Tag: Gamma

Trust the Grandmaster

Especially when he’s a world champion. The cheating accusations made by the reigning world champion, Magnus Carlson, have been substantially supported by a 72-page investigative report by Chess.com. The entire report can be downloaded here. (PDF)

Hans Niemann, the 19-year-old American grandmaster who last month was accused of cheating by World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen after a shocking upset, was found to have “likely cheated” more than 100 times, according to an investigation by Chess.com, the world’s largest online chess platform.

The investigation, a report from which was seen by the Wall Street Journal, found Niemann likely “received illegal assistance” in more than 100 online chess matches that took place as recently as 2020 when he was 17 years old, allegations that contradict his earlier claims that he only cheated on several occasions as a young teenager.

A letter sent to Niemann by Chess.com’s chief chess officer Danny Rensch last month detailed how Niemann’s suspicious moves tended to coincide with Niemann opening up new screens on his computer, which could indicate that Niemann was using a chess engine, according to the Journal. Niemann “privately confessed” to the allegations–which included cheating in chess games where prize money was awarded–and was banned from the site, according to the Journal.

While the Chess.com investigation largely focused on Niemann’s online games, the report noted that his rise in rankings for in-person chess was “statistically extraordinary” and that specific games may merit further investigation (the sport’s international governing body, FIDE, is conducting a separate investigation).

You can’t hide the math. I was certain that Niemann was cheating the moment that Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura went over some of the statistical analysis being provided by data scientists around the world on his YouTube channel.

One thing that I found interesting about the scandal was the way that Niemann was defended by chess Gammas on Reddit. They were vehemently accusing Carlson of being insecure, a poor loser, and insisting that Niemann couldn’t possibly be guilty of cheating because it was theoretically possible that he was, in fact, the most rapidly improving world-class-level chess player in history.

Which tells us that it isn’t merely jocks and celebs – however minor – that Gammas hate, but elite performance and status as well. It also demonstrates their instinctive inclination toward dishonesty; they would literally prefer for the world chess champion to be a confirmed cheater than be a paragon of legitimate excellence.

UPDATE: This quote from the report is nothing less than astonishing for those of us who can remember the first time Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov in 1997:

The best humans play at an Elo rating of 2800. “Stockfish,” the most powerful chess engine, has an estimated rating of more than 3500. In a theoretical match between World Champion Magnus Carlsen vs. Stockfish, we estimate that it is most likely that Magnus Carlsen would lose every single game—no wins and no draws.

While we know his Elo rating is fraudulent, one can’t help but wonder what Niemann’s ELoW rating is.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Gammas in the Manger

Yesterday, I posted the following to Gab, to mark a significant milestone there. While SocialGalactic is, and will remain, my primary social media platform, Gab has become an increasingly effective way to reach those who are outside the community.

It’s official. I now have more followers – 34k – on #GAB than I did on Twitter – 33k – when my account was permanently “suspended” there without any reason being given or anything controversial being tweeted. Thanks very much to @a for persevering through tremendous obstacles to provide everyone with this sound alternative platform.

That’s a really big deal, not for me, but for the alternative platform. It serves as proof that for public figures, Gab is now a viable and credible alternative to Twitter. One of the primary challenges of any social media platform is to provide a compelling reason for people to join it, and one of the biggest attractions for users is the ability to follow the regular postings of the public figures they like and admire.

And as with the Wikipedia/Infogalactic situation, it’s very frustrating for those who go to the effort to provide alternatives to the mainstream platforms to observe how a) most public figures simply will not support the alternatives unless they are literally kicked off the mainstream platform, b) the vast majority of people would rather use a free platform that farms their data on behalf of globalists who hate them and want to see them dead than pay a very small amount to use a platform that is in accordance with their faith and society, and c) most people would rather cry about being deprived access to the mainstream platforms than make effective use of the alternatives.

So, this particular milestone is significant for Gab, because it proves that at least for minor public figures, there is no material advantage to being on Twitter any longer. Most people appeared to recognize this, as the post was liked by more than two thousand users, and yet, it still managed to trigger the Gammas of Gab, as the following comments demonstrate.

  • Space Bear: Also notice how he thanks @a but not to his followers. very telling. I am going to assume (rightfully or wrongly) that it is a tel of narcissism.
  • Travis Hancock: And still, I don’t know what/what you are. Don’t care…..
  • Alex Pazzo: wow you are so much better than other people with fewer followers. SIMP
  • BrotherStephen444: Don’t like you, don’t care for you in the slightest, but, real freedom of speech allows you to succeed in you vainglorious attempt to prove to the world that there are some who actually want to listen to you. Good job, and I am sincere about that. I am also sincere when I tell you to crawl back under the rock you came out from under from.
  • m249saw2004: gross. You equate your social media to actual achievement.
  • ForeverLawless: Yet u only follow 43 people back
  • Theycensoredme: You must be a shill…
  • Mythbuster: Who cares about the number of followers? Get rid of your ego
  • Ozymandias, King of King: It seems important to you, but why?
  • Gerald VonGustav: Holy shit, you’re still grifting here? I for sure thought you would be completely irrelevant for everyone by now.
  • SHELLSHOCK_1986: nice followbots gayboy
  • 7SEAL7: Says a person who only follows back less than 50 people. Numbers mean nothing. People should unfollow number Nazis
  • Up A Damn Mountain: Yeah…but everyone knows there aren’t 34k actual human beings that use Gab actively, so is it REALLY that much of an accomplishment?

DISCUSS ON SG

Retards Demand Respect

One guess as to where. It started when I posted this meme on Gab.

Naturally, the atheist gamma who’d appointed himself religion police couldn’t keep his retarded mouth shut despite the fact that he clearly knows nothing about any major religion or its teachings.

Many people are also attracted to their religion because they want to live eternally at a desirable location (i.e. heaven) and avoid a permanent death.

You’re literally retarded. Religion merely determines what happens next, it doesn’t “avoid a permanent death”.

And your labeling me “retarded” reveals what kind of religion you practice. By their fruits you shall know them.

No, it merely means that you are observably stupid and ignorant. Your statement was totally incoherent in light of what the major religions actually teach concerning death. Never attempt to “correct” your intellectual superiors, particularly on matters of which you know nothing.

“Being nice” is not the only alternative to being derogatory, which you were in labeling me “retarded”. Other alternatives exist, such as being respectful of the messenger while you critique his message. Try it sometime.

I’m not respectful of retards. There is nothing to respect. You spoke when you should have remained silent. You have nothing to add to the discussion. You merit zero respect.

At which point he ran away, thereby saving us from experiencing any more of his retardery. But notice how he utilizes the automatic gamma tactic of trying to change the subject to his interlocutor’s assumed flaws while attempting to seize the moral high ground.

The correct way to handle any gamma is to refuse to accept his inevitable attempts at reframing the discussion. If he won’t stick to the relevant dialectic, go directly to the burning rhetoric.

DISCUSS ON SG

Dude, Take the Damn L

Gammas simply never know when to stop defending themselves and admit that they were wrong, even when it is obvious to everyone. One of the reasons it is wise to develop the ability to admit error is because refusing to take the loss, to learn from it, and then move on tends to inspire people to mock all of one’s subsequent attempts to retroactively reframe the situation and redefine yourself as the winner.

This is the actual Dilbert cartoon. So very funny, is it not? After all, what is more amusing than a butthurt gamma setting up strawmen in order show how smart he is by knocking them down?

The cartoon below is not the original Dilbert cartoon, it is a parody of it. I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide which one is funnier. And which is The Best Thing That Ever Happened.

DEFINITELY NOT DILBERT: A PARODY

DISCUSS ON SG

Gamma Grit

No one works harder, or labors longer, than a Gamma desperate to prove that he really wasn’t wrong.

The lowest-awareness take on vaccinations is that the people who feared the jab were the brave ones. The high awareness take is that everyone was acting on fear and everyone was guessing what path was safest. No one out-thought anyone. It was just fear and guessing.

Scott Adams, 22 August 2022

I’m sorry, Scott. But the observable fact is that there are people out there smarter than you are, and their superior ability to analyze information led them to different conclusions and superior outcomes. It wasn’t fear and it wasn’t guessing. It was intellectual capabilities combined with accurate observations and correct logic.

DISCUSS ON SG

Reflections on a Gamma Icon

A Gamma wonders if perhaps he might have done better to avoid patterning his behavior on an iconic Hollywood Gamma.

A generation of American male teenagers, me included, saw themselves in Duckie—charming, quirky and overlooked. Duckie belonged an elite gang of best friends “Pretty in Pink” screenwriter John Hughes made the beating heart of his ’80s teen filmography—Cameron Frye in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” Farmer Ted in “Sixteen Candles” and Watts in “Some Kind of Wonderful”—characters who embodied the pain of being young and not yet able to be honest about your own desires.

Beyond Hughes’ other sidekicks, “Duckie” has become synonymous with “weird friend thrown over for safe, popular choice,” adolescent canon reinforced by a generation of boys who mimicked Duckie—in dress, manner and seduction—to joke and serenade their way into the hearts of their dream girls.

Disciples of Duckie, we had it all wrong.

No, you don’t get to be with the girl of your dreams just because you want to. No, you don’t get to avoid telling her how you feel and then resent her for showing interest in another guy. No, it’s not romantic, but rather a little sad that you can only express how you feel to her father and in charming but empty gestures like lip-synching Otis Redding’s “Try a Little Tenderness.” And no, you aren’t an unsung hero because your dream girl doesn’t dream of you. You’re a bad best friend for not respecting her decisions and thinking that means her love for you isn’t worth anything.

Re-watch “Pretty in Pink” and Duckie comes off not as a role model but as a cautionary tale about what we can destroy while growing up: The movie may end happily for everyone — even Duckie, who doesn’t win Andie’s heart but nobly tells her to forgive Blane for canceling on taking her to the prom. Before all that, Duckie comes dangerously close to losing Andie forever: Not 30 seconds after the Otis Redding serenade, Blane shows up to take Andie on their first date. Duckie, not knowing about the date, accuses Andie of disrespecting herself by going out with a rich guy, and then threatens to not be there (i.e., not be her friend) if she gets her heart broken.

Never mind that Duckie doesn’t know Blane and has no claim on Andie, and, since Andie is a smart, self-possessed, attractive young woman, she has probably received this kind of attention before. Since Andie and Duckie have been friends since childhood, Duckie having his world rocked when Andie goes on a date feels less like unfairness and more like Duckie ignoring an entire adolescence’s worth of evidence that Andie isn’t just his pal or his valentine, but a woman and a person in her own right.

“But Duckie’s pain was real!,” I just heard a squad of ex-Duckies cry. I used this excuse to not grieve my own teenage heartbreak but instead make it the heartbreaker’s fault. I wish had known better than to think my high school best friend/crush would fall for me after months of not letting on, and then getting mad when she fell for someone else, and in between trying to woo her with a lip-synch performance (mine was Mötley Crüe’s “Home Sweet Home.” Laugh all you want.).

It strikes me that the primary challenge of the Gamma is overcoming his intrinsic narcissism. Again and again, in fiction and in real life, we observe the Gamma’s total inability to grasp that everything is not about him.

The Alpha jock doesn’t hate you. He doesn’t think about you at all when you’re not actively annoying him or one of the women in his orbit. The hot cheerleader doesn’t despise you. In fact, she would be offended by the very idea that she had any opinion about you at all. The normal people don’t particularly dislike you, they just want you to shut up and leave them alone. The Girl of Your Dreams is not, and will never be, attracted by the strength of your desire for and/or your devotion to her.

And literally no one thinks you’re charming or roguish. Snark and sarcasm are not wit. Neither are movie quotes, however apt. Just stop it already.

The world isn’t out to get the Duckies of the world. It simply doesn’t like them very much because they’re weird and reliably annoying narcissists.

In sum, the Gamma’s emotional pain is no one else’s fault and no one else’s problem.

DISCUSS ON SG

Everyone’s Got Trolls

But Salman Rushdie’s are arguably more dangerous than most.

Author Salman Rushdie has been injured after being stabbed on stage ahead of a speech he was due to give in Chautauqua, near Buffalo.

The writer, 75, was attacked as he took to the stage for the CHQ 2022 event before giving a speech on Friday morning.

He was attending for a discussion of the United States as asylum for writers and other artists in exile and as a home for freedom of creative expression.

Witnesses claimed that he managed to walk off stage with assistance and the attacker is reportedly in custody.

This sort of attack should help your average actress, writer, or Internet celebrity keep their haters and stalkers in proper perspective. Anyone with even a modicum of success or fame is certain to attract trolls, but a few unfortunates have it considerably worse than others.

UPDATE: Apparently the attack was more vicious than originally reported.

Author Salman Rushdie has been airlifted to hospital after being stabbed up to 15 times, including once in the neck, as he prepared to give a speech in upstate New York. One witness told the New York Times that Rushdie had been stabbed ‘multiple times’ and had been lying in a pool of his own blood.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Rules of Trolling

The Saker releases a basic guide to trolling in the aftermath of the mass onslaught of neocon trolls on his site. A lot of it sounds remarkably familiar, does it not?

  • Rule number one: always make sure your comment is either the very first one (best!) or, at least, one of the top ones. This way you can best derail the discussion away from the actual article and make it all about your talking points. This was almost always the case when I was still writing for the Unz Review, and it is still very often the case on the Saker blog today. I would call this rule “the golden rule of trolling”.
  • Do not, ever, refer to the actual contents of article you comment upon. Doing so might lead the readers to familiarize themselves with the author’s arguments or, worse, the factual and logical substantiation of these arguments. You want emotion, not analysis.
  • Make sure to psychoanalyze both the author and the blog itself. Use sentences such as “you only write this because” or “in spite of the horrific censorship on this blog…” etc. This is basically the good old ad hominem disguised as some kind of insight into things the troll cannot – by definition – have any information about.
  • In your comment, make sure to align as many Neocon talking points as possible, you can join them together into (apparent) sentences and (apparent) paragraphs. This way you give the external appearance of making an cogent argument while doing no such thing.
  • Ignore the author’s arguments. If the author write “A”, do not directly dispute it, don’t even refer to it. Instead, write “non-A”. In fact, the ideal troll comment is one which never gives the reader a reason to look up the author’s actual arguments.
  • Make sure that your comment is formally polite. Thus not only do you sound respectful and sincere (“all I want is an honest discussion!“), but it reduces the chances that the moderators will send it to trash. You can be snarky, of course, but that opens up your comment to being sent to trash on formal reasons.
  • Claim the coveted “victim of censorship” status. Yes, even when you ignore (deliberately or not) the commenting rules! This technique is especially useful if your comment is illogical, off-topic or pain stupid. After all, in our times of “positivity” and “acceptance” it would be most politically incorrect to call any comment “nonsensical” or “stupid”!
  • Misuse terms, especially those which are often misunderstood by non-specialists. The perfect example would be the difference between “air superiority” and “air supremacy”, or use “contested airspace”. The goal here is not to make a fact based and logical argument, the goal is to repeat Neocon talking points as often as possible. With some luck, other commentators will pick up this misuse of terms and you will achieve a synergistic effect.
  • Go fishing. By that I mean this: post a number of statements and see if anybody else will “bite”, possibly a fellow troll (paid or not). Example, “it appears that a single Ukrainian MiG-29A shot 3 Su-35S in one mission“. With any luck, somebody will bite and, there we go, the synergistic effect will be achieved.
  • Ignore points made in the original article. This is a crucial one. If an author writes “A” and then goes into some details explaining the factual and logical basis for this argument, don’t engage, but ignore it! Pretend as if it did not exist. With some luck, those who just skimmed over and article won’t realize what you are doing.
  • “Bounce” external arguments. By this I mean simply write “I read fill the black” and ask for a rebuttal. The function and purpose of this technique is double: derail the conversation and (try to) force the author to waste his/her time debunking as many idiotic arguments as possible.

Fortunately, the development of SocialGalactic means our community no longer needs to deal with trolls or pay any attention to their ankle-biting antics any longer. And that’s all that matters, because as far as I can tell, there isn’t a single person of note anywhere who doesn’t have at least a few trolls incessantly posting nonsense about them on Twitter, on Reddit, or some other Internet cesspool.

Seriously, pick a random “celebrity”, however well-loved or trivial. I guarantee you a moment’s search will find trolls sniping at the late Olivia Newton John as well as at the latest Z-list British Love Islander and the most recent YouTuber to reach 100,000 subscribers. Self-appointed critics are the price of success, and it is one of the reasons why even the most famous attention whores who have assiduously pursued fame eventually find themselves backing away from the spotlights and the red carpets.

DISCUSS ON SG

Hypergamouse is Real

The punchline: I came up with this quote just a few minutes ago. I thought /r/atheism would appreciate

It’s the smug, pudgy gammatude that radiates from creatures like this that is almost impossible to parody or even exaggerate. You just know the guy is so impressed with his own lofty 110 IQ that he can’t figure out why the hot babes aren’t climbing all over each other just to be lectured by him.

And the grammar. Ye cats, what is with the creative approach to punctuation? It’s astonishing how many of these self-quoting self-enlightened philosophers still haven’t mastered the basic rules of the language they are attempting to use.

DISCUSS ON SG