You'll never be the best, but is your aim really to be the best?
Is intelligence directly related towards skill in chess?
Sort:
Scottrf wrote:
You'll never be the best, but is your aim really to be the best?
don't get involved your even more one sided than a right winged republican on black friday.
ludrah wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
ludrah wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
ludrah wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
ludrah wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
Seraphimity wrote:
Vanessa, you seem really nice. I have no college degree but worked as Project Manager for Toll Brothers Inc. I had the firm displeasure of meeting a very large selection of equally bright folks and watching them make some of the Dumbest choices I could fathom. IQ isn't everything. like in chess, life is how you use the information you are given. BTW, I was told my IQ was only a few points shy of yours when I was young. All 3 of my daughters are in Gifted programs, my oldest is frequently selected with one other girl in her program to represent her class in selected field trips. I don't think I've trumpeted that here or felt the need to. I am happy with my chess and I think many here have more then amply aswered you question. You don't have to feel the need to impress anyone with your awards and classes. Do you, for you. It will help hurt you, in the end..
Know I was using myself as an example, and yes im nice but I like arguing or talking debates ya buddy.
You are not good at arguing though. Your "arguments" aren't valid. If you do like to debate and argue, I suggest signing up for a debate course at college or high school.
oh boy you wanna start something again? ya buddy besides debate club got closed at my school last year, sad times, anyways it doesnt matter.
Rather than starting, I want to finish.
Finish what? you didnt even contribute to the topic fool. lol
Our debate. Why basing an argument on the concious theory is true is invalid and that it's not true that anyone can be as good as they want at anything. I'm actually doubting your inteligence due to your lack of logical understanding.
ok so based on what your saying are you saying that no matter how hard I try I will never be able to be the best at chess?
That, I don't know. It's likely that that's the case. Your claim is however more general. I already disproved it (see a few pages ago) but failing at being great at flying without equipment despite wanting to be great at it.
well, if you want to go back to that topic then I have to ask did you dive off a high point of some sort? only way to disprove it.
Single factor,how early are u taught and play-----and do u take to the game.If it's not your cup of tea..u will have a so-so hobby at best. The work needed is all or nothing.I.Q the abililty to retain info. may not be the most important ----but a Fischer or Carlsen is going to be higher as they must be at the top in all mental parts. Recognition,intuitive, space and time sense,will to win,handle pressure, there are more ....the point is at a early age the game must click w/u and curiosity must push u forward.......if not, your a wood pusher who loves chess and thankfully has a chess. com to express it. p.s. like me
Intelligence is clearly not correlated to participation in this discussion....
Ok, alright fine then lets do this Lets argue lets dabate and reiterate. shoot
Umm beware, this might be a long post but here's my take on it:
Yeah IQ doesn't really do much for chess except allow the person to take in more knowledge. If anything, it'smore about experience and motivation. I think I read a topic of some guy asking if he can become a GM after starting chess at 30 and unfortunately that's a solid No. I don't even think it's possible to do that if someone starts at 20. Starting young's definitely the most important requirement to get good at this board game.
The only thing that I really agree with on these 8 pages is the will to fight/win whatever you wanna call it. I can say with all honesty that when I first got over 2300 a few years ago I knew I was overated but because I tried more than my opponents and wanted to win more and just focused with such intensity during crucial points I was able to cash in when I needed it most even if my overall play didn't reflect my strength. To add more fuel to the fire, in all my 9-round norm tournaments I've only had the opportunity to get the norm in 4 of them - 3 of them I had to win, and 1 I just had to draw and somehow through sheer luck or talent or the X-factor blah blah blah I was fortunate enough to cash in. Yeah, so at the end of the day, intelligence just helps with maybe a slight correlation but definitely no casuation.
Also, people are intelligent at different aspects as someone who's good at art or music is probably not going to be as good at logical puzzles or sports if only because the time they spent in their areas of expertise had to be compensated by spending less time in other parts. It's not fair to call someone smart because they're good at chess or call them stupid because they're bad as everyone's strong and weak in different areas. For me personally, I am probably the worst at art, music, dance, acting and all that mumbo jumbo while I think that I'm just naturally good at games and have an easy grasp on all sorts like bridge, cribbage, backgammon, poker, blackjack, checkers, chess. It's all about playing towards your strengths and avoiding your weaknesses imho.
Lastly, the flame wars between the OP and other people is hilarious. I never knew chess.com was like this, I think I'm gonna check other topics on here too. It's like reading the IMDB boards all over again :D
Bobbylow wrote:
Umm beware, this might be a long post but here's my take on it:
Yeah IQ doesn't really do much for chess except allow the person to take in more knowledge. If anything, it'smore about experience and motivation. I think I read a topic of some guy asking if he can become a GM after starting chess at 30 and unfortunately that's a solid No. I don't even think it's possible to do that if someone starts at 20. Starting young's definitely the most important requirement to get good at this board game.
The only thing that I really agree with on these 8 pages is the will to fight/win whatever you wanna call it. I can say with all honesty that when I first got over 2300 a few years ago I knew I was overated but because I tried more than my opponents and wanted to win more and just focused with such intensity during crucial points I was able to cash in when I needed it most even if my overall play didn't reflect my strength. To add more fuel to the fire, in all my 9-round norm tournaments I've only had the opportunity to get the norm in 4 of them - 3 of them I had to win, and 1 I just had to draw and somehow through sheer luck or talent or the X-factor blah blah blah I was fortunate enough to cash in. Yeah, so at the end of the day, intelligence just helps with maybe a slight correlation but definitely no casuation.
Also, people are intelligent at different aspects as someone who's good at art or music is probably not going to be as good at logical puzzles or sports if only because the time they spent in their areas of expertise had to be compensated by spending less time in other parts. It's not fair to call someone smart because they're good at chess or call them stupid because they're bad as everyone's strong and weak in different areas. For me personally, I am probably the worst at art, music, dance, acting and all that mumbo jumbo while I think that I'm just naturally good at games and have an easy grasp on all sorts like bridge, cribbage, backgammon, poker, blackjack, checkers, chess. It's all about playing towards your strengths and avoiding your weaknesses imho.
Lastly, the flame wars between the OP and other people is hilarious. I never knew chess.com was like this, I think I'm gonna check other topics on here too. It's like reading the IMDB boards all over again :D
dude we solved this forum topic like 4 pages back but ludrah just wants to argue now.
ludrah wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
Ok, alright fine then lets do this Lets argue lets dabate and reiterate. shoot
I'd prefer it if you just admit that your claim has been proved wrong.
No im not going to admit to anything that isnt true.
ludrah wrote:
Bobbylow wrote:
Lastly, the flame wars between the OP and other people is hilarious. I never knew chess.com was like this, I think I'm gonna check other topics on here too. It's like reading the IMDB boards all over again :D
Some OP's are just that stupid. You'll find a lot of threads like this.
wtf is an op?
Other poster.
Now see I'd think someone with your IQ would have no problem logically deducing the answer to that. sorry but that just my ho
ludrah wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
ludrah wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
Ok, alright fine then lets do this Lets argue lets dabate and reiterate. shoot
I'd prefer it if you just admit that your claim has been proved wrong.
No im not going to admit to anything that isnt true.
Which is why you are stupid. You refuse to accept proofs. This is like discussing with a religious person. Except, you claim to be intelligent while most religious people do not.
what proof? and im not realigous and as for stupid? really? lol
Scottrf wrote:
Other poster.
and what is other poster?
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Other poster.
and what is other poster?
OP.
If we were in excel this would now be a circular reference.
Seraphimity wrote:
Now see I'd think someone with your IQ would have no problem logically deducing the answer to that. sorry but that just my ho
?
Scottrf wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Other poster.
and what is other poster?
OP.
no like what is op what are they used for?
Vanessa, you seem really nice. I have no college degree but worked as Project Manager for Toll Brothers Inc. I had the firm displeasure of meeting a very large selection of equally bright folks and watching them make some of the Dumbest choices I could fathom. IQ isn't everything. like in chess, life is how you use the information you are given. BTW, I was told my IQ was only a few points shy of yours when I was young. All 3 of my daughters are in Gifted programs, my oldest is frequently selected with one other girl in her program to represent her class in selected field trips. I don't think I've trumpeted that here or felt the need to. I am happy with my chess and I think many here have more then amply aswered you question. You don't have to feel the need to impress anyone with your awards and classes. Do you, for you. It will help hurt you, in the end..
Know I was using myself as an example, and yes im nice but I like arguing or talking debates ya buddy.
You are not good at arguing though. Your "arguments" aren't valid. If you do like to debate and argue, I suggest signing up for a debate course at college or high school.
oh boy you wanna start something again? ya buddy besides debate club got closed at my school last year, sad times, anyways it doesnt matter.
Rather than starting, I want to finish.
Finish what? you didnt even contribute to the topic fool. lol
Our debate. Why basing an argument on the concious theory is true is invalid and that it's not true that anyone can be as good as they want at anything. I'm actually doubting your inteligence due to your lack of logical understanding.
ok so based on what your saying are you saying that no matter how hard I try I will never be able to be the best at chess?