Da Vinci was brillliant.
right now i'm learning electrical engineering. After that computer science, statistics, painting, nuclear physics( after watching Oppenheimer).
Oh well done for changing direction. Hope you make a success of that. You'll have two skills and you might find that bookkeeping/accountancy becomes more useful as you get on in life.
Da Vinci was brillliant.
right now i'm learning electrical engineering. After that computer science, statistics, painting, nuclear physics( after watching Oppenheimer).
Oh well done for changing direction. Hope you make a success of that. You'll have two skills and you might find that bookkeeping/accountancy becomes more useful as you get on in life.
no...just for curiosity. i'll treat it as my hobby like chess.
I wasn't implying a criticism of you in what I wrote in ~193. You're communicating what you understand to be received thinking on the subject, regarding 140s being geniuses. But the origins of such ideas emanate from a desire for greater inclusivity and not from any understanding of genius, which would necessitate more of an understanding of how the mind works than is demonstrated by those ideas. 140 plus is gifted but genius implies a difference in the way thought happens in a person rather than a slightly greater speed and accuracy etc than a 130 or whatever, It's hopelessly wrong but no blame attaches to you. My wife's a psychologist but she's more of a psychotherapist than a theorist and she isn't so interested in IQ. She may have taken the Mensa test when she was a psychology student, I'm not sure.
if you don't have emotional intelligence
then there is no hope for you
IQ is worthless
EQ matters so much more
It's part of the same thing. Read what I wrote about overthinking and understanding thought patterns (in others) in my last post.
I broadly agree about "frequency and wavelength" as an understandable way of depicting different types of thought.
Da Vinci was brillliant.
right now i'm learning electrical engineering. After that computer science, statistics, painting, nuclear physics( after watching Oppenheimer).
Oh well done for changing direction. Hope you make a success of that. You'll have two skills and you might find that bookkeeping/accountancy becomes more useful as you get on in life.
no...just for curiosity. i'll treat it as my hobby like chess.
It's a good trade. I was more or less taught that I had to aim for a profession rather than a trade and I'm sure it's the same for you, with your background. But in some way, with a trade we're more our own masters/mistresses until we sort of become top dogs, which doesn't happen to most people. It sort of happened to my dad but mainly because he refused to continue to take exams that would have led into senior management in a big building firm and instead he preferred to stay on the job. The firm rewarded him for that decision. It meant they had someone super-reliable for important contracts like the Falklands aerodrome. He was able to retire early, at around 62.
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?
@Optimissed I completely understand your point. As an individual with an IQ of 146, and being friends with others who are similarly intelligent, we are well aware of our intelligence level- neither exaggerating nor underestimating it. Because of this, we refrain from "flexing" our intelligences, so to speak.
Nevertheless, I can see how individuals with high IQs could think they're the smartest person they'll ever meet, and correct in every scenario. It is also true that a person who is highly intelligent will have a proclivity for arrogance; it is crucial to bear in mind that there will always be individuals who are more adept and intelligent than ourselves, and this serves as a reality check. We are always there to keep each other in line in this regard.
Somebody with an IQ of 130 will be far more capable than an individual with an IQ of 115. This difference will be very clear in their interpersonal communications, the questions they ask in school, etc. Also, you are very tall; having a 130 IQ is 2 standard deviations above the average, just like being 6 feet 6 inches tall. It is worth noting that an individual with an IQ 2 standard deviations below average would have an IQ of 70, which is obviously extremely low. Similarly, an individual who is 2 standard deviations below the average height would be 5 feet 4 inches tall. Perhaps this is a better comparison.
10 years ago, i wanted to know my IQ. But lost interest as it can cost around 300 dollars.
@minidangelo A rudimentary test: https://www.mensa.org/public/mensa-iq-challenge this isn't anywhere near perfect, but it's accurate enough.
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.
Like inventing helicopters in about the year 1223. 
Aha but there are real genii too, in some bottles.
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 agree that there is a measurable correlation between IQ and blitz rating.
Chess is mostly a specific type of pattern recognition.
Such was the claim of Alfred Binet in his 1894 study of chess expertise.
@AmishQuilt
Keeping your coffee beans on the window sill is not recommended.
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 agree that there is a measurable correlation between IQ and blitz rating.
I would think that it would be barely measurable. Rapid rating would correlate better and bullet even worse. However, the assumption of correlation must also take into consideration many other factors such as age, health, when someone took up chess. You aren't going to be able to make dependable assumptions about an IQ even correlated with a slow-play rating. Much less blitz, to the point of disappearance. It would be like thinking that IQ correlates with ability at darts. I mean, there must be some correlation there but (a) is it meaningful and (b) is it positive?
Isn't speed part of what IQ tests measure?
I think blitz is a far better test of innate skills than slower games.
Isn't speed part of what IQ tests measure?
I think blitz is a far better test of innate skills than slower games.
Yes quite right, IQ tests measure speed and accuracy but in blitz, accuracy isn't required so much. In bullet, it isn't required at all. I disagree that blitz is a better test of ability though. It's a good test of remembered themes. I also noted the comment that you agree with Binet that pattern recognition is the basis of chess ability but others disagree with that. I knew a previous Blind Chess World Champion. I knew him pretty well. We both played for Warrington Central for a while. I asked him what was the basis of his chess ability and he said "calculation". His fingers were constantly feeling the board, reminding himself where the pieces were, while he played. There was another, almost as strong, who played for Widnes, before I ever played for Widnes. I played against him for Wigan. I think my score against him was 0-2 but I was improving at the time. He said that he visualises, and you could tell, staring into space, his eyes open wide. He'd been blind all his life but Graham lost his sight around 11 years old, if I remember right. I myself visualise and calculate but I rely on calculation. That means that my play is naturally slower and I'm best at slowplay, although in my day I could come out equal in 5 mins blitz otb against maybe people on 2200 FIDE slowplay because I was quite decent at blitz although I only took up chess when I was 36. I do think assumptions about pattern recognition are very questionable.
I also noted the comment that you agree with Binet that pattern recognition is the basis of chess ability but others disagree with that.
I did not say that I agree with Binet. I noted what Binet said. Adrian DeGroot had much to say about what Binet got wrong and why (Binet misunderstood some things because he was not himself a decent chess player). Nonetheless, DeGroot build upon, extended, and slightly corrected Binet's work. Then William Chase and Herbert Simon continued the work. Others working today continue. Rarely does a scholar wholly agree with their predecessors.
I didn't read a philosopher with whom I agreed in full. With one or two, typically modern and American, like Richard Rorty, we were mainly in accord.
It should be clear that blitz would be the preferred World Championship format if it were a good test of ability and most people are bemoaning the fact that the WCC seemed to be more fast-chess-dependant.
In my last blitz game just now I was three moves off checkmate and I had 1.5 seconds left. I made a move and was left with 0.1 seconds. A couple of months ago, exactly the same and I managed to make all three moves within that time. I moved pretty quickly today and it isn't the first time recently that it's seemed that the lag isn't at the user end but the chess.com end. It isn't a good platform for blitz and it isn't worth taking it seriously. I lost a game yesterday in a won position because there was an overload.
Are we talking about chess skill or IQ?
My assertion was that the sorts of things that are measured by IQ tests correspond better to the skills needed for blitz. I would expect there to be a stronger correlation between blitz skill and IQ than between standard ratings and IQ. Its all in the manner of test design.
IQ as a measure of general intelligence is not assumed.
My favorite Opening is the Monkey's Bum, I can, with certainty, say that chess performance has little to do with intelligence. A quick glance at my human cousins, at any class-level competition in the USA, will confirm this observation. Excuse me, I must throw poo at the tourists, they are quite annoying....