Gashimov Memorial, Round 2 is LIVE and Open to ALL MEMBERS!Click here to watch!
Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Any others with high IQ suck at chess.


  • 2 years ago · #321

    TRON84NH

    Chess and intellegence are two different items.  If you were really a good math statician  you could figure out all of the permutations with their percentile of success that your opponent could go and attack you with.

    Chess is a different style of formula. a win is comprised of captured pieces, initiative, lost pieces, pawn structure, open files, vulnerable areas, overworked pieces, pinned pieces, blunders and time. You should not count on lucky breaks into this equation. Unfortunately most of this is not concrete and physical. Most of it is you trying to have the foresight on what will your opponent will play using all of these factors.

  • 2 years ago · #322

    PatzerLars

    AnthonyCG wrote:
     
     
    PatzerLars wrote:
    Meadmaker wrote:
    PatzerLars wrote:

    Winning, losing ... doesn't matter.

    Just drop that silly "subordinate-everything-to-having-fun-attitude". You're not a kid, are you ?

    In any given game that I play, I think trying to win is important, and I do think the "it doesn't matter as long as you had fun" attitude is a bit childish.   Is that what you are referring to?   However, for me, improving my skills between games is not all that important to me.  I enjoy the game and will keep playing it, competitively, whether or not my rating ever breaks 1000.

     

    1.Trying to win is a wrong concept. You can't win in chess right off the bat since the starting position is (approximately; whether the first move of white is decisive is yet to discuss) balanced. That's what you should do: trying to hold the balance.


    In order to win, however, your opponent has to make mistakes first. To be more precise: he/she has to make more mistakes by number and/or severity than you do (nobody plays perfect chess). Even this is not sufficient, because you also have to have the ability to spot them, exploit them and materialize the subsequent advantage (also called technique).
    Since you can't force your opponent to make a mistake, there is no point in „trying to win“. You should rather try to „not lose“ or „hold the balance“. This is difficult enough. So from this perspective my personal view is that winning indeed is not as important (although pleasing).

     

    2. Concerning the „fun“ topic:

    The whole thing has gotten a little out of context. Earlier in the thread e4nf3 wrote:

    „My goal is a solid 1800. I figure one more year. After that, I don't know that I want to put in the work to go higher. Maybe.

     

    But, I have a goal and a plan. Do you?“

    Somebody else answered“ I play and have fun !“.

    I just wanted to point out the difference between „having a plan“ and „sustaining an emotional state“. The latter is what little kids do while they are, for example, playing in a sandbox. There is no orderly, planned and purposeful action. Rightfully so, because having an orderly, planned and purposeful attitude is not in the nature of children. That is what they learn lateron (hopefully).

    The nature of grown-ups, however, is different, or at least should be. That doesn't mean that you can't have fun. It just means, that you have to accept the full bandwidth of emotional states: pain, lust, anger, dissapointment, rage, fun, calmness … etc. Not just cherry-picking one state and sustain it at all costs. This would be childish.

    Furthermore you must have the ability to channel your emotions into planned and purposeful actions . In my personal view this is the very thing that chess tries to teach us. It is a mental exercise. The term „exercise“ implies that it is not fun, at least not always.
    Chess is not designed just to „provide fun“. Why ? Because it is too complex for that. For having fun there are much simpler games which do that job better.

    There is the old saying: „Good form follows necessity.“ It would be unnecessary for games like chess, shogi or Go to have such a high degree of complexity if their only purpose was to provide fun and nothing else. There must be more to them (I hope so, otherwise there would be a wasted effort  ).

    To end my pseudo-philosophical blah blah, I just want to add that winning (conclusion ad 1.) and losing doesn't matter, as long as you manage to channel your emotions/aggressions into something purposeful. Then you are prepared for the REAL chess, called Life.


    Um ok I don't agree with a lot of this...

    Players under 2000 are obviously making mistakes. Otherwise they wouldn't be there. So all that stuff about perfect games is pretty irrelevant. It is not. In the starting position you can't play for a win, even if your name is Tal. Tal proved this by wining simuls with 1.h4 follwed by 2.h5. Those two moves do not lose the game outright. You still have the techique to grind an advantage. Even then it is not clear if the advantage is big enough for a win since not every mistake is decisive. The strategy of sitting there and praying that you don't lose is equally faulty. Since players do make mistakes, your chances of provoking errors is far higher now than ever. That is why the stonewall attack and many "undsound" gambits are so popular at class levels. But even if you don't want play that way, just playing sound chess is enough since both of you are bound to err multiple times anyway. Of course, if your opponent makes a mistake you should try to exploit it. That is out of the question. You just can't squeeze a win out of an equal position using witchcraft. There is still some common sense involved.  For some reason class players like to try and use psychology of strong players and memorize all of these openings when at their level all that's required is to hack away... Fun is subjective. It needs no directon or purpose. Fun is irrelevant. YOU as a PERSON need a direction and so do your actions. Otherwise you are dysfunctional in society. You can't subordinate everything to having fun or not.  It is easily believable that one can stay under 1000 and still have fun with chess. Perhaps they simply play casually and do not take it as seriously as you seem to? It is a fun and chalenging game but a game still. And games are played primarily for fun. If chess was not fun then I would quit. Why play otherwise? Why play any game otherwise?  That is your personal view. Mine is different. If I play a game in your sense, then I would rather choose video games like, for example, Fallout New Vegas, not chess. Chess is too complex to be just a game and nothing more.

    It is obvious that you play for the competitive aspect. No, that is not obvious, it is flat out wrong. I wrote, more than once, that winning and losing doesn't matter. Is that competitive ? It is a mental exercise for me just like doing crossword puzzles. It is just about exercising the brain and channelling emotional impulses. However you and many others seem to have a hard time believing that everyone isn't interested in that aspect of it and they just play casually. They don't study or do tactics puzzles - they just play because it's interesting to them. I don't have a hard time believing it. I just say it doesn't make much sense to play chess with that attitude.

    Your perspective often leads to telling other people what is fun and what they should feel and how they should act and a host of other crap that turns the game into a chore. A lot of people don't want that - I know I don't. Earlier I wrote that fun itself is irrelevant, so it wouldn't make any sense to tell other people what is fun or not. It is just a matter of how you manage your emotional impulses. You can't play around all your life like a toddler.

    At the end of the day, chess is a board game that I simply do not take seriously. It is a fun hobby but no more than that. Some people may see it as more than this and that is fine. But to expect everyone to see it one way is completely unrealistic. I didn't expect anybody to adopt my personal views. In fact, I didn't expect anybody to read my nonsensical stuff. Laughing Nevertheless, thanks for your feedback.

  • 2 years ago · #323

    AnthonyCG

    The prospect of a perfect game is theoretical so even if it is true that a win can't be forced, it is useless information. It can never be tested or be put to use regardless of rating (assuming that both sides are making moves) because perfect play has not been discovered.

    Fun being irrelevant is simply an opinion. Chess may be only mental stimulation for you but this may not be the primary purpose for others. For me it is fun. Anything else is secondary in any game that I end up playing.

    And you also assert that complex games cannot be fun?? Chess, no matter how complex it seems to be, is fun to me. Although you may use it for other purposes, it is still a game and others are bound to have differing opinions on it. Call it a sport if you want...

    Not understanding the attitude of a casual chess player stems from the problem of perspective again. The casual player likely plays for fun or some other interest in the game. The slog of improvement or the mental stimulation may not even be a factor in what makes it enjoyable for them.

    This is all really a matter of perspective...

  • 2 years ago · #324

    AndyClifton

    PatzerLars wrote:
    Fun is irrelevant. YOU as a PERSON need a direction and so do your actions. Otherwise you are dysfunctional in society. You can't subordinate everything to having fun or not.  

  • 2 years ago · #325

    e4nf3

    This thread is giving me a headache. Especially this photo. I think I know her.

  • 2 years ago · #326

    zborg

    e4nf3 wrote:

    This thread is giving me a headache. Especially this photo. I think I know her.

    In the Biblical sense?  Now that would be an eye-opener.

  • 2 years ago · #327

    PatzerLars

    e4nf3 wrote:

    This thread is giving me a headache. Especially this photo. I think I know her.

    Is there something you want to talk about ? Laughing

  • 2 years ago · #328

    Meadmaker

    e4nf3 wrote:

    You are vastly mistaken.

    I have absolutely no contempt for weaker players. I too am a weak player against many better than me. Isn't that true for all of us?

    No. My only contempt is for people who play in a lazy, haphazard manner and have absolutely no desire to study, work hard and improve. And they blame their inadequacy on factors beyond their control.

    People like you, for instance. (lol)

    I don't think I am mistaken.

    The description you give describes a lot of Chess players.  If your contempt for them shows when you interact with them at tournaments, you are likely to drive them away.

     

    The whole concept of  "pattern recognition" versuse "pattern discovery" as a key element of Chess mastery makes even more sense when the game of Go is considered.  Go players are famous for not even being able to explain what a good move is, aside from some very simple tactical considerations, but the good players are still very good and the bad players still very bad. 

  • 2 years ago · #329

    blakewalk

    Any links to the study examining the relationship between IQ and chess skill ? I would expect there to be at least a weak positive loglinear correlation.  I am terrible at chess (stuck in the 1300s, seemingly eternally), but do rather well in other intellectual endeavours.

  • 2 years ago · #330

    e4nf3

    Meady: I don't think I am mistaken.

    Yeah, you are.

  • 2 years ago · #331

    zborg

    The definition of "a loser" is someone who 1) loses often, 2) doesn't mind losing, and 3) doesn't care to change the previous two outcomes.

    Kinda like Cindy Lauper in the Video, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun? 

    They might use high IQ to rationalize, but that's not part of the definition, per se. Cindy had it right.  Hulk Hogan was wrapped around her finger.

    The only thing EASY in chess is to play badly.  Please make a note of it.

  • 2 years ago · #332

    Meadmaker

    blakewalk wrote:

    Any links to the study examining the relationship between IQ and chess skill ? I would expect there to be at least a weak positive loglinear correlation.  I am terrible at chess (stuck in the 1300s, seemingly eternally), but do rather well in other intellectual endeavours.


    Here's a link to the PhD dissertation I've been referring to.  The bulk of the material presents the author's model.  The introductory sections present a good overview of previous research relating Chess skill to IQ and various other tests of mental function.

     

    http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses_1/available/etd-07142008-152522/unrestricted/RoringRDissertation1.pdf

  • 2 years ago · #333

    Meadmaker

    e4nf3 wrote:

    Meady: I don't think I am mistaken.

    Yeah, you are.

    You have acknowledged that you have contempt for a certain class of Chess players.   Assuming you were serious in your description, that means you have contempt for a certain portion of the players at Chess tournaments.  Surely you understand that if those players can perceive your contempt, they will be less likely to want to share your company.

    I talk to players and to potential players.  I talk to people who I think ought to like Chess tournaments, but don't.  When they describe what they don't like about Chess tournaments, your attitude is number 3 on the list of why the don't show up.  (Cost is number 1. "I'm not good enough." is number 2.)

  • 2 years ago · #334

    zborg

    People will say anything to justify their choices.  Get over it.  The game simply doesn't have wide appeal.

    Unlike watching a golf match, many people, myself included, simply don't understand what GMs are doing.  So many intermediate moves, and seemingly counter intuitive moves.  Makes your head spin, even if you understand something about chess.

    The game is too eccentric for its own good.  And there is no clear way to fix that.

  • 2 years ago · #335

    AnthonyCG

    Meadmaker wrote:
    e4nf3 wrote:

    Meady: I don't think I am mistaken.

    Yeah, you are.

    You have acknowledged that you have contempt for a certain class of Chess players.   Assuming you were serious in your description, that means you have contempt for a certain portion of the players at Chess tournaments.  Surely you understand that if those players can perceive your contempt, they will be less likely to want to share your company.

    I talk to players and to potential players.  I talk to people who I think ought to like Chess tournaments, but don't.  When they describe what they don't like about Chess tournaments, your attitude is number 3 on the list of why the don't show up.  (Cost is number 1. "I'm not good enough." is number 2.)

    I think he holds some contempt for people that would rather whine about their problems rather than finding a solution to them...

    Even if you believe this IQ nonsense to be true, you have taken no steps to adapt to the situation. It's pretty obvious what you're doing here.

  • 2 years ago · #336

    e4nf3

    No, I have no contempt for tournament players. Show me where I indicated that.

    Meady: I talk to players and to potential players

    Ah hah...I see... You are starting to sound scary, dude.

  • 2 years ago · #337

    Meadmaker

    e4nf3 wrote:

    Meady: I talk to players and to potential players

    No, I have no contempt for tournament players. Show me where I indicated that. Liar.

    I will tell you my hypothesis. Sure you want to hear it?

    OK, then...someone your age who can't bust out of 1,000, won't put any time and effort toward improvement, yet is a tournament director of mostly young boys and who likes to hand out gifts (as you've stated)...

    When I was young and played chess, there was a guy like you always hanging around, handing out gifts, wanted me to spend the weekend at his place.

    You are starting to sound scary, dude.

    Uhh...I don't know how to tell you this, but I'm a tournament player.  Yes, I spend more time and effort as a TD than as a player, but I do play in tournaments.

    And where on Earth did you get the stuff about most of the people at my tournament being young boys?  I certainly didn't say it.  And the gift thing?

    I hope your tongue was firmly in cheek during the above response.

     

    Not that it matters, but  my tournaments usually feature about 1/3 children and about 2/3 adults. 

     

    I don't know what you are like in person, so I'm just going by what you say here.  My guess is that faced with a real, live, human being you would probably make some more valid inferences about them than is possible on the web, so perhaps you would be the absolute model of grace toward those players who were less motivated and/or talented than yourself.  It is possible that the contempt you express would vanish when faced with real people or you would at least hide it well, which is almost as good.

     

    Not everyone, though, does that.  I have been confronted with that sort of contempt at tournaments, directed at me or at some of my fellow long term patzers.  It's very unfortunate, and it's one of those things that drives people away from Chess.

  • 2 years ago · #338

    Meadmaker

    e4 wrote,

    "My only contempt is for people who play in a lazy, haphazard manner and have absolutely no desire to study, work hard and improve."

    and

    "I have no contempt for tournament players."

    The two sets described are not mutually exclusive. 

  • 2 years ago · #339

    e4nf3

    Meadmaker wrote:

    e4 wrote,

    "My only contempt is for people who play in a lazy, haphazard manner and have absolutely no desire to study, work hard and improve."

    and

    "I have no contempt for tournament players."

    The two sets described are not mutually exclusive. 

    You are just twisting what I said. I've never even been talking about tournament players. You do that.

    You are a guy having trouble breaking 1,000 and are a TD with a lot of kids, for whom you like to hand out prizes. That's what you've said.

    When I played chess, at age 15, I knew a guy exactly as you've delineated yourself. He even wanted me to come over to his place to spend the night, which I didn't.

    I have no interest in kids and tournaments and have never made a comment...anywhere in these posts.

    You, however, have quite well defined yourself in this regard.

  • 2 years ago · #340

    Scottrf

    The lady doth protest too much.


Back to Top
This forum topic has been locked.