@Optimissed
Have you read (in translation) anything by Krogius?
He was both a GM (18th in the world, at one point) and a professional psychologist.
EDIT: Reuben Fine was also a top-ranking GM (made it as high as an invitation to the 1948 Candidates Tournament, which he declined) and professional psychologist.
No I haven't. Naturally, I've read Reuben Fine, many years ago. My wife's a professional psychologist but she thinks chess is rather ridiculous. Mind you, she thinks stamp collecting is too, so her views can be dismissed.
Did Krogius have any insights into the nature of chess thinking?
I now see from the Wiki that he co-authored books rather than being a sole author and that rings a bell. Since I was dealing in books and often bought very large lots of chess books when I could, I have probably looked at his books, because I used to pull interesting books out and had quite a big chess library. I got rid of most of it in the 90s because my tastes in reading were moving away from chess and I wanted a much more compact chess library of 50 books max to make room for other interests. Now I probably have about 25 chess books. I have about the same number of watches! 
One reason that I suggested "two spatial and one temporal" dimensions as the three dimensions of chess is that dimensionality can be viewed as a way of ordering (and rationalizing) instances.
Matrices, for example, draw no distinction between 1-, 2-, 3- 4- (or more) dimensions... it's simply a way of organizing the data so that it makes intuitive sense and can be handled consistently.
In the case of chess, a single square (a1, for example) can be thought of as the basal zero-dimensional unit which has only location and content (or the lack of it) as primitive properties. Iterated along a single dimension, it forms a rank (the back rank, for instance). Iterated along a second dimension, the ranks form a complete chess-board.
As you pointed out, time needs to be treated somewhat differently from the first two dimensions; and iteration along the time axis gives the squares different content (eg: after White's first move 1. e4, the contents of both the e2 and e4 squares has changed).
It works basically the same way in Special Relativity, of course... the tensor representing the Einsteinian Interval (more properly, the Minkowsky interval) ADDS the squares of the three seperations in length / width / height dimensions, but SUBTRACTS the square of the seperation in the time dimension.
s = sqrt( a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - t^2 )
Did Krogius have any insights into the nature of chess thinking?
I now see from the Wiki that he co-authored books rather than being a sole author and that rings a bell. Since I was dealing in books and often bought very large lots of chess books when I could, I have probably looked at his books, because I used to pull interesting books out and had quite a big chess library. I got rid of most of it in the 90s because my tastes in reading were moving away from chess and I wanted a much more compact chess library of 50 books max to make room for other interests. Now I probably have about 25 chess books. I have about the same number of watches!
Haven't read Krogius in literally decades (40 years?) so I hesitate to answer.
OK.
Just read this:
Einstein has become a symbol for many, a monument people have built, a symbol that they need for their own comfort.1—Leopold Infeld
excellent!
All master Bobby, Kasparov had very high IQ and mastered chess tactics and strategy
One reason that I suggested "two spatial and one temporal" dimensions as the three dimensions of chess is that dimensionality can be viewed as a way of ordering (and rationalizing) instances.
Matrices, for example, draw no distinction between 1-, 2-, 3- 4- (or more) dimensions... it's simply a way of organizing the data so that it makes intuitive sense and can be handled consistently.
In the case of chess, a single square (a1, for example) can be thought of as the basal zero-dimensional unit which has only location and content (or the lack of it) as primitive properties. Iterated along a single dimension, it forms a rank (the back rank, for instance). Iterated along a second dimension, the ranks form a complete chess-board.
As you pointed out, time needs to be treated somewhat differently from the first two dimensions; and iteration along the time axis gives the squares different content (eg: after White's first move 1. e4, the contents of both the e2 and e4 squares has changed).
It works basically the same way in Special Relativity, of course... the tensor representing the Einsteinian Interval (more properly, the Minkowsky interval) ADDS the squares of the three seperations in length / width / height dimensions, but SUBTRACTS the square of the seperation in the time dimension.
s = sqrt( a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - t^2 )
So what is your tesis?
So what is your tesis?
I was just pointing out to Optimissed that there is nothing unusual in treating the Time axis differently from the spatial axes. Minkowsky did the same.
In a sense, chess is completely about intelligence and anyone saying such a statement is untrue doesn't know what chess is and what intelligence is.
I think that I and people who are in agreement with my views have been insufficiently proactive in putting forward our views. It may, however, take a certain amount of intelligence to understand why our views cannot be anything other than correct. It shouldn't but one can't speak for the unintelligent.
And even so IQ test are not precisally an indicative of what your definition of intelligence is.
Lets suppose you give an IQ test to somebody which your definition applies but that never had education with math, logic, verbal abilities but even so naturally is an intelligent human, so the score will be bad for sure.
Totally agree. They try to make them representative of different culturally neutral types of cognitive ability and of course, languages aren't considered culturally neutral and nor is mathematical ability and suchlike, so they try to design problems to do with visualisation, much of the time, and carve themselves a niche they probably need to break out of. I do agree with much of what you say. Designing an experiment in engineering, physics or chemistry can be quite a test though because there's a sense in which many such experiments are unique and have to be logically worked out but all the same, that's a particular type of thinking maybe rather related to chess.
The point of an IQ test is that anybody can take it, regardless of age or education. Toddlers have tested into Mensa.
Probably true but totally ridiculous and if true it brings Mensa into discredit. Perhaps you can work out the reasons? I believe that Mensa should be tested for only among adults. Even so, the higher one's intelligence, the longer it will keep developing. Regarding "toddlers" there are too many influences on their cognitive ability at any given time and of course, since IQ is the ratio of achieved mental age by comparison with standard populations against chronological age, and because chronological age is so small (a toddler is typically one and a half years old) the variable aspects are far too volatile and are unlikely to be good predictors of achievement when older. There will be some correlation but not enough to give lifelong membership of Mensa if Mensa is to be credited with actually knowing what they're doing.
In my opinion, of course.
Chess is not about intelligence. It is about logic and reasoning. It links to academics as well.
If you blunder in chess, it is about reasoning. You have to think before you move.
Oh. So logic and reasoning is not about intelligence?
I don't think people can be blamed for having such confused opinions. The great and the good significantly fail to provide good examples of good thinking in these forums and the efforts of myself and half a dozen like me, who try to turn the tide of stupidity which seems to be washing over many posters and which isn't their fault, since it comes from people they are influenced by, are a bit like King Canute and the Wash.
In a sense, chess is completely about intelligence and anyone saying such a statement is untrue doesn't know what chess is and what intelligence is.
I think that I and people who are in agreement with my views have been insufficiently proactive in putting forward our views. It may, however, take a certain amount of intelligence to understand why our views cannot be anything other than correct. It shouldn't but one can't speak for the unintelligent.
I think when people disagree so strongly about something, then they aren't talking about the same thing. Earlier in the thread, you gave what I think is a great definition of what intelligence is. I think that other people have either a different idea of what it is, or a very fuzzy idea about what intelligence is.
If everybody understood "intelligence" to mean the same thing, then I don't think there would be a lot of disagreement.
It's really very simple. Chess depends on memory, concentration. the ability to study and practice; and on fighting spirit, which is most important.
Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. That's what intelligent tests measure. They also measure pattern recognition, which is a factor in intelligence, and other abilities such as deduction. Complex problems can consist of a mix of such factors. Chess also consists of a series of problems and a well designed intelligence test does measure your ability to solve problems of various types. Chess, admittedly, is a specific type of problem; but it is still very much of the sort of problem which an intelligence test will measure; so, of course your ability to play chess well and your IQ score are bound to be strongly related.
A lot of people give voice to opinions on subjects, often about which they know nothing. Anyone who believes that chess ability and intelligence are unrelated is wrong to believe that. They don't understand the subject area.
I really, really wonder who you're talking to. To the opening poster? They guy who joined chess.com, played 3 games, opened a topic, then left forever 1 day later? And that was 14 years ago.
He's talking to the people who read this forum. I thought his answer was interesting.
All those definitions of intelligence fall into the fact that they apply when the individual has not acquired previous experience or knowledge to do a certain task. For example again: when the fire was discovered, nobody taught them how to do it, there were no books, there was no internet. The same goes for the great inventors who are reported as "geniuses." Chess is a purely intellectual hobby as reading would be, the more you read the better you will speak, write and understand the world. The more you play chess the better you will play chess, just that.
Second fact:
Under this definition of intelligence, it could be understood that regardless of knowledge, education or demographics, the intelligent person will be more skilled than the not so intelligent person. This is not true in chess, again the example of a mathematician, doctor, lawyer, scientist or simply intelligent person with no education but who is naturally skilled or gifted, this person will simply never be able to beat a chess master or a beginner player who has just been playing or studying the game for longer than this person.
Simple as that, this game is not a measure of intelligence or wisdom, but it can "stimulate" aspects such as space or a certain type of logical reasoning.
The patterns in chess perhaps have more in common with a painting.
I've always thought so. Marcel Duchamp became interested in chess in his mid-20s and despite that late start became a strong enough player to play alongside Alekhine on the French national team, become champion of Normandy, champion of Paris, and correspondence champion of Europe. Ratings weren't introduced until he was past sixty, but he did achieve a US Chess Federation rating of 2413. Undoubtedly his visualization abilities played a large part. His friend Man Ray was also on the French national team, but the captains didn't let him play very often as he would sometimes make moves that created a visually pleasing pattern but made no chess sense.