Don't make something stupid up which I have not said. I meant that if you have a higher IQ, and study the same amount, with the same intensity and the same circumstances opposed to someone with lower IQ, you will - in average - play better.

and the sat can be used to generate an accurate estimate of iq. sorry if this is somehow inconvenient to you. if it weren't true high iq societies (like mensa and triple 9) wouldn't use it for admissions purposes. 

"accurate estimate"... hmm...

Again I don't know that test but in the other aspects I agree with gg.

(btw interesting name huh triple 9. 666. 99.9 percentile and above grants admission. this is even more selective than mensa)

you can hmmmm all you like. it's not controversial. consensus. it's accurate within 2-3 points. which is why high iq societies like mensa and triple 9 use it for admissions purposes.

See, more W.A.S. 

First off, lad "I'd bet on it." is not evidence for anything except foolishness.

Also, you are the one claiming that stupid S.A.T. scores correlate with chess mastery. So, it is YOU for whom it is encumbent upon to prove your point.

To sum up, i think the -benoni- as any other GM well stablisehd opening, is fine as long as you take your time to work through it.

I hope his can be helpfull to get better results at your own games!

chicken mcfly? 

yeah thought so.

anyway go to the triple 9 website. they have an interactive map. you can find real people with iq's of 150 or above that live near you.

funny how triple nine uses the "stupid" sat for admissions purposes. 

(and iq is like height, not weight, it doesn't significantly change through the course of a person's life. ok?)

....ok........wrong thread? weird......

to sum up, the facts that the sat can be used to generate an accurate estimate of a person's iq (within 2-3 points) and iq doesn't significantly change through the course of a person's life (it's like height, not weight. obviously) is for some reason inconvenient to someone. and because of this we now must make the claim that iq has nothing to do with intelligence. right. ok.

(haaaaahhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahahhahhaaaaaaaaaaahhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahhhaaaaaaaaaaahhahahhahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahhahahahhahahhahhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....ok...hahhhhhhhhhhhahhahhaahaahhahhhaaaaaaaahhhahhahahahhaaaaaaaaaaa.)

.....like a mad man laughing at the rain....

yeah no. you wish I suppose. the sat does not measure knowledge.

if it were that kind of test high iq societies like triple nine wouldn't use it for admissions purposes. here's a link to their website, just for you, http://www.triplenine.org/main/admission.asp

oh geez, I didn't even catch that it was so absurd. you're trying to say that iq has nothing to do with intelligence. ohhhhhh mannnnn. you people are really something. that's completely ridiculous. are you serious? are you kidding me?

you have been misinformed. that is not what the sat I is at all. it does not test what you learned in class. the sat II's do that though.

I suggest you do some more research.

yes there are books and courses people can use/take to increase their score. however, it's been found that scores don't really increase any more than 50 points after the use of such resources i.e. no significant change. this fact has led some to believe that profit/money is the reason those books and courses exist. which would you know make sense (and cents).

and I'll say it again for good measure. the sat can be used to generate an accurate estimate of a person's iq within 2-3 points. this is why high iq societies like triple 9 use it for admissions purposes.

if you are going to claim that the sat isn't a measure of intelligence, then you are going to have to claim that iq isn't a measure of intelligence (not an argument I would want to make or defend, but you go ahead I won't stop you.)

hahhhaahhhaa. yeah I have no more use for this thread.

I wonder what Bobby Fischer's stupid S.A.T. score would have been since he dropped out of H.S. Probably lousy. No way he could have made it to GM.

This (from Wikipedia) is just one example as to why S.A.T. scores don't mean diddly-squat as a correlation to chess mastery:

Cultural bias

For decades many critics have accused designers of the verbal SAT of cultural bias toward the white and wealthy. The National Center for Education Statistics did a study of high school student accomplishments of students of high, medium, and low socioeconomic status; 32% of students with a high socioeconomic status earned a score of 1100 on the SAT, while only 9% of students with a low socioeconomic status earned this score.^[46] A famous (and long past) example of this bias in the SAT I was the oarsman–regatta analogy question.^[47] The object of the question was to find the pair of terms that have the relationship most similar to the relationship between "runner" and "marathon". The correct answer was "oarsman" and "regatta". The choice of the correct answer was thought to have presupposed students' familiarity with rowing, a sport popular with the wealthy. However, according to Murray and Herrnstein, the black-white gap is smaller in culture-loaded questions like this one than in questions that appear to be culturally neutral.^[48] Analogy questions have since been replaced by short reading passages.

The reality is, that if you put someone with a high IQ against someone with an average IQ across a chess board, assuming neither of them had ever played before, then the high IQ player would probably win.

Put a high-IQ novice against a low-IQ player who does 100 tactics problems a day and the low-IQ player will win easily. Chess is predominantly a pattern recognition game, not a mental ability one.

Yes. I was giving just one example.

Thanks for the posts.

I'm falling behind here, but I will read thru the new items soon.