11541 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!
The strange thing is that joeydrive and I were saying pretty close to the same thing and then suddenly a battle of semantics broke outJoeydrive defines correlation to mean the "Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient" even though I am sure that he knows that no else in this thread is using that definition. This coefficient is a number between 0 and 1 showing how close observed data follows a straight line. With 1 meaning that the data points form a perfectly straight line. There are other ways to quantify correlation. The quantification that comes closest to most people's intuitive idea of correlation is the "Spearman rank correlation". If x increases as y increases then the spearman rank correlation is positive, although the relationship is not necessary linear.
"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.
Weird, it's like I said something about the correlation needing to be linear.
I take it neither of you has heard of a nonlinear correlation?
Here you go:
There's definately a correlation. Here's a very close formula for your maximum rating - 10 x IQ plus 1000.
I'd also like to know where you got this, although it hardly matters. If you let numbers tell you what you can and can't accomplish in life then you are a fool.
The word "correlation" was introduced in the OP. The standard procedure is to plot the data before trying a mathematical model.
I am an average iq guy. But i worked myself to improve my game, and new ideas of gameplay eventually came to me. My calculations have now become more effective and efficient. Honestly, i would have to do a sample statistical test of pmcc to check this out myself, but intially i am of opinion: practice, practice, practice...
Glad to see this mindless, four year old thread, can be continually brought back to life by people of any IQ.
Thank you @MrWizard, your legacy will outlive you.
There are about 50 other variations of this same thread (feels worse than KID theory) and all equally mindless.
Chess players are an eccentric lot. Myself included.
"We're Chess Players, we must be smart!"
Your posturing puts us at risk of vindicating post #11, joey, and you haven't commented on the numerous references to 'non-linear correlation' i posted from Google Scholar, so I think I'll just leave it at that.
Here it is:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2005.100271/full I just thought some specific examples in actual scientific papers might help you along the path to admitting you made a (frankly, quite elementary) mistake. You don't seem like the kind of guy who would be able to do that kind of thing though :(Not that there's any need to get insulting, but there's a great deal of irony in being called dumb by someone who can't grasp the concept of a non-linear correlation.
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)."?
yes, this is the case. many studies have been conducted and this is exactly what was found. also I would just like to note that these studies were probably invariably talking about standard chess played in real life tournaments, and not internet blitz or bullet chess.
grandmasters seem to have a unique ability to "chunk" patterns, store them in their heads and call them up as needed. something along these lines. it was a german study I read which stated something like this. they speculated that grandmasters may have above normal neuronal connections tying together two very specific parts of the brain which may contribute to how easily they are able to store or "chunk" chess patterns or positions in their memories.
I think it very likely that each person has increased activity/neuronal connections tying together various different parts of brain leading to each person having different predispositions and abilities for different fields, activities etc., chess being one of these. this is the same variability that applies to people's phyisques and their according predispositions for different athletic/physical activities.
Interesting- thank you for that. Of course, given that I'm in the 1300-1400 range after playing chess my whole life, I would like to believe there is no relationship whatsoever!
Well, in Germany we distinguish between "Zusammenhang" and "Korrelation". Only in loose talk people use "korreliert" in the sense of "not independent". "Korrelation":="linearer Zusammenhang" is usually reserved for Pearson's product-moment correlation r, while "nichtlinearer Zusammenhang" is for dependencies that are better modelled through other than linear curves (like e.g. a typical learning curve).
Well it looks like I will have to admit a certain degree of error, Joey.http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html
If I can assume you are mathematically trained as well, Bubatz. Then it would appear that correlation indeed only formally applies to linear relationships. The sciences (and everyday speech) certainly do not make such a distinction. Shame we couldn't have had a more amiable discussion of what was ultimately a rather pointless sidenote to the thread.
Well said. Numbers, or people with silly formulas
I've just been told that the better chess player you are; your IQ would be usually high also
I had something interesting happen to me. I used to be a rather good chess player but then, unfortunately,had limited brain damage.
My "spatial" used to be in the upper one tenth of one percent--I could play blindfold etc at an early age.
Now my "spatial" is really bad--in lower 15%-this due to some brain damage in a particular area of my brain.
My chess playing ability has also gone down something like 400 rating points in quicker chess and 250 rating points in slow chess.
So I am saying your chess ability is dependent on some separate factors such as spatial, memory, ability to innovate etc.
If you have these factors then your over all IQ will tend to be higher as some of these are factored in evaluatiing IQ. If you lose one of these factors--your IQ will drop--I have lost spatial and memory [memory to some degree]. My IQ has dropped.
[I know many will say "yes, it is apparent your IQ has dropped!]
Nah. Wisdom wins out over IQ anyday. We're glad your here, @Ponz111.
I have seen some intelligent people do some very dumb things, especially whilst using very little forethought, that they were otherwise very capable of. Even the dull are capable of making a few sharp moves now and then.
However, it seems logical to conclude if you did a study, it would show that the better you are at spatial reasoning, in conjunction with logic problem solving, you probably are going to be better at chess than those who don't do them well.
Do a sample test for it to check for correlation ^^
Do a sample test for it to check for correlation ^^
I really don't want to put forth the effort that it would require. Thanks for considering me a good crash test dummy....
It can and it can't, chess has so many complexity and memorization that you have to have quite a bit of understanding what goes on in chess I say it makes you smart in a way but only thinking ahead.
Is check necessary?
by JohnWZiegler a few minutes ago
What are your easiest games you played?
by Ryanyurocks10 a few minutes ago
Anand vs Carlsen: World Championship match thread
by zapped 3 minutes ago
FACT: Kasparov wins FIDE President
by macer75 4 minutes ago
fair play (alleged)
by macer75 10 minutes ago
What makes a great chess book...well, great?
by Auntie_Maim 12 minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by brandon68 13 minutes ago
Why hasn't Ivanov been banned yet?
by waffllemaster 14 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by chesssmart82 15 minutes ago
Is there a young chess player who can equel Magnus?
by chessmaster102 16 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!