12278 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!
I think there's a correlation between chess ability and intelligence but not necessarily between knowledge and chess ability. I think intelligence is pretty much innate, while knowledge is something gained over time
Hence, if you don't play chess decently well after some basic lessons, you might be able to learn how to do it better. How much better is contingent upon, not only how much your intelligence affects your ability to learn, remember and perform the task, but also how much time and effort you are willing to put into it.
My guess is that people with higher IQs tend to put less time and effort into chess.
Maybe because they are too sensible to waste time on it. I am so lucky not to be intelligent enough to follow that philosophy. Yes, I dont put effort in but thats more because I am lazy not due to some big brain...time I waste here in abundance.
If that is true, it may have more to do with a reverse correlation between IQ and work ethic than with chess itself. In other words, my guess is that people with higher IQs tend to put less time and effort into anything.
Can a diabolical penguin avoid the batman forever? This a is much more relevant question to ozzie I believe.
Truth be told, I'm much more interested in the reverse of that.
I think what improves the game skills even at later age, is to practice chess puzzles, where you need to find a winning combination. Providing you have a basic knowledge of openings and endgames. You only need to learn certain principles, the rest of it is up to your creration.
Puzzles are pretty artificial. Although the same can be said to a certain extent of Tactics Trainer, it is not quite as constructed as a study and therefore more likely to have similar positions as would come up in real play. I would, like most players here, place much more value on the TT ones than for example on the daily puzzles. Regardless of that, combinations are great, sure, but my skills have been much more improved by learning what middlegame patterns to aim for and what breaks I can make against a centre or a flank. Openings are merely a means to an end, namely a position you are familiar with or can play with confidence in. Endings? Sure, but if you dont establish a solid middlegame plan you wont reach the ending and many games are mostly over by the time endgame is reached. Many endgame plans (not all!) are intuitive.
Yes, they can (look at me )...
No, in all seriousness though -- I deal with these types of questions a lot. Traveling for tournaments as a Professional Player you often get Taxi Drivers who say "wow, you're here for a chess tournament, and you're a pro -- you must be a genius"... and I'm like, "well no, not really..."
The thing is that "general intelligence", and even high forms of intelligence and IQ don't always apply in fields that require a specific skill set and knowledge of specific patterns.
My theory is that chess is a game of pattern recognition! And I think that idea is backed up by a lot of great players and teachers . So, you can be smart, but if you don't play enough chess and don't apply serious effort to learn from your mistakes and the patterns therein... then it is possible for chess to forever remain just outside of your grasp of fully understanding/mastering.
So, learn patterns and study YOUR OWN mistakes or you may indeed be eternally "shooting in the dark" ...
Don't listen to this guy. Once you get your tactics rating to 2367 you should be able to fly planes and wrestle alligators like a pro.
Personally I happen to know I will reach GM once I cure human stupidity. My experiments so far have had limited success, creating only more stupidity but I am confident I am on the right lines. I am definitely tapping into the stupid centre of the brain at least.
It helps to work on your grammar.
How is grammar going to help chess results master Yereslov ?
This explanation I cannot wait to hear !
Games with limited time control may not be the best way to learn. Also 5 months is not that much.
1) Practice tactics.
2) Actually check if you're blundering away a piece or not in live chess. It can take a while before this is automatic.
3) learn positional play. Get a book or ask experienced players why they move so and so. It's all reasonable strategy.
No way you would be unable to improve.
Lol, I would love to know where you think my grammar is wrong. Besides that, someone posts something purely for humour and offensive to no one and you decide, trollishly, that you need to abuse them also. Like you haven't made enough people contemptuous of you already. Do not pick fights you cannot win.
'Do not pick fights you cannot win.'
clearly you're losing because he can endlessly troll you indefinitely and the amount of your time you want to waste is limited.
Ahh, but I can go to work, come back and poke him with a stick and let him rant indefinitely. With that efficient use of my resources, I am a winner for sure.
I don't know how much intelligence has to do with it. I know some brilliant people that are, in many ways, morons. I also know some dunces that have more 'common sense' than any two people.
I learned chess as a child but never played seriously until earlier this year when I began to play more 'seriously', I am 40 now. My worst rating was 743 and my best was 1060 (yesterday). I am currently 1036. I have maybe 300 games (and I thought I was playing a lot). I am pleased with my improvement and Tactics Trainer has helped me immensely.
I guess I would be wondering what you're seeking to get out of chess. Playing 50+ hours a week seems a bit obsessive to me. For people our age I think trying to become a competitive Grandmaster might be a bit of an unrealistic goal. Personally, I just want to have fun, get better and overall enjoy the game.
This is probably brought up earlier, but I wonder how "suck at chess" is defined?
Is there a (chess.com) rating above which one can safely say the "suck at chess" level is passed?
12/8/2013 - Boxed In
by MicahMouse a few minutes ago
What to play against the King's Indian Defense?
by JohnStormcrow a few minutes ago
Plastic Chess Sets - Reviews
by MonofWestlake 2 minutes ago
Chess Troll for the Year!
by macer75 7 minutes ago
post your funniest illegal games here!!!!!!!!
by chesssmart82 8 minutes ago
Why are Chess Clubs so arrogant?
by Sangwin 10 minutes ago
Battles Against Stockfish DD
by EscherehcsE 10 minutes ago
is Norway the strongest chess nation on the planet
by macer75 11 minutes ago
1st Unofficial Chess.com Swiss Championships
by cmtavernier 16 minutes ago
Do you think chess online is harder than State tournaments?
by Bardu 16 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!