The main problem is, creativity isn't considered the same as intelligence. That is wrong, creativity is also intelligence. School sometimes kills so much of our kid's creativitiy these days that most adults completely separate the two categories.
Getting the highest IQ in the world will lieterally gain you no useful skills in life. IQ scores can be improved, with study and practce, but that certainly doesn't mean you are any smarter than anyone else. You might know how to do some math problems, but if you don't even know how to socialize with your peers, then what's the point?
As I mentioned before Howard Gardner concurs with your view, acedemic intelligence is only one facet that has been unfortunately given too much emphasis due in part to the class system in the past.
There is also a misconception that Cognitive speed relates to having a high IQ. Timed tests falsly omit the kind of intelligence that can solve very deep complex situations that some would not achieve whatever the time allowed. Einstein was said not to be quick and was only an above average acedemic, yet he was able to view the world like no other. Deep slow chess players can solve anything but can suck at blitz.
"kasparov has barely any to show"
Say what? Kasparov created absolutely beautiful art - fantastic conceptions that changed the way we think about chess. Would you also say that Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo achieved nothing in their careers? "
Quite simply I count chess as a game not as an art. The three people you named have all done absolutely brilliant work and achieved far more than most people. However when I get asked who achieved more einstein or kasparov, Einstein is the only one I can name here. I would also not compare the achievments of the great footballer or poker player or any person who is amazing in any game to the ones of Einstein, mainly because it just doesn't affect nearly enough people.
I'll go with Edwin Hubble...
Few will ever or could ever be an equal to Einstein. Many will and can be an equal to Kasparov. This, for me, answers the more relevant question and distinction.
Yes you have to explain to me why you count chess as an art and neither football nor poker. Secondly stop pretending I am telling you, you are stupid. I don't, in fact it is you who is getting offensive here. Thridly don't tell me what I like or not I can decide that for myself and I do enjoy the work of all three mozart, shakespeare and michelangelo. Fourthly quantifiers like barely any and immense are relative and therefore it should have been pretty clear that when I say Kasparov has barely achieved anything just after I said that Einstein achievements are immense both statements can only be seen in context to each other. Fifthly please explain to me why computers are better then humans in chess, for as far as I know computers are only good in doing trivial tasks such as calculations a lot better and quicker than humans not something as complex as art.
If you don't change your tone in the next comment don't expect a reply from me, I have better things to do then being insulted.
Well it turns out that neither of the two are as clever as chess.com members, well thats what they seem to think anyway.
"Quite simply I count chess as a game not as an art. The three people you named have all done absolutely brilliant work and achieved far more than most people. However when I get asked who achieved more einstein or kasparov, Einstein is the only one I can name here. I would also not compare the achievments of the great footballer or poker player or any person who is amazing in any game to the ones of Einstein, mainly because it just doesn't affect nearly enough people."
This is idiotic with a silly rhetorical trick. "Oh I define chess as a game so your statement is the same as comparing a poker player or a footballer to Einstein". Do you think I am completely stupid? Do most of the people you talk to fall for sophomoric rhetoric like that? Do I need to explain to you how chess is different from poker or football?
Furthermore nobody asked who had achieved more. That's a question you just made up here. The question was who was more clever and you then threw in this completely gratuitous and deeply stupid "Kasparov has barely any [achievements] to show". But nice try at changing the question.
Trivializing chess is just plain dumb. Don't think it is art? Too bad for you. Maybe if you spent more time studying it, you would understand the great art in chess. My Grandma and my kids don't see the art in chess either. I've certainly seen oodles of people not appreciate Mozart, Shakespeare, or Michelangelo too, but there opinion that it is not great art is just as silly as yours.
What's wrong with your education anyway? Somebody convinced you that science and engineering are real and all the rest is silly? If so you were fed a really dumb bill of goods." [/Quote]
WHAT WHAT WHAT?!