Is chess mostly about intelligence?

So no, optimissed you may have played chess for a long time, but sadly you're not smarter than you were before, you just wasted time but at least you're just better at chess.

I mean dont expect that because you play chess now you will be an astropjhysicst or you will be capable of solve any kind of problems. If chess indeed will be a measure of intelligence also Magnus Carlsen or kasparov would be the smartest person in the world.. and of course they are not haha.

That's an optimistic viewpoint and, by the way, thanks for the commendation.

However, if people can't understand what intelligence is, their viewpoints are of little interest. I would say that some people, who have a reputation here for being very clever and so forth, seem incapable of discussing abstract problems in such a way that they can show they understand viewpoints they're arguing against. Arguing past each other is very prevalent, even with people whom many assume can think well. When you have out and out trolls who are actually respected by some people, then they are capable of knocking any discussion off course simply by bringing their supporters to the meeting. Until others are mature enough to ignore them or tell them to go away, conversations here will remain childish.

So yes, a lot of people imagine that intelligence is some invented thing which bears no relation to reality, rather than an attempted measure of intellectual capacity to understand and use reality, which is basically our environment.

I imagined, after I saw "FALSE!" that you were going to attempt to make an argument as to why you thought my comment was incorrect. I can't see any such argument, however. Your comment is completely unrelated to the argument I made.

Chess is a combination of smarts and hard work. You can’t get to the top if you are not talented, but you also need to train hard.

You’re agreeing with @Optimissed that only adults should be tested, since they will have a more steady IQ measurements.

You're implying that your own viewpoint is worthless, though, if Mensa contravenes it and you still think they're entirely credible. I'm just saying that testing toddlers is going to be ridiculously inaccurate and therefore not credible, which brings Mensa's credibility into question.

2% of the population is lower than I thought. I'm not sure what IQ level that corresponds with but I believe my wife took their test and easily passed it when their pass level was 150. She's a clever girly. I never took their tests but I have taken some others, formally and semi-formally. But in the old days when I went to school, if you passed the 11 plus, which maybe 20% of pupils did, and went to a grammar school and went into the top class, A, of a streamed school where there were six streams down to F, then everyone in that class would be in the top 3.33% of the yearly population if they were streamed according to the IQ aspect of the 11 plus alone, as they often were. However, there would be maybe three in that top class of 25 who would stand out as exceptionally bright individuals. So to be credible as a high IQ society, doesn't Mensa need to restrict membership to the highest 0.5%, IQ-wise, as an absolute minimum?

I suppose I don't categorise 130 as highly intelligent. In fact, there's quite a noticeable phenomenon that many people around, say, IQ = 145, no doubt very intelligent and probably masters of what they do, often flounder outside their pool of experience and indeed, quite often over-react to that and assume that whatever they think on a subject is probably right, and they don't expect to meet those who are very much brighter than they are. But to me, "highly intelligent" implies a person who can apply that intelligence to subjects that aren't their personal field of expertise. It seems Mensa isn't a true "high IQ society". I'm aware that high IQ societies do exist, though.

I do get your argument but 130 just doesn't seem any more special than 115. A man who's 6 feet six is pretty tall and that's, what, 1m 99?

it doesn't have much to do with intelligence, really. just awareness and understanding of the position. it mostly has to do with practice, not making obvious mistakes and vision exercise of your position. coming from a background of starcraft (which is one of the hardest rts games to master) i met a lot of, well, let's just say not the smartest tools in the shed - intelligence wise, but since they practice all day every day for years they're brilliant at their craft. that was probably the longest sentence i ever wrote, but i think you get the idea

powerful legs will also help in running if your opponent brings out a bat or knife.

howdy, I was in our attic so I didn't cu

i didn't invite you...i'll call police

In that case I'm going back up. Stuff to do there and they won't find me.

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.

I mean dont expect that because you play chess now you will be an astropjhysicst or you will be capable of solve any kind of problems. If chess indeed will be a measure of intelligence also Magnus Carlsen or kasparov would be the smartest person in the world.. and of course they are not haha.

10 years ago, i wanted to know my IQ. But lost interest as it can cost around 300 dollars.

thank you

i was also interested in becoming the modern day Da Vinci. It seems laughable now. He was world class and unmatched in so many fields.

right now i'm learning electrical engineering. After that computer science, statistics, painting, nuclear physics( after watching Oppenheimer).

I'll take a small break from chess once i reach 1500. And after I comeback then I'll try my best to be as good as a chess hustler in New York street...haha