11675 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!
Well those past dozen posts sure did SUCK.
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.
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.
Until I took up Chess, I had never met an intellectual challenge that had bested me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
just to clarify, I wasn't implying that all that is required is a predisposition for sports, battle and competition, just that it is indeed a significant factor. one which most people neglect to take into proper consideration. I think someone who doesn't like sports all that much, doesn't really enjoy fighting with people, will improve at chess much more slowly than someone who is the opposite, if both started at the same time and everything else was completely equal.
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.
Actually chess skill is quite reflective of raw intelligence, just as a proficiency in maths usually indicates raw intelligence too. Just because something is not politically correct does not make it false.
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.
Thanks Chrisr, I'm having fun with all of the little theads that I've got on the go here. The classic case of " CR " is when one sees a dog chasing it's own tail --- a endless task lol.
You have something intelligent to share? (lol)
12/5/2013 - Too Many Attackers, Too Little Defenders
by makabay 3 minutes ago
Carlsen is mediocre - my analyses
by Ubik42 3 minutes ago
A Classic Alekhine win
by ClarkDMerrifield 4 minutes ago
my favourites about chess.com:
by Timothy_P 4 minutes ago
What's the catch?
by Samsch 7 minutes ago
what is this whole "carlsen plays like a computer" nonsense
by Ubik42 8 minutes ago
by MrDamonSmith 12 minutes ago
by LongIslandMark 13 minutes ago
CONTEST: Caption this Image of Anand & Carlsen
by winerkleiner 19 minutes ago
why d4 is better than e4
by ajian 24 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!