Hey, Skippy the Skeptoid again. I wrote to you before about what skepticism is all about. This time I want to talk to you about a specific issue, which should illustrate how skepticism really destroys the really dumb things that people believe without question, because people are SHEEP (for more on this, again, see my previous article). I am talking about the weird crackpot belief that humans play chess, pushed by a large chess industry headed by the quack organization FIDE (World Chess Federation, which should be WCF, not FIDE… these illiterates can’t even get acronyms right).
SCIENCE proves that this is impossible. Think about it. How could the ability to play chess evolve? Our ancestors lived in the savannah. Where there are a grand total of… ZERO chess boards. Or anything resembling chess boards. There are no natural formations of 8×8 alternating white and black squares, where natural pieces of wood in the shape of horses or crenelated towers move. At least, we’ve never seen any evidence of such formations existing, and until we do, we simply have no reason to believe in their existence (that would be an extraordinary claim, in the sense that I don’t believe it, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). So how could the human brain evolve an ability to play chess, when this would have literally ZERO survival value in the savannah? Actually, if anything, you could say that the ability to play chess is counter-survival, because it would take up space in the brain that would have been better used to provide actual survival strategies, instead of an ability that serves absolutely no purpose.
Some people have argued that the ability to imagine chess moves is an extension of our ability to throw spears and anticipate trajectories. But moving a very light piece in an abstract linear manner on an unnatural board is nothing like throwing spears, which involves gravity, a moving target, a considerable weight, and so on. Anyone who would equate the two simply doesn’t understand what they’re talking about.
Another common objection is that, while we did not evolve the ability to play chess specifically, we evolved a general game-playing faculty which can be applied to any game, including Chess. But this is bizarre: games have wildly different boards and sets of rules. Chess is nothing like Go, and Go is nothing like Scrabble. How can a single faculty account for our ability to (supposedly) play all these games? And even if we did have such a faculty, why would we expect it to ever be accurate? There would be no evolutionary pressure for our game-playing ability to improve with time. How could a random process come up with the Reti opening or the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation?
As David Hume said, a miracle cannot ever be determined to have happened because the probability is just too small to meet the burden of extraordinary evidence. The faith that some evolved process in the brain could randomly come up with valid chess strategies, without any evolutionary pressure, cannot possibly be true. So it’s total BULLS HIT (Penn and Teller, my idols, 420 my dudes I tip my fedora to you).
So what conclusion can we arrive at? Humans have evolved, so if evolution cannot explain something, that means we simply don’t have it. Humans cannot play chess. Which leads us to the question, what are so-called “chess players” really doing? Well, I will use an analogy to make this clearer. As you know, women are not evolutionary made to have sex, so when lesbians have sex, they are basically touching various body parts together until something does something. I know this because I’ve watched a lot of lesbian porn. Chess players are basically doing the same thing. They are moving pieces in accordance with whatever strikes their fancy, and the only reason why a player “wins” is by accident.
What about chess “greats,” like Kasparov? These people are basically chance outliers. There are approximately 600 million chess players in the world. That means that a few players will have an amazing 100 million-to-one chess career, like Kasparov. It’s just a random draw repeated across a large number of trials. This demonstrates how important statistics are to skepticism. Sheeple don’t understand large numbers like this, and so they think a chess player becomes “great” because of skill, when it’s just random chance. It really sickens me how ignorant people are (wish they would watch more Penn and Teller, and Carl Sagan- baloney detector kit, learn your fallacies idiots).
I keep telling people we need skepticism because of pseudo-science like this. People talk about chess constantly and yet they never realize what a huge scam it all is. I get enraged every time I hear that song One Night in Bangkok at the supermarket. This one time I went to a hobby and game store, and demanded to talk to the owner. So this old dude with a mustache came out and I was like “you do know these chess sets you sell are shit, right?” I tried to explain to him the science behind evolution and how it proves that humans can’t play chess, but he laughed at me and said he’d played chess before. What are you supposed to say to willful ignorance like that? Any idiot can SAY they’ve played chess, but that doesn’t prove ANYTHING! Your personal experience is not proof! You may claim you’ve played chess, but why don’t you try to claim James Randi’s million dollar prize? He said he wasn’t skilled enough to win a prize. Another quack peddler defeated by his own arguments. Then he kicked me out for screaming at toddlers that Jesus is not real and Christmas is a Christian holiday. FUCK! FUCKING SHIT HELL! All I’m trying to do is help the next generation free itself from the shackles of false beliefs! And this is how they repay me? Now I’m barred from this store and the fucking cops know who I am. I’m already in enough trouble from my bogus mail fraud charge as it is! Anyway, I hope you understand the need for skepticism about chess now. I have to go lie down now.
Bush Kangaroo Skeptoid