19346 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!
Math no problem, chemistry easy as PI. Chess not so much. I mean, what is the deal? I've been playing for 15 years and suck! My teenager made expert in a two years. Maybe that test was flawed or IQ and chess are not as related as one might think.
I don't think there is any correlation.
Being good at math means you're good at math.
Being good at chess means you're good at chess.
Too many people go into either just because they think it's a "smart" thing to do... And I don't think that you can learn either in the same ways either.
it's just hard to separate the success i've had in other endeavors and the shortcomings i've had in chess.
1847 isn't bad.
Well, they're just different monsters and one has to be tamed differently than the other. I reckon your results in race car driving and baseball may also differ.
Maybe you should compare training regimens with your teen.
[Edit:] Check this out
Suck is a relative term; I would be ecstatic with an 1800+ rating.
I used to think that I was intelligent, but my "underperforming" son kicks my butt. I have decided that it depends on how your mind works-spacial relationships versus linear thinking, etc.
Cool video, Anthony. Thanks! Very helpful to someone like me that sucks at chess AND has a low IQ!
Count, I bet you also have one very strong hand/arm while the other is only used to move chess pieces.
Be sure you're using one of the online IQ tests. That "qualified psychological assessor" recommendation is just a scam.
Oh please... The fact that it's standardized is enough to deem it inaccurate.
This quote would be good for any thread throughout the forums.
Clearly no mincing of words. Crisp and to the point. A great "summing up," indeed.
Ha! hahahaha!The prentious air of this thread was brought to a comedic ending. Thank you.
2 years ago I was actually presented with an envelope from former Prime Minister of Australia congratulating me on my involement and placing in Australia's largest ever IQ test. Out of 356,012 people aged between 16-65, I came 19th. Only the top 20 were sent this message -------------->
"On behalf of all Australians, we commend you and your ability"
That was it............lol
And yes, I totally suck at chess, infact, I find it quite difficult to find an opponent that can lose against me...lol
...and a full head of hair.
actually, there was some study done and it didn't find any significant correlation between chess ability and iq scores. probably because chess mainly only involves spatial/visual analytical abilities, every part of the game is filtered through this, and iq tests are what they came up with to very generally give an approximate estimate of someone's overall intelligence, in all areas. and I think most of those tests are flawed in some way or another and aren't completely accurate, the best they can do is give a general estimate.
Albert Einstein tried to play chess but was hopeless at it.
but I also think, most people with high intelligence will be at least decent chess players if they put a bit of time into it, but not everyone with high intelligence is going to be able to become a super gm with a 2700 fide rating, I think those people actually do have incredible spatial/visual analysis abilities, something rare that most people don't possess, just like some people have incredible voices, most people can learn to sing decently if they put some time into it, but not everyone is going to be a whitney houston.
he wasn't hopeless. he was a decent player. but it didn't interest him really and he even disliked it because of its obvious similiarity to war.
I meant hopeless relative to his exploits in other areas.
Albert Einstein didn't have time for chess. He said that after a long day at the office the last thing he would want to be doing with his spare time was putting himself under more mental strain with chess
this may have been true, but he was good friends with Lasker apparently. more to the truth was he just didn't like it terribly much. he was a pacifist. which brings up another quality a successful chess player has to possess. a thirst for sports, blood, battle and war, this is an innate quality that can't really be taught......for some people that kind of thing gets their brain juices all revved up, for others it just completely turns them off.
Do think this is mean to say?
by YINGYANGKING a few minutes ago
What's On Your Bookshelf?
by Ziryab 4 minutes ago
King's indian defence works quite well at beginner's level
by chyss 9 minutes ago
what tactic book help u get over that hump
by Litwitlou 9 minutes ago
Chessboard for Noj walnut/maple pieces
by LuftWaffles 11 minutes ago
by hpmobil 13 minutes ago
Are openings important? Recommendation
by robbie_1969 15 minutes ago
Is subscription worth it?
by captnding123 15 minutes ago
IM Greg Shahade on Studying Openings
by I_Am_Second 16 minutes ago
3/5/2015 - E.Stoddard vs S.Sorenson, corr., 1977
by Sports811 17 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!