14607 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!
i agee my iq is low 80 and so is my rating ive beeen practicin chess for 10 years
Memory and IQ go hand in hand. I suspect strongly that Kasparov and Fischer had great memories. There are some people that if you add multi talented at music, sports, many multi things, their IQs would be 200+. I think, with all due respect, Fishcer and Kasparov, if you added sports and music and other things, might not be 200+ but their memory capabilties got them 190.
For me this makes sense. It also makes sense to me that, in order for GM's to be great calculators, they have to have the ability to keep many things available in the their short term memory, to recall them to the forefront of their minds, as well as the positions they've studied for years in their long term memory.
If you relate it to computers, a fast processor is nothing without an adequate amount of memory and vice versa. When we are wowed by a computer's ability to be fast and handle multiple tasks without lag, it undoubtedly has both of these components, that are top notch.
Like really good computers, the brains of the best GM's in particular, not only have to have a really good memory generally, but the ability to quickly go through many computations, while handling the multiple tasks, a fellow GM is capable of throwing at them.
Hence, wonderful minds, have both great memories and great computing ability. If one or the other were missing, it would be noticed.
I think the real problem isn't that chess players aren't properly diagnosed for their correct intellectual levels, but instead the problems are with the testing methods themselves.
I can sight several examples of how this is. The first I love to point out is one of my favorites. How can you isolate raw intelligence, without accessing it via what someone has learned? In other words, if I built a computer with 4 gigahertz processor and a 100 GB hardrive(memory storage long term) and 4- 1 gigahertz memory sticks (short term memory), another with half of those figures and then if I wanted to compare them, I would need information to test them, in the form of a program to compare their performances. Another example of this is, How can you really figure out who has a higher IQ, a 2 year old who can't talk yet or a 50 year old man?
It is in this way, we have our first bias. We are all fed different information. If we were all fed the exact same information, the standouts in intellect would be more obvious. The last statement, wasn't prejudical or a complaint either.
I am sure if multiple people are reading this, there is at least one cynical person, looking to pick this apart. Even if they haven't found any credible inconsistencies, compared to the truth, their own biases are already at work.
These biases really come into play when "trying" to determine intelligence, because we first aren't truly able to compute, who does more with less, but we think we can. Our biases also will only want to recognize a correct answer, that our opinion agrees with. That may seem absurd, however, if you attempted to give a subject an IQ test and his answers were right in a sense as they appealed either to his idea of the truth or his opinion , though it is irrelevant to the truth directly, then you might decide he didn't give a correct answer, because you had something else in mind. When I first realized this, I decided never again, would anyone ever play any part in determining how intelligent I am. Only a fool lets the opinions of other make him what he shouldn't have become.
Another thing that is probably not considered is the fact that, during what I am sure was quite a battery of tests, that were prepared for the GM and master level players who supposedly have been tested only to reveal average IQ, many of the chess players tested probably felt added pressure to perform, that other people wouldn't.
I am sure most won't give them a pass or they'll try to compare it to the pressure of games, they are used to.Pressure we experience that we are used to, isn't the same as sudden unfamiliar stress. Also I tend to think many of them said to themselves, "screw this, I'd rather be playing chess". Do we really know how hard any subjects that have ever been tested, among good chess players, really tried as hard as they could on IQ tests?
I am trying to actually imagine Bobby Fischer's reaction to someone wanting to test him, because the scientific community doubted the intellect of the best chess players, or thought it to be perhaps ordinary. I am sure he would have reached some of the same conclusions I have.
Has this thread morphed into "what is special about grandmasters?" or is the question still "is there a relationship between IQ and chess skill?" because the two questions have almost nothing to do with each other. There are (I dunno) 1000 GM's in the world so a GM is like a 1 in every 7 million people outlier. And from these outliers we are trying to learn what about a general relationship?
Well it is obvious that not all chess players are intelligent, many of them show that in the forums without any special testing. On the other had, I guess the aforementioned biases that we have, also come into play when we epitomize the chess player.
I guess the best subject to use, from my view point would be to take the best chess player, who seems to be able to out wit all of his opponents, whether fellow GM's or an ordinary bystander and use him/her to see what the results are in comparing IQ to chess prowess.
It doesn't make much sense to take someone who doesn't appear to be intelligent by chess standards and then see if they are perhaps one of the smartest people on earth. Conventional wisdom would probably tell most of us, if they really are that intelligent, it would become manifest while the play chess.
What's funny about this is there are so many aspects and fallacies in how people perceive "IQ". There's coordination, interior design, logic, wisdom, theory, finite, conceptual, etc...I know a LOT of people that have poor social intelligence, but exceptional logical/yet very poor wisdom.
Is the above some kind of metaphor for intelligent furniture??
Another valiant effort by @Joey to "herd these cats" into some kind of sensible conceptual framework.
Kinda like Rowdy Yates (Clint Eastwood) on Rawhide in the 1960s.
Still, you have your work cut out for you.
Let alone, a gaping hole in a lot of IQ tests is the extrapolation of words from several missing letters...that's wisdom, and regionalism being tested. If one weren't exposed to such a word, it hardly is an indication of intelligence. Anyway. . .
I'll relate this back to my section on biases in a previous post because, I don't always perceive the proposed coordination when it comes to interior decorating. I'll agree to the shapes and colors jiving in certain ways but, what happens if you want to add or change one thing, that you find essential, and it doesn't match with that over priced "scheme" ?
I think I'll continue to leave my decor in the user friendly coordinated style. It is so much more practical in terms of value and flexibility, for my few needs that will change, a few times over the years, as well as, accomodating all of my wife's continually, ever changing "wants".
I am certainly happy about freedom of opinion...
Interior design is spatial intelligence and how colors/shapes contrast and accent. Thanks to HGTV for that!
I see through their ploy. I'll stick to my sense of color and shape coordination I learned from my art teacher. I'll keep my money too. Too much HGTV can't be good for you...
You'll end up broke, you won't recognize where you live and your wife still won't be satisfied...
A GM would be a 1 in 7 million outlier if the entire planet had played as much chess as the GM, but most of them have never played chess, and those who have played chess have generally played far less.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of people who have played at least 10,000 hours of chess within 10 or 15 years during their formative years are GMs. I would guess it's on the order of 1 in 100,000, or perhaps as many as 1 in 10,000, because there just aren't that many people who put that much serious effort into chess for such an extended period of time. That's just a wild guess though. Does anybody have any real data?
my dad can beat up your dad. I also have this equation where you feed in how many servings of green leafy vegetables you eat in a week and it spits out how much you earn in a year....discuss. OH and btw I'm bats#it crazy.
I have an iQ of 140 and I just can never win a chess game. everyone's mind is different and therefore I dont think there is a correlation between chess and ones IQ.
I love veggies.
The studies I've read suggest that GMs tend to have extremely good long term memory, but that there is not a lot of correlation between Chess skill and short term memory. To take one data point, Magnus Carlsen seems to have a phenomenal memory, and has since he was a small child.
An interesting element about GM's memory: Show a GM a board position from a Chess game, and then take it away and ask him to recreate the position from memory. He'll do well, much better than the average person. Show him a set of Chess pieces randomly arranged on a Chess board, take it away, and ask him to reproduce the position from memory. He'll do no better than the average person.
Human memory doesn't appear to be organized as a "flat file" sort of database, but somehow as interrelated patterns. A GM, having learned the patterns, can remember the games much better.
For what it's worth, I've said that there is a weak correlation between IQ and Chess and that great Chess players don't have great IQs. That's an oversimplification of the research I've read. Great Chess players tend to have above average IQs, but above a certain level, the correlation weakens. The greatest players might not have the highest performance on IQ tests.
I'm guilty of saying "GM" when what I really mean is "good Chess player".
And roughly 8 percent of the male population are colorblind dunderheads, who fail badly at "smart furniture" and "interior design." Myself included.
What if you just don't give a crap about this? My idea of interior design is "Big flat screen. Easy access to the basement where I keep my stuff. Big fridge for edible stuff. Furniture that isn't a tragedy when it catches on fire."
I had a similar problem with my partner Donna's choice of granite countertops. Allegedly they were black and gold, with flecks of silver and tan. Once installed, all I saw in the countertop was "dark mud" colors. Never again!
Thankfully, I have some sway over the furniture in the basement level, where the Chessnuts gather.
We use her old (flammable) lawn furniture, and it works just fine.
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.
The most underrated openings
by Reb a few minutes ago
What in the world?
by MuhammadAreez10 a few minutes ago
Kids on chess.com
by Calamondin a few minutes ago
1000 Worst Things To Do While Playing Chess
by IronedSandwich 3 minutes ago
3/27/2015 - A.W.Fox vs Bauer, 1901
by JAG0404 5 minutes ago
Chess players are awful people
by 24171961me 10 minutes ago
Chessbazaar's Dubrovnik 4" crimson problem?
by 9kick9 10 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by akafett 16 minutes ago
by MuhammadAreez10 17 minutes ago
From game today! :)
by Omega_Doom 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!