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.

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.

The reason some topics come up again and again is because they are interesting to a large number of people.  Although this topic has been explored over and over in many, many, ways, it hasn't been explored in depth by me, or by other participants.   We find it interesting, whether or not someone else may have already plumbed the depths of the topic.

Would you walk into a Physics 101 lecture and tell everyone in it that they are wasting their time because other people already know the answers?  Of course not.  Don't make that same mistake here.

Meadmaker wrote:

i take issue with the notion that physicists, mathematicians display more "raw intelligence" than say, tolstoy, or something. I don't think this is true. I think it's different types of intelligence. but for whatever reason people are seemingly more impressed with the type of intelligence required for brilliant physics than they are for that which is required for brilliant art or literature or any other field, intellectual pursuit. I think this is cultural bias really and not exactly the truth. the truth, I think, is that there exists multiple types of intelligence and most people's brains specialize in one or two. maybe .05% of the world's pop, if that, are universal genuises. even this I kind of doubt.

would someone please define the term "raw intelligence", what exactly, specifically are people talking about? 

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

For you but not for me. For titled players, certainly.

I don't want to know much about someone I am going to play. I don't care if they love the Ruy or hate it. I want to be prepared for most anything, as best I can.

Meadmaker: And of course, age might play a role.

I think mostly what is going on is lack of willingness to pay the dues of getting better...study and practice.

No doubt. But this isn't what I'm talking about. There are those who don't  put forth the effort.

We are talking about two different things.

I am talking about people who can't break 1200 and are blaming it on age.

What the hay? You on the sauce?

You are right as rain, cabby. Chess does require both inspiration and perspiration.

from observation over the years i have seen many chess players who have different life skills in meny different areas one of the best of them was a garbage man who had amazing powers of observational skills but no other skills other than a retentive memory. in6 months he started from scratch and won his states championship against pennant grade players .by the same token i know an engineer who is a genious at math but can`t break 1200 on chess board the best players seem to be people who can visualize menny moves ahead in any game they are playing whitch is why some children are excelent players at a young age.children think in pictures while adults tend to think in abstruct terms thus the best players are people who have not lost the visualisational powers of childhood and have added abstruct learning to their game.

Having at one time read thru all of this thread, including Shequan's interesting reply at post #144 ( replying to my earlier post ) I can see that we are going nowhere at a rapid pace. In the field of logic we would stand accused of Circular reasoning, at the very least. To paraphrase a title from a fun series of British films " Carry On Round The Bend "  lol.