mr_engineer

The art of chess is to find the right move in an exceedingly complex, strategic battle. Chess is not something that has been solved by computers. Humans don't view it as a puzzle to be solved. So, the way we think in chess-positions, even the best of us, is very human! It's 'This is the position. That is my strategic objective. This is my move in that direction.'

Just in case some of you didn't know, chess is not just about moving pieces and creating patterns. That's not the 'art' we're talking about here! Having different patterns on the board. There is a big strategic and intuitive element to it that only players above a certain level get. You can call it an acquired taste. And, it's about playing a human opponent and winning. I'd argue that it's even moreso about the fact that you're playing a human opponent than about the position in and of itself. Cuz humans make mistakes. And, about concentration - chess is one of the few activities that will make it so your left and right brains get exercised at the same time.

I have one more reason. It is that 'play' is fundamental to the nature of reality. When you are God, nothing is serious anymore, because nothing can threaten you. So, 'play' is fundamental to the nature of God! This is why we have a play-impulse. It is God creatively expressing itself in certain forms. Now, why sports and why not have this attitude towards work itself? The reason for that is that work is done for an outcome. So, the average human needs sports in order to access the part of them that will do something, that will express itself for no particular outcome.

@assx95 In India, rapport is impossible. Therefore, pick-up can't work here. Either use your social-circle, old friends from school and college, work-circle or your cousins' friends or something. I'd recommend chasing success and getting some social-status and using your work-circle. Cuz women here want commitment right off the bat. It's not going to be possible to get any other kind of sex-life in an ethical way here. Cuz you have to be a bit of an asshole to get someone to be a friends-with-benefits. And one-night-stands are too risky. Too much risk of getting falsely accused. So, if you want any other kind of sex-life, get out of here!

To all the people saying that it's 'too boring' - in my experience, people don't say that because they see chess as this boring, predictable game that one human has absolute mastery over and is just passing down to the rest of the chess-world. Like our grade-school. It's because it's so complex for them that they personally don't understand it. With all due respect, Leo, you're the first reasonable-sounding person I've talked to who thinks that chess is boring. All the other reasonable people I've talked to about this say that it's too complex for them. (And the unreasonable people think it's boring because they just suck at it and don't want to admit it.) But, if your solution to the fact that it's boring is to make Fischer-random a thing, which is also something I haven't heard much of, it's not a very popular opinion, this means that you think it's too simple/simplistic with the same starting-position. In which case, let me assure you - it's not! Humanity has not outgrown the first starting position of chess. And there is so much growth happening in chess the way it is right now, it's ridiculous. Computers can't solve it with calculations as deep as 20 or 30 moves. And I mean, calculations into every possible position those many moves deep!

@Leo Gura Lol!! The next thing you know, Leo starts calling the hierarchy of international masters, grandmasters, super-grandmasters and the rating-ladder in and of itself a cult. For me, personally, it is a very good hobby. Gives me practice in thinking. I wouldn't do it professionally, though, cuz I don't find it meaningful to find the best move in every position.

They do have Fischer Random tournaments from time to time! Kasparov plays in them. I think the resistance to making a full switch will be from the opening theoreticians. Who have spent their entire lives researching and mastering one opening. Most of the chess-world hasn't really mastered all the openings in the traditional starting position! When we do that, I think more starting-positions will slowly be introduced. If you notice Magnus's objections, they were relative to the time-controls. He said that he wanted a faster time-control to spice things up. But, the World Championship is so traditional and it has such a long-standing legacy that people don't want to let go of it. Change is very slow in chess. I guess things may change now.

I don't think all he cares about is winning. Cuz a winner would play the WC no matter what! For example, a Kasparov or a Bobby Fischer would want to reign the world of chess for as long as they can. Kasparov was the reigning champion for a good 20 years or so. It's never happened in the history of the game that a World Champion doesn't defend his title because the rat-race is too much or too boring for him and he's not motivated to do it.

@integral He did say that he'd play if Firouzja won the candidates. Because he would like to play an opponent who is young and inspired and creative. And Nakamura thinks that Magnus would play if he won the candidates! Apparently, he's not playing cuz he doesn't want to play against Nepo. He is one of the best artists on the chessboard. They call him the 'Mozart of chess'. And he did say in his documentary that his intuition plays a huge role in his games.

This will happen if you don't have kids.

@Bojan V Kid, in case you don't know, you need food to survive. So, you don't axe your own food-supply like that! You know what? Do what you want. Just don't come for my food. Or else you will regret it.

If you really want to resolve the environmental situation, I'd suggest constructing an environmentally conscious business that's more economically viable and out-competing the problematic systems in the free market. Rather than oppressing the people who produce our food. I mean, talk about the insanity of supporting that, man! Do you want the rest of the world to become like Sri Lanka?! Is that what you really want?!

My point is that the people in Sri Lanka are starving because of the government's restrictions on the fertilizers they could use. Not because the farmers are self-biased! And now, the Dutch government is doing the exact same thing to the Dutch people.

Tell that to the starving people of Sri Lanka.

There is a lot of conditioning from movies and beauty-contests about the 'ideal body-type'. This is like a consensus, that everyone would agree is attractive. However, when push comes to shove, we go for women who have the body-type our mom has! Believe it or not. If our mom was fat, we will go for fat women cuz we'll assume that the slim women are out of our league or something. And they probably are, for a while, cuz our fat mom has bad health-habits that we've picked up from her. (And this is also why we are conditioned to go for women of our own ethnicity, cuz our parents are of our own ethnicity, biologically speaking.) If you ask me whether a woman with a nice ass is attractive or not, I'll say 'yes'. This doesn't mean I really care about it! I care about breasts. So, that's what I'll prioritize when I approach someone! There are other guys to whom ass-size is very important. To some guys, it's important that you have a flat stomach. To others, they like curves. They don't mind you having some weight.

The female body-part that I'm really attracted to, are breasts. So, the women who do the best at grabbing my attention, without exposing too much, are those who wear well-fitted dresses. With some cleavage showing, maybe. And, straight, loose hair is an added bonus. I love straight hair! If you're insecure about your body, I will tell you that there are men attracted to all body-types. What matters is not your body-type in and of itself, but how confident you are in showing the world the shape of your body. There are really fat women who I find attractive simply because they're willing to own their fat-ness and aren't insecure about it! Now, yes, it's not the body-type I'm into, so I probably won't date her. But, someone will! In theory, you are correct. All men have masculinity in them. But, in practice, some do a better job of embodying it than others. Some are clearer about what they want than others, some are more decisive than others. Some are more assertive than others, some are willing to be more persistent than others. In the world, there is a very definite hierarchy of men. Whether we like it or not, this is fundamental to how the system works. Now, yes, the system is an illusion and can definitely be questioned. We don't have to live our lives according to it. But, if we follow this system, it is a thing.

It shows that you're taking sex too seriously and that's a turn-off. It's not meant to be serious. Which is why flirting is 'playful'.

When I say 'high-quality guy', I mean, guys who have some brain-cells, who are not lazy, who don't screw around and who are willing to put in the work to get what they want. To be high-quality is a choice. Your question was about attracting masculine men/masculine energy. That's what I'm answering! Here's the thing - high-quality guys really value their time. It will be on you to grab their attention by showing them something that they'll be sexually attracted to. That's right, you need to evoke sexual interest from them! I'd suggest you try not to go for the 'cute' look. You won't attract the super-masculine men if you do that. Cuz that'll kinda send a mom-vibe, if you catch my drift. The masculine men will friendzone you if you do that. And go for the hot ones. The guys who will want to be in relationship with you, will be the nice-guys! But, you won't get too much masculine energy from them. Cuz you need time on your hands to beta-orbit a girl who's cute but not sexy. And the masculine men don't have that. You don't have to expose a lot of skin. But, anything you can do to exude a 'wild' vibe will be helpful. Loosening your hair, wearing clothes that fit you, wearing colorful dresses, etc. And yes, you will need to be clear on which body-part is your strength and leverage that. Whether you want to expose or not, is your choice. And, a clue about the compatible LP - figure out what your LP is. If you were a man, what would your LP be? Start to embody that. Then, you'll meet people who will support you along the way. Or, you may find yourself wanting to support someone in their LP! But, be sure to find your own first. This will give you more relationship-security than just being with a rich guy. HTH!

@Vxvxen If I were you, I would take all of my self-understanding in the context of Life-Purpose, money and especially health and apply it in the context of sexuality and embodying my authentic sexuality. That's what's the most important when it comes to attracting men. Especially the high-quality ones. Sexual energy is creative energy. So, if you're able to be creative at work, you can do the same in bed! And, if you're working on your self-worth issues, you will probably have worked on some body-dysmorphia too. So, after you've found yourself sexually and you've worked on your body-issues, you'll know which body-parts you'd like to attract men to. Then, you get to flaunt those body-parts and dress sexy, essentially. And, do it in a context where the kind of guys you want hang out. And finally, it would be best if their Life-Purposes align with your core-values behind your Life-Purpose, so that you can grow together. A couple more points - it would be great if you can agree on religion and politics. Religion being your ideas of God and politics being your ideas of the right way to do things, collectively. This way, if you agree on God, you agree on the fundamental nature of reality, your metaphysics will align, so you will 'get each other' and you'll be living in the same reality. And, if you agree on politics, you will agree on how to manage things in your relationship and you will be able to come up with a strategy to pursue your collective goals that you both agree on. HTH!!

I kinda get what you're saying. My experience says that I can be attracted to any woman, if she wears clothes that fit her. Cuz that signals self-confidence in her sexiness. No matter if she's fat, skinny, whatever her boobs look like, etc. Now, apart from that, I do have preferences. But there's no end to those, right?! You're never going to fully be happy with a Scarlett Johannsen either, if looks are all you care about. Other things like whether she's able to carry herself in a feminine way or not, whether she's 'strong and independent' or whether she has space in her life for a man, start taking more priority after she has some basic self-confidence in her attractiveness. And, on top of that, I wouldn't generalize my preferences. Those depend on the individual.

The hope for women is that no matter what your tits look like, someone's attracted to them. There's men who like all kinds of tits! You just need the self-confidence to show your cleavage through your dress, whatever your tits look like.

@Illusory Self Okay. This is not going to be PC. But, I would like you to question the idea that you have a 'loving' family. What is 'love'? According to you? According to them? Do you agree on your definitions of 'love'? Do your love-languages align? It's not possible for you to be lonely and to have this part working properly. Apart from that, I wouldn't worry too much about you being a selfish person. As long as you're not explicitly hurting people, you should be fine. Figure out the issue of love-languages. That'll show you what you have to offer to people in relationships. HTH!

That is what this forum thinks, yes. This thread is going to get locked pretty shortly if someone posts any incel content here that's 'up for debate', I can guarantee that. If you're happy with your dating-life, that's fine. Then you don't need to debunk it. If you happen to be very good-looking and you like the blackpill cuz it boosts your ego, more power to you!! The problem comes when people who are unhappy with their dating-lives use this ideology to justify their limiting-beliefs in their own dating-lives. And, this is a self-help forum. Therefore, the focus will be on debunking it from that angle.

@Phil777 What if Henry Cavill has anger-issues and he's unable to control his anger? Women value different things in relationships than men. A lot of the blackpill is a projection. Which the rest of the world correctly points out. And this is the whole critique of the people pushing it. The thing is that except for blackpillers, most people don't really care whether the blackpill is true or not. They'll believe whatever goes with their agenda to get what they want. Most people don't care about the truth, period. Relationships are a game of survival. So, if you care about the truth, it is kinda understandable, to struggle with the blackpill-question. Even though most people here will see it as a laughably low level of consciousness, it is a thing and my aim is to make sense of it. My point is that you cannot even fairly get to the point of testing whether it's true or not, until you get ready for a relationship yourself. This is the whole issue with blackpillers. Some of them, especially those pushing it, have given up and they're using it as an excuse for their laziness and victim-mentality. This is their intellectual dishonesty! And this discourages others who have some degree of hope. So, there is a point to having this discussion, opening your mind to it and potentially debunking them. Cuz here's the thing - you don't have to be a virgin to be a blackpiller. You may have gotten laid in the past and if you're blackpilled, you will find a way to rationalize those away as 'exceptions'. So, I don't see getting laid as the solution to this problem. You just have to open your mind to it being true and put in the work to test it out.

I know how you do it for yourself. You get rid of all preconceived notions. (Not assuming that the blackpill is a preconceived notion or objective reality as of yet) You work on yourself, you discover yourself and what you have to offer to women in relationships. You understand women and how they receive it. You figure out compatibility. Then you make the transaction work with them. It'll be in an emotional language cuz that's feminine epistemology, or a feminine definition of 'fact'. In terms of feelings and emotions, not 3D data. Once you've done all of that, there will be a part of you that wants revenge from women. Cuz all your life you've felt powerless to women and now that you have something to offer to women, you have the power to not give them what they want! This is where it becomes important for you to define your morality in the way you deal with women and this is where your blackpill can really block your throat. Up until this point, it can just be there in the background, where you don't take it seriously. But now, once you're ready for relationship, a blackpilled ideology will lead to misogyny. This is where we get to the issue of 'immaturity' as Leo calls it. If you have immature ideas about what women do in the world, your morality for dealing with it will be set accordingly. And, if you're not careful, you can morally justify doing all kinds of evil to women. Even mass-shootings! You can only debunk a blackpiller who's done all of this work and who's reached this point. In fact, it's only here that there's any real point to debunking them! Before that, they'll resist you. I think that it is a gross misunderstanding to dismiss them as guys who are lazy and holding onto victim-mentality to justify it. You really don't know whether the blackpill is true or false up until you reach this point. Many PUAs don't want to even consider it with an open mind. This is the whole reason that blackpillers are that resistant to being debunked! Cuz most debunkers assume that they're just immature and lazy and don't want to take any responsibility. Which is flat-out wrong.