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 ^^

MetalFactor wrote:

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.

I don't think Fischer or Kasparov's IQ is known.  There are silly internet sources willing to claim all sorts of numbers, but is there any evidence they were tested?  Which test was used?  That's what I thought

Yeah, IQ test is too broad, especially if it works the way it aims to.  Chess skill is too specific.  For plateau rating and IQ I woudln't expect too much correlation (after you factor out some of the problems you mentioned such as bright people quitting and such).  Learning rate and IQ I would expect to be more of a correlation, but still less of one than the masses inherently attribute to chess due to its status as a game for intellectuals.

These tests have been done.  Surprisingly, to me at least, the ability to solve logic problems well has very little correlation to Chess ability, at least beyond a certain threshold.  Grandmasters aren't spectacularly good at logic problems, and people who are extremely good at logic problems are frequently not good Chess players.  "Spatial reasoning" is a somewhat ill-defined term, but there does seem to be a greater connection between that, at least in some definitions, and Chess playing ability.

Was an issue of chess-life... maybe a year old now?  Where titled players including GMs were given games similar to chess in their perfect information, zero-sum, nash equilibrium (not so sure about that last term, I'm sorta just throwing them out there now lol).   But anyway games you could always reason though to the best logical move.

Long story short, the GMs preformed very very slightly better than a control group of non chess players.  Masters as a whole preformed worse IIRC lol.

I think that Fischer probably had Asperger's syndrome, rather than being an idiot savant.   I think he was diagnosed with Asperger's.  Some of his childhood friends have stated flatly that he had the syndrome and I doubt that they diagnosed it themselves.  It is known that his mother took him to a psychiatrist, who told her that there were worse things to be obessed with than chess.  He probably told her some other things.

Isn't assuming that a high degree of intelligence will make you a top rated chess player like assuming that an athlete who excels in one sport will excel in any activity requiring physical skills?  Possessing high intelligence should make it easier to absorb the nuances of chess, just like having superior physical skills should make it easier to master a sport.  But it comes down to practice, dedication, and more practice in both cases.

The type of logic problem, as they can vary in requirement potentially, can require different types of reasoning.This is where my previous post that you quoted, has it's merits. A chess puzzle is a type of logic problem. In fact, it appears that all three types of reasoning are used in solving them to a degree.

Here is an explanation of the different types of reasoning.

DEDUCTIVE, INDUCTIVE, AND ABDUCTIVE REASONING:

Inductive reasoning, is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates propositions that are abstractions of observations of individual instances.

(This occurs in solving chess problems as ideas are proposed by us in abstract ways for each possibility.)

Inductive reasoning contrasts with deductive reasoning in that a general conclusion is arrived at by specific examples.

( We use deductive reasoning when we compare specific examples of memorization, to see if the current problem's circumstances are the same, to help us decide how to deal with them.)

Abductive reasoning, is a form of logical inference that goes from data description of something to a hypothesis that accounts for the data.For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it would be unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the possibility that it rained last night is reasonable.

( We use this type of reasoning as we strategize. We use the facts we can see, as they pertain to a chess problem in front of us, to help us figure out what we don't know. We then come up with a theory(after or during the comparison of possibilities) for how to solve our problem, based on our consideration of the facts. We do this before we test it by(calculating/visualizing), to see if our theory can become a plan that we implement into action.)

I would agree that just because a GM might be really intelligent, that doesn't necessarily make him a good detective, professional problem solver, or even good at other types of brain teaser puzzles, but I am willing to bet that most GM's, "strictly based on their intellect", would make good candidates for those things.

I don't only base this on their raw intelligence, but on intangibles that go hand in hand with intelligence. Things like patience, that we exercise as we solve problems, are often credited to us an intelligence. It isn't that they are intelligence in it's raw form, but patience is necessary to use intelligence over a prolonged period of time. Generally speaking, one must also be intelligent enough to realize the fruit of patience, and intelligent enough to choose to couple it with the rest of their intelligence, in order to get the most out of their wit.

In reasearching this problem I was surprised to find that this rather straightforward and intuitively obvious statement is, based on available evidence, very likely to be wrong.  Great Chess players do not tend to have extraordinary reasoning capacity, as best the researchers can tell.

Consider a different cognitive problem, that of recognizing a familiar face.  When we see someone we know well, we don't go through a calculation process where we compare eye distance and hair color and nose shape and decide that that face most likely belongs to Aunt Tilly.  We just see Aunt Tilly and we know it is Aunt Tilly.

If it is someone we know a bit less well, we might have a suspicion, and then mentally dredge up other images from memory and compare features.  More like, "That person looks familiar.  Is he the guy who works at the 7-11?  No...that guy has longer hair.  Oh, I know.  He's the guy who appeared on that one episode of "Bones" last season."   In other words, "resaoning" seems to be secondary to "recognition".

Chess playing seems to be more related to face recognition than it is to traditional academic endeavors like understanding mathematics or physics.  Great players tend to look at a board and just know what the right move is, possibly because it looks very much like the board position from another game they remember, and they knew what the right move was in that game.  This finding is supported by studies of brain activation which show strong brain activity in areas devoted to recognition than those associated with puzzle solving or reasoning tasks.

Of course, this is somewhat speculative.  We are just now beginning to understand the inner workings of the human mind, and we cannot be certain of these findings, but there is research available to support it.

A very thought provoking post, Meadmaker.

The fact the question can be asked at all is evidence of how little we still know about the workings of the brain. 100 years hence, a discussion such as this may be impossible. Given we are currently only so loosely able to define intelligence, equating it with anything is ultimately a futile task - though I'm sure our descendents will forgive us the exercise.

I am not arguing that GM's don't have extraordinary memories. However, I do think that they aren't given enough credit for their calculation ability. At times I can see 8 ply. Often quite less. It depends on the difficulty in calculating the position, due to possible variations, forces, etc.

I am half as good as a GM by rating. I wont bet on the difference between him and I are simply memory. I will agree that once you reach GM level, you've pretty much seen it all, or if not something similar. I doubt however, that they got there simply because ,they memorized their way there.I would say they did a great deal more in the way of calculating than they are given credit for too.

This part of reasoning, as well as, strategy for playing particular opponents, etc, isn't really taken fully into account when trying to reduce playing chess into an exercise, comparable to recognizing faces.

I think a fairer comparison would be if you first recognized them, then if you figured out how they changed since you saw them last, which of their parents they looked most like, if you know them that well, and what you think they will look like in ten years. This doesn't really cover it me either.

From my own experience as a player, I don't play based on memory. When I try to match the masters, I can remember the basic position, even some of the moves. When you have 8 possible good moves to chose from, but they have to be in the right order and you have the added distraction of your opponents moves in between, good luck playing by memory.

When I compare it to my job, though I draw on my experience for dealing with small problems, when the situations are similar, I am forced to deal with each situation as unique.

A chess position might be the same as you saw it before, but each GM you play, might play it differently, within a certain set of confines of course.

I just wanted to say that if we are still at at impasse. I am ok with that. I am glad we are intitled to our opinion. I don't have the time nor do I feel like debating this further. See you later.

I noticed that the great grandmasters play in tournaments against each other using blindfold chess. And playing that way--they play at a very high level. This, I think has to do with spatial and to some degree memory.

I think, to be a grandmaster one must have spatial  higher than say 99.8% of the population.

Question is how much does spatial affect what we call IQ?

Great post, @Ponz111.  You said more in a few well constructed sentences than we have seen in thousands of posts, and dozens of threads on exactly this same topic. More power to you.  

Indeed, a former USCF Correspondence Champ has the potential to bring great perspective, wisdom, and experience to these wooly forum discussions.  The blindfold chess connection is an excellent and persuasive example.

I hope folks start listening to him, more.

And folks should read, and keep re-reading, @Joey's post #261, because he also lays out the "big picture" issues incisively, and with great conceptual insight.  Nuff said?

Thanks again for both posts.  You two guys made my day.    

Fascinating.  Assuming there were no differences in experience (i.e the "control group" wasn't made up of people with extensive experience at Twixt) I would still expect great Chess players to be at least somewhat superior at other abstract strategy games.  I wouldn't expect grandmasters to be super Checkers or Hex players, but I would expect at least some measurable superiority.

I'll have to try and find that article.

My facial recognition abilities really suck. I probably wouldn't recognize my parents after a few years. It's kind of embarrasing when I don't remember family members or teachers I had a couple years ago.  I'm okay at chess, but there is another strategy game I play that I seem to be pretty good at. This makes me wonder (assuming the theory is correct) what chess has that this other game doesn't. The game is much more strategic than chess. Perhaps it's becuase the game is a little bit more chaotic than chess, and doesn't have as many common structures. The board is likely to change much more quickly than the chess board. There also is little or no opening theory becuase of a large branching factor, and many different possible starting positions which allows for much more variety.

Facial recognition has nothing to do with playing online.

I can't believe this thread is still alive.

Interesting.  There is of course a huge variation in Chess playing abilities, but at your rating I would say you are pretty good at it.  Sure there are a lot that are better, but there are a whole lot that are worse.

So this data point would seem to provide a counter example.  Good at Chess, lousy at face recognition.

On the other hand, the paper that first led me to the conclusion that Chess and face recognition had a lot in common was about brain activation.  In Chess experts, but not in most people, the area that is active during face recognition was active while examinging board positions.  The authors could not determine whether or not that area of the brain had been "taken over" to solve Chess problems, and therefore might be unavailable for facial recognition.  If that were the case, you would expect great Chess players to be sub-par on facial recognition tasks. 

Really, this is a scientific area that is just beginning.  Very little is known about cognitive functions, and almost zero is known about memory.

ETA:  Link to paper -  http://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/28/10206.full