Dyslexia caused me to mix you & chesssponge up ( to be fair to me you both look very similar ? )
The '' wrong '' ocurred long-time ago ? You realise this & not valid to bring subsequent events to influence righting that.
Can intelligent person suck at chess, forever?
Sort:
No problem; you have a valid point. Peace be with you, brother
I think the answer is yes and I think I am living proof. I have been single handedly bringing chess to its knees with my dreadful play. So, yes.
:D
Im glad this hasnt descended into a America sucks thread 
Reb wrote:
Not all Americans approve of the way Fischer was persecuted in the last years of his life. I find it shameful myself . His persecution certainly lends more weight to his outrageous/hateful claims imo than anything else .
+1
I'm not old enough to have experienced the 1972 match, so to me Fischer is on par with the Salo Flohr's, Reuben Fines, and Saviely Tartakower's of the world - part of chess history, but no longer producing.
I choose to ignore his 1992 comeback the same way I choose to ignore Michael Jordan's time with the Wizards.
And I don't think I'm alone among chessplayers when I say that I also choose to ignore his personal life away from the board, mostly because chess requires a one-track-mind, where life does not. For this reason I am also mostly uninterested in chess politics.
To the OP: How you study, how you learn to understand what you study is critical. Granted, entering chess late in life is a hinderance, but not fatal : ).
I would recommend 2 books, that you read, play the positions out on a board and understand each chapter before moving on to the next.
The 2 books are "Chess traps, pitfalls and swindles" and "My System" by Aron Nimzovitch. (not sure of the author of the first book) The first book will teach you tactics, whereas the 2nd book will (hopefully) open your eyes to strategy.
These 2 books did more to aid my understanding of the opening and middle game than any other 10 books combined.
e4nf3 wrote:
Well, fellow chessers, here is a little test...
A lot of trivia which I had to just guess. I got 18 which was dead on average... I guess that's... ok 
The distance from London to Paris was on a Wechsler I took many moons ago, fwiw.
I guess by having a general knowledge of distances you're supposed to be able to estimate correctly within the limits given. e.g. when I drive ____ far it took this long and comparing the width of that state to a european country as seen on a globe last time I looked... etc.
Or if you know the circumference of the earth you can start using visual spacial stuff to estimate the distance on a globe, and divide accordingly... although the first piece of info, the circumference of the earth, does seem to be trivia.
But yeah, seems a bit out of place.
Some of the questions were, indeed, questionable : ) Not the sort of questions you would expect to see on a test to measure intelligence. I got 22, but I feel that was due to my being 58 and still being able to remember stuff....
Just an FYI...I learned sometime back that the memory isnt the first thing to go...
I forget what was the first thing to go
: )
Can intelligent person suck at chess, forever?
Short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but...
In what way is the answer to this question not obvious?
Circumference of the earth one can deduct, it is not trivia.
so if an intelligent person can suck at chess forever, how will a nitwit like me ever get better 
Great chess players are not automatically the brightest people.
The game of chess is a whole different world. It has nothing to do with intelligence, unless you mean "chess intelligence."
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
chesspooljuly13 wrote:
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
I have a lot of smart players at my club. A lot of them are college teachers, yet none of them is amazing in chess.
The best player we have is somewhat average in intellect.
It's about knowing the game. An intelligent person is bound to be awful in chess if they lack ability.
The OP is acting as if an intelligent person should be superior in every field.
Let me try this in one sentence (maybe two):
Why try to grant posthumous US citizenship to Fischer when it's clear that's the last thing he would want? Why not respect HIS wishes - not yours?