---

oh right. I hadn't noticed.

If you want to be a really good chess player, it's hard work. Preferably, 8 or more hours per day (hey...being a pro at most everything is a full-time job).

---

 its proven that chess has nothing to do with I.Q. #theystudiedit #whyamiusinghashtagsonchess.com

Well, then stupid is as good as genius?

Come, come now...think of what you are generalizing about.

depends on what you mean by stupid. "stupid" in school is not equal to stupid in chess, if thats what you mean

Interesting

---

All I'm saying is that I.Q. has nothing to do with chess. Some smart people cant play chess, some not so smart people can. There is no relationship.

Interesting

---

 I agree with most of what you say, but disagree with this. I am not putting words in your mouth, as you can see this is what you said. Just wanted to clarify.

And it is lighthearted. Idk why we talk about this in first place.

Interesting

wow you typed a lot surprising... and i dont want to debate either. you bring up some good points. :) God bless

God bless!

---

a more accurate way to say this, would be there exist multiple types of intelligence. the type of intelligence mainly involved with chess is spatial/visual analysis. all other types of intelligence that are involved in a chess game are necessarily filtered through this, i.e. someone can excel in academics, be a literary giant, poetic genius, landscape architect or a scientist and still not be spectacular chess player. people just tend to generally associate chess with high intelligence, but there are nuances here as there are everywhere. and (did i just break a grammatical rule, my god) as we all know internet blitz chess between chess enthusiasts is not real chess as is played in real life in real tournaments, but merely a video game.

---

it's a fallacy to suggest that top players don't put much of any thought into their games and it's all pulled from the considerable database of positions stored in their heads.

although I don't know how you could be oblivious to this, what you wrote strongly implies that if you are highly intelligent it necessarily follows that you will also be a spectacular chess player. this isn't true. most highly intelligent people will be at least decent (if they aren't, say, having a nervous breakdown or something) but they may not be grandmaster material. there exist multiple types of intelligence, chess mainly engages a person's spatial/visual analysis intelligence, everything in a chess game is necessarily filtered through this.

also just so you aware, grandmasters aren't walking computer engines or anything and most of the time they aren't calculating more than 3-5 moves ahead (unless there are long forced lines present). what they possess is an intuitive feel for the board and the pieces, in other words a high level of positional understanding, this compensates for their inability to calculate like a computer, as this is humanly impossible (you know what's also humanly impossible? being able to play good chess while being tormented and/or having a nervous breakdown, since the game has a large psychological component to it). if anyone claims they can caculate like an engine, well, they're lying. funny, I once was playing a blitz game with someone, and at one point I couldn't decide what to do and took about 30 seconds to make a move and the person typed the following unfortunate and very comical comment "does it take you that long to process all the moves" as if they were on par with houdini and were in fact processing all the moves in seconds, right. OK.

 

I do agree with your assertion that in order to rise to the highest levels of chess you have to have an aggressive nature, a "fighting spirit" for lack of a better term, and be able endure protracted battles. although I wouldn't go as far to say you have to be a sociopath, let's reserve that status for, well, the sociopaths. OK?

oh is this not light hearted? uhhhh, well, let's see what we can do about that. 

how about a song?

psycho killer qu'est ce que c'est fafafafa fa fafafafa fa 

and how about this.

happy happy smile love smile happy love smile happy smile happy love love smile happy happy! yay!

Uptight????? Who's uptght!!!?

N2UHC wrote: Signs you're a bad chess player,You get a chance for a mate in one but instead prefers to sack a pawn.

---

I like beer.

so much for lighthearted... that seemed pretty commplex to me

Interesting

there  are many  facets  to  chess , many openings  and many levels  of learning what  the  game  can offer , is  there  such  a  thing  as   a stupid  move ? one , not  considered  to be  a  "mistake " ? possibly  in every  human  game  , is there  any possibility one  can  take  advantage , being  smarter , absolute , i hear often  the  quote  there  are no stupid  moves in chess , are  you  stupid  because  you lost  or smarter because  you  won ? can  you  see all the  mathematical  equations  to  the  game  or is it at one point infinitive ? a bad  chess player is one  that is  hard on himself  and one  that  doesn't know  how to control his  attitude in  a win  or lost game  , one  who cheats  , one who is quick  to come  up with a quip  to a winning player on  how  he beat  his opponent  for  reasons  no  one  knew  existed before  the  game , i  was once  told  i  was  a bad player  for  the reason  that  i respected my opponent , he  was my  friend , i smiled and took  the game as if it  was no  more than  a friendly  chat ,  but  then  was told  , yes  we  are  friends but ... when  we  go into  the  ring  , sort of  speak  , go  into battle  and play  each other  , he  explained  " you are my enemy "  in  this  situation  stupity is not  a  advantage