Very interesting article. Thank you for sharing.
truth's hypo is:
'There is a definite correlation between IQ (intelligence quotient) and general chess rating / level of chess play.'
There is a fine line to this argument that is cause and effect. Do intellegent people seek stimulating games resulting in intelegent people finding chess?
I might be wrong on this. But it you want to find out if there is a correlation between chess rating and IQ you only need chess players.
MyCowsCanFly, yes, my comment is going to be there. It's the last comment and it has a link to this article.
Maradonna, this is true; but you should remember that you could still teach almost anybody to play chess so that the correlation could be properly determined. But NateJay's query seems to ask whether it's mainly the intelligent people who seek to play chess in order to 'prove' their intelligence. Nevertheless, a trend SHOULD be clear. I did talk about maximum potential IQ and maximum potential rating, after all - and these are difficult to determine.
Here is an interesting read that pulled together results of a few studies of children and adults in comparison of IQ and chess ability.
In fact, now that I think about it, it is not chess players you need at all. Folk have played chess for different periods of time and have put a different amounts of effort into it. What you would need is people that have never been exposed to chess, then to give them, say a months training (just to pull any number out of the air) and then at the end of the month see if the more intelligent folk have risen to the top. Studying people that already play would introduce loads of variables or summin'.
Beester, that's an excellent article! It really seems to clarify that my hypothesis is thus far correct. I'd like to see if their are any validated counterarguments.
By the way, Maradonna - that article that Beester posted actually contains some research of chess players who practiced chess over a definite period of time, but to try to find results based on the exact amount of practice actually seems like an excellent idea.
This could go hand-in-hand with my idea to find the maximum potential of player abilities. It's interesting to consider that even if a person learns slower than others, they could still be able to learn more over time than others. I'm not really sure how functional a concept that could be. What do you think?
I'm actually quite glad that I have it saved in my documents as of 2 - 14 - 2009. Otherwise I'd have no way to legally claim that I'd written the entire article, or even parts of it. Thank you, Microsoft Word! :D
I don't think you will go to jail for plagiarism. You said someone stole it from you and posted it at the other website, and you had commented at the other website.
I looked and there's no comment from you. You said it would direct to the article here but that makes no sense, the article here is very current.
The orginal article that you posted here that duplicated the other article is not here any longer. You said it was removed because of "circumstances."
Also, I doubt you will be sued. If you were, a dated Word document is pretty flimsy.
I think you can stop digging, that hole is plenty deep.
Uh, MyCowsCanFly, I wrote this article under a different username and profile on THIS website back in February 2009. Since I deleted that other account, associated content (including this article) was likewise deleted.
I've informed ozzie_c_cobblepot of my identity so that he knows my statement is accurate. And I don't like the fact that you're accusing me of posting that article to that website, one which I've never heard of until now.
I think it is a concept that could be explored. Variables and control groups could end up being slightly massive but I think possible. If funding was available it could be a super doctoral thesis. I think using non players would introduce hard to quantify variables considering learning curves and also the right and left brain tendencies in the test subjects.
I think that the trouble with articles such as this one, no matter how well written, is that they stink of elitism. The underwritten argument is that better chess players are smarter which is not necessarily true.
Chess ability and IQ may very well be related, but it would be naive to think that hard work, study and practice are less important and they are in fact, probably far more important. (I'm not mentioning age!)
You try to overcome this by making all other things equal ("The most accurate relationship can be found when:
1) Maximum or near-maximum IQ is found or calculated
2) Maximum or near-maximum chess rating data has been collected and proven as a pattern")
But this is simply an attempt to trivialise the role that work, study and practice play.
Simply put, if I beat someone at chess, am I:
Ozzie_c_cobblespot noticed your article dupicated an article on the other website. It did. Your article here that replicated that article, mysteriously dissappeared.
You said, you had commented about the situation at the other site but you didn't. There's no comment like that on the other website...under any username.
Suggesting you had a different username is irrelevant. It's also a distractor to suggest someone thought you had written the other article.
If you are plagiarising, at least pick a better source.
The main idea is that this information is not useful. That there's correlation between chess and IQ can be stated in one sentence.
As I pointed out above, you can't consider youself intelligent just because you play chess. I think it's this mistake of logic that fuels interest in the subject.
This would be a great idea, but the problem with funding is that since this has no PROVEN ability to benefit a child's learning ability, it's going to take some powerful manipulation to convince an association to provide significant funding. Plus, chess doesn't appeal to enough people to be provided with great funding even if the research funds are approved, so it might cause a long-term financial loss. But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. XD
As for the left and right brain tendencies... well, the article states that there are no definite conclusions regarding this. However, the left and right brain are obviously associated with the usage of the left and right hands... Left-handed people tend to be more artistic for the most part.
I think that would also be a very interesting study - the more creative people vs. the more logical people. Also, people who are a mixture of both (as well as those who lack both). It should reveal significant information.
MyCowsCanFly, if you look carefully, you'll notice that the article ozzie gave has roughly 1/2 of the article I've posted here. Look CLOSELY. You'll see that the article on that website clearly plagiarised my work. I now regret deleting that former account, especially because I did not expect anybody to plagiarise my work. Your insistence that I'm the plagiarist really isn't helping anything.
Plus, I've explained the implication of this article. You choose to refuse it, fine with me. But do not call me a plagiarist - I take that as a direct insult.
NatefJay, I see the point you're making here. However, what you're saying is that a physical component of a human's health contributes to a chemical component, which is usually untrue. Smoking is a chemical process that has a physical side effect of yellow teeth and a chemical effect of cancer.
In the case of chess and IQ, we have common factors: playing chess stimulates chemical activity within the brain (as do other activities, of course), and since these particular activities are associated with IQ, the brain will develop particularly in those factors. These variables are related for that reason.
It's like getting stronger when you work out - all a chemical process in the long run. Your muscles becoming larger is a physical side effect. Improving IQ and chess skills are chemical. Becoming more intelligent in other aspects due to chess would seem to be a side effect, in my opinion.
But I definitely like the point you're making... It makes me think. :)
I couldn't careless if you are a plagiarist.
It's one thing to insult people with this "article"...you are taking advantage of people who might not be knowledgable enough to call Bull.
It's another to insult people with a convoluted story about the source of the article that doesn't make sense.
MyCowsCanFly, you are directly insulting my intelligence, and I do stand for this. I would like for you to leave this thread, because I will NOT stand for being called a liar and plagiarist. I will not explain the purpose of this article to you a fourth or fifth time. And to not see that the other author plagiarized me would be utterly foolish.
So, stop trolling this thread.
You have frequently pointed out, you have no training...you're not a scientist. You also pointed out this is not a serious article. Given that, I think I'll refrain from pointing out the obvious.
You may have spent a lot of time and effort. It's apparent, you are getting the desired reward for your time and effort. Maybe it doesn't matter that the content has problems.
For those who write seriously on the subject, you are the troll. And, apparently one that doesn't like to really be challenged.
I'm not sure...but I think if you block me, I can't post to your thread anymore. That would make it an even funnier story. I could post some pictures of pancakes, if that would help.
ok this is a family site mysheepcanfly , so if you're not ok with some members posts them i assume you to leave them alone
Even though this is not an article I would consider seriously publishing in a scientific journal, I think it's serious enough that I should claim credit for doing all of the research and making all conclusions on my own. In addition, I have made the implications of this article VERY clear. I'm requesting you one last time to stop trolling my thread.
I've never blocked a person on this website, even on my previous account. But I don't stand for the accusations you've placed.