Chess-specific intelligence VS General intelligence

No, I agree with you, browni. I'm just saying that to be one of those things, you have to have a certain kind of knowledge (so you kind of have to be smart in a way), whereas in chess, you don't (which is why I don't think ciljettu's anology is sufficient). That doesn't mean I think scientists and mathematicians give up creativity in addition to knowledge.

I also think that chess is pattern based, and it doesn't necessarily take extreme intelligence to develop a ton of them; in my opinion, a substantial portion of chess skill results from a desire to learn, and a certain maturity to learn from your mistakes. That builds up patterns, and once you've seen a complicated mate, that you understand, thousands of times, it doesn't seem complicated anymore.

It might be, although it's kind of hard to believe, given how abstract chess is . Maybe it's a tie?

Politics has nothing to do with this subject at all. I am a conservative libertarian and I think that you're wrong. Most people acknowledge that being good in a certain area, like math, doesn't mean you're intelligent, per se. Some autistic kids are geniuses at math. Does this make them intelligent?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word "politics" as:

1 [usually treated as singular] the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power

Politics has nothing to do with the original question, sir.

I know this is a mocking tone, but in fact this is precisely what I believe. Because that's really what chess is made up of, again having some intrinsic basis in math and logic. Things that seemed complicated to me before are now simple. High level players simply have a ton of those moments, that's it.

I do indeed believe I can become the next Capablanca with this mindset; I don't believe, however, that it is likely, and indeed, I don't think I actually will. I also think it's extremely hard to have such iron nerves to be able to look at everything that's wrong with one's game, and to be so eager to learn from losses.

You said "lefty liberals". You were not referring to "politics of the workplace" or whatever makes you feel that you are correct.

You can quote Wikipedia and attempt to insult me all day. That doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, so...

First of all, this isn't a very scientific way of proving anything. Secondly, if we are to argue this way, I myself have contrasting experiences -- in tournaments, I notice little difference between the intelligence of chess players I see and "normal people." I'll concede that there is probably a slight difference, but even so, they are largely just normal guys to me. Granted, most of the players I am talking about are not titled, but range from ratings of about 1600-2200.

In summary, I think you can be a pretty average guy and still be extremely good at chess, depending on your attitude and desire I'm just trying to point out that there are plenty of components other than intelligence, not that intelligence isn't one of them.

If we are talking about the very very elite, then you probably have to have an above-average IQ -- as said, I do believe there is some correlation between chess and intelligence. But, I will repeat that I think that there are so many other components. I have an above-average IQ, but my brother has a somewhat higher IQ than I do (last time I checked), and he likes chess as well, but he can't stand anything he doesn't understand, so if he is struggling with something in chess he is more likely to give up on it instead of persevere. He needs everything to come easily to him, but this inhibits him from learning. I am now better than him at chess.

I don't think natural interest is the problem though in my brother's case. He's generally interested in it. It's just that he loses interest once something actually comes difficult for him (this of course will happen to any chess player, no matter how smart they are) -- he doesn't want to put in the effort to learn because he just wants easy wins to make him feel superior; he only wants to look at what he's doing right. That's his problem.

I bring it up because I think it reflects the whole "persevere and learning from your mistakes is all you need" mantra, which understandably you find idealistic; I don't blame you, but my experience in my journey to getting better has been consistent with this so far.

Well, I don't know, I can't put myself in others' shoes. Maybe I would feel differently if my IQ was 100. But from my point of view, I think anything in chess is graspable with well-learned experience.

thats @#$^

I think thinking of chess just is a part of ur general intelligence.fewer ideas manipulate your thinking process and then it effects most part of ur brain.In other words chess thinking in another dimension of your intelligence...............

Psychology, sociology, etc., are considered are considered "soft sciences" and employ the use of scientific method. The fact that your work doesn't result in goo in a test tube does not mean that it's not science. Nobody has said anything that would be considered political save yourself.

I don't agree that confirmation bias is all that can be proven in psychology, but certainly any collection of data can be used to political ends. I just don't think people discussing the nature of intelligence in this blog are likely to have political motives.

chrisr2212 wrote: 

Feminism has nothing to do with equality for women. It has to do with stomping everyone who is not a woman off the face of the earth, and exalting womankind and their "rights" over everything and everyone else. Men and women are NOT equal. we are completely different. This moronic worship of "equality" has caused incalculable harm. Feminism is an excuse for women to get away with murder and anything else they decide to get away with

what is currently called "feminism" is an evil joke on humankind

I don't think so.  I think that the guy with the high IQ would be better able to calculate out whether or not the knight sacrifices was a good idea.   However, that's calculation, not intuition.

Seeing the possibility of the knight sacrifice in the first place is intuition, and it doesn't seem to be highly correlated with IQ.  At least, not based on the research I've read lately.

Have ya'll met ratatouie? He's definitely interested in chess.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/guess-what-its-the-ratsterrrrrrrrrrrrr

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/theres-a-rat-loose

it's a blog and I am replying; my "whacky opinion" happens to be true. the truth is not changed by human unwillingness to see it. almost everyone (except me and ciljettu apparently) is brainwashed; men and children are the oppressed victims of women, not the other way around. A lie, endlessly repeated, comes to be believed. But there's hope. More and more men are tired of being walked all over by "victimized" women (feminists).