Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Can intelligent person suck at chess, forever?


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #201

    chesspooljuly13

    Yeah, Yereslov's right (just like he was right about Morphy being a modern-day patzer.)

    Get two people who have never played played chess - one with an IQ of 80, the other with an IQ of 200. Give them the same books to study chess from for three months. Arrange a match. See who wins.

    Stop trolling, Yereslov.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #202

    AnthonyCG

    chesspooljuly13 wrote:

    Yeah, Yereslov's right (just like he was right about Morphy being a modern-day patzer.)

    Get two people who have never played played chess - one with an IQ of 80, the other with an IQ of 200. Give them the same books to study chess from for three months. Arrange a match. See who wins.

    Stop trolling, Yereslov.

    Since when is life that simple?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #203

    chesspooljuly13

    Yereslov seems to be arguing there's no correlation between intelligence and ability in chess. What's wrong with setting everything equal except intelligence?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #204

    Yereslov

    chesspooljuly13 wrote:

    Yeah, Yereslov's right (just like he was right about Morphy being a modern-day patzer.)

    Get two people who have never played played chess - one with an IQ of 80, the other with an IQ of 200. Give them the same books to study chess from for three months. Arrange a match. See who wins.

    Stop trolling, Yereslov.

    1. Not everyone is built the same. Intelligence in one area does not equate to intelligence in another. 

    2. If the player with an IQ of 80 is simply better at seeing motifs and chess patterns than his opponent, then he will certainly win over the player with a higher IQ. 

    3. There are players of far higher IQ who have never made it past 1600-1700 USCF. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are stupid, it has to do with the fact that chess ability is not in the same realm as all-encompassing intelligence.

    4. Players vary in ability. Fischer was not exactly a rocket scientist. His greatest accomplishment was in chess. That's it. He was one of the lucky few who had a natural understanding of the game.

    There are many man who had higher IQ's who played chess. They didn't exactly become a success.

    Now stop trying to simplify life though IQ scores. They are meaningless numbers that are based on a faulty test.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #205

    Yereslov

    "Intelligence" does not mean "easy comprehension or mastery over everything you grasp," it merely means that the individual is very perceptive or picks up information much faster than another.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #206

    stabmasterarson

    NewScientist magazine did a study on GM's and what makes them top of the hill, which was quite interesting, search their website and check it out.

    I recall it said their was a top codebreaker who loved chess but even with coaching he was still well under master level.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #207

    Yereslov

    Chess is more about visual perception than thinking alone.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #208

    Yereslov

    alexlaw wrote:

    i bet you my life magnus carlsen's IQ> 100, which is the average

    I bet you all my money magnus carlsen's IQ> 110

    I bet you my house magnus carlsen's IQ> 120

    I bet you my $10000 magnus' IQ>130

    any more i can't garuntee, but i expect it to be within 140-170.

    What else has he done besides play chess? He's going to die being a famous chess player, not a famous scientist or philosopher.

    Chess ability does not equate with intelligence in the same way that mastering the sword does not equate intelligence.

    These are just methods. Nothing more.

    Chess is just a game consisting of visual puzzles.

    It's really no different from sudoku.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #209

    Yereslov

    alexlaw wrote:

    well you've known to be a troll so I won't explain why I don't agree with that.

    You don't agree with me because you have a notion that can't be supported by anything else except the statement that "being excellent in the game of chess is a sure sign of intelligence,"

    It's a self-defeating argument. It's just chess ability. That's it. 

    It's a game, not a revolutionary serum that cures AIDS or a book that builds  civilzations.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #210

    kco

    Yereslov wrote:

    Chess is more about visual perception than thinking alone.

    disagree with that statement.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #211

    chesspooljuly13

    I really admire how you lure them in, Yereslov. You've got trolling down to a science, and that, my friend, is a sure sign of intelligence. Some people troll by name calling and insults, but you cloak your trolling with the appearance of being sincere in your misguided thinking, which is much more apt to provoke a response.

    And when the fish stop biting, you up the ante by throwing a ridiculously outlandish comment into the mix, like suggesting Morphy would be a patzer today, knowing it's like throwing chum into the ocean.

    You've truly raised trolling to an art form, and for that, I salute you, sir!

    Troll away!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #212

    Yereslov

    kco wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:

    Chess is more about visual perception than thinking alone.

    disagree with that statement.

    You can disagree all you want. In the end thinking alone is not going to win you a game. 

    Chess is a visual game. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #213

    Yereslov

    chesspooljuly13 wrote:

    I really admire how you lure them in, Yereslov. You've got trolling down to a science, and that, my friend, is a sure sign of intelligence. Some people troll by name calling and insults, but you cloak your trolling with the appearance of being sincere in your misguided thinking, which is much more apt to provoke a response.

    And when the fish stop biting, you up the ante by throwing a ridiculously outlandish comment into the mix, like suggesting Morphy would be a patzer today, knowing it's like throwing chum into the ocean.

    You've truly raised trolling to an art form, and for that, I salute you, sir!

    Troll away!

    I'm not trolling.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #214

    chesspooljuly13

    Ooops - looks like alexlaw stopped biting. What to do now? I can't wait to see the master at work! Hurry! He's getting away!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #215

    kco

    Yereslov wrote:
    kco wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:

    Chess is more about visual perception than thinking alone.

    disagree with that statement.

    You can disagree all you want. In the end thinking alone is not going to win you a game. 

    Chess is a visual game. 

    argue with that to dan heisman 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #216

    chesspooljuly13

    Well played, Yereslov; you can chase after alexlaw another day. Best to concentrate on the fish still swimming around the boat.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #217

    kco

    chesspooljuly13 wrote:

    Well played, Yereslov; you can chase after alexlaw another day. Best to concentrate on the fish still swimming around the boat.

    not me, I am done with feeding the troll too. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #218

    chesspooljuly13

    Uh-oh. A referral to another poster? Is that like telling you to fish in another pond?!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #219

    chesspooljuly13

    They're all swimming away! What are you going to do? I hate to presume to know how the master thinks, but I'm guessing you're going to pull in your lines, start the engines and head for another forum. Surely there will be hungry fish there and you've got plenty of chum left and those shiny new lures.

    Bon voyage!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #220

    e4nf3

    Can intelligent person suck at chess, forever?

    What a silly question. No. Of course not. Eventually their streak of "bad luck" must, of necessity, end. It's called death.


Back to Top

Post your reply: