ice-cream and eat your feelings again, tubby. I also found it amusing to see an "I have no ego" comment from someone that lists their email as "bigego69".

Even so, let's not lose sight of the fact that he claims to be able to make a decent barbecue sauce.  People are losing sight of the relevant facts of the case.

[Jelenedra]

Tybalt is def the top. Mercutio has that masochistic streak a mile wide.

I love this. Mostly because I am immediately picturing John Leguizamo and Harold Perrineau (preferably in their ball costumes) getting all "let me take my sin back."

[kewian]

I may not be a genius or whatever this big mouthed sheep thinks it is but I do know enough that you don't jump into a new forum and make such a total ass out of yourself by being such a braggart.

[Annan]

/.../ with resident experts in Queer theory /.../.

Who did you have there? I'm curious because my degree is partially in gender theory and I had an awesome queer theorist as a professor for some of the courses. I'm wondering if it was someone I would recognize.

[dstucki]

I may wish to join this "blue-collar elitist" cult. Where might I find more information about it?

Get in your car, drive away from civilization, and look for a bar with peeling paint and a neon Budweiser logo in the front window.  There will be rusty pickup trucks outside, and at least one of them will have a dog tied up with baling twine in the bed.  There will be guns in the rear window, and probably at least one Confederate flag visible.  When you walk in the bar, it will smell like stale smoke, and there will be a spittoon somewhere.  The jukebox only plays country music.  Everything will be sticky.  The bartender is surly, and your beverage choices will be Budweiser, Miller, PBR, Busch, Jim Beam, and Jack Daniel's.  When you have found a place that meets these requirements, you will have found the blue-collar elitist cult.

Oh my God. That is truly my vision of hell on earth.

[timelycorruption]

I must be oblivious, because I was thinking Mercutio/Benvolio/Romeo when I read the play.

[professorbutters]

I must be oblivious, because I was thinking Mercutio/Benvolio/Romeo when I read the play.

Not so sure about Benvolio.  For one thing, when Romeo says "I love. . . a woman!" Benvolio says something like, "Well, DUH!"  For another, his solution to being dissed by one hot babe is another hot babe.  I can't decide if Benvolio is truly a clueless straight boy, or a straight boy who gets it, and I don't know if he understands the Romeo/Mercutio relationship, whatever that is. The only thing that's definite about Benvolio is his desire that everyone Get Along.

There are a lot of characters, like Bassanio in Merchant and Sebastian in Twelfth Night, who definitely seem to be the object of male desire.  (Side note:  if you are named Antonio and you are in a Shakespeare play, do not bother registering your flatware pattern at Macy's.  It ain't gonna happen.)  I can't always tell if they are bisexual and can or have returned that affection to some extent; if they are straight and clueless; if they are straight and generally clueful but have not dropped to the fact that their friends are in love with them; or if they are straight, clueful, and simply do not want to know that their friends are in love with them, as it would make things awkward.  Sebastian in Twelfth Night, in particular, acts confused--"So. . .why are you giving me your whole wallet?"  "You're in danger of arrest here?  Why the hell didn't you tell me?"  "Gee, I wish I could find good old Tony.  He might have some good advice for me about this girl I just met."  But I think the text could support any of those readings.  What it's nearly impossible to do is ignore the passion on either Antonio's side: "But come what may, I do adore thee so,/That danger shall seem sport, and I will go."

[rohina]

Benvolio is a conformer, so no way is he gay. He is all about people abiding by the rules, which manifests in wanting them to get along, but his motivation is his desire not to rock the boat.

Shakespeare's gayness to me always seems like youthful experimentation; like those guys who are confused are willing to be convinced to try it.

[TheQuietOne]

There is already more than enough mediocrity in this world, where the stupid breed without surcease, and the intellectually superior worry about overpopulation and don't breed at all.

Interesting choice of words. The whole superior/inferior thing sounds a bit familliar, don't you think? So, how many intellectually inferior people do you propose to sterilize in order to make this world a smart enough place for you to enjoy it?
Really, Onkel Mengele would be so proud.

Higher education is NOT for everyone. Why is it that "leveling the playing field" invariably means making it easier for the stupid ones?

Define stupid and hold your breath. Exhale. Go slap yourself in front of a mirror. Repeat.

[DrNerd]

There is already more than enough mediocrity in this world, where the stupid breed without surcease, and the intellectually superior worry about overpopulation and don't breed at all.

Interesting choice of words. The whole superior/inferior thing sounds a bit familliar, don't you think? So, how many intellectually inferior people do you propose to sterilize in order to make this world a smart enough place for you to enjoy it?
Really, Onkel Mengele would be so proud.

To say nothing of the idea that intelligent children can only be born from intelligent parents with college degrees, and that intelligent parents are only capable of raising intelligent offspring.  That would come as a great surprise to the blue-collar parents I know with smart kids, and smart parents whose kids have learning disabilities...


Is anyone else thinking Prospero/Caliban?

[rohina]

Is anyone else thinking Prospero/Caliban?

NO! But Stephano and Trinculo with Caliban in a drunken 3-way? Maybe.

[DrNerd]

Is anyone else thinking Prospero/Caliban?

NO! But Stephano and Trinculo with Caliban in a drunken 3-way? Maybe.

Mmmm, yes, that's much better.

Prospero/Ariel, then?

[rohina]

I don't think Ariel has parts.

[DrNerd]

Prospero was stuck on that island for YEARS.  He HAD to be shagging something.

[professorbutters]

Is anyone else thinking Prospero/Caliban?

All the speculation I've read has been more along the lines of Prospero/Sycorax, which would make Prospero Caliban's stepfather, or perhaps even his father.  This makes Caliban's later attempt to rape his "sister" Miranda extra-squicky, but it's plenty squicky without it.  Miranda and Caliban have grown up side by side as though they were brother and sister, and rape of teenaged girls is just . . . no.

I've seen productions where the director tried to create some kind of hot n' heavy stuff with Ariel and Prospero, but I think that's ignoring something basic about Ariel.  For me, one of the best lines in the play is when Ariel says that Prospero would feel pity if he could see his former enemies:

Ariel:  . . . if you now beheld them, your affections
Would become tender.

Prospero:                   Dost thou think so, spirit?

Ariel: Mine would, sir, were I human.

That line isn't effective if Ariel is human in any way.  

[DrNerd]

Wasn't Sycorax dead at the beginning of the play?  Prospero had to be there for at least a little while with nothing to bone.

Tad Williams did a nice retelling of The Tempest from Caliban's point of view.  The book's called Caliban's Hour and it's pretty hard to find, but it's a quick read.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

To say nothing of the idea that intelligent children can only be born from intelligent parents with college degrees, and that intelligent parents are only capable of raising intelligent offspring.  That would come as a great surprise to the blue-collar parents I know with smart kids, and smart parents whose kids have learning disabilities...

Yes, thank you.  Both my husband and I could be considered super geniuses (I've been told my number; whoop-dee-fucking-doo), but every one of our children has a learning disability (one more severely than the other two, as well).  Also, my oldest brother and I are the "book smart" children, while I have another older brother who is a goddamn idiot.  We're all the product of an inbred moronic mother (gah, embarrassing, yet true) and a father whose IQ was tested as 115 back in the '50s but is surely higher than that.

Edumacated parents =/= edumacated children.  Thank you, faulty genetics.

[timelycorruption]

I wouldn't say that a learning disability is the opposite of intelligence. What about savants?

[rohina]

Well, except intelligence is no use except to LEARN NEW THINGS. If you are smart but can't learn, you are pretty much a fish with a bicycle.

[DrNerd]

A lot of the time, savantism comes at the expense of normal functioning elsewhere in the brain.  Autistic savants might be able to draw something perfectly from memory or calculate days of the week from the introduction of the current calendar system, but they have deficits in emotional understanding and communication.  People who are otherwise normal-functioning, but have a gift in one area, like Beethoven or Mozart, aren't equally gifted everywhere.  Often, music and mathematical ability are intertwined, but those people will probably NOT have the same skill with other things.

[jolrei]

Well, except intelligence is no use except to LEARN NEW THINGS. If you are smart but can't learn, you are pretty much a fish with a bicycle.

Not bad.  My son, for example, is great with spatial stuff, has skills of an artist like anything, but lacks focus in school and social skills.

The fish is good at what fishes are good at, but has trouble with bicycles, yes.

[J. M. Pescado]

I wouldn't say that a learning disability is the opposite of intelligence. What about savants?

People with learning disabilities are not intelligent. Savantism is not equivalent to intelligence at all. Intelligence is the ability to learn and adapt to arbitrary conditions. Being a savant just makes you a fleshy robotic machine, no different than a computer. A computer can perform complex mathematics faster than any meatbag. A computer can regurgitate enormous amounts of information with flawless accuracy. A computer cannot beat a 6 year old child in Civilization. Computers are stupid.