I think that if your memory can sustain all the patterns and appropriate moves for any situation, you will win.
A computer has neither Skill, perception or IQ, it just knows all the possible variables in every move and reacts conditionally.
Can I ask you to define what you mean by skill?
I think that if your memory can sustain all the patterns and appropriate moves for any situation, you will win.
A computer has neither Skill, perception or IQ, it just knows all the possible variables in every move and reacts conditionally.
Can I ask you to define what you mean by skill?
We're talking about humans here, lets keep it simple. You know what the OP means, and surely you know what skill means too; its how "good" you are at chess.
"A skill is the learned capacity to carry out pre-determined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both. Skills can often be divided into domain-general and domain-specific skills. For example, in the domain of work, some general skills would include time management, teamwork and leadership, self motivation and others, whereas domain-specific skills would be useful only for a certain job. Skill usually requires certain environmental stimuli and situations to assess the level of skill being shown and used."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill
Surely if our 'skill' in the game is good enough, we need nothing more?
The idea that skill can be divided into 'domain-general' and 'domain-specific' is interesting. I would certainly think that some skills are just relevant to chess, however seeing the mathematical patterns involved as well as 'self motivation' are important factors also.
One would need good self motivation to learn about the 'domain-specific' aspects of chess.
I could be a natural with the mathematical concepts of chess, but without the motivation to further develop it, i would falter.
I don't believe 'skill' is as simple as we may like to make it. Chess is a complex game, attempting to simplify it will break the overall picture.
Playing Chess is like learning to ride a bicycle: Once you learn it, you never forget it.
The popularity of a particular Chess opening or defense comes and goes. When Fischer was alive, he used the Sicilian Defense whenever he had black. During the
1950s the Queen's Gambit was used at a lot of international tournaments. One Grandmaster referred to the Ruy Lopez as "an inexhaustible fountain" because of the myriad ways of replying to it as well as its many opportunities for both players in the middle game.
IQ certainly is not a determinant factor. While it(iq) is static, the chess level of a player is not. That means, besides (or regardless of) iq there must be other factors that affect a players level of play.
The same person, while having the same iq all the time will have different skill levels at different times based on his exposure to chess (this is a self evident fact). That being said, the more experienced self (e.g Anand at 33) is usually more proficient at chess than the less experienced younger version of the same player (Anand at 20). Therefore, IQ is not of absolute relevancy.
However, brain organization or specialization (not iq) does play a very important role in determining your potential as a chess player. A specialized brain will consume less energy and time to do something specific because the conections between the areas of the brain that intervene in that process is more direct. This is what most people call "talent." Because while we're young our brain connections are very plastic or maleable, talent can also be cultivated, and it is not static.
If you start late in chess (e.g. 40 years old) but you have a high IQ... <<130>>, you will be in serious disadvantage against someone who is starting the game at age 7 but only has an IQ of <<100>>. If you both played the same amount of hours for 15 years, The person who started at age 7 will most likely be "a lot" better regardless of IQ.
Hence my answer to the thread is: Brain specialization + experience.
Im sure IQ does have a big part to play in it though, which I like to think as a big factor of "talent"... however, thats not a very nice way to think of it because then a lot of us feel inferior and in an unfair position :(
IQ certainly is not a determinant factor. While it(iq) is static, the chess level of a player is not. That means, besides (or regardless of) iq there must be other factors that affect a players level of play.
The same person, while having the same iq all the time will have different skill levels at different times based on his exposure to chess (this is a self evident fact). That being said, the more experienced self (e.g Anand at 33) is usually more proficient at chess than the less experienced younger version of the same player (Anand at 20). Therefore, IQ is not of absolute relevancy.
However, brain organization or specialization (not iq) does play a very important role in determining your potential as a chess player. A specialized brain will consume less energy and time to do something specific because the conections between the areas of the brain that intervene in that process is more direct. This is what most people call "talent." Because while we're young our brain connections are very plastic or maleable, talent can also be cultivated, and it is not static.
If you start late in chess (e.g. 40 years old) but you have a high IQ... <<130>>, you will be in serious disadvantage against someone who is starting the game at age 7 but only has an IQ of <<100>>. If you both played the same amount of hours for 15 years, The person who started at age 7 will most likely be "a lot" better regardless of IQ.
Hence my answer to the thread is: Brain specialization + experience.
Are you saying young people develop waaay faster at chess than older people? You are insulting a large proportion of people, be that is true as it may :D It would be kinder to say "it depends", and that adults can still develop at a fast rate given devotion, time and effort.
Im sure IQ does have a big part to play in it though, which I like to think as a big factor of "talent"... however, thats not a very nice way to think of it because then a lot of us feel inferior and in an unfair position :(
I doubt that it does. And au contraire, a lot of chessplayers like to feel that just playing the game itself is evidence of a high IQ, so they tend to trumpet that at every opportunity (just read these forums for a while and I think you'll see what I mean)... 
@ShadowKnight... Yes, I believe it is a fact that if you start at 5 years old and practice 4 hours per day until you are 20, in 99% percent of the cases, you will be better than someone who does the same thing but started at 20.
This is not only the case for chess, but for many other sports (e.g. tennis being a very good example).
The adult brain does not have the same plasticity as the infant brain, therefore it will not be able to adapt in the same way to the activity performed (scientific fact).
Well, most of chess is pattern recognition (and also, a high understanding of those patterns), and experience (but this could still be put into the pattern recognition category as that's the only reason why it would help). The more patterns and past experience in your head, the more you can smell mate, or a tactic. Tal was able to make such brilliant sacrifices because he knew the game inside and out, and has seen so many successful and unsuccessful attacks that he can sense which one it will be the next time he sacs his knight!
And finally, planning, to a less fundamental extent. These things, and lots of them, is really all there is to becoming good at chess.
I don't know, maybe IQ will help you learn more patterns or something, but there are lots of extremely smart people who never become good at chess because they don't want to take the time to fill the entirety of their heads with nothing but chess positions.
At least we can conclude chess helps for cramming for exams. Actually no it doesnt because i don't study chess at all. lol. Im actually not very good at it hehe, not to the point of rating 2000+ where u have to learn and understand the position. aaah, chess before that is just smash ur opponent because we both make so many mistakes :D
What makes one player better than another? Better knowledge of the various aspects of the game naturally. But to what extent do "gifts" come into play? Can any or all of the three things listed under the subject heading be a deciding factor as well? If things such as health, domestic problems, worry over income, etc.are relatively equal, willl a player with an I.Q. of 148 always beat a player with an I.Q. of 136?
Perception enters into the picture as well. Over the years one of my other loves besides Chess was painting landscape pictures with oil colors, some real, some straight out of my imagination. I'm aware that probably most people can not do this in a satisfying manner.
Any replies?