Any others with high IQ suck at chess.

that's exactly what he is saying. same thing in different, very pretty I might add, words.  

I think it might be more correct to say if you happen to be better than some extremely intelligent physicist at chess, you might just have stronger spatial/visual analytical abilities and/or a more intense lust for sports, competition, blood etc. personally, I think the latter makes all the difference far more often than the former. I don't think chess can be used (especially not internet blitz chess between chess enthusiasts) as an equivalent to a verifiable iq test or something along those lines. I think that people who think this way are just flat wrong about it; chess doesn't mean what they think it means (to say nothing of the significance of internet blitz and bullet between chess enthusiasts, which I think can readily be seen for what it is, a video game)

(another cultural prejudice here by the way, as if physics and math are the ONLY things which denote very high intelligence, nothing else. please god do not let anyone misunderstand me to be saying that physicists and mathematicians do not possess high intelligence of some kind, not what I am saying at all)

Meadmaker: Until I took up Chess, I had never met an intellectual challenge that had bested me.  I don't know what it is about Chess, but I'm just not good at it.

From what you've said, it would appear that your analytical skills are optimum.

Could it be that you are lacking in cunning? 

I'll bet you've already considered this but maybe not lately. I've known guys who could operate a slide rule (as could I...now I've dated myself) with aplomb but are lacking in the Machiavellian...the plotting and planning...that is also an important chess skill.

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism

P.S.: Or perhaps a shortcoming with spatial visualization? Pattern recognition? Poor memory? If OTB...angst or intimidation (I've played against "twitchers") or sight/sound/smell matters that interefere with concentration (even Bobby had a problem there)?

I could go on...but that's enough.

I know that your issue really is something to do with mental discipline, training, focus, time, money etc.

I'm not sure what you expected. did you expect to automatically, with little to no training or practice, be able to play like kasparov or something? I seroiusly don't think it works like this, though many people assume that it does. 

I think chess is similar to martial arts in more ways than people realize. now, bear with me, just because someone is perfectly fit, very strong, large muscles etc, does this automatically mean they are going to be able to fight like bruce lee? I don't really think so. 

I'm telling you, people don't want to hear this, but it's the truth. you have to put the work in, no matter how highly you scored on standardized tests iq tests etc. 

find an IM or GM that attends a highly selective college and ask them if they think they would be able to completely destroy all of their colleagues in a game of chess. I bet the answer would be yes. doesn't that say it all really? that there is something else going on? if there wasn't that would mean their colleagues would have an equal chance to defeat them, being that they all attend the same highly selective college, all have around the same scores on standardized tests etc. from personal experience, I myself found that within a given population of students attending the same highly selective college, chess ability varies immensely from one student to the next. what does that say?

take the top 1000 professional chess players in the world and have them take various standardized and iq tests, and then re-rank them on the basis of these tests. why do I have a feeling carlson might not be at the top, maybe 50 or 100, even 200, that the re-ranked list would be drastically different.

this is truth here. in order to play chess at the best of your ability, you really do have to be stable mentally, you can't, say, be having  nervous breakdown.

what he refers to as "cunning" is also important in chess, although I think what he is talking about is just a lust for sports, competition, battle, blood, war etc. if you don't naturally have this lust, it can be incredibly difficult to progress beyond a certain level I feel, much more challenging than it would be for someone who does.

Well, what I was suggesting is that some people excel at analytical thinking...as in science. A different kind of thinking...call it an art...is creative.

well, not everyone has read those threads. and what "sucked" about the posts? what they didn't have some "funny" picture and were actually talking about chess and the subject at hand? sorry. I thought I was on a chess thread concerning the relationship of iq to chess. my mistake.

yes that is exactly what I stated. a lust for sports, competition, some people have this naturally, they just love to fight and battle with people, get's them off. others? yeah not so much. they just don't/are unable to take it that seriously, it doesn't "rev-up" their juices so to speak, doesn't "do it" for them. and I bet they would have a hard time taking it seriously even if they tried. some people just really really suck at all things sports. this doesn't necessarily mean they aren't highly intelligent. their intelligence just "doesn't work that way" for lack of better words. 

people seem to often forget that there is a large sportive element to chess, even though it's one of its obvious defining characteristics. different people's predispositions to sports, battle, competition will make a difference.

I don't think many people would disagree with this point either...I think most people who play chess would be like " well duh, it's chess!". 

I am not going to pretend I am qualifed to comment on your "morphing". I suppose people have their reasons. just make sure whoever your opponent is knows exactly what you know, has the same information, or his search level won't be as deep and stubborn, obviously. 

I've heard similar things stated by entertainers. that they "morph" into a different personality when they are on stage. missy elliot has stated this many times, that the persona you see on stage is actually the polar opposite of who she is in day to day life. 

I agree that most chess "fanatics" usually don't progress any farther than expert/master level. but is this because they can't or because they simply don't have the time and money? I think it is the latter for just about everyone.

most people don't exist in luxurious bubbles completely isolated from the chaos of the world, if they did, time and money wasn't a factor and chess was that important to them, there would be a lot more GMs, FMs and IMs running around. I think most everyone can acheive either strong IM or weak GM if money/time aren't factors and they have the proper training, discipline and focus. I think expert/master only appears to be the "cap" for most everyone because most everyone doesn't have the time/money/resources/passion to go any further, not because they can't.

... just make sure whoever your opponent is knows exactly what you know, has the same information, or his search level won't be as deep and stubborn, obviously. 

Here I would disagree with you. But, then, it sounds like you are talking about internet chess play where is easy to get such info.

Don't kid yourself.  Just because the Polgar sister did it is no argument that EVERYONE can somehow become a titled player.  Just ain't gonna happen.

I don't think this is true. I do believe everyone can become a titled player if time/money aren't factors and they have the passion, discipline, and proper training and guidance. what everyone can't do, is get within the top 500-1000 in the world (numbers can be argued here of course), that's the real difference, those people I think really do have extraordinary spatial/visual analysis capabilities, for lack of better words, that most people don't have.

bringing up the polgar sisters here is a little off. because what you have there, I think, is a confluence of people who possess incredible spatial/visual anaylsis intelligence and underwent extensive training from a young age. judit polgar wouldn't be within the top 50 in the world if she didn't, but if most people underwent the training she had and were determined to become an IM or GM, they would be able to do it, they wouldn't crack the top 500-1000 in the world.

so I think what is written here is a little misleading and doesn't properly take into account the time/money factors.

I think you completely misunderstand me. it was a hypothetical, of course. if the result of some game meant a certain something and one person knew what that something was and the other didn't have a real clear idea about anything, then the one who didn't know shit about anything wouldn't have the same motivation, their search level wouldn't be nearly as deep and stubborn as the other person who knew what the result of the game would mean. I don't think this can be argued and is rather obvious. 

of course, in normal, real life, real world chess tournaments, both competitors voluntarily sign up to play, both know exactly what is at stake. nothing is a surprise, they know who they are playing beforehand, shit, they even look up the person's repetoire in databases and prepare for them. it's not like one chess player sends a bunch of goons to kidnap another, throws him in a van takes him somewhere and forces him to play on the spot with no preparation or anything, not knowing who the hell his opponent is, why he is being forced to do this etc etc.

essential basic things like who what where why and when aren't surprises in real life real world sporting competitions. makes sense right?

It isn't an "intellectual challenge," it's a game challenge.  People constantly seem prone to equating chess with raw intelligence.  It's not--it's a game, and takes a lot of practice and study to learn.

in regards to most everything else you wrote here. I really don't have a clear idea how it relates to what was being discussed and doesn't really make much sense to me at all.

but this: 

When I sit down to play...it is war, survival of the fittest...even if it is just a "play war". But the adrenaline starts to flow. My mind clears of everything else but the game at hand. Then we fight...a fair fight. 

yeah this would be the case in a real world, real chess tournament type situation where both competitors know the who what where when and why. this is rarely the case for internet chess, of course, as you usually have no idea with whom you are playing and obviously didn't prepare for the person (unless you are some kind of scary creepy psycho chess stalker who becomes obssessive concerning  how a certain person plays and then you go back, prepare something for the person and show up in disguise, changing your name/avatar or both)

however, hypothetically, as has been previously discussed, if one player doesn't know all the stakes, then he won't be as motivated, his search level won't be as deep and stubborn as the other person who has a real clear idea of whats going on, has all pertinent information, and is highly motivated. such a disparity in respective information/motivation levels would be anything but fair, highly unfair in fact. ( what would be even more unfair would be to mess with your opponent for weeks on end with advanced technology, sending them death threats, mobbing them etc, more generally, inducing a nervous breakdown, completely shattering their mind before the game, that would be a little unfair, just a little, nothing big or anything)

information is power. secret information is power squared.

I'm lazy ,stupid and a lauzy chessplayer but they once said that everyone could reach a 2000+ rating.The clubplayers all have more knowledge than a gifted boy and will beat him just because they know more then him and know in wich position they are and the best solution.

Watch video's

Learn about positions

Get a coach who suits you (Take Natalia if your a man,that will motivate you :)  )

There are some tricky tricks to solve ''imposible situations''

Games are Knowledge:luck x i.q or something

Sorry, but you are quoting way out of context.  My post was nearer the top of the thread than #150.  And yes, the OP admitted that he didn't read books.  So I simply suggested he do so.

And you admit you didn't read them either.  But for some odd reason you have become a "serial refuter" of others' posts in this thread.  Seeking attention?  Too much time on your hands?

PLEASE, give us a break from the massive quotations, that you apparently don't read.  Or find a way to break that lazy habit.

The bold above is the best summing up.  +10

The OP has long since left this thread.  We should follow him.  This dead horse has been kicked so many times in his IQ-addled head in these forums.

But new blood keeps reviving the issue, without knowing any history.  Blah Blah Blah.

I've got plenty of cunning and more than enough blood lust, so that's not it.  I have good pattern recognition skills and incredibly good memory, though in middle age it is not so strong as it was in youth.

On the other hand, e4nf3 also suggested a possible lack of spatial visualization skills, and I think that might be an area I lack.  IQ tests often include mental rotations, and I do well on those tests, but I find that real world applications of what appear to be the same skill never seem to work well.  I'm a terrible artist, and my household woodworking projects always end up looking unfinished and almost childlike.  When I have to build something out of boards, screws,etc, I find myself somewhat flummoxed as to exactly how to piece them together.  I inevitably end up making very precise drawings with near mathematical descriptions of the finished product, whereas a guy who is "good with tools", generally can say "Hand me that drill" and just "instinctively" put it together in a sensible fashion.   I'm not sure how it relates to Chess playing ability, but that might be the very problem. I can't even see what I can't see.

It's also not lack of effort, although it is possible that it's lack of effective effort. I've read a couple of books, watched a fair amount of video lessons and articles, and done many, many, hours of practice.  On the other hand, I've never had a coach or mentor, nor been part of a Chess club where instruction is a regular part of the activity. Almost all of my learning has been self taught in a solitary environment.  While I have learned many other subjects this way, Chess might not be conducive to that style of learning.

And of course, age might play a role.

Whatever it is, I enjoy the game, but I was somewhat surprised when I discovered I wasn't good at it.  I am pretty sure I fit in the "smart person" category, and that smart people would be good at it. I thought I could teach it to myself just as I had taught myself vibration analysis or French.

I feel like Tony's frustration is maybe a bit misdirected, here.

Don't beat the guy down for calling chess an intellectual challenge, and in the next breath lament that it's because of how little it has to do with intelligence.

Intellectualism itself has very little to do with intelligence, and has quite a lot more to do with practice and (especially) study.

There are folks society will quite legitimately hold forth as intellectuals whose "intellectualism" is based entirely on knowledge and expertise in the field of, say, Shakespeare...or comparative Anabaptist religious studies...or comprehensive knowledge of 18th century china dolls.

Chess IS an intellectual pursuit.  That doesn't make it particularly valuable, or particularly intelligence-reflective.  So is PhD level knowledge of particle physics (which is perhaps a bit more reflective of raw intelligence), as well as deep understanding of the recurring motifs in Terry Pratchett's Discworld (which is probably less gruelling than chess, but would nonetheless fall under the umbrella of the intellectual).

you clearly were referring to posts I made and someone else had made while we were going back and forth. check for yourself. 

no I didn't read other threads having to do with this topic, I had no idea they existed. am I supposed to go through all the forums everytime I happen to read something and feel like responding just to it to see what others have wrote? I'm not going to do that.......

"serial refuter" exaggerate much? no I certainly do not want "attention". right. don't know where that came from and don't really want to know so save it.

anyway, I am just responding to things people have written just like everyone else here, sometimes people respond to things I wrote, so I then feel compelled to write something back and then they write back etc. I just have a strong opinion on this topic and believe that many people have rather large misconceptions about chess in general (especially internet blitz chess games between chess enthusiasts). really, apologize for the quotes and for posting on this thread, really didn't think anyone would care, become annoyed or upset. wasn't the intention.