Is intelligence directly related towards skill in chess?

Sort:
red-lady

If it is, I'm in trouble, I guess.

Vanessa_Martinez
sapientdust wrote:

So you're saying that the laws of physics don't imply any kind of upper bound on how good could anybody could become at anything?

Or maybe you mean that nobody could actually want to be better at something than they are capable of being.

Ooook mister smarty pants, If we live in a concious based universe then essentially saying atoms are not real but part of what we think them to be. Wouldn't it be fair to say that we could rethink parts of the atoms in our brain to be more abundant or responsive or even adaptive towards the goals of chess but not towards other functions?

Vanessa_Martinez

you just got burned Tongue out

sapientdust
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
sapientdust wrote:

So you're saying that the laws of physics don't imply any kind of upper bound on how good could anybody could become at anything?

Or maybe you mean that nobody could actually want to be better at something than they are capable of being.

Ooook mister smarty pants, If we live in a concious based universe then essentially saying atoms are not real but part of what we think them to be. Wouldn't it be fair to say that we could rethink parts of the atoms in our brain to be more abundant or responsive or even adaptive towards the goals of chess but not towards other functions?

Trying rethinking the atoms in your brain so they transmit information faster than the speed of light. You won't have much luck.

Philip K. Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." The converse (ok, contrapositive, if there are any anal-retentive philosophy majors out there) is also true. Believing in and thinking about pseudo-scientific ideas like the "conscious based universe" doesn't make them part of reality, no matter how convincing the ideas might seem when one is tripping or otherwise intoxicated.

sapientdust

Goodnight, sonny, better luck trolling tomorrow. I'm off to bed for the night.

Vanessa_Martinez

 no matter how convincing the ideas might seem when one is tripping or otherwise intoxicated.

Wooh are you saying I'm stupid? or that im intoxicated? because If I can remember it is your concious thinking that your proving a point right?

Vanessa_Martinez
sapientdust

Don't bring science into this because I garantee you that I know more science than you. Lets compare it to our ratings? Tongue out 

Scottrf

Is there no end to this girl's talents?

owlyboly

My opinion is that she is only an air under pressure. Her real level is around 1700 - 1770. ( look on how she become to 2021 - her opponents ) Wink 

Gil-Gandel
ForgoneMoose wrote:

Oh boy, are we getting another gender debate up in here? Already? It was kinda amusing when it was once a month, but this is getting silly. Women have not seen as much success in chess because the game was too exclusive of females until quite recently. More GMs are males because they had a several hundred year lead in the metagame. Now please get back on topic folks or I'll have to QED with my flawless logic some more


Fantastic. So merely being born male allows you to channel all the chess awesomeness of those forerunners who happened to be chromosomally configured the same way? There's a doctorate in this if you can make it stick. Mind you, since on your own say-so (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/somewhat-new-player-looking-for-advice) you barely know the first thing about chess, some might question your qualification to pronounce upon gender imbalance in the game.

DRAGZZZ

I dont think intelligence is directly related to chess,what chess requires of everyone is patience,observations,calculations,strategy,good judgement of situations and overall a good and relaxed mindset about the game as long as you know what you are doing.

ForgoneMoose

Gil-Gandel wrote:

"Fantastic. So merely being born male allows you to channel all the chess awesomeness of those forerunners who happened to be chromosomally configured the same way? There's a doctorate in this if you can make it stick. Mind you, since on your own say-so (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/somewhat-new-player-looking-for-advice) you barely know the first thing about chess, some might question your qualification to pronounce upon gender imbalance in the game."

True. I am indeed a novice player, therefore I have no ability to gather common information from any number of abundantly available information, not to mention my complete lack of an ability to pontificate in a manner overlying with the bounds of common sense; we should ask Carlsen, because he is therefore the smartest man in the world. But seriously, I do understand what you're trying to say (in however rude a fashion); I think you simply misunderstood the point I was trying to get across. I'm not saying individual women are worse because women haven't played longer, I'm saying that women haven't had the motivation to play more - there aren't more top female players because there aren't as many female players to begin with, therefore. If you disagree with me, why do you think so? I'm sorry if my post offended you so much, because you seemed really angry for some reason. I'm not trying to come off as facetious here, and I apologize since you seem to have taken my last post that way. Also, did you really look through old forum posts just to find some sort of material to put down my argument here? This is a forum for a game, I don't think any argument on here is worth taking that seriously, to be perfectly honest.

zborg
Scottrf wrote:

Is there no end to this girl's talents?

Apparently not.  She's on a roll, along with this tread's enablers.

Seraphimity

why would it help my chess game?

Ricardo_Morro

Chimpanzees are smarter than most other animals. Chimpanzees cannot play chess. Most humans are smarter than chimpanzees. Draw your own conclusions.

Vanessa_Martinez
zborg wrote:
Scottrf wrote:

Is there no end to this girl's talents?

Apparently not.  She's on a roll, along with this tread's enablers.

zborg your not one good contributor towards the topic im trying to get a good view or idea or even collection of ideas to see what public opinion thinks.

Vanessa_Martinez
ludrah wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
GiorgiVanDerway wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:

so your saying theres a limit on chess skill? based on intelligence?

Yes

I disagree Someone could be as good as they wanted to at anything

I want to be great at flying without equipments!

Good luck with that try it and then let me know what happens.

Vanessa_Martinez
ludrah wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:

 no matter how convincing the ideas might seem when one is tripping or otherwise intoxicated.

Wooh are you saying I'm stupid? or that im intoxicated? because If I can remember it is your concious thinking that your proving a point right?

He didn't say that. It seems to be an implication though.

ya i know thats why he left the chat as that. 

Vanessa_Martinez
Ricardo_Morro wrote:

Chimpanzees are smarter than most other animals. Chimpanzees cannot play chess. Most humans are smarter than chimpanzees. Draw your own conclusions.

primate and humans? its simple humans are evolved.

Vanessa_Martinez
ludrah wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
sapientdust

Don't bring science into this because I garantee you that I know more science than you. Lets compare it to our ratings?  

If you believe in a consious based universe, I doubt it. It's made even less believeable that you also use that belief as an argument. That's religion, not science.

concious theroy is science not realigon 

This forum topic has been locked