If you knew the future, would you be crazy?

[Robert W]

Tucker Carlson discusses this with a man who is called crazy. But is he crazy or does he simply pay close attention? Watch this and explain if you think he is nuts. He was sued by people in CT and they won. So are we all always 100 percent correct? He was not correct about Sandy Hook. But to say he is crazy takes a lot more data. Here is the data.

 

[1srelluc]

Still mad about the Putin interview?

 

[Robert W]

Still mad about the Putin interview?

?????????????????????? Does not compute.

 

[Donald H]

Still mad about the Putin interview?

Isn't it more likely that Tucker is riding on his success.

Now the rest of the world outside of America knows.

And then fwiw it doesn't matter anyway. Russia isn't going to be defeated.

-----------------------------------------

But then it's essential to America that Russia 'is' defeated.

 

[BackAgain]

Isn't it more likely that Tucker is riding on his success.

Now the rest of the world outside of America knows.

And then fwiw it doesn't matter anyway. Russia isn't going to be defeated.

-----------------------------------------

But then it's essential to America that Russia 'is' defeated.

The gibberish is strong with the fuckin’ commie Canuck Duck

 

[shockedcanadian]

Depends on if you could actually do it or not.

When I was first learning chess and became proficient. Probably a better player then than I am now as I had a strong grasp of theory. My objective was to think three moves ahead. I then tried to think 4 moves ahead.

What this did was allow me to predict what my opponent would do in each instance, and, whenever I was correct, that opponent would be blundering.

Now, I was young so I wasn't good at disguising that I knew so I would react quickly with my move since I had already calculated it during my opponents turn.

Let's assume someone could take the chess pieces off the board and apply this to life. In a grand scheme. Maybe they pick up small, micro details (something I've done often at the poker table for instance) and somehow, the brain synthesizing all of the numerous inputs and spits out a conclusion.

One could in effect, predict the (or a) future event or events. I've applied this to sports betting as instead of focusing on stats I would focus on "intangibles". How I feel a team stacks up to another. The Pistons beat the Bulls before they didn't, as they bullied them and played hard against Jordan. Once the Bulls learned this, they eliminated this advantage.

Life is a game and most of our species is not very bright or too unpredictable.

 

[Robert W]

Isn't it more likely that Tucker is riding on his success.

Now the rest of the world outside of America knows.

And then fwiw it doesn't matter anyway. Russia isn't going to be defeated.

-----------------------------------------

But then it's essential to America that Russia 'is' defeated.

So if you knew the future, would you be crazy to admit it?

 

[Votto]

Depends on if you could actually do it or not.

When I was first learning chess and became proficient. Probably a better player then than I am now as I had a strong grasp of theory. My objective was to think three moves ahead. I then tried to think 4 moves ahead.

What this did was allow me to predict what my opponent would do in each instance, and, whenever I was correct, that opponent would be blundering.

Now, I was young so I wasn't good at disguising that I knew so I would react quickly with my move since I had already calculated it during my opponents turn.

Let's assume someone could take the chess pieces off the board and apply this to life. In a grand scheme. Maybe they pick up small, micro details (something I've done often at the poker table for instance) and somehow, the brain synthesizing all of the numerous inputs and spits out a conclusion.

One could in effect, predict the (or a) future event or events. I've applied this to sports betting as instead of focusing on stats I would focus on "intangibles". How I feel a team stacks up to another. The Pistons beat the Bulls before they didn't, as they bullied them and played hard against Jordan. Once the Bulls learned this, they eliminated this advantage.

Life is a game and most of our species is not very bright or too unpredictable.

Democrats/globalists are the most predictable people in the world.

Centralize control and take over the election process.

That is why they can drag a stroke victim and a dead man across the finish line last election and why they will drag Joe kicking and screaming to victory as well.

 

[Donald H]

Depends on if you could actually do it or not.

When I was first learning chess and became proficient. Probably a better player then than I am now as I had a strong grasp of theory. My objective was to think three moves ahead. I then tried to think 4 moves ahead.

What this did was allow me to predict what my opponent would do in each instance, and, whenever I was correct, that opponent would be blundering.

Now, I was young so I wasn't good at disguising that I knew so I would react quickly with my move since I had already calculated it during my opponents turn.

Let's assume someone could take the chess pieces off the board and apply this to life. In a grand scheme. Maybe they pick up small, micro details (something I've done often at the poker table for instance) and somehow, the brain synthesizing all of the numerous inputs and spits out a conclusion.

One could in effect, predict the (or a) future event or events. I've applied this to sports betting as instead of focusing on stats I would focus on "intangibles". How I feel a team stacks up to another. The Pistons beat the Bulls before they didn't, as they bullied them and played hard against Jordan. Once the Bulls learned this, they eliminated this advantage.

Life is a game and most of our species is not very bright or too unpredictable.

This is the kind of posting by you that signals that you are about to slip back into your world of paranoia.

Don't! Not now when you could be about to produce something worthwhile!

Do you still have control over the boogeymen police in your mind?

 

[Donald H]

So if you knew the future, would you be crazy to admit it?

It can't be imagined but let's try to pretend that it could.

Or no. It requires too much irrational imagination.

 

[Robert W]

Depends on if you could actually do it or not.

When I was first learning chess and became proficient. Probably a better player then than I am now as I had a strong grasp of theory. My objective was to think three moves ahead. I then tried to think 4 moves ahead.

What this did was allow me to predict what my opponent would do in each instance, and, whenever I was correct, that opponent would be blundering.

Now, I was young so I wasn't good at disguising that I knew so I would react quickly with my move since I had already calculated it during my opponents turn.

Let's assume someone could take the chess pieces off the board and apply this to life. In a grand scheme. Maybe they pick up small, micro details (something I've done often at the poker table for instance) and somehow, the brain synthesizing all of the numerous inputs and spits out a conclusion.

One could in effect, predict the (or a) future event or events. I've applied this to sports betting as instead of focusing on stats I would focus on "intangibles". How I feel a team stacks up to another. The Pistons beat the Bulls before they didn't, as they bullied them and played hard against Jordan. Once the Bulls learned this, they eliminated this advantage.

Life is a game and most of our species is not very bright or too unpredictable.

I have played Chess at levels and the reason you believe you could predict is factored on the other player also understanding chess and is following others examples he has also studied. In fact, the worse he is, the more likely he will simply blunder. And then you take him down.

Alex Jones by losing his Sandy Hook case, that he has said he did get it wrong, is an example of a major blunder on his part. He studies from authoritative places such as a group at MIT and he really validates things they are doing.

A good book on chess to master is the ending games by Bobby Fischer who himself was later called Crazy too. Fischer had endings that are so magnificent he deserves all the study one can engage in.

 

[Robert W]

This is the kind of posting by you that signals that you are about to slip back into your world of paranoia.

Don't! Not now when you could be about to produce something worthwhile!

Do you still have control over the boogeymen police in your mind?

Most of us here see that remark as an expression of a poster having paranoia rule his thoughts so he accuses others of the same thing. I saw nothing he said that indicates paranoia.

 

[Robert W]

It can't be imagined but let's try to pretend that it could.

Or no. It requires too much irrational imagination.

I will cite the claims made here about Trump. A lot of posters go wild in predicting the future. I tend to think they are pretty insane.

 

[BackAgain]

If I knew the future, I might be crazy but I’d be fucking rich!

 

[Donald H]

I will cite the claims made here about Trump. A lot of posters go wild in predicting the future. I tend to think they are pretty insane.

It can only help if you do.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I have played Chess at levels and the reason you believe you could predict is factored on the other player also understanding chess and is following others examples he has also studied. In fact, the worse he is, the more likely he will simply blunder. And then you take him down.

Alex Jones by losing his Sandy Hook case, that he has said he did get it wrong, is an example of a major blunder on his part. He studies from authoritative places such as a group at MIT and he really validates things they are doing.

A good book on chess to master is the ending games by Bobby Fischer who himself was later called Crazy too. Fischer had endings that are so magnificent he deserves all the study one can engage in.

Well tbh, I would calculate two or even three possible moves. If they chose the one I most anticipated and mapped out, the quicker I would move.

Fischer was my idol as a youngster. As an adult, if I want to see beauty I look at Mikhail Tal or Paul Morphy. Their games were magnificant even if against lower skill challengers, their creativity, especially Tals wild and reckless style; was to be admired against their peers, which is the only real fair comparisons imo. Their chess was far more beautiful than todays machine driven figured-out chess or even Karpovs perfect position chess style.

Morphy for his time, was basically unbeatable and he took all comers. He was essentially a chess computer before his time.

For end game, it's universally accepted that no one touches Magnus. His end game dominance, which so many GM matches obviously end up, is frighteningly accurate.

 

[Robert W]

Democrats/globalists are the most predictable people in the world.

Centralize control and take over the election process.

That is why they can drag a stroke victim and a dead man across the finish line last election and why they will drag Joe kicking and screaming to victory as well.

Well, perhaps he will win against Trump. Trump, and I am Trumps fan, however are not fans of his mouth. We think he blunders all the time. When he told the media and his group that Putin should wage war against NATO and he encourages it, I believe Trump shot his own mouth in his own face. I do not like Biden. But he and Biden are almost twins in making stupid remarks.

Can any poster discuss Alex Jones who predicts the future and has a record of high accuracy?

 

[Robert W]

It can only help if you do.

I have spoken as a fan of Trump, having a mouth that cripples him.

 

[Donald H]

Most of us here see that remark as an expression of a poster having paranoia rule his thoughts so he accuses others of the same thing. I saw nothing he said that indicates paranoia.

Wait for it. He's already told us that the police placed two agents in a hospital line, one before him and one after him.

Who knows? That might have been real.

As is his belief that the hospital swapped out his MRI image for somebody else.

 

[Robert W]

Well tbh, I would calculate two or even three possible moves. If they chose the one I most anticipated and mapped out, the quicker I would move.

Fischer was my idol as a youngster. As an adult, if I want to see beauty I look at Mikhail Tal or Paul Morphy. Their games were magnificant even if against lower skill challengers, their creativity, especially Tals wild and reckless style; was to be admired against their peers, which is the only real fair comparisons imo. Their chess was far more beautiful than todays machine driven figured-out chess or even Karpovs perfect position chess style.

Morphy for his time, was basically unbeatable and he took all comers. He was essentially a chess computer before his time.

For end game, it's universally accepted that no one touches Magnus. His end game dominance, which so many GM matches obviously end up, is frighteningly accurate.

I do believe you have studied Chess and worked to understand the Masters. I am not as up to date on Morphy as you have been. I admit my best days playing chess have past me due to not being able to play excellent players. I used to play some of them around 1980-1982.