11147 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!
There is a difference between having a photographic memory and having good enough memory to be highly intelligent.Also, It is apples to oranges when comparing, having the task of returning a random piece placement that you studied for a short while and having an unchanging chess position that you can intently study to calculate variations from before choosing the best move.
In the tests performed, there was no difference in the time allowed to look at the source material.
In other words, they flashed a picture of a position from a game, and the subject was allowed to study it for a few seconds, and then asked to recreate that position from memory. Then, they flashed an image of a chessboard with chess pieces placed randomly on the board. The subject was allowed to study it for a few seconds, and then asked to recreate the position from memory. In neither case were they shown any images of any moves that preceded the selected position.
When the picture was an actual position from an actual game, the master significantly outperformed the novice. When the position was randomly placed pieces, their scores were nearly equal.
The time difference is irrelevant. The difference is that you a have a picture to keep referring to for calculating a move and you end up totally dependent on memory to put back the pieces while participating in the random piece exercise. Those are two totally different things, but you are trying to use that to prove GM's can't calculate and that it is all memory. It isn't rocket science that having other memory cues would make it easier to recognize a previously studied or played position. I bet however given the same amount of time as anyone else, a GM will perform far better doing random puzzles, simply because they have awesome calculating ability.
I wish I could find the article Wafflemaster referred to in post 266, about the challenge for grandmasters at other abstract strategy, perfect information, games. Intuitively, I would expect Chess experts to outperform others at those games, but apparently, they did not. I'd like to see the article and see how the games were conducted.
As for the Chess recall experiment, let's make sure we understand what the experiment is before trying to draw conclusions. The experimental setup is simple. Show a picture of a chessboard with some chess pieces on it to a test subject for a few seconds. Remove the image, and then ask the subject to recreate the pattern of pieces on a board. That's it. There's no time difference, and there's no "referring back" to the board. The image is shown for a few seconds, and removed.
The data collected shows that Chess experts and Chess novices performed very similarly on the random piece exercise, but that Chess experts vastly outperformed Chess novices when the pattern of Chess pieces was an actual position that came from an actual game.
Now we get to a controversial element, which is the conclusions that can be drawn. The experimenter concluded that the short term memory capacity and the ability to remember random bits of information and recall them quickly is approximately the same in Chess masters and non-masters. However, the recall of board position from actual chess games is also a short term memory problem, and yet the masters performed much better on that test. The conclusion of the experimenters is that the masters were "chunking" (their term) the board positions. They would not commit the positions of individual pieces into their short term memory for instant recall. Instead, they would instantly recognize patterns on the board, and commit that pattern to short term memory as a "chunk". Simple example: A novice might see a king on G1, a rook on F1, and pawns at F2, G2, and H2, and commit five piece positions to memory. The master would see, "king side castle", and commit one piece of information to memory. The ability to recall information from short term memory is known to be limited by the number of pieces to recall, so "chunking" improves performance on the tests, because they are actually recalling less information from short term memory. The master is recalling information from long term memory, matching it to the presented information very rapidly, and storing the existence of a specific pattern in his short term memory.
Now, the controversial part. What makes a great Chess player? On that issue, there is very little agreement. However, this ability to store patterns in long term memory, recall them quickly, and match them to presented information seems to play a large role. This ability is not measured on IQ tests, and seems only loosely correlated to IQ.
thts not true cuz many people start playing chess late so and arnt experts so does tht mean to their IQ is 0 , in tht case mine is 40? wht if i started when i was 5 yrs would i be einstein ?
Yes, yes you would.
Now on a chess forum you have the luxury to immediately have a look at the rating of the given person.
My experience is that the intuitive notion (regardless of the content or even the fact that the post is about chess) of intelligence and the rating go hand in hand.
You would think. But, keep reading...
the sentiment behind what you wrote here is spot on. you shouldn't pay attention to all these people who seemingly try to equate their internet blitz/bullet ratings to iq. more or less juvenile bs.
wht i m trying to say is tht if a person doesnt know how to play chess (exept rules) then that person's IQ is 0 and is probally one of the dumbest people in the world?
I think intuitively that if you read a post on a forum you can come up with an assesment of the person's intelligence who has written that post. Reading a post you think to yourself: this post must have been written by an intelligent person, or that post must have been written by an unintelligent person. This is not about whether you agree with content of the post just about the quality of thinking which is represented in the post.
This is an eminently reasonable conjecture. One exception that comes to mind is that bright people who are new to chess typically have low ratings, at least until they get the hang of things.
Personally, I believe any reasonably intelligent and educated person (say B.A. degree) can become a USCF C or B Class player (1400 to perhaps 1800) with just a fair amount of work, and study.
But how long it takes a person to reach USCF 1400, or even 1800, varies enormously based on the age at which you start, and myriad other factors.
Every 400 rating points represents a qualitative LEAP in playing strength. If you start at USCF 1000, bear in mind that only 1 percent of the active tournament players in the U.S. ever make it to the 2200 level.
So, on balance, perhaps one or even two rating "LEAPS" are possible for many competitors, with a bit of sweat and hard work.
But after that you are probably shit out of luck, for the vast majority of aspiring players, with "intelligence" notwithstanding.
Can you with a bit of sweat and hard work become intelligent? Or do you have to be intelligent to become intelligent?
Whoa. Deep, dude. I'm not nearly intelligent enough to contemplate this.
"Intelligence as a Syllogism" has been beat to death for more that 200 posts in this thread. Please don't bring that construct back.
Another example--IF pigs could fly, THEN pork would surely be a low fat food.
Best not to think about it. Just laugh at it, instead.
IQ = USCF/16.0
Pork, the other white meat.
The connection between flying pigs and low fat pork sounds like a topic for another @Snakes thread.
Here's his latest, on lawnmowers and bikini wax.
My layman interpretation of knowledge links it with creativity. How can you take more than one piece of information, combine them, and come up with a new piece of information.
IQ x 10 + 1000 =~ top possible rating, with many years of good coaching and study, strong desire and starting young.
( =~ means very closely equal to )
IIRC the guy that came up with that also commented that because there are so many other factors, such a straight forward formula coudln't ever really make sense
Sure he did, Joey. Reports are between 180 and 187.
That's right Joey, I don't believe there is an offical IQ score for Bobby. Different internet sites that like to claim these silly numbers (I've seen 170 more often than 180 and 180+) are ones that also like to take a guess for Newton, Maxwall, et al.
Course we'll never know for sure, but I believe he did. It seems a great legitimate educated guess, since he was far above any chess players at the time, etc. etc.
He said Kasparov wasn't good at anything else, just chess, but that he, Bobby, was a genius on many different levels. (paraphrased)
Botvinnik was an engineer. Taimanov was a concert pianist. What did Fischer do to support his claim? (He has some odd ideas when it came to non-chess things). My guess is he saw Kasparov (current World Champion) as a threat to his reality where he (Fischer) believed he was still the world champion (or at least he liked to say so).
Fischer also said while others give 2 percent of their mental energy to chess, he gave 98%. He was certainly very talented, but he also worked harder than anyone (I believe).
Speculation on my part, sure, but when it doesn't involve chess notation I don't trust Fischer's analysis of anything :)
Or maybe I should say, I'm less than convinced because other's don't corroborate it. From what I recall other's main impressions of him are "hard to get a long with" and "amazingly brilliant player" nothing along the lines of "all around genius"
When thinking of eccentric genius in chess, current to 10 player Ivanchuk comes to mind. Highly original player (that points to some kind of general intelligence to me) and other's accounts and things I've read seem to suggest he's very smart. Of course I've never met the guy, so just more speculation on my part.
I am willing to bet, if using people who have never played chess before, of different IQ levels to play some games, to see how they compared against one another, as they played the same set of players, it would show that initially more intelligent people play better than less intelligent people. Thus they would have a higher rating than the less intelligent.
However, if you took someone with 100 IQ and had them play chess for 10 years, then compared them to a newcomber of a 125 IQ, it would probably show how experience can in some ways, negate the raw intelligence factor. This would probably be true in almost every case.
12/26/2014 - Karpov-Huebner, Montreal 1979
by oreojj2014 a few minutes ago
12/25/2014 - Mate in 5
by Gummug 3 minutes ago
Does old age equal incompetence as a chess player?
by Ellie47 4 minutes ago
by Newkidonadonkey 8 minutes ago
Houdini's ELO rating, how much accurate?
by MayanjaNaseef 10 minutes ago
by ConnorMacleod_151 13 minutes ago
You Don't Think Cheating is a Serious Problem?
by LHB58 16 minutes ago
do Americans really see Bobby as one of the greatest players
by mashanator 21 minutes ago
A good game - please advise -
by Boogalicious 25 minutes ago
Chess Coach/ Instructor
by SQUEAKERISCHESSKING 25 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!