17026 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!
I think that there is a correlation IQ/chess strenght, but, like with language, if you start to play chess old then someone who started earlier can play better even if he is less inteligent. And , of course, training methods , hard work and enviroment must be add to the equation
A lot of good points made here...too many to quote them all. I'm relatively new to the game of chess (about a year), but I think chess is largely about spatial-temporal reasoning, which effectively is a faculty of intelligence. A few things: 1. Men are generally better spatial-temporal reasoners, (of course there are exceptions), while women tend to be better at language or analytic reasoning (of course there are exceptions), and this is evidenced in the physical differences in density of the corpus callosum of male and female brains. 2. A variety of activities require spatial reasoning, so things such as driving, math, listening to Mozart, even...enhance spatial reasoning, and those who perform well with numbers, are good drivers, or are classically trained in music, etc., can also perform well in chess. Having said that, I think the only underlying factor here is enhancing that spatial temporal reasoning, which like anything else, can be done with work! If you can do that, your chess vision will also improve. Combine that with dedicated study of the game and I see no reason why anyone couldn't excel at it.
Ciljettu, that's simply not true. It has been disputed but certainly not discredited. In fact, it's been supported in recent years more so than ever before with the use of physiologic imaging and MRIs, which have produced consistent and significant differences in male/female corpus callosum structure.
Ciljettu...As a woman who speaks three languages fluently, I can respectfully disagree with you :) haha. Yes, I have scholarly links to support this, but they're through my university (clinical psych student), so I can't exactly post links that would be visible to all. Wiki has a nice summary of primary sources on this, though. The section on MRI's has a few...
That explains a lot. I knew the couch wouldn't fit through the door, but lost the argument about it and had to spend half an hour taking the legs off and pushing it at different angles until she was satisfied. Stupid language superiority.
Ciljettu, no problem. I too have a bad sense of direction...but I'm not sure that involves much spatial reasoning at all..(this I have not researchered though...)...BUT, spatial reasoning has more to do with your manipulation and interaction with the surrounding objects in space. So think of it like this: If you're driving, lost on a city road, you're not surrounded by the objects (the familiar objects, that is) necessary for you to navigate through in order to guide you back home, but it's not spatial reasoning's fault. You still use spatial reasoning while manuvering the vehicle around the unfamiliar location through the unknown surrounding objects. You may even avoid an accident, or remain lost for hours, driving around aimlessly ... (all of which involve the use of spatial reasoning). I'm honestly not sure, but I think a good sense of direction is largely based on memory, or if you've never been to that particular location, your ability to correctly read a map, or if all else fails, a good GPS ;)
When I am playing well I will be the first to tell you that I am a friggin' genius. When I am playing badly (and by higher-rated player's standards, I always play badly), I am simply having a bad day.
I really don't understand all the debate- there either is a correlation or there isn't. The anecdotal stuff shouldn't even factor in, as correlations are about an overall pattern and outliers will always occur.
This should be easy to look up, and I seem to remember there being a weak or possibly nonsignificant correlation between IQ and chess rating. But I'm too lazy to do so myself (another thing IQ doesn't take into account).
The only relationship between chess and IQ is this:
Really good players will be intelligent, BUT being very intelligent does not mean you will be a good player.
A lot of very smart people suck at chess, but I've never met a dimwit that played a good game.
"I really don't understand all the debate- there either is a correlation or there isn't."
Because if there is a relationship it has to be linear and it has to be best decsribed by a correlation? It's not possible that there is any non-linear relationship between IQ and chess skill or that some other copula best describes the relationship?
If there is a correlation, I see no reason why it would have to be linear. It is possible that there is a threshold level, and also that at some point the law of diminishing returns would set in.
Einstein had an IQ of 160. Kasparov one of 180-190. Bobby Fischer 187. A dean of a college I once knew - 80.
Arnold Schwarzenneger 135. George Bush and Ronald Reagan 96.
There's definately a correlation. Here's a very close formula for your maximum rating - 10 x IQ plus 1000. Of course this is depending on many years of hard, intense study and practice AND a strong desire and love for the game to reach this maximum, started at a younger age.
Correlation is a measure of linear association. There surely could be a curvilinear relationship which you wouldn't measure using correlation.
Correlation simply means that two variables are not statistically independent.
Nope. In fact, 0 correlation implies independent only in the case that they are bivariate normal.
Words have definitions not only outside of, but more linguistically accurate than those inside of, narrow academic disciplines.
You may be a math guy, but blake is more correct than you. Sorry, but it's true.
You mean PUSHING a door that says pull?
Haha. Yes I saw and changed that. Perhaps that was even more stupid than the act itself..?
Thought you made the mistake on purpose to prove your point further. lol Anyone understanding that, has an IQ high enought to become a 2400 player.
As per the mini debate above. Blake is correct, a correlation doesn't have to be linear. I wasn't sure what bivariate normal meant, Joeydvivre, but it appears to be a term from probability theory [ http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BivariateNormalDistribution.html ] which is slightly irrelevent to the discussion at hand, but having the subject in your mind may have caused you confusion. The correlation of variables, x and y, in the equation y = x^2 is enough to disprove your argument.
I don't know why you're getting so upset, joeydvivre. I really didn't mean to offend you. I'm sure you know exactly what you're talking about, and I admit a great deal of ignorance concerning statistics. But I think you're attempting to apply some detail concerning your area of expertise to the whole of mathematics. 'Correlation' denotes relationship, and relationships by no means must be linear, that much is perfectly clear.I suspect you are asking me for a linear correlation coefficient for a non-linear equation above, so I will decline to answer.Edit: I can only presume I was correct that you are generally applying a very specific definition: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22non-linear+correlation%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
There's definately a correlation. Here's a very close formula for your maximum rating - 10 x IQ plus 1000.
Where on earth did you get this from? According to that, Carlsen and Aronian must have IQs well into the 180s, 190s even, i.e. mega-mega-genius. I've heard both of the talking and doing interviews, and they certainly sound like intelligent guys, who obviously excel in their field, but IQ of 180? I'm sure they would laugh at the suggestion.
And this is leaving aside all the points about IQ being subjective, etc etc.
I tried an IQ test and scored 125. According to your formula, I will never break 2250. I find this insulting. I am currently rated 2050 by my national federation and don't see any reason why I can't eventually get to master level if I put the hard work in.
Predictions: How Long Will He be Champ?
by BorisBeastIvanov a few minutes ago
Komodo 6 Released But? The A.R.B Chess System Still Crushes!! it! :)
by TheARBChessSystem 2 minutes ago
Top 10 Chess Books to Own
by TwoMove 3 minutes ago
ask questions how to use houdini to improve your game
by BorisBeastIvanov 3 minutes ago
New group for Alekhine lovers
by puiuus 3 minutes ago
What is you favorite thing about Carlsen?
by JohnStormcrow 4 minutes ago
12/9/2013 - Mate in 3
by ThomasZhong 5 minutes ago
Queen or Two Rooks
by macer75 5 minutes ago
Blunder of the Day
by falcogrine 8 minutes ago
I am quitting chess.
by Phelon 13 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 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!