15638 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!
awesomechess I asked for two child prodigy savants. Because a child may be a progidy does not mean he or she is a savant.
Didn't you just read my previous posts? Read The Immortal Game and the encyclopedia entry I included (which somehow was formatted strangely) - the encyclopedia entry says that savants are not considered prodigies, but there are savants who are very talented in chess.
The problem is that IQ is basically how much easily measurable data do you know, and it assesses problem-solving to some extent.
But chess is just another animal. There have been uneducated, illiterate chess players who have a natural talent for the game. Mir Sultan Khan did not know how to read or write, and so read no chess theory, but is often called the most naturally talented player of all time. He even beat Capablanca.
There are savants who are very good in chess but "very good in chess" does not equate to prodigies is all I am saying. "talented in chess" also does not mean "prodigies"
I have a relationship with chess ratings and IQ...it is a crazy love triangle
Chess rating and IQ should be correlated, but the relationship is unlikely to be one-to-one. This is the same reason that one person can get quite different scores on two IQ tests: all tests use a different metric. Some include verbal components, some include mathematical components, some include deductive logic, some only include pattern recognition.
Being good at chess doesn't necessarily mean you have intellectual skills that would give you a strong vocabulary, for example. Yet it is undeniable that verbal ability, on its own, is important. Yes, some IQ tests only offer logic and pattern problems, and they might correlate more highly with chess ratings than traditional IQ tests. Still, this neglects other facets of intellectual ability that are to some degree measurable, and are still important.
Even two logic tests that are different could, theoretically, lead to different scores if a particular skill is required for one that is not required for the other. So, there's no reason to believe that chess rating is a strong indication of IQ. This is the same reason that IQ is kind of a crappy meausre to begin with.
Also, modern perspectives on intelligence suggest that working memory is the primary driver of most intelligence. How much information can you hold in your head, without getting distracted? This would indeed correlate with IQ and chess rating, but only to an extent. Once information had been crystalized, and you have long term memory for a strategy, the measure becomes bogus. Then it's about how much practice you've had than how you can intellectually perform in the moment. For that reason, I think especially when it comes to high chess ratings and high IQ's the differences are more experience- than ability-based.
A genius who never reads a book is still a genius. He's just gonna be bad at reading.
The relationship between Chess and IQ:
Truly clever people don't waste their time on board-games.
How is math any different? Outside of basic geometry and arithemetic, most math is only a concern for the mathemetician.
By every definition chess players are truly clever.
Mathematics is baked into the nature of reality. It describes everything about how the universe changes over time from the largest scale to the smallest. Chess not so much, fun though it may be. That's one difference.
According to the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH), mathematics might not just describe reality, it might be reality.
AND SO THERES THE WINNER!!!
Nah. There's a parallell multiverse. Deal with it.
"cheating message recieved"
by RonaldJosephCote 5 minutes ago
The new Excalibur GameTime III?
by Reb 5 minutes ago
by megamanxxx 5 minutes ago
9/19/2014 - Eric Schiller vs. D.Jackson, 1996
by BryanCFB 6 minutes ago
Windows Phone 8 Beta Testers Needed
by moma 7 minutes ago
Fun chess players game
by Joker-Jamal 8 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by dragonair234 10 minutes ago
World Chess.com Correspondence Chess Championship Match (MSC157 vs. windmill64)
by Aetheldred 24 minutes ago
Anand will beat Carlsen in 2014
by checkzmaker 25 minutes ago
by ThomasJEvans 28 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!