Can intelligent person suck at chess, forever?

Esteemed Grobe, is there any reason to think that the random variable you describe would be stronger in the 100 group? If you increase the number of participants, such variables should be smooth, no?

No, it's more about IQ test and Chess performance being measures of two different things.  I think that there's some correlation, but I also suspect there are factors that come in to play with chess that don't chart on an IQ test at all (and vice versa).  Should those factors be inversely proportionate to IQ score?  I don't see why they would be correlated at all -- in fact, lack of correlation is basically a qualifier for such a factor.

When a grandmaster looks at the chess board, he accesses the part of his brain which deals with memory, not the part which concerns improvisation. It's fair to conclude that what he's doing, then, is comparing the current position to any of the other thousands of boards he's seen and remembering what they did. The IQ test does not test memory as such, as far as I can remember.

lol

Actually, I just checked. The WAIS-III for IQ testing considers:

1. verbal comprehension,
2. perceptual organisation,
3. processing speed,
4. and working memory.

So that's working memory but you're talking more about long-term memory and actually verbal comprehension includes vocabulary, similarities, comprehension, and information. That last one refers to what most people would call general knowledge.

I have to think that there's some indirect influence of long term memory, especially as it pertains to pattern matching problems, which is effectively what Grandmasters are doing when they access their internal database of games and positions.

Goodness don't use  the word "correlation" unless you mean a linear relationship, or joeydvivre will have a field day.

iq memory ? i just push wood 

what is an IQ?

 iq

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.

  Nice.

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.