16182 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!
IQ tests vary. Someone can get a fairly different number on various tests. The reality is "percentile" is what matters. For example, Mensa requires a 2-percentile score.
Also, the guy who said: "Abilty to learn is more important than knowledge." Just imagine if all of humanity's current knowledge were to disappear over night. We would be in a Mel Gibson "Road Warrior" age.
When did I say knowledge isnt important?
If a person or a race doesnt have learning ability then he/they become stagnant. If there is a sudden weird problem arises in the world they wont be able to adapt as well if they had good knowledge but not so much learning ability.
If you have ability to learn then you can turn it into knowledge in no time. Therefore it is more precious than a certain amount of knowledge itself.
Hello? I didn't say that you said knowledge is not important.
"Abilty to learn is more important than knowledge."
That's what you said. That's what is called a "universal statement". And, it is absurd.
It is similar to saying: "A hand is more important than a foot".
We stand on the shoulders of giants...in chess and everything else in life. The knowledge that we have from our predecessors is not inferior to the ability to learn. Both are important.
Choose your wording better and you won't end up saying something absurd.
Are you always this subtle or is this your personal best?
Cant you realise the simple goddamn thing that ability is more important than knowledge?
Here let me make it easier for your simple mind with a simple example.
Suppose 1 car is ahead of another car by quite a distance but its speed is much slower than the other and the race finish is still a lot of laps to go. Which one you wanna rather have? Obviously the 2nd one as it's closing the gap on the first car.
A guy with more knowledge maybe ahead first but a kid who has more ability to learn but with less amount of knowldge will eventually should become wiser and better in future. Understand?
I hope you get the drift now.
shockinn that is an awesome example
Well, shockinn, you just want to quibble.
You say something absurd, then someone says something sensible...so you "dig in", get defensive and then just plain old nasty.
Just imagine if all you ever had access to was a chess rule book. This would be quite a thin book...what, maybe a couple of pages?
Then you played against someone who had access to all the various chess books, or who was coached, or learned from DVDs or online.
No, you are still just talking nonsense.
Just as if you needed an aspirin, but nobody had invented it. You would be up the creek.
Now, for your testy words:
P.S.: If you want to eventually develop even a modicum of chess skill...get some knowledge. Much of it is even free.
Another 'weak' argument. Its not a surprise that you're attacking my english (my 4th language) as you know you cant even touch my logic.
Your points are absolutely nonsensical btw.
Then you played against someone who had access to all the various chess books, or who was coached, or learned from DVDs or online."
About the above quote, do you know how much dumb you sound despite being good in your mother language (not saying thats not a surprise in your case.).
I just gave you the example of a knowledgble person and a genius kid. It is obvious that the knowdgeble guy would win now but how about 10 years later? The kid will use his greater ability to learn and become a much better player.
'Ability to learn' is a machine that produces knowledge, thus its importance is more.
At first I thought I wouldnt bother to explain this simple thing but went ahead in the end.
kasparov iq is 30000
this knowledge vs ability to learn argument is futile.
if someone has knowledge it is implicit they had the ability to absorb knowledge and if someone has the ability to learn they will automatically acquire knowledge.
...if someone has the ability to learn they will automatically acquire knowledge.
I need an adult!
I think that that is rather well said.
Intelligence, an aptitude to innovate and create, to resolve complex problems and add to that knowledge...a cornucopia of values and solutions passed on from others, living or dead...now we are functioning on all cylinders.
Someone on one of these threads said: "Oh, I don't read books." He was, by the implication, proud of this feat. One of the major differences between us and the lower animal species is extracranial knowledge. What a shame it is, IMO, not to use it.
yes and even though its fun to have knowledge, knowledge without means to use it properly is inpotence.
You know there is a funny story i heard as a kid. (probably from some famous play i dont know=
there was a rich man he had 4 sons, he gave each of some an equal amount of money and said keep it save for such and such time.
One time he comes back and ask the first son, what have you done with the money?
Well i have invested it and had made really much money with it.
the father said: that is great im proud of you.
the father asked the next son and the son replies: well i brough it to the bank and got interest.
father says: thats good thats good.
the father asked the third son and the son replies: oh i tried an investment and lost all my money.
father says: that good, thats good keep you head up.
when the father goes to the last son, he asks the same and the son replied:
Well i hide it at some place and i still have the same amount of money.
the father gets really angry and says: you idiot, how could you do that, i never trust you again.
Actually pdve Kasparov has an IQ of 190 and is maybe in the top 10 most intelligent people in the world.
It's a common misconception to confuse chess skill with intelligence... Kasparov's actual IQ is closer to 130....
why is ruy lopez considered the strongest
by lolurspammed a few minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by Ziryab 120 seconds ago
Where did I go wrong? Queen's gambit declined
by wrathss 2 minutes ago
by ISeeHowYourePinned 4 minutes ago
Does chess exist??
by power_2_the_people 4 minutes ago
Should One Play Chess?
by ilikecapablanca 7 minutes ago
Match Win 0, Rating 1800
by GMGavishChotani 9 minutes ago
7/29/2015 - Precise Moves
by pratikshaha 14 minutes ago
Any chance of adding an engine to the Analysis board?
by TurboFish 15 minutes ago
see i missed mate in 8
by notmtwain 15 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!