10653 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Even though this is not an article I would consider seriously publishing in a scientific journal, I think it's serious enough that I should claim credit for doing all of the research and making all conclusions on my own. In addition, I have made the implications of this article VERY clear. I'm requesting you one last time to stop trolling my thread.
I've never blocked a person on this website, even on my previous account. But I don't stand for the accusations you've placed.
Please tell me that I can take pain killers that lowers my I.Q. and still play good chess.
Isn't a bazillion memorized mates and tactics patterns good enough to crush most opponents? Brute force with no brain?
Musikamole, memorization is definitely possible, but for 99.999% of people, understanding of the concepts will be the key to playing proper chess. Understanding concepts helps you memorize all of these lines.
But I'm definitely going to take your point into further consideration: it's more than valid. Any elaborations on this?
Whatever...like I said I could post some pictures of pancakes if it would help. It would probably help your credibility if no one questions what seems delusional.
MyCowsCanFly, you've contributed absolutely nothing to this topic. Not one useful comment. You're out, brotha. As a former troll, I could tell you that if your conscience hits you... it'll hit you HARD. Adios...
Please stop doing that. Block someone if they are abusing and file a report afterwards but not because they just disagree with you.
It only makes the forums worse than they have already become...
AnthonyCG, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not blocking him because he disagrees with my point. What he did is accuse me of lying and plagiarising - and to me, that IS abuse.
Plus, if you've read anything I've written, then you'll understand that I ENCOURAGE people to argue against my point, granted they provide evidence like I have done. Is that not being perfectly fair?
EDIT: let's please get back on topic. This is supposed to be about discussing chess and IQ.
While it could be possible to estimate a persons potential maximum chess rating based on IQ, I seriously doubt that every grand master has an IQ between 140-150. Clearly a person with a lower IQ that spends an enormous amount of time playing chess will likely have a higher rating that a person with a higher IQ that has spent less time playing chess. The idea that playing chess can potentially increase your IQ is rather interesting and plausible. Given a group of 1000 people with an average IQ of 100 and another group of 1000 people with an averave IQ of 120, I would expect that after each group spent the exact same large number of hours playing and studying chess, the average rating of the group with the higher IQ would be slightly higher, but I would also expect that some of the people with an IQ of 100 will have much higher ratings than some of the people with an IQ of 120 just because some people pick up chess and increase their rating faster than others regardless (or in spite of) IQ rating.
henkesb, thanks for the contribution.
I also doubt that every grandmaster would have such a high IQ. In fact, I believe a person with an average IQ could become a NM, FM, or even higher with strong effort. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other factors also contribute to the making of a grandmaster. However, a lot of new studies would have to be done to prove this properly. A photographic memory would be a clear, but VERY rare distinction, as those are found very infrequently among humans.
In response to your second sentence, my article did discuss people who put maximum possible effort and reach their full potential.
As for picking up chess at different speeds - I do agree there are other factors involved. It will definitely be different per person. This article really discusses a general trend, which means a lot of variables would be somewhat disregarded. However, the variables you've stated are VERY important in considering this trend. Thanks for that notice. :)
Any more input would be very appreciated!
For what did you write the article?
Frankly, I just wrote this for fun. :)
This topic happened to interest me, and I figured I could learn something while I'm at it and share what I learn with chess.com.
The potential for the development of this topic exists, however. Who knows what will happen?
I'm actually going to admit that my comparison got screwed up somewhere, and I'm not exactly sure where... So I'll go back to the basics.
I believe you were pointing out that even though the correlation between chess and IQ exists, that they don't necessarily have to influence each other. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
On that point, I would have to disagree slightly. Studies both ways have revealed that chess tends to increase IQ and that IQ tends to influence the potential of a chess player's ability. This is particularly prevalent in children, whose minds are more susceptible to impressionability. That is how they learn things, after all, and is the reason most information is learned at an early age.
Just confirm your point and if it what I thought it was, I'll definitely continue putting more thought into it. If your point is different... same thing: I'll continue pondering this. This is quite tricky. :D
NatefJay, I definitely never tried to state that chess is the most significant factor in increasing IQ, but I do insist that IQ has a pretty significant effect upon the maxmimum potential for chessplay.
There are other unexplored factors that affect chessplay, of course - and that's why a study eliminating a good amount of those factors would be useful for these purposes. I actually briefly touched on this idea with Beester (reference post # 59 and its inserts).
The elimination of those other factors would give a decent idea to the solution of this issue.
I think there should be a positive correlation beween IQ and chess ability when studied with controls. That is all participants are given equal learning materials and practice and then rating all players over the course of their careers. There will be all sorts of individual factors influencing the outcome which would make this practically impossible. Such as personal motivation, extracurricular study/practice, etc.
In this way I think the study is somewhat impractical as learning is also assisted through neurotransmitters which aren't activated for every person. Some get more of a buzz out of chess while others aren't interested, for example. Or some like puzzles but aren't very competitive yet may excel over the very competitive. How would you go about setting up groups and monitoring time/progress, especially when it's so difficult to draw a line between theory and practice in actual performance?
NatefJay, I think your point of logical falacy is misguided, however correct. The issue you're confronting is about causation. I don't think either are causitive of the other here, just that there should be a positive correlation between ability (rating) and IQ because it's just like any other subject really. You put a group to work on a project and give them all the study materials then of the group you limit how much time a sector has for study and give the other sector say double the time, then you can hypothesize that the group with more study time will have better test outcomes (in general); then you can also hypothesize that some of the members in the group with less time will be fast readers, have excellent visual memory, or might have previous understanding of the subject matter; then you factor in the point that some of the individuals from the greater time limit might not grasp some of the concepts, might be poor readers, etc... overall you could safely say that after graphing all participants there will likely be a positive correlation between study time and results, and go about removing 'outsiders', if need be.
tonydal, your sarcasm may win you a Noddy Badge, but your tactlessness won't. Why can't you just accept that some people take things a little more seriously? Perhaps you are the only "soi-disant" to (dis)grace this thread.
Oh, bite me. I take things seriously that are worth taking seriously. And I positively revel in my tactlessness...I think it's my best feature. :)
I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I DO NOT take this as a very serious matter: if I did, wouldn't I try to publish it in some scientific journal? :)
Okay, fair enough, Stairway...maybe you're not the stiff I took you for at first glance... :)
But the point is, are these "real" scientists really real? I mean, after all these aren't protons we're talking about, these are humans. And all this babbling about IQ and so forth just seems awfully cloistered to me, a lot of ivory-tower classroom stuff (nothing from the real world).
I think there should be a positive correlation beween IQ and chess ability when studied with controls.
Hey, here's a perfect example of the sort of blithering Chubb Group grant-money nonsense I'm talking about! Gosh, what a clever concept...that an intelligent person might actually do better at something than a retard (this Bud's for you, Dhalsim...you've certainly earned it).
I do insist that IQ has a pretty significant effect upon the maxmimum potential for chessplay.
Oh yeah, and one more thing, Stairway...I have no idea what in the freakin hell this means. Seriously pal, get out of the classroom and get into the real world (in the long run, you'll be glad you did). :)
Tonydal, I said nothing about mental retardation. If you have buds there I suggest you use them however you normally do. I don't want them. On second thought, you'd better give those buds away mate, they're not doing you much good.
I think if u have a better IQ score you have more probability to be better then a person with much lower IQ score. But chess is much more than intelligence, u have to see the board in your mind and preview what can happen in further moves...
Maybe a person have a high IQ score but didnt catch the threat...
So its too much practice and experience, not only intelligence...
But your article is very interesting! Congratulations!!!
QG - Tarrasch vs Albin Counter Gambit
by FromMuToYou a few minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by kingpuma 3 minutes ago
Good game for me ???
by zielitns 9 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by Somebodysson 13 minutes ago
The Stonewall Setup
by FromMuToYou 16 minutes ago
by FromMuToYou 35 minutes ago
Anything to add
by Afieldy 36 minutes ago
Chess Sacrifice. ...??
by Tactical_Battle 40 minutes ago
What's the quickest way to get a title?
by FromMuToYou 43 minutes ago
Chess.com is VERY SLOW on Safari
by Gunblade 46 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!