11003 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!
If there are 3 groups: gifted, average and handicapped, then I must be handicapped because I'm only 1700 rating :(
I've come up with this estimation including all the relevant factors
your IQ * 64 = your potential chess rating
That'd mean your average Joe should have a 6400 rating.
As can be read from the comment above yours, the average Joe doesn't bother to verify anything they are offered
You said it - this sums up exactly what I might have wanted to say if I could have been bothered writing it! :D
I don't know if intelligence has much to do with OTB ratings. There are a lot of dumb people who are good chessplayers, and it's due to the amount of work they put in and their determination to win. I've played chess since I was 10 (I'm now 42) and won a lot of games earlier in my life that I shouldn't have won, because my "killer instinct" was so much greater. Just as an offhand example: when I was, say, 18 and playing in the National Open in Vegas I would easily play a theoretical draw until 2 am just because I wanted to win so bad. I've since played many games as an adult, and the--difficult to admit truth--is that it just becomes less important: if I have the option of drawing and going back to the hotel and having dinner with my wife I will think about it, rather than sitting there for another 2 hours in a drawish game. That would never happen in my youth.
There's so much more that goes into chess than merely practicing and getting lessons and knowing the game. I have bad nerves, and when I say that I mean "Amateur nerves" and most of the players I see at tournaments have Amateur nerves (obviously not most of the GM's). Amateurs also have no poker face. None. You watch a GM at one of these tournaments and you have no idea if he's winning or losing or drawing. You look at most amateurs between moves, talking to their friends or whatever, and you can easily tell how their game is going. Amateurs also have no strategy, even if they feel otherwise: GM's and IM's will go into a game with a plan before the game even starts, playing either aggressively or positionally etc. An amateur plays the same every single game, he only knows one way (the way he thinks he plays and what he thinks he's strongest at). There's a whole host of factors that go into being successful in tournaments that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual position in front of you.
Then you get into the "work" aspect. We all know successful people in life who are dumb as rocks and we wonder how they became successful, and usually chalk it up to luck or who they know, but the truth is successful people, and especially successful chessplayers, work seriously hard at it. That has nothing to do with intelligence, that has to do with drive and motivation and determination. I know several people who have way more "talent" than I but who are lazy as hell, who don't want to put in the work, and eventually it catches up with you.
Nothing replaces hard work. Nothing ever has. I'd rather be 50 IQ points dumber but have a stronger drive to be successful and a better work (practice) ethic.
That would explain the huge contributions he's made to Quantum Electrodynamics and String Theory.
In my experience as a tournament regular in Alberta, Canada, higher rated players tend to be what I consider smarter people by conventional standards and definitions. Having played tournament chess regulary for the last 4 years, I have met and chatted with almost all levels of players and come to what I consider to be some fairly correct generalizations. Spearman's theory of G, or "general intelligence" seems correct.
"Smart" people - those possessing modest to very good memories often make for very good(1900+) chess players. They also tend to have a good ability to visually rotate objects-- obviously an essential attribute to play well.
These two abilities are what I think most affect a person's aptitude for good chess. Not surprisingly, many IQ tests have sections that measure these exact skills. Object rotation, front-to-back recall, fill in the blank block etc.
On a side note, and perhaps more interestingly; I have found that the best blitz players in the province tend to be the most cognitively sharp, quick witted, most educated and so on. The most obvious confound however is the problem of trying to evalute kids, as their chess skills and minds have not fully matured.
Basically, the higher rated players seem smart( more education, income, better read on a variety of topics, more intellectually stimulating to be around etc) The lower rated players tend to have less of the above.
You think memory and education are measurements of intelligence. Enough said.
By western conventional standards, yes, more education usually infers greater intellect, and ones memory is often a great assest in being to do well in many school subjects as well as in the work world. Of course many different cultures have different definitions of what is "smart" or "intelligent" and therefore our thinking regarding how smart a person is usually subjective.
Fischer never finished school, knew nothing about even high-school math. His view of world was quite blind. He had no social life. Yet he was and still is a legendary chess player, probably the best ever existed so far.
There is no formula like this. I think if you want to be good at chess and are willing to study and be patient, anyone could become a GM.
I think IQ can only help with learning to play chess. More intelligent people are just way more adaptable. But with time and experience, anyone can become a strong player.
Although it is widely acknowledged that chess is the best example of an intellectual activity among games, evidence showing the association between any kind of intellectual ability and chess skill has been remarkably sparse. One of the reasons is that most of the studies investigated only one factor (e.g., intelligence), neglecting other factors relevant for the acquisition of chess skill (e.g., amount of practice, years of experience). The present study investigated the chess skill of 57 young chess players using measures of intelligence (WISC III), practice, and experience. Although practice had the most influence on chess skill, intelligence explained some variance even after the inclusion of practice. When an elite subsample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill. This unexpected result is explained by a negative correlation between intelligence and practice in the elite subsample. The study demonstrates the dangers of focusing on a single factor in complex real-world situations where a number of closely interconnected factors operate.
Here's the full study. http://v-scheiner.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/642/1/Does%20Chess%20Need%20Intelligence-revision-finalINT.pdf
I agree there is a correlation in general between the two, however, if you are really intelligent, but aren't patient, or chess doesn't appeal to you, you probably wouldn't be naturally good at. The other thing you might think about is the subjectivity of IQ tests...
Who are you agreeing with? Most posts, including the one above yours, is suggesting the opposite.
I tend to think that intellegent people gravitate towards cerebral things more so than those who realize before hand, that it doesn't suit them. I tend to think that the better the chess player, most often will have a higher IQ. I was trying to make mention of the subjectivity of IQ tests, an example would simply be, you could be great at chess, but do really stupid things otherwise. So, then the $64,000 dollar question is, what does any of that really prove?
To play chess you have to use your brain and think... but you also have to use your brain to drive across town.
That chess is a game for intelligent people, or that people who play are intelligent in general is a myth. If you're good at chess it only proves that you're good at chess.
It's like saying a highly skilled tax accountant is very intelligent just because they can do taxes well. Well maybe they've simply been doing taxes for 30 years and have developed a very specific skill set.
The best you could say, maybe, is that the rate at which a person improves their ability is linked to some specific types of intelligence. But that is also confounded by free time and willingness to improve.
Super intelligent people are often non-competitive and rather lazy. I guess they have nothing to prove. While intelligence certainly is an asset for chess, a will to win is more important. Super intelligent people tend not to excel at chess or anything else unless they become motivated, then watch out.
I concur. If you are really intelligent, you see the end and the journey before you even start, it sort of takes away the thrill of the unknown. I tend to get caught up in all of the things I want to avoid, so I use other things that are still cerebral, yet on a certain level rather trivial to occupy my time(like chess,wine making,writing music). However, I am sure that the economic class of the really intelligent person in question, will go along way to determine how active they are and what they delve into.
1700 OTB would put you firmly in the 'normal' category along with everyone else here. Anyone with an I.Q > 100 should be able to reach an OTB rating > 1200 (say about 1500 here at chess.com) with enough self study. With coaching I'm sure they could be as much as 500 points higher.
Those who would like to imagine that academic prowess is a more accurate indicator of intelligence than chess rating would do well to consider how the 'dumb guy who always outplays them at chess' would do if he was either motivated to sacrifice years of his life toward an academic path, or if he had the same environment as the person who judges himself superior.
I have known very few truely gifted individuals but can cite a few mere 'chessplayers' for the egotists here with low ratings & high I.Q's to compare themselves... Dr.Greg Hjorth [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Hjorth ] & Ralph Seberry [ http://unauthorised.org/ralph/danny.html ] who both died long before their time :(
I have the same thing happening, but how much of chess is simply preparation? Having already learned something, doesn't necessarily make you smarter the someone who hasn't tried the same thing.
Aside from this, I find raw intelligence difficult to isolate. We can only seem to test it based on what we have learned, but that doesn't make wisdom the same as intelligence.
Why do women get different medals? WGM or simply GM?
by Doggy_Style a few minutes ago
New Comment that Won't Go Away
by temp_ddg 3 minutes ago
Computer let the time run out!
by e4mostly 4 minutes ago
Tactics Trainer 2500+
by Xnaicixcision 7 minutes ago
by Expertise87 15 minutes ago
Cure for a Tournament Hassle
by landwehr 17 minutes ago
Please analyze this game for me!
by quak170 20 minutes ago
Could anyone do a analysis on this game
by zBorris 23 minutes ago
We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.
by texasaboy 25 minutes ago
5/20/2013 - Mate in 3
by Wicuber55 26 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com